Al Gore, at Live Earth, on the topic of global warming advocacy: “We are in a transition time in history when the only way we can get to where we need to be is by starting from where we are.”
— Or, to put it in terms that eschew pseudo-profundity for clarity, “the way to fight global warming is to get serious about fighting global warming.”
Now, here’s John Roberts for the majority in the recent SCOTUS ruling that struck down race-based policies in Seattle and Louisville: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
These sentiments seem remarkably similar to me — though one is based on dubious science (it’s no accident that “global warming” is being transitioned into “climate change”), while the other is based on a premise (discrimination based on race) that nearly all parties agree on — and yet the Roberts’ statement has drawn jeers and opprobrium from the left, while Gore’s comments have gone largely unremarked upon.
Had John Roberts perhaps subcontracted out the majority decision to Madonna — one can almost envision her jumping around in a gossamer hooded cape, wireless headset, and metallic nipple cones, agitating for a society in which people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin — Mike Littwin might today be more open to the idea of a colorblind Constitution.
Plus, some people really do like those metallic nipple cones. So, you know — bonus!
Gore said nothing, Roberts said something, what does Derrida have to say? And who cares?
Great , now I need closed captioning for the traveler speak impaired .
How many carbon offsets did Gore buy, from himself, to make up for the carbon footprint of Live Earth? Last I read, the performers flew in excess of 220,000 miles just to get to their destination, plus all of the people driving to the venues, electricity used, etc …
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people don’t give a rat’s ass about any given singer or band’s politics, they just want to hear the damn music. About the only exception to that general rule that I can think of is when a band’s politics fuck up their music, like U2 at around the Joshua Tree point. Then, it’d be better if they’d shut up and go away.
Did you come here to play Jesus to the lepers in your head?
You know, no matter where we go with this whole “global warming” thing; there we are. But in all honesty, we won’t be done until its finished.
Live Earth was a massive success because the organization now has millions of emails to contact people across the globe to take action and kick climate change denialists out of office.
Bush couldn’t communicate with 2 billion people unless he started a nuclear war, which he might try as his ship sinks further in the slime.
By the way, your beloved SCOTUS decided in April that greenhouse gasses are a pollutant and that they can be regulated by the EPA.
Bummer for all you chumps with 401k’s stuck in oil and coal.
Gore isn’t running for the White House. He could stroll in if he chose to.
Bob, did you know that your name is a pallindrome? Cause it is.
Sometimes the starting line needs to be defined. Roberts has to articulate what should be the obvious because the left wants to discriminate on the basis of race in order to stop racial discrimination. Roberts is saying “stop running in circles, chasing your tails”.
Gore is using an old preachers trick. Not a bad one either…. “we are all sinners and the only way to get to heaven is to start right here by inviting Jesus into your heart”
Same net effect on climate change too.
Anyway, as an aside. Here in the great State of California, a Ms. Bradshaw who is evidently the Secretary at the Labor and Workplace Development Agency has sent me a two page letter to advise me that it has been hot and will likely continue to be hot for the rest of the summer!!! I am to drink water, take my break in the shade and I should avoid coffee, soda, and alcohol.
Well. Thanks. Otherwise I’m sure I’d be dead.
The nanny statists cannot stop themselves. Be Green. But then send out a needless letter on two sheets of paper, an envelope, and the fossil fuel to get it to me. It was probably produced and sorted in an air conditioned building. The US Postal Service guy did deliver it on foot so there is that.
Oh… and no soda pop? Why? The water in there doesn’t count because it is “bad”?
Idiots.
Bob,
Shame on you for playing on mommy’s computer. Sure she’s stoned, but thats no excuse for taking advantage.
Bobby Brady,
I believe the decision was that carbon dioxide could potentially be a pollutant. If that’s the case, every time you flap your yap you’re contributing to genocide in Darfur via global warming. So knock it off.
Gore would perhaps waddle into the White House. Not stroll.
A success…BECAUSE OF THE EMAILS. You know, like those “virtual” marches on Washington. Activists have gotten so lazy these days.
Is it just me or do the climate change freaks act more and more like religious zealots every day? They just had their revival meeting, and now “bob” has informed us that their plans are to boot the unbelievers out of office.
Scientologists; Greens; what’s the difference?
Its not a new behavior, Rob. The last thing that the AGW proponents want to engage in is a discussion of the science. Instead, when challenged on such, they start labeling skeptics as akin to holocaust deniers.
So it was all just a cover-up for the largest spam harvesting operation in history? Those bastards!
It’s not just you.
I have some neighbors who are nice folks, but they’re really off the deep end on climate crisis/catastrophe. I’d printed out a piece by MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen for them and I haven’t heard a peep about it. You’d think that someone who is deeply interested in a subject might remark about an opinion written by a scientist on that subject, but nooooooooooooooo.
Live Earth was a massive success because the organization now has millions of emails to contact people across the globe to take action and kick climate change denialists out of office.
Then we can start stoning the heretics! Yay!
This is all so, well, Randian.
Roberts was not defining a start point. He was saying that racial discrimination against one group is not remedied by making laws that promote racial discrimination against another group. To get rid of discrimination by the government those laws that aren’t color blind need to be eliminated.
The above trackback, unfortunately formatted for Hot Air, is actually to Can’t See the Center, a Denver blog that you people should visit occasionally.
Judging from the comments in these pages, Al Gore was not understating it when he called the truth of global warming, INCONVENIENT.
bob
hmmm… you wouldn’t be a Robert, as in RFK jr? The Fundie Climatist who screamed at the acolytes
in a sorta Alec Baldwin “drag the Republicans from their homes, the women and children, and kill ’em in the streets” vibe.
What kind of Enviro-Sharia laws are you demanding, “bob”?
“Bummer for all you chumps with 401k’s stuck in oil and coal.”
Because we are all going to go back to burning wood in our teepees and riding horses. Yeah, you betcha, Bob. Get back to us when they start letting you eat with a fork, m’kay?
Because we are all going to go back to burning wood
:::sigh::: not in Cali, B Moe, when Moonbeam Brown gets done.
Vigilante
If you think the Goracle’s discredited fulminations about [human caused] Global Warming(tm) constitute “The Truth” …
I suggest a really good psychiatrist.
Bob,
I’ll take my coal, metals, petrochemicals, genetically modified agricultural and oil 401K against your environmentally concious and “green aware” mutual funds. Any day and all day. Head to head in a returns race. Heck – I’ll throw in the nasdork to give you a little handicap.
When we’re done, you can come shovel the shit out of the horse stables at my spanking new country estate.
Kondratieff. bitches!
Vigilante,
I would tell you to bite me … just to have you read it without having the the ability to delete this post – a policy that you seem to enjoy enforcing on your little patch of innertube blogdom.
well looks like I have.
told you …
to bite me, that is.
“Judging from the comments in these pages, Al Gore was not understating it when he called the truth of global warming, INCONVENIENT.”
I doubt anyone here would ever accuse Big Al of understatement. Ever. About anything.
Vigilante, whatever the “truth” of global warming is, Al Gore does not know it. Even the AGW proponents distance themselves from Al Gore’s ludicrous exaggerations.
I think you all are still using volume 5 of the Newspeak Dictionary. The new volume 6 has replaced “global warming” with “climate change” – please note the change….or else.
For environmentalists there should be a new name for Global Warming/Climate Change:
The Mother (Earth) Lode©
Those of the bob “let’s get rid of all the cars, tra la!” ilk have been searching for decades to find the one, seminal issue that would allow a dictatorial imperative in environmental policy. Ever since “Silent Spring” the greenies have have tried on several “impending apocalyptic disasters” like Armor of Light.
Air Pollution. Acid Rain. DDT. Deforestation. Nuclear Waste.
Up until now, despite some successes (with a mixed record of good and ill with regards to results) they haven’t been able to produce the sort of evangelistic fervor that is par for the course in tight knit enviro-circles.
But now we have The Mother (Earth) Lode©.
It’s brilliant as it is incidious: Everything that happens in climate can be blamed on AGW; every heat wave, large hurricane, drought, even regional massacres. Inconvenient science is simply ignored while the drumbeat fundamental changes in our entire way of living are crammed down our throats by selfish people only interested in the ascendancy of their Nature-Centric vision of life on Earth. Thus even the fringe elements have their say and gain a modicum of face time for draconian measures like forced sterilization of billions of people and living in simple, centralized villages surrounded by wilderness.
Those that question are apostates, infidels, heretics, DENIERS! In order for this vision to be complete Capitalism must be dismantled to accomodate a “benevolent” socialistic junta, made up of the “enlightened” and “properly educated,” who will carefully and with great insight guide the rest of us into a new age of harmony with Gaia and strict government control of all aspects of our lives.
Except sex and drugs, of course.
While the environmental movement becomes more and more like a tent show revival (“Now come forward and give your heart and life to nature, praise Gaia!”) they secretly prostrate themselves to the sustained arrogance of their perceived ability to affect global climate trends.
All because of The Mother (Earth) Lode©
Now join, or they will have to mock you a second time!
I’d say Robbie Jr. is into the hootch. He’s even loopier than Unca Ted.
Al Gore’s grasp of Global Warming science is about as shaky as Michael J. Fox after a venti Frappacino.
OldTexasTurkey,
“I’ll take my coal, metals, petrochemicals, genetically modified agricultural and oil 401K against your environmentally concious and “green aware†mutual funds. Any day and all day. Head to head in a returns race. Heck – I’ll throw in the nasdork to give you a little handicap.”
You (and bob) have just prompted me to move 20K into two funds I’ve been watching, Energy and Energy Services, that have over 25% YTD returns. I’ve completely drained my bond funds as they were pathetic. Thanks!
TW: Federalism over – sure, if the Dems have anything to say about that.
Does anybody actually deny that there is climate change? I thought that was what the seasons are.
Why is it that the moonbats can absolutely embrace ideas like evolution, amongst species, but discount, out of hand, the idea that the Earth may evolve ?
Robin Roberts;
Ok, Robin, now’s yer chance. You can ‘engage’ this ‘AGW proponent’, friendly old Lazar, in a ‘discussion of the science’, and I promise to not call you a holocaust denier. Unlike bob, I don’t get angry.
Jeff;
That is because increasing co2 concentrations are linked to a variety of changes, not just increasing temperatures.
Darleen;
Rather it is that article which has been discredited, being as it uses a manufactured quote claiming to be from a scientific paper.
Lazar – 2
3 simple questions
1) What evidence is there that humans are responsible for global warming ?
2) If we are to assume that there is some type of global warming, how is that any different than when the last Ice Age melted off ?
3) If the US made an attempt to control the climate, do you think we could do it ? Could we raise the national average temperature by 5 degrees ? 10 degrees ?
Bob:
I spent four years doing email marketing (not the spamming kind, folks) and I can assure you that simply possessing millions of email addresses don’t mean squat.
Especially if, as was the case for a few years not all that long ago, some 20,000 of those addresses all went to my inbox.
That was a fun time.
Those of you who think there is more to fear from the global warming fundamentalists than the Islamic jihadists, raise your hands. Okay, now, those of you who are sure (really sure!) you can tell the difference between those groups, please–a show of hands.
JD,
1) We know the pre-industrial co2 concentration of 280 ppm through analyzing ice core samples. We know the current concentration, 380 ppm, through highly precise measurements at the Manua Loa observatory. We know this rise is entirely anthropogenic because — through measuring the ratio of 13C/12C isotopes in ice cores, tree rings and corals, or by economics the calculation of how much fossil fuel we have burnt, determines past anthropogenic co2 emissiona are enough to raise the level to 500 ppm. We know though the oceans act as a sink, confirmed through multiple measurements. Spectroscopy, the longwave IR absorption data in the HITRAN database, combined with radiative energy balance equations, gives us an imediate radiative forcing for a doubling of co2 of 4 W/m2, that is, the intensity of outgoing longwave IR reduces, necessitating a 1.2 C temperature rise to establish radiative equilibrium. Various feedbacks, negative and positive, but net positive, raise that forcing still more. Uncertainties in the feedbacks leads to uncertainty in the eventual temperature rise, but very likely to be in the range 1.5 – 4.5 C. Further confirmation through climate models, stratospheric cooling, spatial patterns. Read the IPCC TAR, AR4, and RealClimate for more.
2) In terms of cause or consequence?
3) No, it depends on global emissions, and you have no control over regional effects.
“”Live Earth was a massive success because the organization now has millions of emails to contact people across the globe to take action and kick climate change denialists out of office.””
Let me see if I understand this? Gore is going to stop climate change by sending out spam to music fans?
Lazar
Maybe I am just simple minded, but what you show is that CO2 levels are higher now than the pre-industrial age. Doesn’t that show that there may be a causal relationship between man and CO2, not global warming?
2) Cause and consequence. Don’t significant periods of warming and cooling in the earth’s history suggest that Mother Earth, bitch that she is, is perfectly capable of warming and cooling without man’s help? A cyclical process, if you will?
3) How is it that we can effect climate by our existence, but we could not directly effect same by a concerted effort on our part?
“Uncertainties in the feedbacks leads to uncertainty in the eventual temperature rise, but very likely to be in the range 1.5 – 4.5 C.”
Or not.
Depending.
You really need a “by 2XX0” date in there, just for laughs.
I much prefer Climate Science. Pielke has an open mind – not something ever seen at the Real Climate house of worship.
We have seen similar increases in temperature and greenhouse gases before, lazar, Al even shows them on his famous chart, and the temperature before would climb up, then eventually reverse itself and start trending back downward. What caused those previous natural reversals?
Just for fun, I’m going to link this page, because someone who doesn’t see a problem with Al Gore’s indulgences sent it to me.
Anyone want to help debunk it? Beyond the fact that every article carefully explains the uncertainty inherent in determining the effect of each of dozens of contributors to planetary climate, and yet has the temerity to use the phrase “we can state with certainty” when it comes to C02 as primary forcer of global temps.
Oh, and C02 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm in the earth’s history. No out-of-control feedback loop then, so why would we have one now at 380 ppm?
And. St. Urho is the patron saint of a European country that honors him for chasing a plague of grasshoppers out of the vineyards. That country?
Finland. The Medieval Warming Period lives! W00t!
Lazar,
Once you global warming True Believers can come up with an explanation for this, then I’ll start listening.
Great comments here. Mcgehee, thanks for the links. We are truly in disturbed times when an Elmer Gantry/snake-oil salesman like Algore is treated with anything but contempt. This is the same guy who wrote that the internal combustion engine was the worst thing to EVER come along, in the entire history of the universe. The same guy who made his first million from Oxy Petroleum. Why he is not laughed off the stage is a matter for history to sort out. I don’t think it will be kind to him in the end. Those who the gods would destroy… and all.
Tangentially, notice how flexible leftists are about means when they approve of the ends…
They like this idea so much they repeat it later in the story…
His death sentence was unusually heavy even for China, believed to carry out more court-ordered executions than all other nations combined, and indicates the leadership’s determination to confront the country’s dire product safety record.
Is it just me or is that an oddly approving tone they take with respect to using the death penalty as an instrument of expanding the regulatory power of government?
Why is Mars warming? What caused the earlier warm periods in Earth’s history? Why aren’t those mechanisms responsible for warming anymore?
Why is the same solution proposed for warming that was proposed for the Coming Ice Age? And for acid rain? And for all the other eco-disasters?
Why is it that when global warming is discussed, the source of the heat, ie. the fucking SUN!, is never discussed ?
I’m so tired of people shitting on Al Gore about Live Earth and the waste it produced. Congradulations for pointing out all the extra carbon Live Earth produced, but plant a tree to offset the carbon and then call Al Gore a hypocrite.
Tom – Take it up with algore. Since when did pointing out facts become shitting on someone? The acts flew in excess of 220,000 miles to get to their destinations. Plant a tree to offset the carbon is nice. I assume that we will be able to find the 220,000+ trees algore planted this weekend? Where exactly? Or, did he buy some indulgences from himself?
I think if the money and the effort that was put forth for Live Earth went towards planting trees, it would have done a lot more good. But it’s not about the earth, it’s about the message.
JD,
As stated, you take a given co2 increase, apply radiative physics. 4 W/m2 forcing for a doubling of co2 is a standard result. You can take the word of experts, or can try the calculations for yourself. Don’t ask me, I’m not there yet.
There are natural orbital, solar, volcanic, albedo and greenhouse gas feedbacks and forcings no climate scientist would deny. A great deal of work has gone into quantifying these effects. And natural effects are important. But they don’t account for most of the recent warming.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read your question as implying a degree of control such that by changing US emissions alone we could aim for a specific temperature rise in the US. Since it depends on global emissions, and you have no control over how global average temp change is distributed, that is impossible. But, yes, lowering US co2 emissions will result in a lower average global temperature relative to what it would have been.
Rick,
Most scientific results are presented as ‘we are x% certain that a value y falls in a range +/- z, or a
Aaah, it ate my comment!
Most scientific results are presented as ‘we are x% certain that a value y falls in a range +/- z, or a
My bad using inequality signs html code. Third time lucky.
Most scientific results are presented as ‘we are x% certain that a value y falls in a range +/- z, or a is less than y is less than b.’
That’s science.
Certainty is unscientific.
Quantifying uncertainty itself is a huge field.
We have seen similar increases in temperature and greenhouse gases before, lazar, Al even shows them on his famous chart, and the temperature before would climb up, then eventually reverse itself and start trending back downward. What caused those previous natural reversals?
B Moe,
Ok, you’re talking about glacial-interglacial cycles as linked by Squatch, who or I assume was being sarcastic, and in this graph.
Glacial terminations are triggered by changes in orbital geometry (Milankovitch) amplified by albedo and co2 feedbacks. See here.
When you say similar, bear in mind the 5C rise at the termination is spread over 5,000 years, that’s 0.01C per decade, 10% of the current rate.
I think I may need you to define “history” for me, I don’t understand this bit from your link:
“First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature.”
Here is where you lose me, Lazar. The Ice Ages managed to melt off without our help, and yet, somehow now, a period of increased warming is primarily due to man’s activities? I also fail to understand how we could not drive temperature increases on purpose, but could lower the temperature. That seems convenient for your argument. What ever happened to global cooling?
Isn’t the recent upward trend based on a relatively small data set, by limiting the time period one is looking at? In the same time frame, have their not been similar increases in the past, all done without the aid of man?
When the mastadons were roaming the earth, who was taking the temperature? Where was it being taken? How accurate were the readings then, as compared to now?
Rob;
Rob, first, you don’t know with much confidence that Mars is warming. All you have is data for a small regional change in the South Pole.
A change spread over three years (Martian years = 6 Earth years) does not account for a century-scale change on another planet.
You have no evidence, none whatsoever, that this regional change is due to solar activity. There are a number of factors which could be causes, including albedo and aerosol forcings and feedback. See here.
But, supposing you had strong evidence that a) this change was global and b) solar forcings were a contributing factor, you cannot apply this value to Earth, our atmoshpere is vastly different effecting response to solar forcings, due to greenhouse gas concentrations and albedo to name just two. So, you would still need to take the variation in solar output, do the radiative math, and come up with a figure for Earth. Which is exactly what climate scientists have done. And they found solar forcing cannot contribute more than 30% of the recent temperature rise.
Which is why Mars is irrelevant to our climate.
Why aren’t those mechanisms responsible for warming anymore?
In the case of orbital geometry, the timescale of recent warming is too short. And no climate scientist I’m aware of is denying solar has been a contributing factor, just not enough.
What solution?
A few clarifications,
“(Martian years = 6 Earth years)” I meant 3 Martian years = 6 Earth years, and “Why aren’t those mechanisms responsible for warming anymore?” was Rob’s question, not my rhetorical.
B Moe,
Probably he meant the last 100 maybe 1,000 years.
Why are you lost? Different warmings at different periods have had different causes.
Changes in US emissions raise or lower the global average temperature relative to (higher or lower than) what it would have been had we not effected those changes. But we cannot set a particular global average temperature like one would a thermostat, being as it depends on total anthropogenic emissions and natural forcings.
I can’t see why.
If you’re thinking of an impending ice age prediction allegedly made in the 1970s, maybe try here.
dicentra, if you can’t debunk those, erm, debunkings, and no-one else can, would you accept they have some merit?
On the other hand, a debunking would be really interesting for me.
So, chip in, everyone!
Can you tell me where in the article it says that?
I don’t know of anyone predicting a runaway warming. It simply ain’t hot enough.
RealClimate;
“Most scientific results are presented as ‘we are x% certain that a value y falls in a range +/- z, or a is less than y is less than b.’
That’s science.”
Mebbe. Mebbe not. It’s rather dependant upon the quality of the input data and the quality of the models used to evaluate the data. Mann’s new defense doesn’t inspire confidence at the 95% level with me but YMMV, of course.
“And no climate scientist I’m aware of is denying solar has been a contributing factor, just not enough.”
The key there is “climate scientist”, right? Trim the field to the ‘proper’ authorities? So, a regular old member of the Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago can be safely dismissed as lacking in authority when he presents a synopsis arguing that solar radiation might just be more than enough?
I wonder if the tag line on this episode of “consensual” science will be Eppur si cotta.
So, um, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,” is more or less what Al Gore was saying. I believe the correct assessment of the Goracle’s utterance is, “trite.”
Roberts, however, is actually speaking very precisely and logically, not lapsing into effervescent dogma. The double-digit mental gymnasts in the media can’t pay attention long enough to see the steely point of Roberts’ riposte. But they’ve been told all their lives how special they are, so these media-mentalists shout inanities from their short buses.
Brings new meaning to “drive-by media”. Apologies to Rush.
Can we coin another phrase for a substandard IQ? A Media I.Q.?
It is McIntyre & McKitrick’s claims that are broken. But, if you wish to go through them, go ahead.
Well, when I want to know sommat about climate, I tend to ask a climate scientist.
Civil engineering, a civil engineer.
Molecular biochemistry, a molecular biochemist.
Specialists tend to know their stuff.
Others not so much…
There are so many problems that it’s hard to know where to begin.
He makes repeated claims co2 concentrations have remained constant since 1988, without any references to any published work.
Co2 concentration rise has in fact accelerated. See also figure 2.3 of the AR4.
He uses Saragasso Sea sediment records, citing Keigwin (1996), as a sole indicator of global average temperature, when they are of no such use (seems he hasn’t read the TAR);
He makes an absurdly ignorant claim,
Water vapor concentration is taken into account in every GCM, positive water vapor feedback is an essential component of every model.
Unattributed graphs, with scales and labelling too small to be legible.
Crap references, eg;
The first is just the home page of some website.
The second to an article, whose abstract reads;
Which doesn’t appear to support or bear any relation to his contention;
Best of all, reference no. 5;
Was not a paper in nature, but an AP report by their science correspondent Seth Borenstein.
Like I said, scientists who specialize in a field, like climate scientists, tend to know what they’re talking about.
I don’t have time to go through the rest of what he says. Maybe you could try.
B Moe: I think I may need you to define “history†for me, I don’t understand this bit from your link
Lazar: Probably he meant the last 100 maybe 1,000 years.
The defense rests.
co2 leads temperature from 1850 till present.
Between AD 1000 and 1850 co2 levels were ~ constant.
He probably meant since 1850.
But I don’t do mind-reading.
Why don’t you ask him?
“I don’t do mind-reading.
Why don’t you ask him?”
You can predict the future, why don’t you tell me what his answer will be?
I cannot predict the future, nor tell you what his answer will be.
“He probably meant since 1850.”
In other words, I am confident he meant since 1850.
I am confident most of the recent warming is due to anthropogenic causes.
You want certainty.
I cannot give you that.
I cannot predict the future.
I cannot tell you what his response will be.
Ok?
Lazar, can you share any sites that show results of backtesting climate change predictor models? I would like to see how well, given their inputs, they would have predicted histrical weather.
Thanks.
“nature” doesn’t match the parameters of man devised computer models. She’s way too unpredictable and cagey :-)
Weather guessers said last year’s hurricane season would be hell. Well, then, this season’s hurricanes in North America will be hell. (well, one of these years, we’re gonna have a lotta hurricanes)
Burp.
In the article today on possibly banning “big carbon footprint” sports cars in Europe…this idea:
Global warmISM: anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth.
Then, I got to thinking about
JihadISM: anti-modernity/globalization/normalcy (fill in the blank) crusaders come disguised as guardians of Islam
Are these isms just variations on the frustrated yearnings of Marxism ?
“In the grasp of all the isms, ohmygod, it feels like prison…”
The best match is over AD 1000-present. The further back, the more difficult it is to set boundary conditions, forcings, the initial state, and the proxy data is more uncertain. The LGM is assumed to be the most stringent test in these regards.
Some sites that may be of interest; PMIP2, Climates of the Past, and CLIVAR.
Some papers; here, here, here, here, here.
More papers; here, here.
It’s silly to worry about climate change. This is a key point that is often overlooked in the debate.
It looks like my plan to have palm trees on Michgan Avenue in December is coming along nicely. I encourage everyone to out and buy a surplus UNIMOG.
Lazar @ 67, from the link:
And how long a trend are we basing predictions on now?
Pablo,
Scenarios are based on physical modelling not statistical extrapolation [see #42 and #56]. Extrapolation of the 19th century would not have predicted the 20th, the 18th not the 19th. and the 17th not the 18th, for the good reason that the physics changes. Results are calculated for a given change in anthropogenic and natural forcings; how that temperature change evolves over time and space, and estimation of other impacts, are handled by the GCMs. E.g. the IPCC scenarios do not correspond particularly well to a simple extrapolation the the 20th century trend. That century scale trend does, however, provide empirical validation of basic physics and the complex GCMs.
IIRC the next ice age was predicted 20,000 years hence, given the absurd progress of technology, in my view that is a less pressing issue than the current warming.
Well, there are hysterics on both sides, and though they claim to be mortal enemies, they think as much alike as their claims are boring and repetetive.
But if you think trying to understand and predict how our climate physics works is hysteria, then I respectfully disagree.
I do not know of a climate scientist predicting we’re all going to die from co2 emissions.
In other words; scientists don’t know squat, because there just isn’t enough data. There are an almost infinite number of variables to be considered, and therefore the computer modeling is flawed.Finally; politicians are involved. Climate change, another word for social engineering. I’ll pass.
Rusty,
From where do you gather that?
Why do you think that? Data for what?
There are a lot of variables.
That is a non-sequitur.
In climate research? I don’t think so.
That sounds an awful lot like a mantra, but pass if you like.
From everything I read on the sites you posted and others stating a different point of view.
I’m good a non-sequiturs. I’ve been up since 4;30AM.
Uh. Watch the news. As we speak they(politicians) are manipulating the data to propose new taxes.
Kyoto isn’t social engineering? Oh! My!
Enjoy your pseudo-scientific beliefs. There’s a god in there somewhere, I’m sure.
Is that an endorsement or a condemnation?
Yes, history is less pressing than the future, but it’s also the primary basis for scientific prediction.
I don’t recall stating that. If you’re suggesting that Al Gore and friends are not a hysterics, then I disagree, though I’ll note you haven’t said that either.
You’d be hard pressed to know that from the AGW PR campaign.
I wonder if he knows any scientists who are convinced we are being visited by aliens from another planet. I get a real kick out of those guys.
Rusty,
Ok, citations, please, to back up your assertion that scientists know nothing about climate physics.
Citations…
‘Kyoto; isn’t ‘climate change’, ‘climate change’ is what is happening, for reasons which are well understood, as shown in the links provided, and in a nutshell comments #42 and #56. You claim we know nothing, you’re going to have to do a lot of backing up to support that assertion.
So far it is you who have provided no more than empty assertion among a thread full of content.
That suggests a strong will to believe.
Pablo,
Neither, it cannot, or should not be either, see the original comment.
The next ice age, Pable, not the last one.
Yes.
I don’t know who Al Gore’s friends are meant to be, however I do not regard Al Gore, or his claims, to be hysterical, but if you gave some examples I might change my mind.
Citations…
Try this one:
Or we could go with the notion that Manhattan will be underwater by 2050. As for Al Gore’s friends, we’ve got RFK Jr. flashing his ass lately, so let’s go with him.
See above.
Rusty,
I see. Radiative transfer, absorption cross sections, co2 spectra, isotope measurements, energy balances, basic radiative physics, equivalent to belief in space aliens. You are out to lunch.
No. Just got back as a matter of fact. But just like psychiatrists at a trial for every ‘climate scientist’ you get to support your prejudices, I’ll find one whos’ research runs contrary to theirs. Is there global warming? Maybe. Is western civilization a main contributor?. Not so much. Don’t worry though. I’m a skeptic of just about all popular wisdom.
Pablo,
Well, though global warming is a serious long-term problem, I wouldn’t call it the most serious. But does that make Al Gore hysterical, or does he just assess the probabilities or weigh the outcomes differently?
Could you quote exactly what he said?
Ok, that’s hysteria,
Rusty,
I’ve studied most denialist, and skeptic, claims. The problem is, they don’t hold water.
Ok, then get citing. Show me therefore how a -4 W/m2 OLR for a doubling of co2 and 1.2 C rise without feedbacks, 1.5-4.5 C with, are incorrect. If you do I’ll change my views and thank you for the honor.
here’s one. You’ll see they don’t agree with your carbon data.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
a couple of other guys;http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319
Sorry.(not really) I just don’t believe you.
Obviously, he does. But it’s the being hysterical that makes him hysterical.
It’s in An Inconvenient Truth, so I can’t access the exact quote. But he warns of a 20′ rise in sea levels and the loss of Manhattan and much of Florida. All attributable to CO2 levels.
Yes. Yes, it is. And it just as foolish as some of the interviews with Live Earth performers I listened to last weekend. I especially loved those who declared they were going to help save the Earth by selling their Hummers. Because, you know, Gaia won’t mind if someone else is driving them. One of them said she was going to donate the proceeds to global warming. I’m sure global warming will be appreciative. Though I will give props to the guy who said he was going to have his Hummer crushed, if he follows through. That’s commitment. I’ll assume he started looking into that just as soon as the concert finished and they flew back home on their private jet.
What we’ve got to do RIGHT NOW ,Pablo, is shut down western civilization. Completely. And make giant corks for volcanos. I’m cereal.
tw; spotless, lost Like the minds of the earth firsters
Hi, my sites:4d8ec480ac1d1542cfb5fe106ed9005b