Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

GLOBAL WARMING HAS PRODUCED MORE CO2 RATHER THAN MORE CO2 PRODUCING GLOBAL WARMING.

THIS ACCORDS WITH THE REALITY THAT THE OCEANS HOLD THE VAT MAJORITY OF THE PLANET'S CARBON AND THE LAWSOF PHYSICS LET COLD OCEANS HOLD MORE CO2 GAS THAN WARM OCEANS."

There is no other possible conclusion to make Fox..

The scientific community can't expose Gore as a fraud because he gets most of the science correct. Your demand that they do so means you could care less about the science and prefer Gore be called a fraud in spite of the support of science.

Gore's Bad Science
By Tom Harris
Canada Free Press | Thursday, June 15, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ADE02853-B43C-4A1F-B932-AA1D932144A8

He got most of his science correct?????????? Even YOU can't say that with a straight face Parados. An English judge found Gore's movie to be so flawed in the science claimed he ordered anybody showing it in a UK classroom to include a disclaimer and point out the mistakes.

"The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Bob Carter provides no substance to support his statement. Not surprising really.

Dr Tim Ball doesn't say anything about Gore's science.

Patterson has an opinion that disagrees with published science but says nothing about Gore's science.

Dr Boris Winterhalter doesn't complain about the science. He complains about the visual used by Gore of glaciers calving.

Karlan actually disputes Winterhalter's complaint when he says the Antarctic glaciers are calving more than in the past.

Karlan supports Gore when he says on the Arctic ice.. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr Dick Morgan makes a statement that is false when he states that Arctic ice is normal.

Quote:

"The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

That is a statement that ignores the trend. The actual data shows the trend of temperatures in the US is up for the period.

Here's some more including what Dr. Ball said about it:

Global warming skeptics were critical of the film. Richard S. Lindzen wrote in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. [96] Roy Spencer wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began.[97] Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period.[98]

William Gray said of the movie: "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."[99] While discussing the companion book to the movie Gray said, "This is a slick propaganda book. The pictures are very good. But there are factual errors."[100]

A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous." Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet, while not stating a timeframe, appears in contrast with a report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches this century, excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium."[101][102] The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film; Gore responds that scientists may disagree with him on some details, "but we do agree on the fundamentals."[101]

The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK in 2007, brought together skeptical scientists and others who disagree with the IPCC position regarding human-caused global warming. The film claims that Gore misrepresented the data in An Inconvenient Truth, and contends that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature preceded an increase in carbon dioxide in the ice core samples and therefore does so today). The claim that CO2 increases lag temperature increases in the historical ice core record is not disputed, but the inference that the same relationship holds today, and several other of The Great Global Warming Swindle's claims, have been disputed by scientists and scientific bodies such as John T. Houghton,[103] the British Antarctic Survey,[104] Eigil Friis-Christensen,[105] and the Royal Society.[106] The UK media regulator OfCom has since upheld some complaints against the programme (while rejecting others and declining to investigate the majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period

Dr Tim Ball doesn't say anything about Gore's science.

MORE RECENTLY!

You said the article was based on bad science. What is the criteria you use for that?

In longer term trends, I am still dubious that the relationship between CO2 and Deeuterium levels and O16/O18 ratios is one of cause and effect. It can be shown with quite a bit of evidence that Co2 actually trails and climate change phenom. Ive seen as many core decriptions that show CO2 as a following indicator, not a causitive factor.
In other words, when the tundra began melting in the last interglacial stage, the actual levels of CO2 were lagging by a season, as aseen in Ice cores.