Notes from a 'mole' in Al Gore's Climate Leadership Training

renewableguy says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Gail Combs :
Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Henry’s law and big arse oceans covering 70% of the surface that have been warming. CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.
New Paper: (Jan 2013)

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale….
We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high…

This is why I consider WATER the forcing and CO2 the feedback.

Murtaugh and Schlax published an article in Global Environmental Change (Vol 19, 2009, pp 14-20) that concluded each US child adds 9441 tons of CO2 poison to the carbon bootprint of its mother, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.
Every freshly minted female Gorator who has children or plans to have children is the most execrable sort of carbon sinner. Not only are you deliberately destroying the climate with your progeny’s mountains of carbon poison, but you are doing this while preaching to everyone else that they must zero their own carbon spewage.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. The persistent cognitive dissonance and self-righteous hypocrisy must give you constant migraines.

chris y says: @ur momisugly August 3, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Murtaugh and Schlax published an article in Global Environmental Change (Vol 19, 2009, pp 14-20) that concluded each US child adds 9441 tons of CO2 poison…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CO2 POISON???
CO2 is no more of a poison than water is. Calling CO2 a poison and a pollutant is one of the most vicious lies I know because it directs attention away from the REAL poisons and pollutants. As a chemist and a farmer I find this the most offensive lie made by politicians.
CO2 along with the other ‘Greenhouse Gas’ water, are the primary building blocks of life on the earth!

Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce glucose from carbon dioxide and water. This glucose can be converted into pyruvate which releases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by cellular respiration. Oxygen is also formed.
Photosynthesis may be summarised by the word equation:
…………………………………..Sunlight
carbon dioxide + water===========>>glucose + oxygen
………………………………..chlorophyll
The conversion of usable sunlight energy into chemical energy is associated with the action of the green pigment chlorophyll…..
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/photosynthesis.htm

Not only is CO2 NOT A POISON, it has gradually become too rare in earth’s atmosphere. The response was the recent evolution of C4 Photosynthesis. Today fully 95% of all plant species are of the C3 variety. These are our trees and vegetables. C4 Photosynthesis is found in plants such as
the grass family and the sedge family.

Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
…Here we report on delta13C of Juniperus wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](ci)/atmospheric [CO2](ca) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at ci values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation. In addition, we modeled relative humidity by using delta18O of cellulose from the same Juniperus specimens and found that glacial humidity was approximately 10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions on ci/ca in the past. By scaling ancient ci values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.….

C4 photosynthesis, atmospheric CO2, and climate

….All C4 plants have a signifcant advantage over C3 plants under low atmospheric CO2 conditions and are predicted to have expanded signifcantly on a global scale during full-glacial periods, especially in tropical regions. Bog and lake sediment cores as well as pedogenic carbonates support the hypothesis that C4 ecosystems were more extensive during the last glacial maximum and then decreased in abundance following deglaciation as atmospheric CO2 levels increased….
Plants can be categorized photosynthetically as falling into one of three categories: C3, C4, and CAM. On a global basis, C4 biota account for approximately 18% of the total global productivity, which is largely due to high productivity of C4 monocots in grasslands (calculated from data in Melillo et al. 1993). Most plant species globally are characterized by C3 photosynthesis, but the C4 and CAM pathways represent evolutionary advancements over the ancestral C3 pathway that result in superior carbon-gaining capacities under particular environmental conditions (Osmond et al. 1982; Monson 1989; Ehleringer and Monson 1993). The performance of each pathway is signi®cantly in ̄uenced by climatic conditions….
Thus, in C4 dicots, we have a photosynthetic pathway whose distribution is both taxonomically uncommon and phylogenetically widely dispersed among only advanced families. Additionally, there are C3±C4 intermediates in genera which at present do not have C4 photosynthesis. This taxonomic distribution pattern is consistent with the notion that C4 photosynthesis may have evolved recently among the dicots. Later we will suggest that C4 photosynthesis in dicots may not have been evolutionarily favored until atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached the low levels that characterize glacial maxima. These low atmospheric CO2 conditions may not have occurred until the Quaternary…..

Agriculture: Positive Effects Of CO2

Those of you living in New Zealand, might be interested to learn that I tested the theory that the great droughts on the Great Plains
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
was due to global cooling.
The theory is that as we are cooling from the top, the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes (>[40]) it will become both cooler and drier.
I chose New Zealand as a random sample, lying on the edge of the > [40] latitude zone, because it has good precipitation records.
I found that in Wellington, New Zealand, for the decade 1930-1940, average annual precipitation was 14% lower than the average between 1940 and 2005.
I think that is significant?

dbstealey says:
August 4, 2013 at 1:04 am
“If that is what Murtaugh and Schlax wrote, then they should be disregarded as eco-alarmists. We already have seen far too much written about ‘the children’ to pay attention to those two assholes.”
I totally agree. I think the Murtaugh and Schlax study is complete garbage. I also think it is orders of magnitude more credible than anything Gore presented in Chicago.
“You should be ashamed of yourselves. The persistent cognitive dissonance and self-righteous hypocrisy must give you constant migraines.” – This comment was addressing the members of the Chicago flock who are female and have children.
I am waiting for the Gorests to defend their personal choice of having children, after they have been repeatedly scolded that it is the worst possible sin against Gaia.

heh. warmists gonna give themselves ulcers. ;-}

HenryP says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:14 am
@gail
I am not sure if you got what I am saying. Perhaps read my previous comment again.
I don’t believe there is any warming effect from (more) CO2…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I realize that Henry, however John Kehr pretty much agrees with that. He is saying it is water that is the big player not CO2. Remember he is including in his Greenhouse Effect. link
80% – Evaporation
18.1% – Water Vapor
17% – Convection
3.3% – CO2
1% – Ozone
.7% – other gases
These are “[t]he 6 main components of the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect. The total energy for them is the 120 W/m2”
He is then saying this Greenhouse Effect is temperature dependent and changes over the time of the year.

I’m also a skeptic about the climate thing but I really don’t know what’s wrong with the “mole” and with you Anthony Watts, or how much money you’re making from writing this stuff. I happen to have attended the training myself and I didn’t get the “religious cult” feeling that the mole talks about. Not one single applause was faked or manipulated by anybody. All the opposite, the whole event, I thought was pretty informal and casual. There was virtually no security, and people were free to do whatever they wanted.
As much as I try to understand the hardcore skeptics, I just don’t understand why so many of you hate Al Gore or his clean energy agenda. Is it because you’re jealous of him? Is it because you don’t care about the fact that wildlife is disappearing at an extraordinary rate, that we’re polluting the oceans, running out of fresh water, and overfishing? What’s wrong with you guys? I’m not sold on the whole temperature change, but there is no question in my mind that we’re raping Mother Nature and that we’re paying a huge price. I believe in American exceptionalism, and if there is one nation who can lead a clean energy revolution that’s America. I’m tired of being taxed by Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Let’s switch to clean energy now and I don’t care if we do it because of climate change, or for security or economic reasons. But let’s do it now.

1) Did you have to pay for the event? Because Al Gore really does know how to make cash and I’m just wondering if he “volunteered” his precious time. or did you pay for his sermon?
It was completely free and included most meals and all materials.
2) Were the people there generally of the “educated elite class”?
I met a very large variety of people, many without college degrees and many with graduate degrees.
3) Age groups, gender, religion?
Seemed like everyone from 18-80! Very good balance of male to female. I didn’t discuss religion with anyone but I did meet a pastor from MA.
4) Where there any republicans? Y’know, like Richard Alley?
I met one Chevron employee. Didn’t discuss how he voted but discussed a lot of his thoughts on oil and its future.