As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.
People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:
While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”
Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…
Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony
1.
Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.
Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.
2.
Predictions that climate change — the rebranding of “global warming” when it turned out that predicted warming wasn’t happening — would cause catastrophic weather damage haven’t panned out.
German insurance giant Munich Re says losses from natural disasters were lower in 2015 than in 2014 and lowest since 2009. The facts are sharply at odds with Gore’s 2012 claim that “dirty weather” caused by “dirty fossil fuel” has created “extreme weather” that “is happening all over the world with increasing frequency.” Even the IPCC said that there is no link of climate to extreme weather, and the prestigious journal Nature said in 2012:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
3.
Despite all the self-congratulatory international conferences and pseudo-agreements, the world has done nothing to “fight global warming.”
Mr. Gore cannot claim that his deadline has been extended because some governments have forced their citizens to cut carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 levels keep climbing and now exceed 401 parts per million in the atmosphere. It is simply not the dangerous greenhouse gas we’ve repeatedly been told it is. Noted environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg said in a policy paper of the recent COP21 agreement:
Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. Paris COP21 commitments [by the EU] will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100
4.
In the mid- to late-2000s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming in 2014. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction. And, three of the last years of Arctic Ice measurements since 2012 have been in the “normal range” i.e., within two standard deviations, according to NSIDC:
Even more inconvenient, it seems the Arctic ice has reached a new stable baseline, and has a “pause” of it’s own going on. In the University of Illinois Cryosphere today graph below, note the nearly flat trend line in recent years since 2007:
More at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
5.
Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which somehow won an Oscar, was found by a British judge to contain nine errors. The judge said it could not be shown to students unless it included a notice pointing out the errors.
6.
And then there’s the polar bears. Mr. Gore was so worried about Arctic sea ice, he made polar bears the poster child for “climate change” In his AIT movie, Mr. Gore said:
“That’s not good for creatures like polar bears who depend on the ice,”
Gore says in “An Inconvenient Truth” as ominous music plays in the background, adding that a new study found
“polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances, up to 60 miles, to find the ice.”
Well, reality bites Gore, for two reasons. There’s more Polar Bears now than ever:
And…they were able to handle ice free periods in Earth’s history before, just fine.
Biologists report a 42% increase in some populations, saying they are doing fine, with some as “fat as pigs”:
A Svalbard polar bear in the fall of 2015
7.
Mr. Gore said in his movie that there would be a “shutting down of the ocean conveyor”.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said this gulf stream may slow down, but it is not likely to stop completely. A more recent study by NASA suggests even that isn’t going to happen:
New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.
8.
Mr. Gore claimed in his movie (citing hurricane Katrina) that “hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming”. Well, the data says otherwise, and there’s been no strong Cat4 or Cat5 hurricanes that have impacted the USA since hurricane Wilma in October of 2005, spanning at entire decade:
9.
Mr. Gore said in his movie that the snows of Kilmanjaro was disappearing due to global warming:
And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.
Well, that’s pure weapons-grade bullshit, it is actually dues to clear-cutting of the forests around the mountain, resulting in lower evapotranspiration, putting less water vapor into upslope winds, which allows the icecap to sublimate due to lack of replenishment.
Even some climate scientists said Gore’s claim was bogus, citing internal communcations with Thompson::
I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some localtemperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them.The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down. – Phil Jones, Climate Research Unit, in the climategate emails
10.
And finally, then there’s this. For his “Climate Reality Project” Al Gore made a “Climate 101” video with Bill Nye claiming to “prove” that CO2 causes warming. The experiment was so inept, and so poorly designed, that they had to resort to faking the results in post production.
Despite being clearly shown to be faked, it is STILL up on his website today unchanged, as this screencap at the time of writing shows:
Simply put: Mr. Gore is a bald faced liar. Why does anybody still listen to him?
The terrible truth for Mr. Gore in this last decade is that nature itself has shown that there is no “planetary emergency”. Not one of the dire predictions he made has come to pass.
Note: shortly after publication, formatting in the first 5 paragraphs was changed to make it clear that IBD was the source of some of the writing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But he made a ton of money.
Definitely. He is an unconventional businessman, but who cares? (I do; I don’t like his hand in my pocket.)
Profits of Doom, I believe the term is.
But he has lots of support:
http://s29.postimg.org/q8ys3ihhj/Scientology_sign.jpg
I wonder why Gore hasn’t sued anybody, following so many articles such as this? Someone should push him into it, and then the truth will be massively aired, throughout the world. Then just think of all the counter-claims against Gore et al from individuals, companies and whole countries!!!
His lawyers told him he was on hiding to nothing – he lied and both he and his lawyers know it. A case of “Least said sooner mended”
.
I think the M. E. Mann lawsuit against Steyn has him rethinking his “options”.
And to think that, if it wasn’t for Ralph Nader, he would have become POTUS. And we would be studying the Q’ran by now….
He’s a politician. Of course he lies. If we didn’t listen to the lies of politicians we’d hear nothing at all from them!
Kook you make me laugh. In the attached video go to the 26 minute You will see Sen., George McGovern also Sen., Albert Gore Sr., was part of the click Changed our diets and now we are all sick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY
The bad science over saturated fat is the direct cause of the diabetes epidemic in the US today. Driven by politicians it has killed more people than global warming ever will.
And yet the evidence was clear. US dead in WWII showed low incidence of coronary artery disease. In the Korean War the US dead showed high incidence of coronary artery disease, even in casualties as young as 18 years old.
Something happened in the decade between WWII and the Korean War. And it wasn’t that Americans started eating butter and bacon. They had been eating those foods for a long time. What did happen was the introduction “heart healthy oils”.
Oils that until that time had only been eaten by humans in small quantities. Oils that were hydrogenated so they would be solid at room temperature. Oils that humans had never eaten before. Oils that we had never been selected by evolution to eat.
And it was the government of the day that led the charge. Now in Global Warming and Climate Change we see the same shameful, irresponsible meddling by government for political and financial advantage.
ferdberple- very much agreed. All of my grandparents lived well past 80 some to their
late 90’s very little heart disease or cancer. But my Parents both died relatively young
and I have been convinced for a long time it was their high margarine (hydrogenated) oil high carb diets….
No I do not believe everything that govn’t research tells me…
BTW Atkins and South Beach saved my life ten years ago. I’m now back in the
cockpit and a healthy 62.
clique
@ferdberple: Do you have a link to that WWII / Korean War study? I’d love to read about this.
DOES anyone still listen to Gore? I hadn’t noticed, actually . . .
I believe David Letterman and Jay Leno still do. Thankfully, they don’t have the TV pulpit they once had.
Not sure what the current crop of late nite hosts think about Gore’s fearmongering.
The irony of it being called an inconvenient truth.
For irony, Gore wrote a book called “An Assault on Reason”. I’m sure it was.
That’s known as ‘Proof by Assertion,’ or ‘Begging the Question.’ The propaganda didn’t wait until you were in your seats; it started when you read the marquee.
Well perhaps you put it in the “satire” section.
MSM had a great time making fun of Harold Camping’s prediction based on Rapture Theory that the world would end in 2011, yet the high priests of Mann-made global warming are never challenged on their prophecies of impending doom.
This is a question no one wants answered, lest some ugly truths about human nature be revealed.
Why do con men succeed?
Why do people keep going to Paul R. Ehrlich for advice and quote him as an expert, with his record of being spectacularly wrong on all counts?
Amen. Some people want to be scared.
Every notice that secular “beliefs” like AGW are hitting all the same trigger points as that Olde-Tyme Religion? Apocalypse impending, we’ve all been bad, the sky’s giving us the stink-eye and only the High Priests have the knowledge to “interpret” the data. Same shit, different day! I guess some people’s weak brains just NEED this.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
Diverts their attention, perhaps.
I’m not sure that anybody does listen to him?
We have our own conman in Australia Tim Flannery every prediction he has made has been wrong but the leftist press and gov’t still go to him for quotes about AGW and the previous gov’t even paid him 180000 pa to be Climate Change Ambassador
Yes, it’a amazing isn’t it that Paul Erlich and Al Gore have any credibility when they have been so spectacularly wrong for so long. The same with the Australian idiot, Tim Flannery, who predicted that rains would never again fill the dams – and then Brisbane got flooded because a dam was overfull.
Is this sad state of affairs due to the gullible ‘beleivers’ in the fourth estate who have far more influence than they deserve?
We like to think of our bigbrained selves as rational beings. I believe we humans have much the same capacity for rational thought and intelligent decision-making as chickens have capacity for flight: we can do it; we don’t do it often and we don’t do it well, but every once in a while we get in a gorgeous soar and, hot damn! we think we’re eagles.
99.44% of the time, we have one of two reactions to an idea:
1a) It fails to register with us AT ALL;
1b) We shout, No! It can’t be! and refuse to listen further.
. . . or . . .
2) We glom onto it as if it were the Answer to Everything, from war to teenage acne.
It is to be noted that, once reaction 2 has occurred, 1a/1b will be the response from there on out.
About 0.56% of the time we think, “Hey, wait a minute . . . .”
We do this most when we are scared. This is why, the worse the crime, the greater the urge to convict someone, anyone, just so we can, that much sooner, believe we are safe again. And this is why we are so desperate to believe we can and do affect something as potentially deadly as climate.
The only defense I have found, for myself, is to genuinely, thoughtfully and carefully examine everything I believe. This means honestly listening to what the creationists are saying (spoiler: they do not understand the concept of a “falsified” theory — but you really should discover that your own self), to what the Bigfoot believers are saying, to what the Apollo-hoax-believers are saying. If you neglect ANYTHING just because you (think you) know it already, you are in danger of succumbing to Groupthink, of believing what you do because you were scared into it.
I am fond of saying that I do not believe the Earth is round. The usual response is, “So, you believe it’s flat???”
No, no — that puts the emphasis on the wrong word. I know the Earth is round — by which I mean, I know what the evidence (photography don’t count, thanks to the movie “Forrest Gump”) for a round Earth is; I know what it means; and I have observed at least some of it personally.
Most of my fellow citizens merely believe the Earth is round, chiefly by hearing other people ridiculed as “flat-Earthers” — which means, to the hindbrain, “I’d better believe in a round Earth if I don’t want to be made fun of!” Most of them (present company most likely excepted) couldn’t describe even one line of (nonphotographic — the ancients didn’t have no photography) evidence for a round Earth. They are mere believers.
There are climatic con men, taking advantage of this fact. Since I believe all politicians are con men, I figure Gore is one of them. Others, though — ones calling themselves scientists, as well as some of my neighbors — they’re probably scared. Alas, there is no rational argument that will alleviate blind fear.
You can both believe and know. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Yet, there are some things that, while still considered ‘theory’, we know to be ‘fact’.
The moon has not been completely proven to not be made of green cheese, according to proper scientific process. But, just as your earth is round, we know it is not made of green cheese. Just because I say the earth is round and the moon is made of star stuff does not put me in a ‘Groupthink’ mentality.
Scientists, and those that follow it, continuously challenge theory, slowly dropping off parts of a theory that has been conclusively proven to be correct, even if not inconclusively until someone can prove otherwise.
Climate science is at that stage where they can conclusively say AGW is real and a continually debilitating problem for our species. What is inconclusive is as to how that is actually going to present itself over time. Groupthink is looking at the facts and pre-deciding that it is wrong and nothing needs to be done.
Or, as is done with this spurious article, look at something presented ten years ago and connecting all the good science done with these cheesy dramatic predictions.
This article is especially bad writing by presenting incorrect graphs as an attempt to verify its remarks. Thus making itself as bad as the documentary it trashes
“Why do people keep going to Paul R. Ehrlich for advice and quote him as an expert, with his record of being spectacularly wrong on all counts?”
It seems to me it’s because the people “listening” to him have a similar view of humanity in general; dopey critters that might as well be dominated and told what to think and do. Which is to say egocentric/narcissistic control freaks with money and power, most significantly,
Many of above average intelligence seem to agree with that appraisal (and often spout off as here with withering condemnations of the dopey humans they see themselves as superior to, apparently)
. It’s “elitism” essentially , and that’s what is being championed/implemented on a massive scale, by those who long ago bought up the bulk of the mass media, and are “directing” us toward the end of the recent trend toward self-governance and individual liberty/freedom . . The return of the ancient way; Top-down rule by a few elites over vast numbers of subordinate people.
I think they’ll get it soon, partly because so many “smart” folks are roped in by the ‘most humans are imbeciles’ talk-talk they’ve heard all their lives . . (Pride is easier for smart folks it seems to me, since they can rationalize it better than the average bear ; )
Gore blimey, me ol’ scrote (think Dick Van Dyke), were it the brass te be made, or the world te be saved? Let me guess: wot are ye worth nah, y’old incontinent conman?
Who is Al Gore?
/sarc
Gore is the guy that almost became President Thank God for Chads.
I believe the last we saw of Chad he was on a corner in San Bernadino selling pinwheels as alternate energy simulation devices.
You also need to thank the voters of his home state, Tennessee. Their rejection of his candidacy made the chads important. If he had won in Tennessee he wouldn’t have need Florida. We knew him too well to vote for him and thus we created a new political term, ‘the un-favorite son candidate’.
That vote, and Tennessee Whisky, are two reasons I’m a mite bit fond of Tennesseans.
Oh, two more:
Dolly Parton
/grin
“Oh, two more: Dolly Parton”
I think you left off the ‘s
” ‘s ” implied.
Happy birthday to Dolly Parton, who turned 70 today. I’m sorry, that should be 70-24-36. –Seth Meyers
Gore should have been charged with fraud, and be sitting in a jail cell next to Bernie Madoff. Birds of a feather.
Give it time.
…blah blah blah…best served cold.
Yet we keep hearing that we are not to go more than 3.6 F above the preindustrial temperature! It will be a long time before we even reach the temperature that they thought was the case in 1997. So exactly what is the supposedly dangerous temperature and why?
I recall reading right here that the two degree meme was simply pulled out of…um…the air by someone for the sake of conversation, back in the early 1970s, and somehow got latched onto as a truism.
There is a list of made of facts that have made their way into what is usually referred to as “common knowledge”. But it is not based on anything concrete, or even based on something imaginary…it is simply made up BS.
The 2° figure was a “POOMA number,” a “Preliminary Order of Magnitude Approximation.”
[Which is the unit of measurement for a POOMASS, eh? .mod]
“Preliminary Order of Magnitude Approximation”… in other words, made up out of thin air.
Or in engineering terms, a WAG (Wild-Ass Guess).
Although I do not recall ever hearing exactly how two degrees is going to disastrously impact anything. Or even sort of how.
All we hear is that that amount will be catastrophic…a point at which human life will be in peril of extinction.
And all of the supposed disaster scenarios are similarly made up. Even if we did have more and bigger storms, the impact on civilization in general would go from very bad for some individuals but no huge whoop for a society, to very bad for some individuals and a slightly more impactful no big whoop for society.
The polar bears will be fine if it gets warmer up there…even in the unlikely event that their current favorite food sources become harder to hunt. And I do not think humanity depends on polar bears in any event.
Most species of plants and animals would be better off and enjoy an expanded range in a warmer world, just as they did when the Pleistocene glaciers melted and entire swaths of whole continents became available. (On that topic, imagine the incredible ecological catastrophe that advancing mountains of ice a continent wide caused when they moved in and scraped the Earth down to bedrock and beyond.)
As has been detailed by Dr. Brown of Duke U., the amount of warming that is supposed to cause some unnamed disasters to begin is the equivalent of moving southward by a negligible distance. And the tropics have been show to have never become much hotter than they are now, even when the entire Earth was far hotter in earlier geologic eras.
IMO, there is no plausible way that warming a few or even a handful of degrees averaged over the Earth will do more than already occurs on a seasonal basis, and on timescales of hundreds and thousands of years…cause various creatures and plants to either adapt to the new temps or move to where they are more suitable.
How can it be overlooked that vast areas of the planet are perpetually frozen wastelands?
And even larger areas are seasonally frigid and frozen wastelands.
And that the places on the Earth that are warmer are teeming with life, while those that are colder are not as hospitable?
Or that a warmer Earth is almost certain to have a more humid set of climate regimes overall, which is likewise almost always beneficial to the vast majority of species?
Past history is full of examples of warmer and colder climate regimes on the Earth, and there is little or nothing to point to warmer times as generally worse. In fact the opposite is true, warmer times are beneficial.
How can the truth of such matters have been hijacked so readily?
Seems like a lot of “scientists” know nothing about the precision of measurements. Figures to 2 decimal places is saying that they know the global average temperature (if there is such a thing) to plus or minus 5 one hundred thousands of a degree!
Certainly not. Their ‘science’ is based on fiscal principles. You want a few million dollars to do more ‘research’, you need a bigger crisis.
I want to thank the WUWT folks for limiting the list to just the Top Ten reasons Gore was Wrong.
The full list is probably so long that it could easily warrant its own website.
…and a full-time liebrarian to curate it!
LOL…LIE brarian..perfect !!
…and an inconvenience store to market them.
Aaaand …. a bullboard, to market ’em.
JohnWho:
The case put to the UK Court itemised 35 errors in Mr Gore’s movie.
Viscount Monckton lists all 35 of the errors here where he says
“The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.”
Richard
I understand that regarding his movie, but I guess I was thinking more on Gore’s overall stage.
For example, when he said the Earth’s core is “several millions of degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/
I believe the entire liest is about 37 items long.
(And the list of lies is also 37 items long. 8<) .mod]
Yeah, like I said. I think 35 (see richardscourtney, upthread) is the exact number, though.
A most irksome situation….given Justin Trudeau’s codswallop at Davos.
Justin Trudeau’s codswallop at Davos.
=-======
a fool and our money are soon parted.
Instead of a long discussion, consider just one data point about the planet Earth thermal balance. Thermal energy received from the Sun (heating) is 240 Watt/square meter; this compares to the thermal energy the Earth radiates out into space (cooling) that is 239.4 Watt/square meter. The difference is the thermal energy absorbed: 0.6 watt/square meter. The relative difference is 0.6/240 = 0..0025 = 0.25 %. It is remarkable how small is the amount by which heating exceeds cooling. Our planet is almost in thermal balance.
To put it in a perspective, would of any self-respecting economist ring a loud panic alarm over a 1/4 % inflation!?
The above data comes from the NASA satellite called Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) that has been in orbit for more than a decade and its mission now continues by a new generation of satellites called CERES. The data are accessible to the public at a website maintained by the NASA Goddard Space Center – Google “Earth Radiation Budget Satellite” for details. A number of technical papers, but no popular media, have referred to that data.
If this is the first time you saw the data on the Earth thermal balance, it is because the data that should be in the first paragraph of any general discussion of the Climate Change, is not. It is being systematically ignored.
Why? Make your own guess.
Jaroslaw Sobieski, Hampton, VA
How much of that is going into photosynthesis?
And what are the error ranges of these numbers?
f I gain 1/4 of an ounce a day, I will be a fat pig in no time.
I bet the numbers match to a high degree, once know sinks are taken into account.
Besides photosynthesis, I would bet dollar to donuts that the oceans and land masses are still absorbing heat as a result of the end of the last glacial advance. A small pond absorbs heat all summer from the sun, and remains winter time cold at the bottom when fall arrives. How much more thermally massive are the oceans and continents that were chilled to glacial-era temperatures twelve thousand years ago or so?
I’ve referred to it in several posts, the data not the Web site. You seem to be the only other person that knows about this outside of some people from the IPCC. I quoted directly from one of the authors of climate change. Quite clearly at that time the tipping point was only only a matter of time for run a way greenhouse with heat being trapped in ever increasing amounts via the energy budget.
At the time, about 10 or more years ago, in published accounts it was 343 w/m^2 incoming, 103 w/m^2 outgoing, and 240 w/m^2 retained. My question was that in light of such a big number of retained heat, and the ever increasing amount of co2 which would cause even less outgoing heat, where is it? ( those numbers were very specific and used in the math to substantiate the 0.5 C rise in temp ” from co2 alone”. )
It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at it, but it maybe another case of adjusted data. Similar to the global average temperature in 1997 and the gat today. If that’s the case, then w/m^2 has fallen by 13 w/m^2 incoming, and outgoing has skyrocket. Is it possible following this trend that more heat could be outgoing in the next couple of years? A cold world indeed.
The 0.6 watt/square meter radiative imbalance is not measured by satellites, systematic error in measurements is far too great for that (more than 3 watt/square meter), it is assumed. Big difference.
Making no claim to really be up on this, I can say that that is my impression, also. I think I recall reading that outgoing long-wave is actually inferred from purported expansion of ocean water. Is that right?
Whether is 0.6 or 3 w/m^2, that’s a huge difference from the initial 240 w/m^2. Has anybody else done the math from the original formula that calculates the degree of warming from co2 per the IPCC?
First tell me that the formula works for a range of retained w/m^2. And second, tell me if the retained heat is 3 w/m^2, what the increase in temperature over the last 150 years. I get 0.00625 C.
Using the IPCC formula, tell me what you get at 220 w/m^2 retained heat, and what you get at 260 w/m^2.
@Jaroslaw
This looks very interesting. Do you have a link to the full works?
BTW, the incoming shortwave is close to being unidirectional whereas the outgoing longwave and shortwave reflection is diffuse and rather complex including some being normal at the closest alignment to the satellite (roughly over midday at the equator) and some tangential from the limb, (circumference), and not only from the TOA. Also there is transition from day to night and the earth radiates differently throughout day to night and I would think that much of the outgoing is pointing away from the satellite. Presumably the satellite orbit provides 100% coverage and that there is an algorithm to compensate for temporal versus regional variations? Also, alignments and power of radiation at different altitudes in the atmosphere will vary, thus adding to the modelling complexities. Oh and varying moonshine.
I sometimes wonder how accurately this can be modelled and computed etcetera, and feel that there may be potential for inaccuracy.
Forrest Gardener
The flat-earth-average-value people get around that observation (that the actual top-of-atmosphere radiation the earth receives varies from 1410 watt/m^2 on Jan 5 down to 1315 watts/m^2 on July 5) by claiming (correctly) that the earth swings past the sun faster during its closer approach in January, and that it is passing slower each day when it is further from the sun in July. Thus, on average, all parts of the earth’s orbit receive the same radiation every day.
If you wish to stick to a flat-earth static model of constant albedo and constant average temperature of average conductivity and average thermal coefficient and average composition and average areas, that flat-earth model is adequate to approximate a flat-plate-model.
Hint: The real world is (almost) spherical, rotating every 24 hours in a near-elliptical orbit.
Wouldn’t the primary reason Gore was wrong be that it still has not been shown exactly how much, if measureable, human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are causing the atmosphere to warm?
JohnWho:
There is no evidence that “human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are causing the atmosphere to warm”, none, zilch, nada. What is not known to exist cannot be measured.
And the IPCC admits that it is not known what climate effect if any would result from alterations (i.e. mitigation scenarios) to human CO2 emissions (i.e. baseline scenario).
Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) said
No subsequent IPCC Report has altered or amended that statement.
Richard
That is one of the reasons I particularly like these two statements:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Oregon Petition Project)
and
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”
(International Climate Science Coalition)
JohnWho:
Anybody can “like” them. Did you sign them?
Richard
I don’t meet the minimum requirements to sign either, but if I did, my name would be there alongside of yours since either statement appears to properly reflect our current climate knowledge.
There’s little to no warming.
.6 watt +/- 17 ?
( Question to JS @ur momisugly 1:06 PM )
Sweet Old Bob
Quite the right approach. The measured imbalance is far more than 0.6 Watts. The difference is explained away conveniently leaving just enough to ’cause some warming’ and is also conveniently so little as to be difficult to detect. These convenient truths serve the alarmosphere well, eh?
Can everyone in the Great White North (i.e. north of the FL/GA border) go out in a snow bank and take a photo of yourself holding a sign saying “Al Gore : Where the Hell is my Global Warming”. Then post it on FB, Twitter, etc. using #GoresBustedForecast ? Thank you.
“Mr. Gore is a bald faced liar” brought to mind this quote from the movie Fargo. The quote comes at the end of the short clip and Jerry Lundegaard does a good Al Gore impression of how Al Gore should feel now:
Considering the errors and misrepresentations (He used a CG shot from some disaster movie for glaciers calving. I think the movie dudes applied CG to Styrofoam.), maybe “doctoredmentory” would be more accurate? 😎
You guys are looking for some fancy, modernized term for his movie when there is, and has been, an appropriate label since the beginning of movies:
fantasy
Of course there’s a term even older than the movies.
The only question is which it has to do with, horses or cattle?
..Mother Nature laughs in the face of liberal lunacy !!
They are different critters, of course, but it is interesting how differently population trends for polar bears and humans are viewed.
Ten years ago today the doomsayer oracle Gore spoketh of the state of the world today. Today Gore speaketh not of the wrongness of his oracles of doom from ten years ago. How convenient for him to ignore.
John
“But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.”
I agree that the Earth is doing just fine – but humanity has had better days…
Define better.
Not better in terms of lifespan.
Not better in terms of number of people.
Not better in terms of health, or nutrition.
Not better in terms of proportion of a life required to simply obtain means of survival.
How then?
Faking a science experiment in post production should get a college student expelled, but not frat boys. They are up to this cheating all the time.
Yet Suzuki still has a large following saying the same garbage .
Canadian MSM is even worse than that in the USA.