Al Gore interview with Alex Bogusky

Yes, I added a comment to the blog post on that as well. It is absurd, he said nothing of the kind. But we know this has been their tactic for years. I have made it a goal of mine to go to as many of these stories on the Internet posting this misrepresentative garbage as I can and set them straight. Sick of it. But it illustrates so aptly what he was talking about here in regards to the tactics used by media and deniers to sully and divert the conversation.

I even looked for one "journalist" on twitter to tell him he was wrong regarding Al's words on agriculture. He twisted them to intimate that he supports starving billions of people because organic has no yield, and even went on to support GMOs and going on about the "Green Revolution" Al said no such thing about starving people or anything related to the "Green Revolution." He talked about carbon sequestration in soil, the effect of deforestation and the effects of nitrogen fertilizers which is all true in regards to agriculture's huge imput to this climate crisis and that we need to change that which we do. So again, this a great illustration that we won't win this conversation if we keep allowing these twisters of truth to get away with it. And they shouldn't.

THIS is what attracted me to young Albert Gore.
I didn't realize it was in 1983!
Al is a visionary far ahead of his time.

Yes he is. So many don't know the half of his vision.

President Obama can win this conversation by using the power given to him by the people to advocate for us and our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline vote is now that way. I still hope he does the right thing. It would restore much of the faith lost by the environmental community that believed in him.

I totally agree.

So true. The list of criminals is long. And again, as we have seen the USSC pass Citizens United it gets harder to confront this with $$. People now have this false illusion that so many people discount the science but that is false. It is only a small group with big money able to mass saturate the media.There are more of us on the side of truth and we need to be heard now.

As CO2 concentrations build sunspots become less an influence. In 1930 sunspots were a major influence.

Two years ago my calculations for best fit for these two curves:

deltaT = 0.92x + 0.08y

where deltaT = change in temperature over time
x = change in CO2 concentrations
y = change in sunspot numbers

So, deltaT is 92% due to greenhouse gases and 8% due to sunspots. True, the influence of sunspots is small in relation to the influence of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I posted my calculations on this website, and they have remained accurate for predicting global warming.

I am very open to such scientific debate and look forward to expanding my mind on this issue.
I'm also interested in how the enormous solar max of 2012-13 might change the data.
Keep us posted!

Here's another way to look it. Let's list among the last 14 years all the years in which the number of sunspots exceeded 30, along with the rank among the hottest previous years.

1997: #1
1998: #1
1999: #3
2000: #5
2001: #2
2002: #2
2003: #2
2004: #3
2005: #1
2010: #2

Now, let's list among the last 14 years all the years in which the number of sunspots did not exceed 30, along with the rank among the hottest previous years.

2006: #5
2007: #6
2008: #9
2009: #6

Now, let's compare. In three of the last 14 years there was a new temperature record when the # of sunspots exceeded 30. Most all years in which the # of sunspots exceeded 30 the year was close to setting a new record. The average rank among previous years is 2.2.

For years in which sunspots did not exceed 30 the average rank among previous years is 6.5.

I believe most people will recognize among this data that it is getting hotter as greenhouse gases accumulate. I believe they will also recognize that the new records occur during years in which sunspots exceed 30. This is important because it shows that just because new records are not being set for a period does not mean that anthropogenic global warming has stopped.

"So, deltaT is 92% due to greenhouse gases and 8% due to sunspots."

Hilarious. Thanks for posting that.
There couldn't be any other factors involved, could there? It's just CO2 and sunspots, and 92% of the observed temperature changes are due to "greenhouse" gases?

Why, then, do we currently find ourselves at -0.53 °C compared to the peak recorded (April, 1998) temperature? "Greenhouse" gases getting tired, taking a break?

"greenhouse" gases are 92% responsible for the planet's temperature"

deltaT is not intended to be the total temperature. Delta, as used in mathematics, means change. In this case it means the change of planet's temperature over time.

That's wonderful for Tórshavn, IceKat. I hope they have room for many more people.

"deltaT = 0.92x + 0.08y

where deltaT = change in temperature over time
x = change in CO2 concentrations
y = change in sunspot numbers"

Just a question: how does or does any data change when other greenhouse gas
concentrations besides CO2 are entered into this equation? Or does this account for all?
You only noted CO2.

Thanks, but I'm more than well aware of the meaning of delta.

"...sunspots are not part of his equation or scientists..."

Yes they are. You've really got to learn to keep up with things. Oh, and thedirtman also seems to place some importance on sunspots... interesting!

Thedirtman tells us "greenhouse" gases are responsible for 92% of the changes we're seeing, and you ask "how does the data change when other greenhouse gases are entered into the equation". You mean other "greenhouse" gases as compared to the "greenhouse" gases thedirtman talks about? Is thedirtman's collective "greenhouse" gases different from your collective "greenhouse" gases?

Edit: Nice to see you've amended your comment to make it look (slightly) more meaningful. Shame it took me to point your error out - again.

Are you him? If not, mind your own business. If he asks me what I meant, I'll tell him.

Sorry, I thought this was an open forum where people interact and not a personal messaging system... but I understand your response, you must be a little annoyed that I exposed more of your [Censored]. My apologies.

Hi Jan. A fair question. The calculation did not consider methane (CH4) concentrations, but an equation could be designed using a spreadsheet. Once the spreadsheet is designed it's a matter of putting in numbers (for A, B, and C) until the best correlation with deltaT is found. If you have Microsoft Excel there is an option to use a scatter plot that will solve the correlation coefficient, but unfortuately, it doesn't allow for three variables. Another program may be available. A, B, and C must total to equal 1.00 (or 100%). The equation would look like this:

deltaT = Ax + By + Cz

deltaT = change in temperature over time
x = change in CO2 concentrations
y = change in sunspot numbers
z = change in CH4 concentrations

A calculus equation could also be designed and solved for those that prefer calculus.

Without doing the spreadsheet and just making a hypothesis I would guess that the change of CH4 over time resembles the change of CO2 graphically (a steady increase over time), more so than changes in sunspot numbers which is cyclical over time. The x and z components would share the portion of the upward nature of the trend, while the y component would dominate the cyclical trend.

In the book "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore reviews a list of misconceptions. His Misconception 2 that he refutes: "Lots of things can impact climate - so there's no reason we should single out CO2 to worry about". In response to this misconception he writes "The fact that the climate system has been shown to be sensitive to many sorts of natural changes throughout history should serve as a red flag: We need to pay close attention to the massive and unprecedented changes we're causing. We have become more powerful than any force of nature."

Well, maybe not every force of nature, but when the natural cycles of the sun are being overwritten by the effects of anthropogenic waste products it is time to wave the red flag.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, sunspots used to be the major influence on warming trends before 1940, but between 1940 and 1970 the major influence became increasing CO2 concentrations instead. That's why the denialists intentionally left out the recent part of the data in the graph. They did not want us to see the whole data.

The Earth and sun system does have natural trends and cycles that can be identified. Denialists attempt to cause the reader to believe that climate change does not happen, and in this case they offer up the data as an "alternative explanation" hoping that the reader will abandon AGW. More often exact science offers explanations that are not alternative, but cumulative. Effects pile up on top of other effects. The anthropogenic effect has become so big that it is now overwriting natural effects. This is when things get serious.

When someone asserts that climate change does happen rather than calling it a hoax, then I give them the skeptic status rather than the denialist status. As James Hansen says, skeptics cause us to think the situation to the final solution. It makes us better scientists.

PS Just so there isn't any confusion here, the believer status is the better status than the skeptic status.

Only did it to show what happens when you ASSume. Don't give yourself so much credit. I just wanted to make you feel needed since being the resident denier troll must leave you pretty lonely here.

The red flag has been waving for decades. It is this constant need however to explain this to the same deniers over and over again who really don't care that wastes so much time in actually doing something about it. Thanks for answering the question.

1st, this is a bit amateur attempt at making an argument. After all, there are statistics that actually describe the earth's range of temperatures. But I certainly don't think the poster means to argue that this citie's temperature history represents the rest of the world. If the graph is correct, it’s an outlier.

2nd. if one looks at the graph closely, even the poster can see that the trend line is moving up, and one will also notice it is at a higher point than 1890. However, because scale (meaning it has been shrunken) has been distorted, and the poster is arguing that this is proof of no change, I can only conclude the poster did not read the graph, and or the poster intends to be misleading.

I recognize your contribution here. I would rather you not be distracted from doing posts. I also thank you. Could a group hug be possible here?

Here we go again - childish personal abuse...

Science is not static - some people like to evolve.

Ooh... tugs at my heart-strings... yes, I agree...maybe we should tax CO2 production then, and that way we will all have nice weather and no refugees will target beautiful leafy areas like this.

Well, of course that's what you would like people to believe, but when you consider that humans inhabit the coldest ice-encrusted villages, to the sun-baked deserts, you soon get to realise that there is no overwhelming need for man to flock to a European climate. Had that been the case we would all be living there, wouldn't we!

Sorry, I thought this was an open forum where people interact and not a personal messaging system... but I understand your response, you must be a little annoyed that I exposed more of your [Censored]. My apologies.

For the purposes of resolving future conflicts the following claims and theories should be tenatively agreed to:

1. As man-made air pollution increases, quality of air decreases
2. Man-made air pollution can cause global temperatures to rise above normal standards
3. Global warming above normal standards, will have deadly effects on the environment

The first premise is in "THEORY" and " IN FACT" easy to prove. The second and third premises should in "THEORY" be acceptable by both opinions.

For example:
In "THEORY" enough man-made air pollution can cause damaging global temperature changes.
In "THEORY" if average global temperature rises, it will have deadly effects on the environment.

Thus the poster is skeptical of the explanation that current weather patterns are caused by man-made pollutants. And given all the above assumptions, it would be fair to say the poster is really arguing that the current quantity of man-made greenhouse pollutants is insignificant, relative to other explanations.

My hope is that the poster will point out where I may have misstated his/her opinion, but also indicate where it's fair to assume certain facts.

Can't debate against fossil-fuel hacks and the sh!thead followers, who don't believe in real science just like not believing in real persons for Constitutional purposes.

I don't debate denialists either.
They just resort to insults and argument like -- but Al Gore lives in a mansion.

It's frustrating and I give up.

http://www.barefootcollege.org/

"Mahatma Gandhi’s central belief was that the knowledge, skills and wisdom found in villages should be used for development before getting skills from outside. He also believed that sophisticated technology should be used in rural India, but it should be in the hands and in control of the poor communities so that they are not dependent or exploited as it leads to replacement- Barefoot College has internalized and implemented this message of Gandhi’s since its inception."

Quadir is the creator of Grameenphone too I believe. Very innovative man who sees that power centralized in only a few cities in these countries is a sign of poverty and also not democratic. Giving access to that technology does indeed provide opportunities to lift people out of poverty. I also posted the llnk to Barefoot College. It is a wonderful institution that teaches people to be self sustained and to learn the technology that brings them opportunity. Women are taught how to put together photovoltaic solar systems and travel from village to village teaching others. Matter of fact, developing countries see this and are doing more and more. Kenya's solar capacity is booming and there are initiatives in India, Indonesia and many other countries. To me this is the sign of a species evolving, when we truly care for others and work together for a sustainable future. Thanks for this Jubal.

He is writing a new book so maybe he will cover it there, but I agree with you. Peak oil is important especially due to the slow pace of transition in regards to other factors such as pollution and population. Also the lengths we are going to in order to continue to feed the addiction (tarsands) rather than moving to cleaner sources faster in corolation to the effects of climate change we are now seeing globally. I think this is also when science must take the lead over politics.

It's that transition....and it's going to be increasingly painful if we don't start coming up with realistic solutions soon. And you're absolutely right about science taking the lead on this.

Peak oil may be even a stronger argument.

Yes, takes a few seconds.

Just as transistors and computer systems according to Moore's Law have increased exponentially through human behavior, so have the events related to biodistress. But just as we one day I believe will see the point where Moore's Law may well become obsolete, we will see that tipping point in our climate when human activity will outstrip anything we ever imagined we could do in affecting the systems of this planet that give us life. And we need to be prepared for both. Moore's law as applied to renewables mean that we now have reached an exponential curve regarding it which means we will reach parity or exceed it in comparison to dirty energy sources. The shift will be inevitable.

Developing countries are doing more to install renewable energy and it will lift people out of poverty. This is why sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty as well are so important to these countries. This is the crux of climate justice.

He is certainly correct about solar energy. And its just what certain interests and merchants of doubt don't want people to know.

It's coming. Then we need to get to work and to hell with these deniers. They've done enough to destroy this planet for their own personal agenda and $$$$$$. Yes Perry, Bachman, Inhofe and your whole brood. You just try telling people this is a hoax after they see what oil soaked LIARS you all are.

I've always loved him. No surprise there I suppose. ;-)

You've really gotten under their skin, Jan.
I am enjoying watching the deniers squirm.
Mother Nature is on our side.

good question...way to go

They can't stand that he is actually talking about the very things that make sense and has not validated their hateful warped politically partisan ideologically driven misrepresentations of him. He is actually talking about positive solutions to this. And now people globally will see the reality that this is not a "hoax" as these Murdoch clones have been feeding those without the ability to see that reality.

Thanks. Agriculture is the key to the solutions. The USDA needs to listen too. Monsanto and Cargill don't care what this does to the world. All they care about is profit at any cost. Look to the people and nature for the solutions.

Haters hate everything: progress, real people (not corpo-persons), real science (not fossil-fuel hackery), good ideas, and ALL Democrats, whether liberal or not.Thanks for this article as well as the posting.

You're welcome.