Has any else noticed the inconsistency of Gores global warming?

Question

Every time, Gore or a regional individual says that Global Warming is harming the environment it seems that something strange happens: It either begins to snow, or drop in temperature radically or rain for ever. This happens all the time. It's like God knows what the radicals are saying and in spite changes the weather: FOR REAL this happens much too often for it to be a coincidence. Even the weathermen can’t get the hurricane season down: truly a fifth grader can predict the hurricane season better. What makes Gore's global warming idea so funny is that when ever they have some sort of convention on warming the weather will change the day of the event. Has anyone else noticed

Answer 1

Al has nothing to do with it. Global warming is a fact. It has been warming for hundredsof years. The only thing in question is how high will it go and can we do anything about it.

Answer 2

Sigh. Lesson 101: When the earth warms, GLACIERS melt and go into the ocean. For a minute, think about a cup of ice. When the ice melts, the water is still cold. Now, back to the glaciers. The new COLD freshwater goes into the ocean we have access to so is it any wonder that NY had a cold snap? Plus, all that freshwater is messing with the saline content and affecting the Gulf Stream. The GS is what keeps Eastern Europe and the UK at a climate humans can adapt to. Those countries are already experiencing weather phenomena.
As to the validity, George Bush, Vladimir Putin and Steven (?-Canadian Prime Minister) just had a meeting to see who could claim land rghts over newly exposed resources and land where the icebergs were.
BTW, didn't God make humans with the intent that they should take care of the earth? Why aren't you following Gods' command?
Oh, also, lay off of Al Gore. He's just a messenger and I really don't see why it matters how hypocritical he MIGHT be. There are plenty of other celebrities and politicians that are saying the same thing. It's a 'FOR REAL' problem humans can try to help control.
See Leonardo DiCaprio, Sheryl Crowe, George Bush, etc... to see what others are concerned.

Answer 3

What I find interesting is that the so-called "skeptics" are so ignorant of science that they think that attacking Gore is going to discredit the science. It won't--Gore is not a scientist and doesn't pretend to be--he jsut reports what the scientists find.

They further show their ignorance by endlessly citing local short-term weather as "counter-evidence." Its really amazing that these people managed to graduate high school (if they did) and not know the difference between a long term global average trend and short term local variations.

But the funniest thing is that they keep citing wht they think is "science--and its nothing but propaganda put out by Exxonand other oil companies. Even FOX news knows that much:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273692,00.html

Answer 4

Every one pretty much is destroying the planet and raping it of all its natural resorces. its horrible, globel warming isnt any thing to joke about did you know ten to twenty years ago there were glaciers more than 10-20 stories tall. now they have completly melted away. oh man, people are aweful. You know they have cars that run on water. But no one will market them because they get so much money out of gasoline. it really is ridiclious. sorry if this dosent help but i just think that in my opinion of globel warming. we can stop it but no one will. and are you saying we should have al gore for pres? I think so too other than the fact he wants to make a certin type of abortion legal as in when the child is born they suck the kids brian out and that is curel and wrong. it was either him or john kerry i cant remember which but whom ever it was is horrible. other than that what ever, im just ranting out of my a.ss im done now haha.

Answer 5

Global warming is about changes in climate. Climate are the broad meteorological conditions or a large region or even the earth.

Weather on the other hand varies day to day, location to location.

You can't judge climate based on any specific weather pattern. There is lots of variation in weather while climate shows more consistent and disconcerning trends.

Answer 6

Forget Al Gore. He has nothing to do with the scientific reality of mostly man made global warming.

You're right that short term weather is not proof (either way) about global warming. This is:

Global temperatures are increasing:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif

The only explanation that is consistent with the data is one that involves man made greenhouse gases.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Theories that it's a natural event simply don't work. They don't match the observed data data numerically. Which is why:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

The inconsistency does not just lie with Gore, it is in the underlying principle of CO2 and it's importance as a radiative forcing mechanism associated with the greenhouse theory. The first 200 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere have more than saturated the radiative window in which CO2 has to work with. The fallacy of the IPCC and others who support their theoretical conjecture is that they fail to understand the percentage of forcing that water vapor and clouds play in the greenhouse process. There is evidence to support that water vapor in this particular snapshot of our climate is currently capturing at least 98% of the long wavelength IR energy radiating from the planets surface. They insist on churning out reams of paper with an incredable amount of detail about how each component of our atmosphere contributes to the energy budget of our planet, when step A (water vapor) is wrong. It boggles one's mind, but hey as long as the money keeps flowing why not?


http://biocab.org/Global_Warmings_and_Coolings_Since_Medieval_Age.jpg

http://bp3.blogger.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/RfBK96dCDyI/AAAAAAAAAKM/5HUBHYzBIA4/s1600-h/Record+High+Temperature+Chart+1884-2006.jpg

Answer 8

Global warming is not evidenced by the increased temperature of one day or one week.
Al Gore is simply one more messenger trying to warn us about the threat global warming causes - and will cause over the next fifty years.
For anyone to bury their head in the sand and claim global warming is a 'hoax', a lie, or a liberal conspiracy is sheer ignorance. And sheer ignorance always generates vulgar remarks, juvenile barbs, childish name-calling, crude insults and immature responses from those who can't back up their ideas with factual, accurate data.
The fact is our 'industrial revolution' of the past 150 years has contributed to the alteration of a natural cycle of events that takes places over tens of thousands of years. This cyclical occurrence allows man, plants and animals to adapt to changes in the climate, atmosphere and water.
Because man has rushed the sequence of events with smoke-belching factories, air-polluting coal mines, environmentally-damaging oil drillings, and dangerous vehicle emissions, inhabitants of this Earth have not had time to adapt and change.
And if we continue to pollute the water and air, destroy the ozone layer, and strip the land of its natural nutrients WE WILL ALL DIE. Generations of human beings, plants and animals will cease to exist. Global warming WILL cause horrendous hurricanes, phenomenal flooding, and severe weather conditions along all coasts of both major oceans. Our clearing of rain forests, decimation of mangrove forests and inattention to the delicate ecological balance between all creatures on this planet WILL cause drastic changes in the way our grand children and great-grand children will have to live. It might not matter to you that global warming will cause polar bears to become extinct , or remote Eskimo tribes to die off; it may not seem of any consequence to you that a rare species of frogs in the Amazon no longer exist. But it all ties together.
Man's hubris, arrogance, gluttony and selfishness is the predominate factor in why this planet is quickly evolving into an uninhabitable habitat for most species.
Gore's inconsistencies might be noticeable - and laughable. Our continued ignorance and avoidance of the serious threat that global warming brings to this world won't seem so funny fifty years from now when your beautiful little great-grand daughter has to wear a gas mask in order to breathe fresh air and there isn't sufficient fresh water to sustain life. -RKO- 08/27/07

Answer 9

Linus86,
The radiative forcing of CO2 is very high.

Here are the proportions of it:

The major factors are:
Positive RF sources. (Sources that warm the Earth)
CO2 +1.66 W/m2.
CH4 +0.48 W/m2.
N2O +0.16 W/m2.
Halocarbons +0.337 W/m2.
Tropospheric Ozone +0.35 W/m2.
Black carbon on snow + 0.10 W/m2.
Linear contrails + 0.010 W/m2.
Solar irridiance + 0.12 W/m2.

Negative RF sources. ( sources that cool the Earth)
Land use - 0.20 W/m2.
Aerosols (direct and cloud effect) - 0.50, - 0.70 W/m2.


The combined anthropogenic RF is +1.6 [ -1.0, +0.8] W/m2.
The combined natural RF ( solar irridiance, volcanic aerosols) is + 0.12 [-0.06, +0.18].

* RF is defined as the change in net irridiance at the Tropopause (boundary between Troposphere and Stratosphere).

All measurements are showing the difference in RF between 1750 (preindustrial), and current (2005).

Radiative forcing is a measurement of how strong the factors that influence Earths climate by altering its energy balance are. A positive forcing increase the energy which will lead to a warming while a negative forcing reduces the energy and leads to a cooling.

Answer 10

Hi,

Global warming is a long-term trend. In Gore's documentary, he gave info about how atmospheric CO2 levels were spiking most recently (in the past 50 years), possibly contributing to a dangerous 'warming' trend (glaciers melting, etc) over the next 50 years.

But, while his numbers on CO2 levels are accurate, his scientific theory is very weak. First of all, because there is no accurate way to predict where CO2 levels will be 50 years from now (that's just not how 'statistics' works), and secondly, we are finding out that even though CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas capable of warming the earth, it is actually a very weak driving force behind global warming. The strongest contributing greenhouse gas is actually SF6, which is VERY scarcely found in the atmosphere.

I also read an article recently about how Gore's household consumes 20 times more energy than the average American household!