Speaking in Davos, at the World Economic Forum, Al Gore is quoted saying, 'Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared.'
Gore claims, "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us." Apparently there are new forecasts that the North Pole ice caps "could" disappear during summer within 5 years. We can hold you to that one Al.
Mmmm! Since 1990, the IPCC has lowered both it's temperature and sea level rise forecasts, in 1995, 2001 and 2007. In fact, the IPCC seems to have abandoned decadal sea level forecasts in AR4 and gone for an unverifiable 90-year projection/prediction.
If any readers know where Al gets his worsening 'climate crisis' information from, let us know.
Listen Sundown - all manner of goofballs might e IPCC reviewers. Doesn't mean anything they say is listened to. You just have to ask for the draft. Monky is a try-on merchant not a scientist.
As for the logarithm stuff - it's utterly incredible that goobers like to parade this info-fact around like the physicists don't know about it. For heavens sake grow up.
A minor trace gas - well the old teensy weensy argument - haven't had that for a few eeks now -what stupidity. Botulism and plutonium specks are teensy weensy too and they can kill you stone dead. How can this be - they're teensy weensy ?? It's simply a physics calculation mate. Don't bung on the nonsense.
Plants may or may not grow better. CO2 isn't Jack's beanstalk if water is limiting. Check your MWP world? ! See how well the real world FACE experiments have done (if you know what FACE even is).
""He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have 'much' radiative effect."
LOL,
It is still a miniscule trace atmospheric gas."
Fine, ignore the scientific evidence. What's the world coming to.
"He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have 'much' radiative effect."
LOL,
It is still a miniscule trace atmospheric gas.
The plants will grow better.We will breathe just as easily as before and the climate barely warms.
"Keep on digging SunDown. Deeper and deeper. Monkton - really.... as if we haven't heard far enough to make a decision. You've only just turned up here sunshine so don't think you're a font of wisdom or vanguard for the faithful.
Do you actually know anything yourself SunDown or do you just like parroting your latest blog read from another wing nut denialist."
Your ignorance is noted.
You have no idea what Monkton did and that the IPCC accepted his suggested corrections.You apparently did not know that The Viscount Monkton is one of the IPCC reviewers.Like I said you are an ignorant man.
I have come to expect such ignorant babble from people like you Luke.I have been on many forums and dealt with some ignorant people.But you are among the worst I have ever come across.
You have no idea what MY political viewpoint is either.You have no idea what MY viewpoint is on the topic Climate Change either.
Why continue to make a fool of yourself so openly to the world?
He is talking about the logarithmic response of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Since it looks like are going to be doubling the CO2 concentration, that is a large amount of gas being added that is going to have 'much' radiative effect.
"If you want more detail, here is a free online textbook.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html"
Instead of just flinging out a reference to an unfinished manuscript, can't you at least extract the salient points to support your position?.
Here's a good excerpt (pg. 133):
". . . one has already depleted infrared of those frequencies that are most strongly absorbed by CO2 so when adding CO2 one is adding "new absorbtion" in spectral regions where the absorption is relatively weak. Hence, it takes a large amount of the gas to have much radiative effect."
Tell us what that means SJT!
To be honest Luke; I am still coming to terms with Enders concept of what constitutes a tonne of feathers, not wishing to be down on his concept you dont want to weigh in do you?
DHMO - I invite you to peruse the blog archives for multi-point evidence from myself.
As for doubt you must have missed some comments I have made very recently in threads below. The interesting thing about you guys is how assumptive you are on what myself, SJT and Ender may think.
This thread is particularly disingenuous as it deliberately trys to blur the IPCC and Al Gore together. The IPCC has made a detailed and reasoned view of the sea level rise. Al Gore's unfortunate portrayal of a sea level rise at an unspecified time in the future is a single commentators point of view and not what the IPCC says. Given decadal variability in the sea level story decadal forecasts aren't helpful. The bit that was missed in the 4AR was the raft of papers (tabled by myelf here in the archives that said the IPCC has not properly considered the mechanics of ice sheet disintegration).
The current sea level rise is running on the high level of the intial predictions. Do I think sea level rise is an "imminent" worry. No ! Not in the short term, but the mechanics of ice sheet breakup and decadal influences need a lot more study. Still no room for total complacency.