Al Gore in the Twilight Zone

tzone3sm.jpgAs Rod Serling might say:

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

Global Warming models have just tripped over their hockey sticks again, in a new NASA study the reflectivity of aerosols is much greater than the numbers input into the computer models. Al Gore has some more remodeling to do before he flips the man-made global warming house in other words.


What appears as clear sky around a cloud as seen from the ground through a digital camera (left) actually has a twilight zone of light-reflecting particles around it (right). To see this, the blue light from the atmosphere in the original image is first subtracted (middle). The twilight zone is revealed after the darker parts of the image are enhanced (right). Credit: Koren et al., Geophysical Research Letters

So we find another factor makes the model originally used by “An Inconvenient Truth” inaccurate. In the past I’ve pointed out how they ignore volcanos, as have Michael Crichton and others [ed here I was mistaken – more in depth reading of actual papers demonstrates that they have explored this extensively and adjusted for it. ,] but there are many factors largely ignored by the models.

There are five main engines of heat or energy in the environment of earth:

  • The Sun
  • The Molten Core of Earth
  • Chemical and electro-chemical reactions (dissolution of salts and minerals in ocean, electrical energy from thunderstorms and other geo-electric phenomena)
  • Biological warming
  • Man Made WarmingÂ

Taking these in order, with the sun the models fail to account for changes in albedo (e.g. the actual reflectivity of clouds noted above, and the differing gradient between snow-covered evergreen trees in the north in winter, and uncovered evergreens in the summer) They fail to account for changes and effects of solar flares, and the radiation generated from them. [ed. They do account for these factors, only the original models were flawed in this manner ]

With the molten core of earth the heat generated is either ignored in some models, or treated as a constant, which we know it’s not. The models also fail to account for the effects of volcano input into the atmosphere,[ed: current models do account for this upon further research, and IPCC reports have been adjusted accordingly ] the >30,000 undersea volcanoes that have melted ice shelves and have potential to locally heat oceans, affecting currents and flow, and they fail to account for the rise and fall of land. Along with this there are new theories about the processes at the core of the earth, solar flares also have potential to impact those.

[Editor Update: In a new article that follows last June’s Nature article that details the carbon sink effect of deep ocean realms, scientists are researching large “carbon burps” that occurred after ice ages. This adds to a pet cocktail party theory of mine: as weight from glacial ice deposits on large land masses is redistributed to oceans, what are the effects to tectonic plates, and shifts in earth’s mantle? Do we see shifts and new rifts, rises in undersea vulcanism? Could that be the cause of the burps as opposed to sea current shifts as the article proposes, or do they both contribute?]

They totally ignore chemical and electro chemical reaction except for man-made ones to my understanding

With biological warming they again treat it almost as a constant, using the roughest of guesstimates to build their models.

Only with man-made input do they have any real data, so that’s where they focus rather than really researching the larger heat engines.

All models of trends carried to extremes without attention paid to compensating factors end up being flat wrong, as were the “standing room only” population models, and the models of scarcity presented by the Club of Rome in the sixties.

The problem with these models is they predict dire things and try to plot the path to the future with nihilistic skull and bones markers rather than acknowledging that the path to the future is unknown beyond the next curve in the road, and that over time humanity generally heads in the right direction without much guidance.

If Global Warming is a problem we will have decades and centuries to cope with coming effects, not years as the enviropundits and crisis mongers will tell you. The biggest danger to your personal future is the carbon credit scam, and the effects GW policy might have to your livelihood, your household, and your wallet.

3 thoughts on “Al Gore in the Twilight Zone”

  1. Why deny it, even a little? We all live here. Isn’t that like the tobacco companies paying “experts” to refute cigarette links to cancer? What’s the big deal to at least agree that something is wrong and work together to do something about it?

  2. Taylor, please explain exactly what is wrong that is caused by man. The planet was warmer in the recent medieval max, and lots colder in the maunder minimum – the polar bears did not die. If you are saying burning carbohydrates for energy is bad, I can agree with you because it puts toxic benzene compounds in the air. If you are saying we need to panic because everytime we exhale we are contributing to global warming, then we have a discussion.

  3. Got it!

    Hunt for the keys to global warming WHERE THERE’S LIGHT, instead of where the keys are, LOST IN DARKNESS….

    O Gaia! Preserve us from Lunar Gorelicks! Their inconvenient truths are too Gorey!

Comments are closed.