View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth
Secretariat
08-15-2006, 10:20 PM
Just saw the movie. Very powerful. Suggest posters see it, especially Lefty.
JustRalph
08-15-2006, 11:14 PM
Just saw the movie. Very powerful. Suggest posters see it, especially Lefty.
yeah right, I will stop everything and run right out............. :bang:
GameTheory
08-15-2006, 11:43 PM
I recently watched on TV "Global Warming: What You Need To Know" with Tom Brokaw -- 2 hour special. It was billed as separating the fact from fiction and letting you decide. It was a total doomsday propaganda piece. Guess how many dissenting opinons were presented so I could "decide for myself"?
ZERO. Barely a mention that there were even dissenters at all.
How many counter-arguments does Al Gore bring up in his piece to convince us of "the truth"?
chickenhead
08-15-2006, 11:55 PM
I haven't seen Inconvenient Truth, but agree on the Brokaw piece...I kept waiting for some more in depth analysis, but it was largely a scare piece. Though I did think it was interesting that a pretty large number of the climatologists they talked to said up until a few years ago, most of them thought it was due to the natural cycle we were in.
I need to get off my hump and read up on this some more. What I really want to find is a graph (from whoever is predicting the 4 degree C upswing this century) of carbon release vs. temp rise:
If we continue unabated, temp will be +X
If we stay at this level, temp will be +Y
If we reduce by 30%, temp will be +Z
rastajenk
08-16-2006, 05:06 AM
And then it needs to be proven that +Z is better than +X or +Y.
Secretariat
08-16-2006, 08:18 AM
I think the most interesting parts of the film was the analysis of ice from Anarctica which measures the temperature of the earth and CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years. Another interesting part was the recent collapse of huge pieces of ice off Anarctica flooding parts of the southern hemisphere causing relocation of people from certain islands. The other is based on scientific peer review studies versus popular press perceptions.
I'm not going to get into the movie here, except to say, some will not like it because it is Al Gore, and parts of the movie deal with why he does this, and his family history and its effects on why he spends so much time on this. The rest is a lecture he's done over a thousand times worldwide.
You may not like but it can't help you but think about the issue based on a great deal of scientific research. I beleive Lefty needs to see this more than anyone as it pretty much knocks every argument he's ever made here on global warming to its knees.
melman
08-16-2006, 11:01 AM
I have seen the movie it's a one sided filled with half-truths rant. The main aim IMHO is to keep Al Gore in the spotlight. Mr Gore is so concerned about the issue that his two homes in Washington DC COULD be converted to wind power as MANY other homes in the area have been. But NOT Mr Gore's two homes. The cost is an extra 2c per Kilowatt hour. When a Gore spokesperson was contacted about this they said "we are looking into converting" :jump:
Lefty
08-16-2006, 12:32 PM
I'm about as anxious to see this movie as I was Moore's movie of lies, opinions and half-truths. Someone, not I, provided a link to a real climate scientist debunking this movie.
They've predicted rain in Vegas for 3 weeks. Not a drop yet. I'm supposed to blve these guys know what they're doing?
Gore wrote his book before he was VP. What did he and Clinton ever do to stop global warming they blved was imminent. Did Clinton sign the Kyoto treaty? Now you expect GW to make it all better. Unblvble, guys, simply un...
But when this movie comes on my Direct TV, i'll take a look, and i'll take notes.
I think the most interesting parts of the film was the analysis of ice from Anarctica which measures the temperature of the earth and CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sec, what happened to all the ice that covered North America?
Sec, what happened to all the ice that covered North America?
:lol::lol::lol:
The enviro-wackos neglect to consider NATURE.
No matter what WE do, nature will take it's course.
No matter what anyone thinks, WE are part of nature.
Sec would have us kill all the cows because they......pffft!
Agree GT- waste of 2 hours - Tom Brokehaw riding his popularity instead of science.
Secretariat
08-16-2006, 07:06 PM
I'm about as anxious to see this movie as I was Moore's movie of lies, opinions and half-truths. Someone, not I, provided a link to a real climate scientist debunking this movie. ...
Lefty, if I mail you the admission price for you and your children will you attend it?
Lefty
08-16-2006, 09:45 PM
sec, a generous offer, to be sure, but for a coupl of reasons i must decline.
But does he blve humans are involved global warming? If so, how does he explain the global warming on other planets? Why did he and Clinton do nothing about it?
I'll catch it on direct tv. Prob be avail in about a mo.
Thanks, though.
You pay the tickets prices, I'll borrow some kids to take. Popcorn included?
I'll just tell them all it is a cartoon. We can go throw the empty drink cupos and popcorn box alongside the interstate - Ill tell them it creates jobs for road maintenance crews.
I think $7 a piece will cover it! :lol:
PS...if it is full, can we go see Superman Returns? I'll tell them Lex Luthor drives and SUV!
Sec I think the most interesting parts of the film was the analysis of ice from Anarctica which measures the temperature of the earth and CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1362736.ece
Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years
I think this supports the case for human activity raising CO2 levels
melman
09-06-2006, 07:49 AM
Take a look at co2science.org and read the tons of information that Gore and company ignore. Is co2 a harmful air pollutant or is it an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer. 60 Minutes shows ice falling and calls it "we now have showed you global warming". Typical of 60 minutes and CBS "information".
Melman,
Look at the evidence that humans are increasing CO2 levels.
There is no question CO2 traps heat, the question has been are we responsible.
From the article I linked
"The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.
.."Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
"We have a no-analogue situation. We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.
From co2science.org the site you mention
http://data.co2science.org/tmp/060906053056.gif
880-2005 Temperature Time Series
Latitude Range -90 to 90, Longitude Range -180 to 180
(from the Global Historical Climatology Network dataset)
melman
09-06-2006, 08:21 AM
All I ask is for you to read the content on the site. Is the rise in co2 levels a bad thing?? Please Hcap I respect your posts but look at the site for more than a few minutes.
melman
09-06-2006, 08:30 AM
"The climantic interpretation of our evidence and other evidence of Antartic climate trends in the last 20 years or more is NOT obvious". The evidence does NOT support climate alarmist claims of concominant and "unprecendented" CO2 induced global warming.
Does this include this latest study that I quoted?
Mel, give me a specific link. Many articles. I used their interactive chart set up to create that graph. My assumption all along has been that global warming is dangerous and harmful to humans, and that the real controversy has been are humans contributing?
Question, are you and these guys saying global warming is good?
And that the effects are not to be worried about?
melman
09-06-2006, 08:51 AM
Hcap
There is so much material at the site I would not know where to begin. You can purchase for a $12 donation the DVD "The Greening of Planet Earth" The science people at the site are saying that the increase CO2 levels may not be a bad thing. There is plenty of debate on this subject unlike what is given as "fact" in Gore's movie. A LARGER increase in Global temps occured in medival times yet mankind is still around. The earth HAS gotten warmer in the last 200 years that is NOT the debate but what effect that has had in the past and what effect wil it have in the future. It's a very interesting topic and one NOT presented in a scientific way by the Gore film.
Lefty
09-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Sec
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1362736.ece
Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years
I think this supports the case for human activity raising CO2 levels
MY GOD, WHY DIDN'T CLINTON AND GORE DO SOMETHING!
GameTheory
09-06-2006, 12:47 PM
How do we know that rising CO2 levels CAUSE rising temperature; instead of the other way around?
The chicken and the egg?
I agree this is a cyclic phenomenom. Cause and effect is difficult to seperate.
However the physics of the greenhouse effect is well known and apparently the human contribution to the cycle is increasing the rate of global warming. Like throwing in a few liters into an existing whirlpool, increasing the rate of circulation.
Ok if temperature is first in this recent cycle, what is the mechanism? Solar ouput increase, volcanic activity, or a more complex set of events?
GameTheory
09-06-2006, 03:58 PM
The chicken and the egg?
I agree this is a cyclic phenomenom. Cause and effect is difficult to seperate.
However the physics of the greenhouse effect is well known and apparently the human contribution to the cycle is increasing the rate of global warming. Like throwing in a few liters into an existing whirlpool, increasing the rate of circulation.
Ok if temperature is first in this recent cycle, what is the mechanism? Solar ouput increase, volcanic activity, or a more complex set of events?Beats me, but they always show this graph of the correlation between CO2 and temperature as if that shows that increasing CO2 will raise temperature. Now maybe at a very fine level of detail you can actually see one come before the other. If CO2 is the problem, then you'd see the CO2 be elevated a few decades or more ahead of the temperature.
I'll have to check on that. Does the book version of "Inconvenient Truth" have lots of charts and graphs? This would be easier for me to research if Al Gore didn't give me hives. I don't think I could watch his movie if I wanted to because I am physically unable to listen to Al Gore anymore -- I've reached my lifetime tolerance.
I'd really like to get on the global warming bandwagon just to make things easier on myself, but I can never find any real compelling evidence that totally convinces me. So much of what usual gang of global warming doomsday predictors -- I see the same 4 or 5 guys interviewed in every show about this -- are so obviously intellectually dishonest. Al Gore of course has a long and well-documented history of lying about anything he thinks will raise his profile so I can't trust him. And the scientists often say things like, "The critics of global warming theory have a financial interest in doing so" without mentioning of course that they themselves ALSO HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST in promoting the global warming idea. Plus they never answer the criticisms -- they only say "There is no real debate." If that were the case, I would think it would be pretty easy to put those criticisms to rest since the critics would have nothing to stand on.
Scientists have a long history of being wrong about just about everything, after all. I love science, but I like to see a theory make it through at least two generations of scientists before we can trust it too much. I realize in this case time is an issue, but then so was the impending new ice age they were predicting just 30 years ago, the population bomb, etc etc. Just because they all say so right now means nothing to me, and history has shown that it shouldn't mean anything.
So where to turn for answers when the skeptics bring up pretty valid sounding arguments to my layman ears and the majority doesn't respond?
Steve 'StatMan'
09-06-2006, 04:14 PM
I'm trying to refrain from posting too much in off-topic for a while, but I couldn't resist sharing this cartoon I saw today - State Of The Union 9/6/06
http://www.comics.com/creators/union/archive/union-20060906.html
kenwoodallpromos
09-06-2006, 04:57 PM
"* Cattle emit methane, another greenhouse gas, through belching and
flatulation. Scientists estimate that more than 500 million tons of
methane are released each year and that the world's 1.3 billion cattle
and other ruminant livestock emit approximately 60 million tons or 12
percent of the total from all sources. Methane is a serious problem
because ****one methane molecule traps 25 times as much solar heat as a
molecule of CO2.[19]"
Ken. you are right methane is a contributing factor
Game TheoryIf CO2 is the problem, then you'd see the CO2 be elevated a few decades or more ahead of the temperature.Leading indicators are not clear because of the cylic nature of the interaction between CO2 and temperature. Going back to the whirlpool analogy, if a steady stream of small amounts of CO2 gasses (and don't forget methane a human farming and industrial gas and well as other industrial gasses) is added, and in fact at an increasing rate,it is difficult to see cause and effect-leading indicators. But if you look at a much larger time scale, as demononstrated by the article I posted
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1362736.ece
There are a few things that stand out--
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
"We have a no-analogue situation. We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.
BTW
One gallon of gas weighs about 6.25 pounds
Converts to approx 19.3 pounds CO2 and roughly 8 pounds of water vapor
*Water vapor may contribute somewhat to the greenhouse effect
From Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases
The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time. Human activity raises levels of greenhouse gases primarily by releasing carbon dioxide, but human influences on other gases, e.g. methane, are not negligible. Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include:
* burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations;
* livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane;
* use of CFCs in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
*In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached.
Another natural mechanism as argued by the skeptics should, be I think, easily observable. to be an alternative explanation.
PlanB
09-06-2006, 05:11 PM
Walk more, drive less. Produce cleaner gasoline. Recycle more. Make
more energy-efficient household & mfg gadgets. Raise thermostats by
2 degrees in summer & lower by 2 degrees in winter. Encourage rapid,
efficient public transportation. Up solar & wind power. These are all practical
and non-obstrusive things that would reduce CO2 production & maybe
reduce rising temperatures -- and maybe, maybe water vapor levels too.
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
What is the natural range? And of course we don't know what will happen next. But AlGore does. What a crock.
We know but we don't know. Which is it?
From the article...
The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.
"It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.
The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.
But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
So now it's Earth Systems. I thought it was about ice melting. What are the Earth Systems? How do we know the systems can't cope? It's only been 200 years out of what, 800,000. More words that don't go together.
Snag,
You asked "What is the natural range?
I told you.
Earth systems I believe refer to natural buffering by the earths atmosphere, oceans and flora and fauna, acheiving maybe not equilibrium per se, but a slowing of abrupt changes.
Not counting such events as large impacts by comets, etc, or an abrupt change in the earths axis.
Hey Snag, maybe we was knocked slightly off orbit by the Tsunga meteor in Siberia back in the 1920s. And maybe the meteor was really composed of frozen setzer-as youse know selzer iz just filled with lots of CO2.
Hows dat. I bet Gore never even thought of it.
46zilzal
09-06-2006, 06:57 PM
So now it's Earth Systems. I thought it was about ice melting It's only been 200 years out of what, 800,000. More words that don't go together.
there has not been the pressure of the population during that time.
Go back to school and take Ecology 101. There are some answers. Living systems do not live in isolation.
Also remember a great old Jewish proverb: "Don't shit where you eat."
Q? for the great lib minds here.....DILLIGAS? :lol:
When you guys are willing to not give China a pass on Kyoko regulations, give me a call. Until them, it is all poltics.
BTW....where the HELL are all those hurricanes that GW causes?
Lefty
09-06-2006, 09:27 PM
This sounds all so familiar. Oh yeah, Ted Danson and other whackos told us 20 yrs ago we only had 10 yrs left cause our Oceans couldn't cope. Hmmmm...
".....What are the Earth Systems?......"
__________
On average, in the 50's their were more powerful hurricanes than there are today. But if one were to massage the facts......
the sky is falling!
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/060906_170001explora.MP3
Outsource congress.
there has not been the pressure of the population during that time.
Go back to school and take Ecology 101. There are some answers. Living systems do not live in isolation.
Also remember a great old Jewish proverb: "Don't shit where you eat."
We are part of nature. Would you tell an owl not to shit in the woods?
What about our rights. Whatever WE do is natural, by definition. Pollution is natural.
kenwoodallpromos
09-06-2006, 11:26 PM
Tiznow's "daddy", John Harris (CHRB board member) has 100,000 head of cattle!
Send him a nasty email and tell him to become a veggie guy!
More on metane.
Game Theory, this may be a leading indicator.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2402638
Methane a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide is being released from the permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study being published Thursday in the journal Nature. The findings are based on new, more accurate measuring techniques.
..Scientists worry about a global warming vicious cycle that was not part of their already gloomy climate forecast: Warming already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.
melman
09-07-2006, 08:31 AM
"Gloomy climate forecast" made by SOME scientists which others say is derived from computer genereated models which have been PROVEN to be extremly unreliable. CO2 was the "flavor of the day" yesterday and now it's methane which is of course 23 times more powerful that CO2. :jump: The whole concept of "thawed permafrost" is also not a given as to cause and even if this has not occured due to factors unrelated to any so called global warming. Let's not "rush to judgement" on this like the Gore film does. Saying that "something must be done in the next 10 to 20 years or mankind will no longer be alive in 100 years" is just not proven. Not even close.
Melman, this what I posted yesterday. Notice methane...
Leading indicators are not clear because of the cylic nature of the interaction between CO2 and temperature. Going back to the whirlpool analogy, if a steady stream of small amounts of CO2 gasses (and don't forget methane a human farming and industrial gas and well as other industrial gasses) is added, and in fact at an increasing rate,it is difficult to see cause and effect-leading indicators
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases
The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time. Human activity raises levels of greenhouse gases primarily by releasing carbon dioxide, but human influences on other gases, e.g. methane, are not negligible. Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include:
* burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations;
* livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane;
* use of CFCs in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
I was specifically pointing out a cyclic chain of cause and effect, and that is was difficult to find a "leading indicator" that would demonstrate greenhouse gasses as cause in recent cycles.
This article about methane may be it
GameTheory
09-07-2006, 11:26 AM
And there's the problem. They want to change the lifestyle of EVERYONE IN THE WORLD to reduce CO2 (starving many to death in the short-term), and then oops, it's methane! What about good old water vapor, also a greenhouse gas at levels many factors of magnitude greater than CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is basically nil compared to WATER, which according to the theory has the same effects! (One scientist said something like, "We shouldn't talk about water vapor even though it has the largest impact because humans can't control it." Essentially he was saying we can't scare people with water vapor so let's no mention it EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE.)
Last week they discovered the ocean was way cooler than it is supposed to be based on their projections -- oops!
But don't worry -- they know just what is going to happen in 100 hundred years.
Even if they are right about global warming in a general sense, there can be no doubt that their hysteria is generating a lot of overstatements about it.
46zilzal
09-07-2006, 11:58 AM
a review says it all.
Secretariat
09-07-2006, 12:16 PM
...Even if they are right about global warming in a general sense, there can be no doubt that their hysteria is generating a lot of overstatements about it.
I guess the difficult thing I am having trouble understanding is that the administration says on the war on terror, we can't afford to be wrong even once. However, with the war on global warming, the approach is we can't afford to be right even once.
OTM Al
09-07-2006, 12:26 PM
I don't know what the truth is on this issue and I'm not sure anyone is 100% right, but it still makes me think that trying to do some conservation and trying to find alternate sorces of energy can't be a bad thing with or without the global warming boogeyman. I do know we have managed to wipe out species of plant and animal life from the planet and that is not a good thing. I do know that pollutants we have put into the environment have sickened and killed many people and that is not a good thing. So whether or not this whole global warming thing is true, I still think many of the recommendations that have been made are worthwhile.
GameTheory
09-07-2006, 12:29 PM
I guess the difficult thing I am having trouble understanding is that the administration says on the war on terror, we can't afford to be wrong even once. However, with the war on global warming, the approach is we can't afford to be right even once.What does the adminstration have to do with whether something is true or not? You'd understand a lot of things a lot better if you didn't look at EVERYTHING through the filter of the Bush adminstration. Do you consider what George Bush thinks when you handicap horses?
I'll bet Sec won't handicap any thing that is close to the old "bush league" tracks...lol.
46zilzal
09-07-2006, 02:37 PM
I'll bet Sec won't handicap any thing that is close to the old "bush league" tracks...lol.
Ever wonder about expressions ringing true? BUSH LEAGUE has lots of current evidence to back it up as accurate.
The yeas vs the nays. Not even close.
Almost like the so-called debate over evolution. And in both there may be larger forces at play, but the underlying mechanisms of both theories are supported overwhellingmingly by the workers in each respective field
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The Scientific consensus
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
...IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
melman
09-07-2006, 02:49 PM
"War on Global Warming" :jump: I guess Al Gore forgot to join the War, he is still "considering" his options on his two homes in Washington DC being converted to wind power.
melman
09-07-2006, 03:32 PM
Not even close Hcap
Donald Baker --Emeritus Professor Dept of Soil Water and Climate U of Minnesota Member ASA AAAS
W Dennis Clark Professor of Plant Biology Arizona State
Sylvan Wittwer --Professor of Horticulture and Director Emeritus of Michigan State Agricultral Experiment Station. World Authority on Greenhouse Crop Production.
I could go on and on and on but the group you sited would just love to be taken as a "given" with no debate and the "we know more" argument.
Sorry No Sale.
Secretariat
09-13-2006, 09:25 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_sc/warming_sea_ice;_ylt=Au3kZkk7K7kZN.DuG_xaMptrAlMA; _ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Arctic ice melting rapidly, study says
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Arctic sea ice in winter is melting far faster than before, two new NASA studies reported Wednesday, a new and alarming trend that researchers say threatens the ocean's delicate ecosystem.
Scientists point to the sudden and rapid melting as a sure sign of man-made global warming.
"It has never occurred before in the past," said NASA senior research scientist Josefino Comiso in a phone interview. "It is alarming... This winter ice provides the kind of evidence that it is indeed associated with the greenhouse effect."
Scientists have long worried about melting Arcticsea ice in the summer, but they had not seen a big winter drop in sea ice, even though they expected it.
For more than 25 years Arctic sea ice has slowly diminished in winter by about 1.5 percent per decade. But in the past two years the melting has occurred at rates 10 to 15 times faster.
....
The latest findings are "coming more in line with what we expected to find," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're starting to see a much more coherent and firm picture occurring."
"I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he added.
Serreze said only five years ago he was "a fence-sitter" on the issue of whether man-made global warming was happening and a threat, but he said recent evidence in the Arctic has him convinced.
...
"I for one, after having studied this for 20 years, have never seen anything like this before," Serreze said.
Show Me the Wire
09-13-2006, 09:28 PM
Darn that Red China all that intense focus on industrialization and fossil fuel consumption.
Show Me the Wire
09-13-2006, 09:41 PM
SETH BORENSTEIN isn't he the creator of the Family Guy. One funny toon.
melman
09-13-2006, 10:13 PM
Study published in August 2006 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research by four Dutch Scientists, W J Van De Berg, M R Van De Broeke, C H Reijmer and E Van Meijgaard "Study of Artartic Ice Sheet Mass GAIN"
The surface mass balance integrated over the grounded ice sheet EXCEEDS previous estimates by as much as 15%.
I note that in this report by SCIENTISTS not one of them was quoted as saying "see I told you so".
keilan
09-13-2006, 10:19 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_sc/warming_sea_ice;_ylt=Au3kZkk7K7kZN.DuG_xaMptrAlMA; _ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Arctic ice melting rapidly, study says
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Arctic sea ice in winter is melting far faster than before, two new NASA studies reported Wednesday, a new and alarming trend that researchers say threatens the ocean's delicate ecosystem.
Scientists point to the sudden and rapid melting as a sure sign of man-made global warming.
"It has never occurred before in the past," said NASA senior research scientist Josefino Comiso in a phone interview. "It is alarming... This winter ice provides the kind of evidence that it is indeed associated with the greenhouse effect."
Scientists have long worried about melting Arcticsea ice in the summer, but they had not seen a big winter drop in sea ice, even though they expected it.
For more than 25 years Arctic sea ice has slowly diminished in winter by about 1.5 percent per decade. But in the past two years the melting has occurred at rates 10 to 15 times faster.
....
The latest findings are "coming more in line with what we expected to find," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're starting to see a much more coherent and firm picture occurring."
"I hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he added.
Serreze said only five years ago he was "a fence-sitter" on the issue of whether man-made global warming was happening and a threat, but he said recent evidence in the Arctic has him convinced.
...
"I for one, after having studied this for 20 years, have never seen anything like this before," Serreze said.
This is a serious problem but most Americans could care less. Polar bears are drowning out at sea because the ice flows have melted. There are all kinds of ramifications to some of the world’s most beautiful animals. The Inuit people of the region will lose their ability to live off the land because of irresponsible governments. China, Russia and the USA are not friends of the North.
bigmack
09-13-2006, 11:02 PM
most Americans could care less.
China, Russia and the USA are not friends of the North.
Better throw Ontario in there as well Einstein
In a report from the NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Ontario was the third-worst polluting state or province in both Canada and the United States
keilan
09-14-2006, 08:58 AM
You have your nose in every thread, is this a contest for you? Is google search your best friend?
I have yet to read anything intelligent from you, you remind of a li’l girl trying to fit in somewhere. :lol:
Secretariat
09-14-2006, 02:00 PM
Study published in August 2006 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research by four Dutch Scientists, W J Van De Berg, M R Van De Broeke, C H Reijmer and E Van Meijgaard "Study of Artartic Ice Sheet Mass GAIN"
The surface mass balance integrated over the grounded ice sheet EXCEEDS previous estimates by as much as 15%.
I note that in this report by SCIENTISTS not one of them was quoted as saying "see I told you so".
The article I posted was from a NASA study. Are you saying they are not scientists? Sometime read NASA scientist James Hansen's research on this issue.
melman
09-14-2006, 02:08 PM
I worry when I see a sceintist allowing himself to be quoted as saying "see I told you so" what's next " my daddy can beat up your daddy" And what are you saying Sec that the Journal of Geophysical Research article was not done by sceintists? Sometime read that publication.
Secretariat
09-14-2006, 02:20 PM
I worry when I see a sceintist allowing himself to be quoted as saying "see I told you so" what's next " my daddy can beat up your daddy" And what are you saying Sec that the Journal of Geophysical Research article was not done by sceintists? Sometime read that publication.
What am I saying? I'm saying that when NASA studies funded by taxpayers and done by NASA scientists say the ice is melting, and James Hansen of NASA who is considered one of the most reputable scientist in the world says there is without question global warming I tend to beleive it. As to the Journal of Geophysical Research article, I will look it up. God knows, I don't know if it is an oil companty funded magazine or legit. After all we have groups like the Taxpayers Alliance, which sounds good, but it's in reality a right wing funded group. Do you have a link to their peirodical's website as all I get is a link saying this is invalid.
melman
09-14-2006, 02:48 PM
You Sec a strong supporter of NASA ??? who would have thunk a government agency. Your internet savvy do a search on any of the engines and type in Journal of Geophysical Research. And now you would like to attack them as "an oil company funded group" Maybe those Dutch science people were bought off. Seems to be your answer for anyone who does not agree with your view. I'm still in shock however Sec that you quote NASA remember they are the ones who "staged" moon landings with the help of hollywood and in reality no man from the US has ever walked on the moon. Opps sorry that was a few years ago conspiracy.
keilan
09-14-2006, 02:55 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/11/08/arcticmelt041108.html
Foreign ministers of the eight-nation Arctic Council, which includes Canada and the United States, are due to meet to discuss the report on Nov. 24 in Reykjavik. But there are reports of deep divisions on the council on environmental issues and on treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which the U.S. has declined to support.
Secretariat
09-14-2006, 07:35 PM
You Sec a strong supporter of NASA ??? who would have thunk a government agency. Your internet savvy do a search on any of the engines and type in Journal of Geophysical Research. And now you would like to attack them as "an oil company funded group" Maybe those Dutch science people were bought off. Seems to be your answer for anyone who does not agree with your view. I'm still in shock however Sec that you quote NASA remember they are the ones who "staged" moon landings with the help of hollywood and in reality no man from the US has ever walked on the moon. Opps sorry that was a few years ago conspiracy.
In other words you couldn't find the link either.
melman
09-15-2006, 12:17 AM
Not able to link as the full article sells for $9.00 If you want an abstract of the article I can send that to you via e-mail. Would need your e-mail via a PM.
PaceAdvantage
09-15-2006, 02:07 AM
You have your nose in every thread, is this a contest for you? Is google search your best friend?
I have yet to read anything intelligent from you, you remind of a li’l girl trying to fit in somewhere. :lol:
I have a feeling if I held a sweepstakes called "Moderator for a Day" I would get ZERO contestants.....it's such a thankless job.....you guys are NOT making it easy for me lately....
keilan
09-15-2006, 10:12 AM
I have a feeling if I held a sweepstakes called "Moderator for a Day" I would get ZERO contestants.....it's such a thankless job.....you guys are NOT making it easy for me lately....
The guy is stalking me PA I'm just trying to shake him...........
He reads all my old posts then recites bits and pieces of them, heck he even PM'ed me. The guy is - well rather boorish and it might be time to drop the big iggy on him. :lol:
I’m sure we just about have it worked out and you won’t have to come to his defense any longer :jump: :jump:
bigmack
09-15-2006, 01:04 PM
T it might be time to drop the big iggy on him.
Oh Paaalease. Being from Edmondton your only defense would be to bore me to death.:sleeping::sleeping:
I think it's time for you to make more ice - Bye bye
http://www.speeds-cartoons.com/animations/icemakers.gif
PaceAdvantage
09-16-2006, 12:36 AM
On-topic the next post should be, or closed this thread becomes.....
use the force....
Secretariat
09-20-2006, 08:21 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060920/sc_afp/climatewarmingarctic_060920111816
Scientists shocked as Arctic polar route emerges
Wed Sep 20, 7:18 AM ET
PARIS (AFP) - European scientists voiced shock as they showed pictures which showed Arctic ice cover had disappeared so much last month that a ship could sail unhindered from Europe's most northerly outpost to the North Pole itself.
The satellite images were acquired from August 23 to 25 by instruments aboard Envisat and EOS Aqua, two satellites operated by the European Space Agency (ESA).
Perennial sea ice -- thick ice that is normally present year-round and is not affected by the Arctic summer -- had disappeared over an area bigger than the British Isles, ESA said.
Vast patches of ice-free sea stretched north of Svalbard, an archipelago lying midway between Norway and the North Ple, and extended deep into the Russian Arctic, all the way to the North Pole, the agency said in a press release.
"This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low-ice seasons," said Mark Drinkwater of ESA's Oceans/Ice Unit.
"It is highly imaginable that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or Northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty."
.......
It looks like Henry Hudson was a little too early in looking for a northwest passage.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
"With An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594865671), the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them."
Lefty
09-20-2006, 10:41 PM
wow, Tom, 25 inconvenient truths...for the liberals!
rastajenk
09-21-2006, 01:01 AM
There is nothing in the polar ice story that suggests man had a hand in the changes.
Whereas towards the end of the story is a reference to other changes that could result from this, there is nothing that suggests said changes would necessarily be bad. They would just be changes.
melman
09-21-2006, 01:40 PM
On Hcap's post #49 he shows an article in science mag.org by NAOMI ORESKES which leads one to think that the global warming views of the Gore film are receiving "overwhelming support" that the large random sample of articles on the subject were limited to 928 when in fact there where more than 12,000 check item number 24 in Tom's post which shows an article from the national review. Mr Gore goes beyond even half truth he is in the area of outright deception.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.