backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 111 comment(s) - last by Tyler 86.. on Dec 21 at 2:52 PM
The former Vice President doesn't want damning Global Warming evidence buried in review

Al Gore spoke at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco last week, encouraging scientists to become “far more active in directly communicating to the American people about the meaning of [their] research.”

Gore's statement comes after a December 12 report in Geophysical Research Letters that the yearly Arctic ice-melt, which occurs in September, will decrease arctic ice-caps from 6 million km^2 to 2 million km^2 in the next ten years, and that the area could be nearly ice-free by 2040. Data from the report also suggest that greenhouse gas emissions, or the reduction thereof, will “moderate the likelihood of these events.”

After his speech, Gore told the BBC, "We now face a climate crisis without any precedent in all of history and it's imperative that those who have the best evidence of what's occurring spread the knowledge beyond the small discipline in which these studies are usually disseminated... It's time for scientists to play a different role in asserting the value of scientific insight and defending the integrity of the scientific process,” Gore told his large, Earth-scientist audience.

Gore referred to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which has documented hundreds of cases where government officials have interfered in scientific research and publications that contained findings different from the ideals of the administration. The UCS issued a report last week, signed by over 10,000 “Outraged Scientists” nation-wide, that condemns “political interference in science” and “calls for the restoration of scientific integrity to policymaking.”

The former U.S. Vice President is not a scientist, and some people think his anti-Global Warming campaign is ridiculous. However, most scientists agree that Global Warming is occurring via greenhouse gas mechanisms, and that Global Warming is a threat to existence, as we know it.

Gore pointed to the public’s dependence on televised media as exasperating the Global Warming problem. This is because watching TV leads to a shorter attention span, especially in young children. This shorter attention span leads to a lack of forward thinking. "We have somehow persuaded ourselves that we don't have to concern ourselves much about what we are doing to future generations,” said Gore. “The well-informed citizenry has become the well-entertained audience.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Nyne on 12/17/2006 10:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is that we have no freaking idea what earth is suppose to be like. We only know maybe the past 100-200 years maybe it currently is in a crippled state and is restoring itself. One thing I do know is that things use to live hundreds of years and now other than plants it’s rare if anything lives past 100 let alone hundreds. Yes we need to clean up after ourselves and stop making messes but the earth "pollutes" itself more naturally than what we do and I doubt they can prove its man alone who is making the ice melt and not the earth.




RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Tamale on 12/17/2006 11:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
you're right.. it will probably never be 'proven'..

but when data statically shows us that nothing has ever changed as rapidly as it has in the past couple decades, you really think we don't have something to do with that?


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By person462 on 12/18/2006 12:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, show me any evidence there is such a thing as global warming.

Side note: Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific data, so no one should ever take him seriously.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By datenderizer on 12/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By person462 on 12/18/2006 2:44:42 AM , Rating: 1
There is no proof. So what the polar ice caps are melting. Hundreds of years ago the used to farm on Greenland. And this theory that the ice caps melting will rise the water levels resulting in catastrophic events is total BS. What happens if you have a glass of water and you put an ice cube in it. After the ice cube melt the water level is exactly the same. So please show me proof i am curious. And I'm not against cleaning up the environment, i just think global warming is a bunch of crap.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Sunrise089 on 12/18/2006 3:14:05 AM , Rating: 3
The Greenland reference is 100% correct - read Jarred Diamond's (a supporter of global warming by the way) book Collapse to find out about it.

The whole problem with global warming is that scientists are taking a legitimate issue (how much should we alter our lives to protect the environment) that they care about, but is more of a value judgement, and trying to throw some bogus science on it in order to let their personal opinion of environmental protection be given the illusion of scientific truth. It's the great scam of our time, and unethical to the extreme. The numbers are terribly shaky, the consequences are totally blown out of proportion, and contradictory evidence is totally supressed under the notion that its automatically invalid unless it supports the global warming theory. Have you ever noticed the media's obsession with statements like "the debate is over, all scientists agree" while they seem totally unable to provide any actual numbers to support their position.

Read Michael Crichton's State of Fear and then fact-check it. His opinion is EASILY as informed as publicity hound Al Gore.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By person462 on 12/18/2006 3:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
So glad some one intelligent agrees with me.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Samus on 12/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2006 7:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
As I recall last winter was extremely cold so whats your point. Sometime you have a warm winter. There's been a number of snow storms this year in the US as well already and the coldest months aren't even here yet.

The earth might be warming a little, but I don't think man has that much to do with it. Volcanoes dump far more crap into the atmosphere every year than we could ever hope to. Besides, we're producing far far less pollution now than we were in 1900(at least in the US and Europe). If the climate was going to change from pollution, don't you think it would have started around 1920? Not 1990.


By Korvon on 12/18/2006 12:05:12 PM , Rating: 3
I refer to a previous DT article...

http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5349


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By jugbander on 12/18/2006 12:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Good thing scientific inquiry doesn't involve impressionistic analysis of the weather. Global warming doesn't mean that temperatures are going to increase in every region of the earth each year. However, if the arctic ice melts you will notice a difference because the earth's ability to regulate its temperature will be reduced.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 1:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
> Global warming doesn't mean that temperatures are going to increase in every region of the earth..."

No, it primarily means an increase in the coldest parts of the planet...the tropics are not seeing an increase, and some hot areas are even cooling slightly.

Overall, this is a net benefit for mankind, as it leads to a more temperate planet, longer growing seasons, and many other benefits. Recent research has shown that global warming may increase decrease severe storm activity, as such weather is driven not by raw temperatures, but by temperature differentials between regions.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2006 6:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
While true, it also means more bugs that can kill said vegetation. Freezes help kill eggs of bugs like mosquitoes and such. When they're not killed, places like Florida have to spend more to fight off insects eating citrus fruits.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 6:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming isn't impacting subtropic regions...the vast majority of the warming will be in the coldest parts of the Earth. And since the current predictions are for only a couple degrees of warming, I wouldn't expect any major insect infestations to swarm over Canada or Northern Europe...but I'm sure you might be able to introduce a few Hollywood producers in making a movie about it anyway.


By Tyler 86 on 12/21/2006 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
They've already done it before the cause of global warming was introduced to them, no need for a rehash of the same old stuff.

A few degrees in one direction right now, a few degrees in another direction some time else... It's the Earth and the Sun, baby... we're doing a funny little dance with no repeating pattern. Mr. Hawking has the right idea, we need to just spread out to ensure our survival incasesh**.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inc...


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By otispunkmeyer on 12/18/2006 4:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
thats becaause ice takes up more volume than the liquid form would take

its why we sometimes have problems of house bricks crumbling over winter. water gets in, then when it freezes, expands putting pressure on the brick. usually the face of the brick crumbles off.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:35:36 AM , Rating: 3
> "thats becaause ice takes up more volume than the liquid form would take.."

Floating ice displaces exactly the same volume as would an equivalent amount of water. Thus, should the arctic ice cap melt entirely, it would result in zero change to sea level.

Antarctic ice is a different matter, as much of it is on rock shelf and thus not floating. However, the Antarctic has been steadily losing ice mass for the past 7,000 years. While it continues to do so today, there has been zero evidence for any acceleration of that process.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By datenderizer on 12/18/2006 12:41:05 PM , Rating: 1
well your a douche bag for thinking global warming is crap, the earth is heating up, the ocean temperatures are rising, the ice caps are melting, the earth IS heating up, now the cause... hmm how about the constant burning of fossil fuels releasing tons and tons of carbon dioxide that end up absorbing more and more solar radiation which in turns increases temperature, now the tons and tons of carbon dioxide released by man into the atmosphere wouldn't bother people like you because (douche bag speaking) "oh well Earth naturally releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other green house gases and its just a natural process" well thanks to deforestation and the obliterating of our rainforests which have the vital job of reabsorbing this excess carbon dioxide Earth has no chance of naturally catching up with its own carbon dioxide release... HUmans ARE effecting this planet in so many terrible ways that whatever natural and balanced rhythm the earth had is now in completely and direct effect of mans actions... im just amazed that people are willing to linger in this stagnating and destructive position that man has a negligible effect on earth and its lead to global warming... jeese what will it take for you guys to abandon your douche bag mentality


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 1
> "the earth is heating up..."

That's not in doubt. If if temperatures continue to rise, the earth may be almost as warm as it was hundreds of millions of years ago.

The parts that are in doubt, are a) is the warming even due to greenhouse gases at all, b) is man causing the warming? c) will it continue, and if so, for how long? And d) even should it continue, will it be beneficial or harmful for us?

> "well thanks to deforestation and the obliterating of our rainforests which have the vital job of reabsorbing this excess carbon dioxide "

By far the majority of CO2 is absorbed throughout the ocean, not forests. And while the rainforests are shrinking somewhat, more of the US is forested today than it was in 1900. Furthermore, as CO2 levels rise, so does plant growth...dramtically, in fact. That in turns acts to increase their uptake of CO2, and exerts a negative feedback effect.

People have been screaming about "man's negative effects of the earth" since the times of the Roman aqueducts. Regardless, the sky still hasn't fallen...and its not falling today.




RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By leidegre on 12/18/2006 2:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
The industrial revolution which started about 200 hundred years ago, is the major contributor to global warming, and with this, we have created the means to alter our envrionment in such drastical ways.

What you do is to compare very old events, (anything before 1700 would count) with present time, which is faulty at best. You can't simply say, "are we really causing this, isn't this natural?", the answer is no. We today posses tools, factories, and consuption habits that presure the environment like nothing before.

On top of this, extensive research has been done in the area of historic tempretaure measurements, and you know what? Today we see changes with exceed any drastic tempreture change we have seen for the last 600,000 years, more than 3 times.

Do not deny the facts that we are uniqe, and that our generation is shaping the world of tomorrow. It's up to us to take responsiblity, and do something about it.

This is NOT about forcing people to change thier ways, this is about to understand what goes on, and take part, in providing a better place for our kids!


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 2:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "The industrial revolution...is the major contributor to global warming..."

A fact which remains unproven, and is still being hotly debated by scientists. There are far more likely alternatives, especially when one considers the periods of rapid cooling we've seen in the past century alone.

> "you know what? Today we see changes with exceed any drastic tempreture change we have seen for the last 600,000 years"

False. I think you're referring to recent studies which concluded that recent temperature changes were definitely sharper than anything seen in the past 300 years, and "probably" more so than any in the past 1000 years. Even if true, such a short time span is meaningless. The Earth has been around for billions of years, and has been far colder and far hotter in the past. All without man's intervention.

> "It's up to us to take responsiblity, and do something about it."

What do you suggest we do? If we are indeed responsible, the only way we can stop it is to revert to a stone age culture...which is not only a lifestyle most people would prefer to avoid, but would also mean the death of 95% of the people on the planet.

I'll take a couple degrees of warmer weather over that any day of the week. Especially when the odds say we're responsible for little, if any, of the recent warming trend.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Kuroyama on 12/18/2006 8:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
while the rainforests are shrinking somewhat, more of the US is forested today than it was in 1900.

You might find this article interesting, although you may already be familiar with it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/12/18/timber/?m...

The key point is the following:
quote:
In the tropics, the scientists found that ... trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and evaporate water to the atmosphere increasing cloudiness, which helps cool the planet. But these effects are more than counter-balanced at higher latitudes because new tree canopies darken the earth, allowing it to absorb more sunlight and, thus, warm faster.

Well, I like trees, so I think we should go ahead and plant them anyways, but this is a curious result.


By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the tree conundrum will be borne out when you look at the entire system. They exist at higher latitudes, and don't get anything like the amount of direct sunlight that tropical trees would, and as the warming would increase, the arctic latitutudes would decrease in range, while the tropical and subtropical and temperate zones would increase, giving you a net larger zone for tropical and subtropical vegetation. I can tell you with absolute cerntainty that the area where I live has FAR FAR more trees than it had 100 or 50 years ago, due to vast areas of displaced agricultural land going back to fallow forestland, even though some of it gets developed as well.


By straycat74 on 12/19/2006 2:04:44 PM , Rating: 1
If you off yourself, there will be one less evil, polluting human on wondrous ball of gentle nature.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By jugbander on 12/18/2006 12:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Greenland's ice is on land. But the real danger of the arctic ice melting isn't the rise in sea level. It's the inhibition of the Earth's ability to distribute the sun's heat that is the problem.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 1:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're referring to theories of thermohaline circulation shutdown...which are very dicey, unproven science indeed.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By leidegre on 12/18/2006 2:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
If greenland were to melt, Amsterdam would be under water.

No tell me that isn't a problem!?


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 2:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
Having been to Amsterdam, I'd say that wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing :) In any case, Greenland is not melting and, even if it were, it's likely we're not causing it. And even if BOTH were true, the only solution would be to prevent all anthropogenic emissions entirely, a solution which would mean the death of billions of people worldwide.

I think you've missed recent news. The UN IPCC recently cut in half its estimate of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The new figure is 12 inches, over the next 100 years. Given that the ice caps have been steadily melting for at least the past 7,000 years, that's certainly not indicative of any great change.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By Kuroyama on 12/18/2006 8:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the only solution would be to prevent all anthropogenic emissions entirely, a solution which would mean the death of billions of people worldwide.

That is pretty one-sided. Are you suggesting that dunking Bangladesh under water is not going to wreak havoc and kill huge numbers of people? And that increased desertification will not cause large numbers of deaths due to starvation? Melting permafrost does not instantaneously turn into useful farmland, but will require decades if not hundreds of years to settle, so don't claim that desertification will be more than made up for with new land. There are ways to avoid most emissions without killing billions of people. For instance, would you have a problem with changing all energy generation to nuclear (and we'd still need to use natural gas for fertilizer, oil for plastics, etc.).


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you suggesting that dunking Bangladesh under water is not going to wreak havoc and kill huge numbers of people?"

Isn't this unneccesarily overdramatic? The UN IPCC is predicting sea level rise of 12 inches over the next 100 years. You'd need a rise 30 times as great to flood most of Bangladesh. Nor would a "flood" of a few millimeters per year kill anyone, even were the predicted rise 30 times as great.

> "Melting permafrost does not instantaneously turn into useful farmland..."

No, but global warming means longer growing seasons instantly. And higher CO2 levels means faster, more vigorous plant growth...instantly, as well.

> "so don't claim that desertification will be more than made up for with new land."

There is zero evidence that global warming will lead to additional desert area. Some areas will receive a little more rainfall, some areas less...and in all cases, the change will be less than normal, year-to-year variations. We're growing crops in deserts already with the use of modern irrigation...a change of a few percent in net rainfall isn't going to be a catastrophe. Especially when it means some regions which now require widespread irrigation might actually get a little more desperately-needed rainfall.

> "There are ways to avoid most emissions without killing billions of people. For instance, would you have a problem with changing all energy generation to nuclear "

If the US switched to all-nuclear..and convinced the rest of the world to follow suit, we might manage the process within a couple decades. If we built enough extra plants to power the transportation system with a hydrogen economy, we could eliminate those emissions as well. Then we'd need to wholly revamp our agricultural system

The point I'm making are two-fold. First of all is that the only solutions lie forward, in more science and technology. Conservation can be helpful, but it solves nothing by itself, and never will. Secondly and most important is that the above process would, optimistically, require at least 50 years. Therefore, the warming inertia already within the atmosphere will persist at least into the next century. The only way to avoid that is to instantly stop all emissions today. Overnight. And that would mean the death of every 19 of 20 people on the planet.


By dubldwn on 12/18/2006 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the oceans of the world are like a bathtub, so every city at that elevation would be in the same situation, regardless of their proximity to Greenland, if that were to really happen. Actually, maybe everyone but the Dutch, because they would figure out a solution. I enjoyed my time in Amsterdam.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By oTAL (blog) on 12/18/2006 3:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
There is proof!! Plenty... not the "impenetrable, doubtless, impossible to brake, written in stone" proof some people want... the kind of proof that science brings... the kind of proof you have for continental drift and for the theory of evolution... some people believe neither for lack of proof....

Your posts shows the problem with this subject. People, brainwashed by the corporate media, think there are doubts and use flawed arguments like yours without knowing there are scientific answers to those questions.
There are no doubts. There are a few uncertainties as to what will happen and how long it will take, but there are NO doubts that global warming is happening and that we are causing it. Really... it's true! There are NO doubts amongst people who made the studies.

I'll answer your question for the sake of it, although you could easily find the answer online if you cared for it.

Yes, floating ice doesn't rise sea level if melted.
The problem with the immense amounts of ice melting is that a lot of it is land base ice. Land based ice, supported on top of land, will make the water rise. If the ice on Greenland melts (which will happen very soon if things don't change), the sea level will rise about 6 meters globally. Do you have any idea what that means? It may not seem much but it is... and it WILL affect you if it happens. And it may happen in less than 10 years... and then there's the hole ice filled continent on the other side of the planet...

The main point of my post should be this one: Why would scientists lie? Who should you believe? The scientists who do studies and have hardly any gains either way (say what you will, any good scientist can find another job if he has to... most do what they do for passion)? Or the politicians who are paid by greedy corporations who don't want to spend money modernizing and reducing emissions.

I know that most people in here don't agree with me but at least don't downrate me before reading a little about it... I did try to make an informative post and I'd like people to read it.

Cheers.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "There are NO doubts amongst people who made the studies..."

There are hundreds of scientists who not only have "doubts", but believe the exact opposite...that runaway global warming is not being caused by mankind. In this very thread alone, I've posted the remarks of some 60 of them.

The problem is the scientists are ignored by the mainstream media. They all tell stories of being called for interviews, then misquoted or worse, hung up on, when their opinion doesn't agree with what the reporter wants to hear.

I suggest you stop readin media reports of "global warming", and start reading the actual research reports themselves. Nearly all the major journals have back issues online. You'll find the reality is far different than what you see reported.


By rushfan2006 on 12/19/2006 9:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
This is a hot button topic nowadays...which is funny just in that fact...there was a period of about oh I say 10 good years at least, where the global warming topic was dormant (at least in the mainstream case), now all of a sudden its a hot button issue again.

Anyway...I think "global warming" happens but its part of the earth's natural process for the last 4.5 BILLION years. The earth is a living entity, its as alive as any one of us are. Like us it sometimes gets "injured" (even injuring itself at times), and like us it "heals" over time.

If you look through history the healing capacity of our mother earth is actually extremely impressive.

Now for the environmentalists out there and anyone that takes the global warming thing so to heart that they get all worked up in a lather over it...I believe in keeping our environment clean and "healthy"...but, and call me a sinner or whatever, its more for my own selfish reasons than anything else.

I want to see the world as nature intended it to be seen, I want to NOT live in an area that has a thick layer of smog constantly hovering over it and I want to breath clean air as much as possible. But its one of those things where is more for me that I think this and not for saving mother earth, it just happens that it is a side effect to my own selfish acts. ;) So in short I think everyone should really just help keep a clean environment if you are for or against the global warming thing...otherwise just really shut the hell up, cause if you aren't part of the solution you have to be part of the problem. ;)

lol.





RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By slunkius on 12/18/2006 1:19:44 AM , Rating: 3
sounds like smokers statement "prove that lung cancer was caused by smoking"


By rushfan2006 on 12/19/2006 9:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
sounds like smokers statement "prove that lung cancer was caused by smoking"


Which is a silly statement because this has already been proven in laboratory tests.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By jonnybradley on 12/18/2006 8:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well from the statements above looks like average Jo knows more about science than the scientists??

First, the ice cap/cube idea is very nice but what about all that ice that sits above the water?? Displacement can only occurred if the object is in what its displacing. What happens to all the ice above sea level?

Yes its hard to prove 100% but some facts are there to see. The world is producing xxxbillon tons of Greenhouse gases, and the atmospheric levels of Greenhouse gases are rising by xxx. Ok so I don't have any figures to hand, but to try and to deny the 2 are linked is made.

Do you have any idea what the greenhouse effect is, if not I suggest you look at wiki or something because the basic concept is very easy to follow.

And last but not least, do you only think of average Jo and nobody else. What about your kids? People in the third world? Area's that already suffer from server flooding and how even the slightest change it sea level.

The worlds ecosystems are so finally balanced even the smallest of changes can have dramatic effects.

So why don't you try to understand a little about the topic before dismissing it out of hand. No I don't think we will all die, but we could make living for the next generation very hard if we continue with current trends.

Rant over


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By marvdmartian on 12/18/2006 9:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny that you mention the poor 3rd world countries, as they're responsible for most of the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere these days.
Due to the Clean Air Act, and the more strict controls in California by the Air Resources Board, the USA is pumping WAY less junk into the atmosphere than we used to.
On the other hand, all the high sulfur coal that we're not burning (because of the pollution it creates) and high sulfur dino-fuels that we're not burning, are hungrily being gobbled up at fantastic prices by developing countries, and burned with abandon! Why? Cuz it's cheap (no one wants the stuff, so prices go down), and plentiful, and that's what any country needs when it goes through an industrial build-up.

So while the USA is pumping out tons LESS greenhouse gases than ever, the developing countries (aka 3rd world) are pumping out more than enough to make up for it, and have no interest in the technology that would help them to burn those fuels cleaner, as that would jack the cost up. I'd be willing to bet that the USA could switch over to purely solar power tomorrow (as a benefit of a purely hypothetical breakthrough in that field), and the amount of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere wouldn't drop at all!!

Please don't think of me as an environmentally unfriendly person, as I've lived long enough to remember when Lake Erie was a virtually dead body of water, and the Hudson River caught on fire.......literally! But a fat lot of good it does for you to make your "house" the best looking one on the street, when it's surrounded by a bunch of Meth and Crack houses!! In other words, the USA and other "first world" countries can do all they want to try to clean up the environment, but until the 2nd & 3rd world countries follow suit, we're just pissin' in the wind! :(


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By PrinceGaz on 12/18/2006 10:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
If you think that the USA is pumping out less greenhouse gases than other countries and that the amount is reducing, you are seriously mistaken. Maybe you should read this article-

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8495

Some relevant extracts:

"A report released by the US department of energy on Monday revealed that the emissions rose by 2% in 2004, from 6983 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2003, to 7122 million tonnes. This output is the highest annual total so far recorded by the US, says the UK’s premier science academy, the Royal Society."

"The aim of the Kyoto Protocol is to curb climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of industrialised nations to an overall level 5% beneath those of 1990. But despite being the world's biggest generator of greenhouse gases – responsible for about one-quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions – the US refused to ratify the treaty... The new US report reveals that US greenhouse gas emissions for 2004 were 16% higher than in 1990."

The US was, and remains, the biggest greenhouse-gas polluter.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 11:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
China already exceeds US emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 22 times more potent than C02...and many other nations are close behind. As for CO2, China is expected to overtake the US in the next decade, and the EU, taken as a whole, already exceeds it sharply.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By RGC on 12/18/2006 8:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
The EU does not exceed the United States in CO2 output. As of 2002:
United States: 24.3%
European Union: 15.3%
China: 14.5%

And who cares if China surpasses the United States in CO2 output, they have over 3 times as many people as the United States.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

btw Masher you seem to by talking a great deal about scientists that argue against global climate change caused by man. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with links or names even of these sources. Not that I doubt that there are scientists that argue against it but I'm having trouble finding ones not sponsored by Exxon-Mobile.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 10:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "The EU does not exceed the United States in CO2 output. As of 2002:.."

Oops, you forgot that several nations joined the EU in 2004. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, a few others...all heavy CO2 polluters, compared to nations like France, which generates most of its electricity from nuclear.

> "btw Masher you seem to by talking a great deal about scientists that argue against global climate change caused by man. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with links or names..."

I provided names of some 60 of them elsewher in this thread. How many more do you want?

> "I'm having trouble finding ones not sponsored by Exxon-Mobile..."

Nice use of the "guilt by association" logical fallacy there...but I'm sure far less are funded by Exxon-Mobil than are funded by environmental groups.





RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 8:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops, you forgot that several nations joined the EU in 2004. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, a few others...all heavy CO2 polluters


All those countries pollute considerably less than just ONE of the larger US states.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 8:23:39 AM , Rating: 1
Why can't people check simple facts before posting nonsense? Ten nations joined the EU in 2004...one of them *alone* (Poland) produces some 400Mt CO2 eq. per year. That's more than California (360Mt) or Texas (175Mt).


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 9:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why can't people check simple facts before posting nonsense?


I agree:

Poland:

7.42 t of CO2/capita

USA:

19.95 t of CO2/capita




By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 1
> "Poland: 7.42 t of CO2/capita"

The statement I made, and the statement to which you responded, was total CO2 generated, not CO2 per capita. You were wrong, plain and simple.

And as far as measuring efficiency, a far better metric is CO2 per unit GDP. In this case, the figures are:

Poland : 0.61 t/ CO2/dollar GDP
United States: 0.51 t CO2/dollar GDP

Figures look a bit different now, don't they?


By Dfere on 12/18/2006 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed on the economics.

Also understand every "industrializing country" goes through this phase. I actually think we should be the leader here as we have already, in place, a huge working infrastructure.

Except I would still think a tech advance would benefit the world as well as us in many ways.

I think we may be neighbors... I remember the same things. I still live in Ohio City too, and yes we have both mercedes and crack houses on the same streets.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well from the statements above looks like average Jo knows more about science than the scientists?? "

There are a huge number of scientists who disagree that man is causing global warming. You rarely hear from them. In recent testimony before the US Congress, a few of those scientists testified how, whenever they're called by a reporter for a quote, they're invariably hung up on when their statement isn't what said reporter wishes to hear.

> "The world is producing xxxbillon tons of Greenhouse gases..."

Some 96% of those greenhouse gases are produced naturally, without the benefit of mankind. And have been being produced for billions of years.





By Dfere on 12/18/2006 10:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

Media seeks sensationalism to sell, and there is no sensationalism in non-doomsday predictions.

Further, the argument that a person thinks winters are warmer now than before is not proof. Entirely subjective. Human perception canot analyze, alone, a 1/2 degree or so change in 100 years attributed. More importantly there are so many other variables here. Read up about the lLittle Ice Age. It had huge implications about the fickleness of nature and climactic change.

We need to take the environment very seriously. We cannot take it for granted, make frivously or emotionally charged arguments.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By datenderizer on 12/18/2006 1:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
open your eyes man, take off the blinders... wow Al Gore was right about the diminishing attention span of this society... did you forget we're cutting down our rainforests, brazil is deforesting to raise cattle, deforestation is occuring in all developing countries, we're cutting legs out from under a once stable and balanced Geological rhythm of carbon release and carbon absorption


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 1:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "did you forget we're cutting down our rainforests..."

No. Nor did I forget that forestation is actually increasing in many first-world nations. I also remembered that the vast majority of CO2 uptake occurs in the oceans, not rain forests, and that increased CO2 levels also mean higher levels of plant growth globally, which also leads to increased CO2 uptake.

Finally, I didn't forget the most important point of all...that the earth's CO2 concentration has been far higher and far lower in the past, and the planet survived just fine. In fact, in one of the highest periods of CO2 levels, the earth was wrapped in its coldest ice age of the past 50 million years, so the correlation between CO2 and surface temperatures is weak at best.


By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing that has me worried at all is the latest theories on the late permian mass extinction. The current theory is that a massive sustained volcanic venting event lasting hundreds of thousands or millions of years, possibly coupled by a large strike by an asteroid or comet, initiated a global temp increase on the order of 7-10 CELCIUS caused the shallow oceans to gradually warm up to the point where massive amounts of solid methane hydrates vaporized and trickled into the atmosphere, increasing the temperatures a further 5 celcius or more. It was devestating to the life then extant for the most part, but life survived even that, and the planet did repair itself quite nicely.

The quantities of sulfates and carbon dioxide provided by the volcanic event that triggered the process fortunately greatly exceeds anything human beings could ever possibly achieve by several orders of magnitude, and is substantially more initial heating than even the most rediculously ovezealous climate models show. I think short of us somehow rending open the several dozen square miles of the surface of the earth for an extended period, we are relatively powerless to significantly affect our climate.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 8:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Al Gore is not a scientist and has no scientific data, so no one should ever take him seriously.


So the fact that basically the whole scientific community supports him and has all the findings he's been talking about is not enough to take him seriously?? No Al Gore is not a scientist, but that doesn't mean he can't try to bring the research and conclusions done by scientists out to the public.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 1
> "So the fact that basically the whole scientific community supports [Gore]..."

The primary 'scientist' supporting Gore in his film is a personal friend of his. Here's some quotes from actual scientists, on the subject of Gore:

quote:
"Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film [An Inconvenient Truth], are commanding public attention... The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science ...
Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory.

<quote >[Gore's film] is misleading on its portrayal of arctic ice loss ...the survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology... Climatology Professor Tim Ball, U. of Winnipeg.

quote:
[In 1992] anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. He ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists , including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.



RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 9:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
So you find 3 quotes from 3 scientists where only 2 are relevant to his argument and the 3rd is related to his behavior.

Lets see who these people are:

Professor Bob Carter is a well known global warming denier working at an australian university. He's been at the front of the oil industry and Bush administration backed climate change denial for years and his views are not shared by the vast majority of scientists. He's also funded by Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil).
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.h...

Professor Tim Ball : Also a well known climate denier and works for the oil industry backed organization "Friends of Science" (Gotta love those names. Sort of like "Peoples Democratic Republic of China). He's also infamous in the scientific community for claims like CFC's aren't harmful to the Ozone layer, in his words "it's only because the sun is changing". This claim is hilarious in the light of an improving ozone layer after CFCs were banned. He's also said that global warming will be good for us. So now he acknowledges global warming, but tries to argue that it's not bad?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal...

Dr. Richard Lindzen : Yet another prominent anti global warming figure. He's used a lot by the oil industry and current administration, and also on the oil industry's payroll. He's been paid by them for various services like giving speeches against global warming and appearing before the senate.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard...

So yes except from a few frowned upon individuals with questionable motives, the whole scientific community agrees about global warming being real.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 10:52:40 AM , Rating: 1
> "So you find 3 quotes from 3 scientists..."

I can easily post dozens of others others. As for your labelling these three "deniers" and industry shills, I expected nothing less. All of them combined receive far less funding than most prominent global warming advocates receive from groups like Greenpeace, WWF, and the Sierra Club.

The mere presence of this "sourcewatch" website-- in which fanatical eco-guerillas compile hit lists of any scientist who disagrees with their beliefs-- is proof enough of my point.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By goz314 on 12/19/2006 11:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ha! Ha! LOL! It looks like you were just beat at your own sad, sorry game of continual counterpoint. The post previous to yours just made my day.


By ttowntom on 12/19/2006 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think he made the point pretty well. There are lots of scientists who don't agree with the global warming hysteria, and most of them wind up being attacked by environmental whackos over their beliefs.


By otispunkmeyer on 12/18/2006 4:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
i agree

we do have something to do with the global warming thing people are harping on about

but i couldnt care either way because i think it was going to happen anyway. all man has done has pushed the accelerator pedal abit to speed it up.

global warming IS happening, but it always was happening....we have just sped it up.

i wont be losing any sleep over it, and i wont be losing any enjoyment when i drive my car fast either.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 8:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I know is that we have no freaking idea what earth is suppose to be like. We only know maybe the past 100-200 years


Yet another completely uninformed person spouting off about an issue that you know nothing about. It's no wonder over 50% of the population in the US still think "God" created the world when people have so little understanding of science.

Have you heard about ice cores? We now have a fairly accurate understanding of the temperatures and amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as far back as 500,000 to a 1 mio years. Currently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in over 500,000 years!! This is undisputed data. 2006 has so far been the hottest year in 10,000 years!! Again, undisputed data.

Why people even bother to protest and speak against this issue is proof of the incredible ability of humans to ignore the obvious, if the consequences are unpleasant.



RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 8:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "2006 has so far been the hottest year in 10,000 years!! Again, undisputed data..."

Stuff and nonsense! 2006 is only the sixth hottest year since 1850.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16204542/

The earth has been far warmer and colder in the past than it is now.

> "Currently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in over 500,000 years!!"

So? That's the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. We also know that, as an average across all of earth's history, CO2 levels are far lower than they have been historically...they've been 20 times higher in the past before. We also know the vast majority of CO2 sources are natural...man contributes less than 4% of the total, and has only been doing THAT much for a few decades, an utterly insignificant length of time.


RE: wow how mighty duth thow protest we are
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 9:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
Pardon me I meant hottest autumn/winter in recorded history and temperatures that would occur in less than once every 10,000 years:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20061216154...

quote:
So? That's the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. We also know that, as an average across all of earth's history, CO2 levels are far lower than they have been historically...they've been 20 times higher in the past before.


Greenhouse gas levels have been linked extremely solidly to atmospheric temperature levels. The whole of humanity's existance is also the blink of an eye geologically speaking. Yeah many millions of years ago the climate was much harsher than now and 4-5 billion years ago the surface of the earth was molten rock. So does that mean you don't care if the climate goes to hell just because it's been that way before, the only difference being it's artificial now and wasn't then?


By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 9:54:09 AM , Rating: 3
> "Pardon me I meant hottest autumn/winter in recorded history..."

Hottest autumn (not winter). And only true for certain parts of Europe, not the entire world. A far cry from your original claim. And in of itself, meaningless. The earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age for a couple hundred years now. Just before that, in the Medieval Warm Period, the earth was hotter than it is today...and that was just a thousand years ago.

The point you're ignoring is that climate change is a dynamic process, that happens continually and naturally. Even if we all revert to a stone age culture, the earth is still going to continue to warm up...and will, at some future point, begin to cool again.

> "Greenhouse gas levels have been linked extremely solidly to atmospheric temperature levels"

"Extremely solidly"? No, not hardly. The coldest period of the past 500 million years was a period in which CO2 levels were several times higher than they are today. CO2 is an extremely weak greenhouse gas. It does exert a mild warming influence...but that influence is nonlinear, and quite limited. CO2 can only absorb a small band of light wavelengths, so concentrations above a certain point exert little warming effect.

And again, you dodge the main point. By far the bulk of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. The largest greenhouse gas of all- water vapor- is entirely due to natural sources. Man's influence is so small that, until very recently, we couldn't even distinguish it from background noise and natural variation.


Warming without a solution
By joust on 12/17/2006 10:50:15 PM , Rating: 3
In order for public advocacy to actually have good effects, one must direct the public towards a very concrete and reasonable solution. There exists no such solution at the moment. I would like to respectfully submit that public awareness and advocacy, for emmissions controls and alternate energy, makes little sense.

What, as the USA, are our alternatives to tackling the global warming problem?
--Solar: pave over all of nevada or arizona, uneconomical (ATM)
--Wind: NIMBY (not in my back yard), uneconomical (ATM)
--Nuclear fission: economical, but BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything), very harmful waste
--Hydro: unfeasable, NIMBY, environmentally harmful flooding
--Ethanol: most farmland would need to be used, harmful to waterways and water tables
--Efficiency: only so much efficiency you can squeeze out of appliances before costs seriously escalate
--Fusion: not a pragmatic alternative (ATM)
--Hybrid: use any combination of the above

Those are our large-scale green alternatives for energy production as a country. Let me be honest and say none are particularly appealing. (Also let it be noted this is by no means an exhaustive list of alternatives, or a detailed list of all their benefits/drawbacks).

All of these alternatives also have the problem of failing to actually stop global warming! China and India will still be on coal no matter what we say or do. Maybe massive restructuring of our energy system really is not so great an idea after all...

So, in order to combat global warming, the USA would have to have NEGATIVE emmissions. It would have to take away more carbon from the atmosphere than it outputs. How is that possible? Carbon Sequestration.

There are currently two known possible methods for this:
--Putting carbon into the ground
--Putting carbon into the ocean

Which is the best? I'm not entirely certain. But I do suspect that iron fertilization of the oceans may be one cheap and effective approach. The idea would be to put dump iron into the ocean in order to grow phytoplankton. They would photosynthesize, die, and bring their carbon to the bottom of the floor.

Maybe this will work. Maybe it won't. Maybe it'll cause catastrophic ocean problems. But, as a rational human being who is faced with shitty alternatives, I think the least-bad solution would be carbon sequestration. At the very least we should be diverting our research money there.

I believe, therefore, that Gore's emmissions-controls rhetoric is irresponsible because it fails to acknowledge this attractive and feasible alternative.




RE: Warming without a solution
By Senju on 12/17/2006 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Gore motives are to have scientist express their findings openly. This is a very positive approach. How to spend government money is a different issue. Global Warning is happening. It is probably due part to nature changes of Earth but humans have escalated these changes more dynamically. The first phase is awareness. Action is a difference issue. If Gore can bring awareness, this is all good. We all need to do our part (just like throwing out the garbage). Change is very hard for humans with old habits. We need to first present information from the scientists and be aware of the issues. Then we can start to talk about change regarding the public. When people say "We must act now", (which may be true) but does not seem to work with humans who do not understand what exzactly the issue is. Once people understand, aware and educated about the facts can we expect change. Unfortunately, as history may show, Earth will have to demonstrate several (global warning related) disasters before a major shift in change policy where governments will agree.

We can tell our grandchildren what it was like to live next to the non-man made natural beach and grow up.


RE: Warming without a solution
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well, Gore motives are to have scientist express their findings openly"

Nonsense.
quote:
[In 1992] anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. He ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry...

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.


RE: Warming without a solution
By ADDAvenger on 12/18/2006 12:58:50 AM , Rating: 3
Fission's waste isn't terribly harmful to the environment as long as you're smart about it. We transport spent fuel rods and other waste in steel containers, with walls three feet thick. I don't know what all they're planning at Yucca Mountain, but I can tell you that waste won't be a problem (assuming that Harry Reid, among other NIMBYers, doesn't kill Yucca Mountain like he's promising).
Nuclear power is very safe (especially the newer designs that actually cool off when the reaction begins to run away) and the real problem with it is economics. ATM the huge capital costs aren't worth it. Only since the administration passed some incentives has it begun to go forward again. link=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Pr...

But yes, we need to do far more than clean up Europe and the States; the same amount of energy we spend to fine-tune ourselves could be at least ten times as effective if it's spent "over there."


RE: Warming without a solution
By Leona on 12/18/2006 1:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
Dumping iron into the ocean would probably have pretty catastrophic consequences.


RE: Warming without a solution
By qdemn7 on 12/18/2006 3:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dumping iron into the ocean would probably have pretty catastrophic consequences.
Why? Experiments on a small scale have shown the rsult of iron dumping is a bloom in phytoplankton which the base of the ocean food chain.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohacking...
quote:
In two weeks, 1,000 pounds of iron produced the biomass equivalent of 100 full-grown redwoods, sucking 2,500 tons of CO2 from the sky.
Somebody ought to mention this to Gates, amybe he can underwrite it.


RE: Warming without a solution
By joust on 12/18/2006 10:44:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, where the hell are the environmentalists? Why don't they bring up this incredibly attractive alternative to spending billions/trillions on energy reform?

Why isn't Europe investigating this? Why not Gore? Why do politicians shy away from this?

Everyone simply assumes iron fertilization will hurt the eco-system, but I don't know if we have hard science on this. Plus we don't need to dump near the shore, we can go 1000 miles into the pacific and dump there.


RE: Warming without a solution
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "Yeah, where the hell are the environmentalists? Why don't they bring up this incredibly attractive alternative to spending billions/trillions on energy reform? "

Simple answer. They look with incredibly dim eyes on any solution which they view as more "meddling" with Mother Earth. There have been plenty of solutions proposed for actively cooling the earth, all of them far cheaper and more effective than reducing CO2 emissions...but in the current political climate, none of them are going to receive serious attention.


RE: Warming without a solution
By Farfignewton on 12/18/2006 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
There are legitimate concerns with causing blooms.

"The problem is, while phytoplankton use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during photosynthesis, bacteria use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide during respiration. The oxygen used by bacteria is the oxygen dissolved in the water, and that’s the same oxygen that all of the other oxygen-respiring animals on the bottom (crabs, clams, shrimp, and a host of mud-loving creatures) and swimming in the water (zooplankton, fish) require for life to continue."

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/ocea...



RE: Warming without a solution
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 12:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
Those concerns are primarily shallow-water issues, the very areas which we would avoid for induced blooms. At depths of several thousand meters, the water is already anoxic, and there are no "crabs, clams, shrimp, and mud-loving creatures" to worry about.


RE: Warming without a solution
By daftrok on 12/18/2006 1:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
Joust, if we have the capabilities of spending billions upon billions of dollars on oversea wars, then perhaps we can spend more on efficiency. I am personally against nuclear fission, however efficiency can be and SHOULD BE squeezed out of appliances. CFLs (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) can literally chop off over 10% of the country's energy. Wind power, though expensive, is a great alternative. Screw NIMBY, besides, in Asia they were able to place these wind mills in the ocean and has the capabilites of powering 30-40% of our country's energy. Ethanol depends on what it is made of. Wheat is a much more efficient source, but like artards we are using corn, which require pesticides and irrigation (wheat doesn't and has twice the yield of ethanol as corn and is perenial). Another great, but expensive method, is begin to mass produce carbon fiber. Mass production leads to cheaper products. Carbon fiber on trains, buses, trucks, full planes, and eventually cars can automatically DOUBLE the fuel consumption and on top of that cut down reparation costs due to the fact that carbon fiber is nearly 12x as strong as steel. Solar energy is slowly but surely becoming more efficient but has two major downfalls (doesnt work in the sun, needs fossil fuel to create the surface). I believe that solar energy still needs time. But all the other things need to be done NOW. Cutting down our energy usage by 10% just by changing our lightbulbs and cutting it down even further 30-40% by using windmills (maybe even more if they are made from carbon fiber) and also changing air conditioning fans into carbon fiber can cut down energy costs as well. Its the little things that add up and which is why I believe that more people need to be aware of the dangers of global warming (and perhaps a theoretical global cooling?) now.


RE: Warming without a solution
By joust on 12/18/2006 10:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not opposed to snatching the low-lying fruits from the tree, such as better light bulbs. The problem is that even if the USA has ZERO emmissions, global warming will continue at a frantic pace.

The USA either has to get everyone else to stop (extremely unrealistic, China and India have already declared they will stick to coal). Any hard-fought, expensive gains we make will be offset by them.

The other alternative is if the USA has negative emmissions by sequestering carbon.


RE: Warming without a solution
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 10:44:54 AM , Rating: 1
> "The problem is that even if the USA has ZERO emmissions, global warming will continue at a frantic pace"

Exactly so. And even if the entire world stops driving cars and producing electricty, methane emissions from agriculture will still continue unchecked. And should we all revert to a stone age culture and stop emitting anything whatsoever, 96% of all greenhouse gasses will continue to be produced...naturally, by the planet itself.


RE: Warming without a solution
By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm getting the impression that the more radical of the environmentalits would rather deprive large portions of the human race of oxygen for an extended period. That seems to be the way their logic is headed, except they want to do it by starvation instead I think.

The question is who goes and stays, if we are to reduce the human population to "save the environment" by reducing human stressors on it.

My proposal is for the Environmentalists to lead by example, and commit mass suicide. It would be the honorable thing to do to help save the planet from the human race, and they would be making a real difference. The bodies could act as carbon sinks, buried or something. We'd give them a nice memorial plaque.

(Of course this is all jest, but some people seem that radical about it sometimes)


RE: Warming without a solution
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 8:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm getting the impression that the more radical of the environmentalits would rather deprive large portions of the human race of oxygen for an extended period..."

A few quotes for you:

quote:
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!
—Environmentalist Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

quote:
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
Environmentalist David Foreman.

quote:
If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth.
—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth

quote:
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

quote:
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
—Environmental author Lamont Cole


Proof of global warming
By Sniffy on 12/18/2006 1:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have been living a conservative lifestyle for most of my adult life, 30 years in a small solar heated house. Actually, it has meant that my low costs have allowed for more of the toys that we all like to have. Our lifestyles depend very heavily on the scientists who research and design these toys and even now, our food. So why is it that when they tell us the we are accelerating global warming, and they have been telling us this for the last 30 to 40 years, that we choose to call them a bunch of liars. It is true that some scientific research is bogus, and that they try to update the data and refute their own findings and theories regularly, but it is equally true that through all of this we have plastics, fine oils, computers, medical procedures and devices, and pills, and a tonne of other scientifically created items. If you wait for the proof then very likely we won't have any grand children. The proof is in the elimination of humanity. Most of the nay sayers are intelligent people but very missinformed. It's like the US senitor who criticized Al Gore's movie even though he haden't seen it. Give me a break. Even donkey isn't that dumb. The sustainability of life on earth for mankind will not be for that much longer no matter what we do but that is no reason to deliberately kill our own offspring.




RE: Proof of global warming
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:32:03 AM , Rating: 4
An Open Letter to Canadian Prime Minister Harper:
quote:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.



RE: Proof of global warming
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 8:13:41 AM , Rating: 1
The above letter has been refuted by a group of scientists several times larger than the ones writing the letter. Lots of people on the list have also withdrawn their signature, because they were tricked into doing it and didn't realize what it was going to be used for.

There is no doubt in the scientific community amongst the people who aren't working for the oil industry and who's only agenda is the truth. Global warming is a fact and the only people who won't accept it are the large group of americans who have grown too fond of their lavish energy wasting lifestyle.


RE: Proof of global warming
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 8:26:10 AM , Rating: 1
> "The above letter has been refuted by a group of scientists several times larger than the ones writing the letter. Lots of people on the list have also withdrawn their signature, because they were tricked into doing it"

Post a link from a verifiable source showing such then, and I'll be happy to withdraw it. I've had people make such claims before...and they never seem able to back them up.


RE: Proof of global warming
RE: Proof of global warming
By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
Irrelevant. He said she said. The point is, concensus ISN'T science, its an agreement to halt further research that might provide a better picture for a host of non-scientific, and often political or financial reasons. We have two groups of people that disagree, and until the evindence is clear, there is no reason that a longer list on one side has any more legitimacy than a shorter list on the other. I'm sure both lists could be made longer easily.

What concerns me is that so many poeple have started to take these things on faith, as if radical environmentalism was some sort of religious movement, trying to generate new believers and cement their dogma into place with a thin coating of science. I see a lot of evidence going both ways on human caused global warming theory, and none of it appears to be overwhelmingly for or against it yet. So would REAL scientists condone leaping to conclusions on it? Nope.. only politically or ecnonomically or "religiously" motivated ones would be that brazen to be outspoken on it before the evidence was overwhemling and irrefutable.


RE: Proof of global warming
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 1
So "lots of people" turns out to be one person out of the 60 eh? Want to know how many scientists say the UN IPCC improperly used their names in claiming "consensus" on global warming? It's a lot more than one, I can tell you.

In any case, you're engaging in pure ad hominem attacks against the authors of the letter, instead of debating its substance directly. Why are you afraid to discuss the actual issues here?


RE: Proof of global warming
By Schrag4 on 12/20/2006 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
I also find it funny that since there is supposedly a 'consensus', it's suddenly proven fact. If that were the case, the earth would be flat. There certainly was a consensus about that at one point in history. Something tells me that some day the global warming alarmists of today will be viewed as being every bit as narrow minded as the 'earth is flat' crowd from history.


By zoom on 12/18/2006 5:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Since I was a kid they (Whacko's) have said we were Going to
1) Go into another Ice Age. (hasn't happened Yet)
2) California was going to fall into the Ocean. (Still There)
3) Kill every thing with Acid Rain. (help me I'm MEEELTING)
4) Due to the Population Bomb, We would all starve during the 1970's - 1980's (Well President Jimmy Carter came close to starving us.)
5) Now we are going to destroy the Earth with global warming. (Bummer)
and these are just the ones I can remember.
Point is if you want to wring your hands and be miserable there will always be a fool out there to give you a reason.

Merry Christ mas




By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 6:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Remember the movie Soylent Green, which predicted that by now, we'd have nothing to eat but plankton and other people? It was hailed as visionary by the environmentalists of the time....yet today, we are better fed than ever before in human history.


By RogueSpear on 12/18/2006 6:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
I find it amusing how you don't believe any of the global warming arguments, yet you make a point of mentioning Christ in your salutation. I suppose you believe he rose from the dead three days later and is going to come and save us all. So what would Jesus think of your flippant attitude toward the environment?


By zoom on 12/18/2006 7:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
As to your first question yes I do believe God raised Jesus from the dead.
There is more proof of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible than there is of your view of the end of the world by Global Warming.
As for your second question no I do not believe he will come and save us all. unfortunately to many people will not be saved due to there unbelief.
And finally concerning your third question,So what would Jesus think of your flippant attitude toward the environment? I have two things to say First I would be much more concerned about what Jesus thinks of an individuals flippant attitude towards him. and secondly I don't have a flippant attitude toward the environment?, I just refuse to drink the Kool-Aid.
Next time you might try having a conversation with someone over the original subject, instead of attacking them because of there religion.

Luke 21:33 Says "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Merry Christ mas


By insanesquirle on 12/18/2006 8:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Pardon my blunt phrasing my dear friend rogue spear...

you have been OWWWNNEED



By zoom on 12/19/2006 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Scientists become vocal...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film [An Inconvenient Truth], are commanding public attention...The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science...
Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory.

quote:
[Gore's film] is misleading on its portrayal of arctic ice loss...the survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology...
Climatology Professor Tim Ball, U. of Winnipeg.

quote:
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years...
Professor Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist, testimony before the Committe on Environment and Sustainable Development.




RE: Scientists become vocal...
By DocDraken on 12/19/2006 10:29:05 AM , Rating: 4
Professor Bob Carter is a well known global warming denier working at an australian university. He's been at the front of the oil industry and Bush administration backed climate change denial for years and his views are not shared by the vast majority of scientists. He's also funded by Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil).
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.h...


Professor Tim Ball : Also a well known climate denier and works for the oil industry backed organization "Friends of Science" (Gotta love those names. Sort of like "Peoples Democratic Republic of China). He's also infamous in the scientific community for claims like CFC's aren't harmful to the Ozone layer, in his words "it's only because the sun is changing". This claim is hilarious in the light of an improving ozone layer after CFCs were banned. He's also said that global warming will be good for us. So now he acknowledges global warming, but tries to argue that it's not bad?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal...

The Tim Patterson quote has little meaning, as the climate of 450 mio years ago is profoundly different compared to our current climate. There can be many factors which don't exist now that were responsible for the cooling then. Like a reduction in solar output and/or extremely low levels of all the other greenhouse gasses. With the current conditions and dating back as far as 650,000 yeats CO2 does indeed correlate closely with temperature.


RE: Scientists become vocal...
By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
They seem so absolutely sure that CO2, a water soluable gas, does not leech out of ice samples over time, or even as they are drilled and cored? Until the ice cores can be consistently corroberrated that far back in time with another measure, they themselves only provide theoretical results.


RE: Scientists become vocal...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I love this guy's logic. Professor Bob Carter is a member of the Institute for Public Affairs, one of Australia's most respected think tanks. The IPA gets a grant from Esso Australia, he converts that "Bob Carter is funded by Exxon", and thus thinks he's somehow discredited the entire argument.


Sun Cycles
By Schrag4 on 12/18/2006 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's been a while since I've researched this, but what about the Sun's affect on global warming/cooling? If the sun disappeared tomorrow, our earth would freeze over very quickly. If you look at the data over the last 100 years about the temperature of the earth, and compare it to the data over the last 100 years about the sun's cycles, they 'strangely' coincide. I say this sarcastically because it seems everyone is willing to ignore it....

Perhaps sun cycles don't matter as much, but it seems the only thing that can actually directly cause global warming (the sun) should be considered.

Looks like we just need to pump a bunch of aerosols into the environment to cool things off. Kidding! Seriously though, isn't the downside of aerosols that they destroy the ozone layer? Isn't that why they were banned? (I was in junior high, or something like that so I don't really remember a whole lot) How's the whole ozone thing working out these days?




RE: Sun Cycles
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
The cycles you refer to are known as Maunder Cycles (among others). And there has been a great deal of research linking them, as well as orbital variations of the earth, to climate change. You just don't see the media reporting on that research, as it doesn't fit the agenda.


RE: Sun Cycles
By Arrhenius on 12/19/2006 10:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
There are a variety of cycles involving the earth's orbit, the earth's angle of inclination and the sunspot cycle. It is commonly accepted that there are connection between these cycles and climate changes in the past. The orbital and inclination cycles operate on very large times scales that cannot possibly account for the changes observed in the last century. The sun's output can vary on shorter timescales, of course, but the observed change in the sun's output explains only a fraction (~ 30 %) of the recent warming.


RE: Sun Cycles
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 11:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
> "The sun's output can vary on shorter timescales, of course, but the observed change in the sun's output explains only a fraction (~ 30 %) of the recent warming."

From simple radiative forcing alone, yes. However, that discounts the possibility of feedback mechanisms (which we know exist) or that temperatures were already unnaturally low, and are simply regressing to the mean. The same is true for orbital cycles. Most are on very long periods...but we've seen evidence that in the past, they can reach a tipping point, and trigger rapid climate change.

There is still far more we don't know about climate change than what we do. For instance, the earth cooled quite markedly from 1940 to the early 70s, during a period in which CO2 levels were rising rapidly. No current global climate model can succesfully explain that.




RE: Sun Cycles
By Arrhenius on 12/20/2006 2:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
One of the important details about Global Warming that the general public doesn't understand very well is that some of man's activities have a cooling effect. It was recognized 30 years ago that there was a "race" between the warming effect of CO2 and the cooling effect of reflective aerosols, primarily sulfate aerosols. (Volcanic eruptions are also a source of reflective aerosols.) In first few decades of the post WWII era, the growth in reflective aerosols had a stronger effect than the increase of CO2. Ironically, clean air legislation aimed at reducing acid rain has had the unintended side-effect of increasing Global Warming.

You are correct about reaching a tipping point leading to rapid change, and now in our wisdom we are supplying the trigger ourselves.


interesting fella
By poohbear on 12/17/2006 10:18:11 PM , Rating: 4
what a standup guy. Taking on an issue that corporate america despises. America needs more cats like him me thinks. hopefully americans dont go to war over greenhouse emissions though.:p "preemptive strike cause china pollutes too much". lol




RE: interesting fella
By rykerabel on 12/18/2006 3:54:17 PM , Rating: 3
Standup guy?
quote:
[In 1992] anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. He ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry...


Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.


Shocked...
By UltimateDeath on 12/18/2006 3:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
As far as i can see Al Gore didn't actually ever claim to know the facts about lcimatre change. He merely asked scientists to reveal their research genuinly, be it proving or disproving human responsibility for climate change.

I am by no means an environmentalist, but surely it is cleal that the environment is changing regaerdless of if we are responsible. The ice age happened from a varience of about 4ºC in average temperature, and that wasn't caused by pollution. We should be trying to stop/reduce/control climate change regardless of its nature.




RE: Shocked...
By AxemanFU on 12/19/2006 2:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
What if it is supposed to happen, naturally? Why would we want to expend massive resources to try to conrol it instead of less resources to merely adapt to the change? Every living thing adapts..why should we be different?


without any precedent in all of history
By JetsFlyer on 12/19/2006 5:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
"...Gore told the BBC, "We now face a climate crisis without any precedent in all of history ..."

I didn't know Al was 4 billion years old?!?!




By Kuroyama on 12/20/2006 8:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
I am not trying to defend what Gore said, but your answer is just plain stupid. I suppose you'll also say that scientists don't know about evolution because they are not 4 billion years old?


THe horror!
By Pythias on 12/19/2006 11:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the ONLY time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).




Al who?
By Beenthere on 12/18/06, Rating: -1
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki