Atlantis Online

Earth Changes => Global Warming => Topic started by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:06:09 pm



Title: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:06:09 pm
Don't Ignore 'An Inconvenient Truth'

The Progress Report. Posted May 26, 2006.


(http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/inconvenientruthonesheet.jpg)


Polar bears are drowning, Eskimo villages are disappearing, hurricanes are intensifying -- and still, Bush turns a blind eye to the issue of global warming. Tools

Human activity is polluting the earth and if we fail to take action now, our planet could be sent "into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves."

But some of the damage is already done. The Arctic ice shelf is melting, polar bears are drowning, and severe weather occurrences like hurricanes and heat waves are taking thousands of lives and causing millions in damages each year.

In the face of strong scientific consensus on the dangers and sources of global warming, many members of the Bush administration and the right wing continue to insist it is all part of a harmless natural process.

On Wednesday President Bush said, "[L]et's quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes; let's just focus on technologies that deal with the issue." But an effective solution will not be found without acknowledging the human role in greenhouse gas emissions.

"An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore's new documentary that opened on Wednesday in New York and Los Angeles, challenges these myths and provides striking evidence that "[h]umanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb."

While the situation is severe, it's not hopeless. See how you can take action in the fight against global warming and help America kick its oil habit.

Climate change is here

Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980, with 2005 marking the warmest yet. But proof of global warming goes beyond higher temperatures. In the far north, Inuit hunters have fallen through ice, and villages have lost ground to swelling seas. In the tropics, deluged islanders are making plans for permanent evacuation. Seas worldwide have risen four to eight inches in the last century; Massachusetts alone has lost 65 acres a year. Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places such as the Colombia Andes, which is 7,000 feet above sea level.

Scientists are considering creating an official Category 6 for hurricanes "as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years -- and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming."

A study published in Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth's temperature is rising due to human activity. In 2005, a top group of scientists convened by British Prime Minster Tony Blair met and examined the catastrophic impacts of global average temperature increases. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, an intergovernmental agency, also concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions, noting "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone."

It will get worse

Global warming is bad news for human life, despite the myths repeated by the right wing. "When it's not even clear that the warming we've seen is hurting us -- many argue that it's a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable," writes National Review associate editor Jason Lee Steorts. But global warming won't just raise the earth's temperature a few degrees. The reality will be, as Gore puts it, "what someone has called 'a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. '"

We "have seen the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees from an environmental crisis. Imagine 100 million or 200 million," said Gore Wednesday on NBC's Today Show, talking about how many people could be displaced if global warming continues at its current pace. Assuming that it does, an increase in heat waves and a deterioration in air quality "will increase the risk of mortality and morbidity, principally in older age groups and the urban poor," according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Increases "in climate extremes (storms, floods, cyclones, etc.) associated with climate change would cause physical damage, population displacement, and adverse effects on food production, freshwater availability and quality, and would increase the risks of infectious disease epidemics, particularly in developing countries" and "negative health impacts are anticipated to outweigh positive health impacts." American Progress President and CEO John Podesta also notes the effect global warming will have on the world's poor: "Between 260 and 320 million people are likely to find themselves living in malaria infested areas by 2080," and in "Southern Africa and parts of the Horn, rainfall is predicted to decline by 10 percent by 2050, worsening already serious food shortages."

The administration is ignoring it

President Bush will be ignoring "An Inconvenient Truth" when the movie opens in the nation's capital, just as he has ignored the inconvenient truth of global warming throughout his administration. In 2000, candidate Bush pledged to "establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." That promise was short-lived. One year later, Bush backed away from his campaign promise and in 2003, his administration ruled that carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming, was not a pollutant and did not need to be regulated.

The President still thinks that there is a "fundamental debate" over whether climate change is "manmade or natural," ignoring the consensus of the scientific community and the opinion of his own Environmental Protection Agency, which in 2002 stated that global warming "is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years...due mostly to human activities."

Bush's beliefs about climate change have gone beyond ignorance and have led to his administration's active suppression of the truth. In 2002 and 2003, the Bush administration allowed Philip A. Cooney, a former Exxon lobbyist with no scientific background, to doctor the findings of some of the government's premiere climate documents, "play[ing] down links between such [greenhouse gas] emissions and global warming." James Hansen, head of NASA's top institute studying the climate, recently said that he was being censored by the Bush administration from speaking out on global warming. "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," said Hansen.

The oil industry is fabricating 'science'

The overwhelming evidence on the urgency of global warming doesn't stop some skeptics from denying climate change. The oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) have led the public relations effort to undercut the impact of Gore's film. CEI has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 and accepted funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Earlier this month, CEI released a set of misleading ads claiming "Greenland's glaciers are growing." Actually, the study cited by the ad found there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland's interior.

Other studies show that glaciers are thinning on Greenland's coastal regions. Despite what CEI tried to argue, these findings fit with theories of global warming because "the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts." Another scientist whose research CEI used in the ad blasted the group for misrepresenting his research: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims."

The NCPA, which has received $390,000 from Exxon since 1998, has resorted to scare tactics, unleashing Sterling Burnett on Fox News to compare watching Gore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Fox News has also jumped on the alarmist bandwagon, airing a segment asking whether "An Inconvenient Truth" could "destroy our economy." In reality, a program to develop new sources of energy and rebuild our transportation infrastructure will create new jobs and stimulate the economy.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/36697/


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:12:15 pm
For those who have not seen the movie yet..

Part1

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Touch

You listen to a river gently rolling by.
You notice the leaves rustling in the wind.
You hear the birds, you hear a tree fall.
In the distance you hear a cow.
You ..
It's quiet, peaceful.
And all of a sudden, it's a gear shift inside you.
And it's like taking a deep breath
Oh yeah. I forgot about that.

Earth Rise


(http://www.1ststeps.org/Science/Planets/Earth.JPG)

The next picture was taken on the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17. This one was taken on Dec. 11, 1972 and it is the most commonly published photograph in all of history. And it is the only picture of Earth from space that we have where the sun was directly behind the spacecraft so that the Earth is fully lit up, and not partly in darkness.

(http://kingofpeace.org/images/apollo8view-s.jpg)

The next I'm going to show you has almost never been seen. It was taken by a spacecraft called the Galileo that went out to explore the solar system. As it was leaving Earth's gravity it turned its cameras around and took a time lapsed picture of one day's worth of rotation here compressed into 24 seconds. Isn't that beautiful?


(http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/earthmoon.jpg)

This image is a magical image in a way. It is made by a friend of mine, Tom Dan San(sp?). He took 3000 separate satellite pictures taken over a 3 year period, digitally stitched together. He chose images that would give a cloud free view of every square inch of the earth's surface. All of the land mass is accurately portrayed. When that is spread out it becomes an iconic image.

The Most Ridiculous Thing

(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:9JlZaIqghROhQM:www.pbs.org/odyssey/images/20050530_daily2_b.jpg)
I show this because I want to tell you a story about two teachers I had, one that I did not like that much, the other who was a real hero to me. I had a grade school teacher who taught geography by pulling a map of the world down in front of the blackboard. I had a classmate in the sixth grade who raised his hand and he pointed to the outline of the east coast of South America, and he pointed to the west coast of Africa, and he asked, "Did they ever fit together?" And the teacher said, "Of course not! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." That student went on to be a drug addict and a ne'er do well. That teacher went on to be a science advisor in the current administration.

But you know, the teacher was actually reflecting the conclusion of the scientific establishment at that time: "Continents are so big that obviously they don't move." But actually as we now know they did move. They moved apart from one another, but at one time they did in fact fit together. But that assumption was a problem.

It reflected the well known wisdom:

"What gets us into trouble is not what you don't know, but what you think you know that just ain't so."

This is actually an important point, believe it or not because there is another such assumption that a lot people have in their minds right now about global warming that just isn't so. The assumption goes like this:
"The world is so big is that we can't possibly have any lasting, harmful impact earth environment."

Maybe that was true at one time, but it is not true any more. One of the reasons it is not true anymore, because one of the most vulnerable parts is the atmosphere vulnerable because it's so thin. My friend the late Carl Sagan used to say that if you have a globe with a thin coat of varnish on it, the thickness of that varnish relative that globe is pretty much the same as the thickness of the earth's atmosphere compared to the earth itself. It is thin enough that we are capable of changing its composition.

That brings up the basic science of global warming. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because you know it well. The sun's radiation comes in the form of light waves and heats up the earth. Some of The radiation that is absorbed and warms the earth is re-radiated back into space in the form infrared radiation. Some of the outgoing infrared radiation is trapped inside the atmosphere. That is good thing because it keeps the temperature of the earth within certain boundaries, keeps it relatively constant and livable. But the problem is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by all of the global warming pollution that is being put up there. What that does is it thickens this layer of atmosphere. More of the outgoing infrared is trapped. So the atmosphere heats up worldwide.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:19:26 pm
(http://www.ucar.edu/learn/images/gheffect.gif)

Carbon Dioxide Levels

This is the image that started me in my interest in this issue. I saw it when I was a college student because I had a college professor named Roger Revelle who was the first person to have the idea to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. He saw where the story was going. After the first few years of data, he intuited what is meant, for what is yet to come. They designed the experiment in 1957. He hired Charles David Keeling who was very faithful and precise in making these measurements for decades. They started sending these weather balloons every day. They chose the middle of the Pacific because it was the area that was the most remote. He was a very hard nosed scientist. He really liked the hard data. It was a wonderful time for me, because, like a lot of young people, I came into contact with intellectual ferment, ideas that I'd never considered in my wildest dreams before.

He showed our class the result of these measurements after only a few years. It was startling to me. He was startled and he made it clear to our class what he felt the significance of it was. I soaked it up like a sponge. He drew the connection between the larger changes in our civilization and this pattern that was now visible in the atmosphere entire planet.

He projected into the future where this was headed unless we made some adjustments and it was as clear as day. After the first seven, eight, or nine years you can see the pattern was developing. But I had to question why does it go up and down once each year? He explained that if you look at the land mass of the earth, very little it is south of the equator. The vast majority of it is north of the equator. And most of the vegetation is north of the equator. When the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun as it is in our spring and summer, the leaves come out and they breathe in the carbon dioxide and the amount in the atmosphere goes down. When the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun as it is in our fall and winter, the leave fall down and exhale the carbon dioxide and the amount in the atmosphere goes up again. It's as if the entire earth once each year breathes in and out.

(http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/atmosphere/data/co-conc2-3.gif)
He started measuring carbon dioxide in 1958. By the middle sixties when he showed my class this image, it was already clear that it was going up. I respected him and learned from him so much I followed this.

Political Journey

When I went to the Congress in the middle 1970's I helped organize the first hearings on global warming, I asked my professor to be the lead off witness. I thought that would have such a big impact we'd be well on the way to solving this problem, but it didn't work out that way. I kept having hearings, and in 1984 I went to the Senate and really dug deeply into this issue with science round tables and the like. I wrote a book about it. I ran for president in 1988 partly try to gain some visibility for this issue. In 1992 went to the Whitehouse. We passed a version carbon tax and some other measures to try to address this. I went to Kyoto in 1997 to help get a treaty that is so controversial, in the US at least. In 2000 my opponent pledged to regulate the CO2 and that was not a pledge that was kept. The point of this is all this time you can see what I have seen all these years. It just keeps going up. It is relentless.


Effects of Global Warming

And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago.
Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here's Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.

This is happening in Glacier National Park. I climbed to the top of this in 1998 with one of my daughters. Within 15 years this will be the park formerly known as Glacier.
Here is what has been happening year by year to the Columbia Glacier. It just retreats more and more every year. And it is a shame because these glaciers are so beautiful. People who go up to see them, here is what they are seeing every day now.
In the Himalayas there is a particular problem because more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers. Within this next half century those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a very serious shortage because of this melting.
Italy, the Italian Alps same site today. An old postcard from the Switzerland: throughout the Alps we are seeing the same story.
It's also true in South America. This is Peru 15 years ago and the same glacier today.
This is Argentina 20 years ago, the same glacier today.
75 years ago in Patagonia on the tip of South America, this vast expanse of ice is now gone

(http://www.jewishexponent.com/images/publications/may252006/ots2.jpg)

Ice Cores: The 650,000 Record

There is a message in this. It is worldwide. The ice has a story to tell and it is worldwide. My friend Lonnie Thompson digs cores in the ice. They dig down and they bring the core drills back up and they look at the ice and they study it. When the snow falls it traps little bubbles of atmosphere. They can go in and measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere the year that snow fell. What's even more interesting I think is they can measure the different isotopes of oxygen and figure out the very precise thermometer and tell you what the temperature was the year that bubble was trapped in the snow as it fell.
When I was in Antarctica I saw cores like this and the guy looked at it. He said right here is where the US Congress passed the Clean Air Act. I couldn't believe it but you can see the difference with the naked eye. Just a couple of years after that law was passed, it's very clearly distinguishable.

They can count back year by year the same way a forester reads tree rings. You can see each annual layer from the melting and refreezing. They can go back in a lot of these mountain glaciers a thousand years. They constructed a thermometer of the temperature. The blue is cold and the red is warm. I show this for a couple of reasons. Number one the so called skeptics will sometimes say "Oh, this whole thing is cyclical phenomenon. There was a medieval warming period after all." Well yeah there was. There it is right there. There are one there and two others. But compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison. So if you look at a thousand years worth of temperature and compare it to a thousand years of CO2 you can see how closely they fit together. Now, a thousand years of CO2 data in the mountain glacier. That is one thing. But in Antarctica, they can go back 650,000 years. This incidentally is the first time anybody outside of a small group of scientists have seen this image. This is the present day era and that's the last ice age. Then it goes up. We're going back in time now 650,000 years. That's the period of warming between the last two ice ages back. That's the second and third ice age back.

CO2 Concentration Is Above 300 PPM

Now an important point: In all of this time, 650,000 years, the CO2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. Now, as I said, they can also measure temperature. Here is what the temperature has been on our earth. One thing that kind of jumps out at you is. Let me put it this way. If my class mate from the sixth grade that talked about Africa and South America might have said, "Did they ever fit together?" Most ridiculous thing I ever heard. But they did of course. The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside. In the parts of the United States that contain the modern cities of Cleveland, Detroit, New York in the northern tier. This is the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head. Keep that in mind when you look at this fact. Carbon dioxide having never gone above 300 PPM, here is where CO2 is now. We give off where it has never been as far back as this record will measure. If you will bear with me I would like to emphasize this point. It's already right here. Look how far above the natural cycle this is, and we've done that. But ladies and gentleman, in less than 50 years it's going to continue to go up. When some of these children who are here are my age, here's where it's going to be in less than 50 years. You've heard of off the chart. Within less than 50 years it'll be here. There's not a single fact or day or number that's been used to make this up that is in any controversy. The so-called skeptics look at this and say, "So, that looks seems perfectly okay." On the temperature side: If this much on the cold side is a mile of ice over our heads, what would that much on the warmer side be?

This is really not a political issue so much as a moral issue. If we allow that to happen, it is deeply unethical. I have such faith in our democratic system, our self-government, I actually thought and believed that the story would be compelling enough to cause a real sea change in the way Congress reacted to that. I thought they would be startled and they weren't.

Children

The struggle, the victories that aren't really victories, the defeats that aren't really defeats can serve to magnify the significance of trivial . and exaggerate the seeming importance of massive setbacks.
It just turned my whole world around. How should I spend my time on this Earth? I really dug in, trying to learn about it much more deeply. I went to the South Pole, the North Pole, the Amazon...

The possibility of losing something that was precious to me... What we take for granted might not be here for our children. It turned my whole world upside down. It shook it until everything just fell out.

My way of being in the world. It just changed everything for me. How should I spend my time on this earth? I really dug in, trying to learn about it much more deeply. I went to Antarctica, to the South Pole, North Pole, the Amazon. I went to places where scientists could help me understand parts of the issue I didn't really understand in depth. The possibility of losing what was most precious to me, I gained the ability that I maybe I didn't have before, but when I felt it, I felt that we really could lose. What we take for granted might not be here for our children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:28:04 pm
Part2

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 10 Hottest Years


These are actual measurements of atmospheric temperature since our civil war. In any given year it might look like it's going down, but the overall trend is extremely clear. In recent years it is uninterrupted and it is intensifying. In fact, if you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record, they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was 2005. We have already seen some of the heat waves scientists are saying are going to be a lot more common. A couple of years ago in Europe they had that massive heat wave that killed 35,000 people. India didn't get as much attention, but the same year the temperature there went to 122 degrees Fahrenheit. This past summer in the American west, there were a lot of cities that broke all time records for high temperatures and for consecutive days with 100 degree temperature or more. 200 cities and towns in the west set all time records. And in the east there were a lot of cities that did the same thing, including, incidentally, New Orleans.

(http://www.unep.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif)

(http://www.unep.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif)


So the temperature increases are taking place all over the world, including in the ocean. This is the natural range of variability for temperature in the ocean. You know people say, "Aw, it just naturally go up and down, so don't worry about it." This is the range that would be expected over the last 60 years. But the scientists that specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.

Ocean Temperature and Storms

Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile. And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
Sirens, background music, Mayor Ray Nagin. The water is up to my neck. I don't think I'm going to make it.

How in god's name could that happen here? There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause. And one question that we, as a people, need to decide is how we react when we hear warnings from the leading scientists in the world.

Winnie's Warning

There was another storm in the 1930's of a different kind, a horrible unprecedented storm in continental Europe. Winston Churchill warned the people of England that it was different from anything that had ever happened before, and they had to get ready for it. A lot of people did not want to believe it and he got real impatient with all the dithering. He said this:
"The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing, and baffling expedience of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Making mistakes in generations and centuries past would have consequences that we could overcome. We don't have that luxury anymore. We didn't ask for it, but here it is.

2000 Election

Background: 2000 election debacle in Florida. We're officially saying that Florida is too close to call. Supreme Court throws the decision to Bush.
Gore: While I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome. Well, that was a hard blow. But you make the best of it. It brought into clear focus, the mission that I had been pursuing for all these years. I started giving the slide show again.

Insurance

What is often unnoticed the fact that global warming causes more precipitation but more of it coming in one time big storm events because the evaporation off the ocean puts all the moisture up there when storm conditions trigger the downpour before it falls down. The insurance industry has actually noticed this. Their recovered losses are going up. See the damage from these severe weather events. And 2005 is not even on this yet. When it does, it will be off that chart.

(http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/25.jpg)

Effects of Global Warming

Europe has just had a year very similar to the one we've had where they say nature has just been crazy crazy, all kinds of unusual catastrophes like a major hike through the book of Revelations.
Flooding in Asia, Mumbai, India this past July (2005): 37 inches of rain in 24 hours, by far the largest downpour that any city in India has ever received. A lot of flooding in China also. Global warming paradoxically causes not only more flooding, but also more droughts. This neighboring province right next door had a severe drought at the same time these areas were flooded. One of the reasons for this has to do with the fact that global warming not only increases precipitation world wide, but it also relocates the precipitation. Focus most of all on this part of Africa just on the edge of the Sahara. Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing. That has been complicating the other problems that they also have. The second reason why this is a paradox: Global warming creates more evaporation of the ocean that seeds the clouds, but it also sucks moisture out of the soil. Soil evaporation increases dramatically with higher temperatures. And that has consequences for us in the United States as well.

Change and Timescales

Gore revisits the family farm. His father grew up on the farm. Learning it from your dad on the land, that is something special. Eight months in DC in a hotel apartment and the rest of the time on the farm. As a kid it took me a while to learn the difference between fun and work. The places where people live were chosen because of the climate pattern that had been pretty much the same on Earth since the end of the last ice age. Here on this farm, patterns are changing. It seems gradual in the course of a human lifetime but in the course of time as defined by this river, it's happening very, very quickly.

A Canary in the Coal Mine: The Arctic

Two canaries in the coal mine. The first one is in the Arctic. Of course the Arctic Ocean has a floating ice cap, Greenland on its side there. I say canary in the coal mine because the Arctic is one part of the world that is experiencing faster impact from global warming. This is the largest ice shelf in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf. It just cracked in half a year ago. The scientists were astonished.

Melting Permafrost

These are called drunken trees just going every which way. This is not caused by wind damage or alcohol consumption. These trees put their roots down in the permafrost and the permafrost is thawing, so they just go every which way now. This building was built on the permafrost and collapsed as the permafrost thawed. This woman's house has had to be abandoned. The pipeline is suffering a great deal of structural damage. Incidentally, the oil that they want to produce in that protected area in northern Alaska, which I hope they don't. They have to depend on trucks to go in and out of there and the trucks go over the frozen ground. This shows the number of days that the tundra in Alaska is frozen enough to drive on it. 35 years ago it was 225 days a year. Now it's below 75 days a year because the spring comes earlier and the fall comes later and the temperatures just keep on going up.
Fastest Temperature Increase Occurs at the Arctic
I went up to the North Pole. I went under that ice cap in a nuclear submarine that surfaced through the ice like this. This thing started patrolling in 1957. They have gone under the ice and measured with their radar looking upward to measure how thick it is because they can only surface where the thickness of the ice is 3 and half feet thick or less. So they have kept a meticulous record and they wouldn't release because it was national security. I went up there in order to persuade them to release them, and they did. And here's what that record showed. Starting in 1970 there was a precipitous drop off in the amount and extent and thickness of the arctic ice cap. It has diminished by 40 percent in 40 years. There are two studies showing that in the next 50 or 70 years in summertime it will be completely gone. Now you might say, "Why is that a problem? How could the arctic ice cap actually melt so quickly?" When the sun's rays hit the ice, more than 90 percent of it bounces off right back into space like a mirror. But when it hits the open ocean more than 90 percent is absorbed. As the surrounding water gets warmer, it speeds up the melting of the ice. Right now the arctic ice cap acts like a giant mirror. All the sun's rays bounce off, more than 90 percent, to keep the earth cooler. But as it melts and the open ocean receives that sun's energy instead more than 90 percent is absorbed. So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before. What does it mean to us to look at vast expanse of open water at the top of our world that used to be covered by ice? We ought to care a lot because it has planetary effects.

Earth's Climate is an Engine

The earth climate is like a big engine for redistributing heat from the equator to the poles. It does that by means of ocean current and wind current. They tell us, the scientists do, that the earth climate is a non-linear system. It's a fancy way they have of saying that the changes are not all just gradual. Some of them come suddenly in big jumps. On a world wide basis the annual average temperature is about 58 degrees Fahrenheit. If we have an increase of 5 degrees, which is on the low end of the projection, look at how that translates globally. That means an increase of only 1 degree at the equator but more than 12 degrees at the poles. So all those wind and ocean current patterns that have formed since the last ice age and have been relatively stable, they are all up in the air and they change. One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the Earth's rotation. Isn't it interesting that the whole ocean current system is all linked together in this loop. They call it the ocean conveyor. The red are the warm surface current, the Gulf Stream is the best known of them. The blue represents the cold currents running in the opposite direction. We don't see them at all because they run along the bottom of the ocean. Up in the North Atlantic, after that heat is pulled out, what's left behind is colder water and saltier water, because salt doesn't go anywhere. That makes it denser and heavier. That cold, dense heavy water sinks at a rate of 5 billion gallons per second. That pulls that current back south.

(http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/SectorGraphics/Coastal/Belt.jpg)

Disruption of the Ocean Conveyor

At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. That is a sudden jump. Of course that's not going to happen again, because the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We'll come back to that one.

Politics: Reagan, Bush1 and Kyoto

It is extremely frustrating to me to communicate . and we are still by far the worst contributor to the crisis. I look around and look for really meaningful signs that we are about to really change. I don't see it right now.
Reagan: Very reputable scientists have said that one factor of air pollution is oxides of nitrogen from decaying vegetation. This is what causes the haze that gave the Big Smokey Mountains their name.

Bush I: This guy is so far off on the environmental extremes, we'll be up to our neck in owls and out of work for every American. This guy's crazy!

This is perhaps the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated on the American People. If it is not on the tips of their constituents tongues, it's easy for them to ignore it. They say, "Well, let's deal with that tomorrow."



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:40:39 pm
Predator/Prey Disruptions and Misplaced Cities

So this same phenomenon of changing all these patterns is also changing the seasons. Here is a study from the Netherlands. The peak arrival date for migratory birds 25 years ago was April 25. Their chicks hatched on June 3, just at the time when the caterpillars were coming out: Nature's plan. But 20 years of warming later the caterpillars peaked two weeks earlier. The chicks tried to catch up with it, but they couldn't. So they are in trouble. There are millions of ecological niches that are affected by global warming in just this way. This is the number of days with frost in southern Switzerland over the last one hundred years. It has gone down rapidly. But now watch this. This is the number of new exotic species that have rushed in to fill the new ecological niches that are opening up. That's happening here in the United States too. You've heard of the pine beetle problem? Those pine beetles used to be killed by the cold winter, but there are fewer days of frost. So the pine trees are being devastated. This is part of the 14 million acres of spruce trees in Alaska that have been killed by bark beetles, the exact same phenomenon. There cities that were founded because they were just above the mosquito line. Nairobi is one. Harare is another. There are plenty of others. Now the mosquitoes with warming are climbing to hirer altitudes.

Infectious Disease

There are a lot of vectors for infectious diseases that are worrisome to us that are also expanding their range, not only mosquitoes but all these others as well. We've had 30 so-called new diseases that have emerged in just the last quarter century. A lot of them like SARS have caused tremendous problems. The resistant forms of tuberculosis. There has been a re-emergence of some diseases that were once under control. The Avian flu, of course is quite a serious matter, as you know. West Nile Virus came to the eastern shore of Maryland in 1999. Two years later it was across the Mississippi. And two years after that it had spread across the continent. These are very troubling times.

Coral Reefs

Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall species loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.

The Second Canary: Antarctic Peninsula Sea Ice

This brings me to the second canary in the coal mine, Antarctica, the largest mass of ice on the planet by far. A friend of mine said in 1978, "If you see the break up of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula, watch out, because that should be seen as an alarm bell for global warming. If you look at the peninsula up close, every place where you see one of these green blotches is an ice shelf larger than the state of Rhode Island that has broken up in just the last 15 to 20 years. I want to focus on just one of them called Larsen B. I want you to look at these black pools here. It makes it seem almost as if we are looking through the ice to the ocean beneath. But that's an illusion. This is melting water that forms this pool. If you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it 700 feet tall. They are so majestic, so massive. In the distance are the mountains, and just before the mountains is the shelf of the continent. This is floating ice, and there is land based ice on the down-slope of those mountains. From here to the mountains is about 20 to 25 miles. They thought this would be stable for about a hundred years, even with global warming. The scientists who study these ice shelves were absolutely astonished when they were looking at these images. Starting in January 31, 2002, in a period of 35 days, this ice shelf completely disappeared. They could not figure out how in the world this happened so rapidly. They went back to figure out where they had gone wrong. That's when they focused on those pools of melting water. Even before they could figure out what had happened there, something else started going wrong. When the floating sea-based ice cracked up, it no longer held back the ice on the land. The land-based ice then started falling into the ocean. It was like letting the cork out of a bottle. There's a difference between floating ice and land-based ice. It's like the difference between an ice cube floating in a glass of water, which when it melts doesn't raise the level of water in the glass, and a cube sitting atop a stack of ice cubes, which melts and flows over the edge. That's why the citizens of these pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand.

West Antarctica Land Based Ice

I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. It's a little of both. It's propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland

Impact of 20 Foot Rise in Sea Level

In 1992 they measured this amount of melting in Greenland. 10 years later this is what happened. And here is the melting from 2005. Tony Blair's scientific advisor has said that because of what is happening in Greenland right now, the map of the world will have to be redrawn. If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the low-countries: absolutely devastating. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta and, to the East Bangladesh the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center Memorial Site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. But this is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as the scientists could predict precisely how much water would breech the levy in New Orleans. The area where the World Trade Center Memorial is to be located would be under water. Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists? Maybe we should be concerned about other problems as well.

(http://www.hwr.arizona.edu/nats101/CDs/nese/htmfiles/images/ice1.gif)

Civilization and Earth

This issue is the same for China as it is for the US.

Separating the truth from the fiction and the accurate connection from the misunderstanding is part of what you learn here. When the warnings are accurate and based on sound science, then we as human beings, whatever country we live in, have to find a way to make sure that the warnings are heard and responded to.

We both have a hard time shaking loose the familiar patterns that we relied on in the past. We both faced completely unacceptable consequences.

We are witnessing a collision between our civilization and the Earth. There are three factors that are causing this collision.

Population - when the baby boom generation was born after WW II the population had just crossed the 2 billion mark. I'm in my 50s and it's already gone to 6 « billion. If I reach the demographic expectation for the baby boomers, it will go over 9 billion. If it takes 10,000 generations to reach 2 billion and then, in one human lifetime, ours, it goes from 2 billion to 9 billion, something profoundly different is going on right now. We're putting more pressure on the Earth. Most of it's in the poorer nations of the world. It puts pressure on food demand. It puts pressure on water demand. It puts pressure on vulnerable natural resources, and this pressure is one of the reasons we have seen such devastation of the forest, not only tropical but elsewhere. It is a political issue. This is the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. One set of policies here. Another set of policies here. Much of it comes not only from cutting, but also burning. Almost 30% of the CO2 that goes up into the atmosphere each year is from forest burning. This is a time-lapse picture of the Earth at night over a six month period showing the lights of the cities in white and the burning forests and brush fires in red. The yellow areas are the gas flares like these in Siberia.

(http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/Population/World%20Population%20Growth%20to%202050.JPG)

(http://images.wri.org/map_cartogram_global_warming_pubpage.gif)

The way we think about it is the third and final factor that transforms our relationship to the Earth. If a frog jumps into a pot of boiling water, it jumps right out again, because it senses the danger. But the very same frog if it jumps into a pot of luke warm water that is slowly brought to a boil, will just sit there and it won't move. It will just sit there even as the temperature continues to go up and up. It will stay there until.. until.. it is rescued. It is important to rescue the frog. The point is this: Our collective nervous system is like that frog's nervous system. It takes a sudden jolt sometimes before we become aware of a danger. If it seems gradual, even it is really adapting quickly, we are capable of just sitting there and not reacting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 08:51:42 pm
Part3



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tobacco Industry


I don't remember a time when I was a kid when summertime didn't mean working with tobacco. I used to love it. It was during that period when working with the guys on the farm seemed like fun to me. Starting in 1964 with the Surgeon General's report, the evidence was laid out on the connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. We kept growing tobacco.

Nancy was almost 10 years older than me, and there were only two of us. She was my protector and my friend at the same time. She started smoking when she was a teenager and never stopped. She died of lung cancer. That's one of the ways you don't want to die. The idea that we had been part of that economic pattern that produced the cigarettes that produced the cancer, it was so painful at so many levels. My father, he had grown tobacco all his life. He stopped it. Whatever explanation that seemed to make sense in the past, just didn't cut it anymore. He stopped it. It's just human nature to take time to connect the dots. I know that. But I also know that there can be a day of reckoning when you wished you had connected the dots more quickly.

Three Misconceptions

Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people. One of their internal memos leaked and here is what it said according to the press. Their objective is to reposition global warming as a theory rather than fact. This has happened before. after the Surgeon General's report. One of their memos leaked 4 years ago. They said, "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public's mind." But have they succeeded? You'll remember that there were 928 peer reviewed articles. Zero percent disagreed with the consensus. There was another study of all the articles in the popular press. Over the last fourteen years they listed a sample of 636. More than half of them said, "Well, we are not sure. It could be a problem, may not be a problem." So no wonder people are confused.
Hey! What did you find out? Working for who? .

Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it.

"Why do you directly contradict yourself in the testimony you're giving about this scientific question?"

"That last paragraph in that section was not a paragraph which I wrote. That was added to my testimony."

"If they force you to change a scientific conclusion it is a form of scientific fraud by them."

"I've seen scientists who were persecuted, ridiculed, deprived of jobs, income simply because the facts they discovered led them to an inconvenient truth that they insisted on telling."

"He worked for the American Petroleum Institute and in January of 2001 he was put by the president in charge of environmental policy. He received a memo from the EPA that warned about global warming. He had no scientific training whatsoever, but he took it upon himself to overrule the scientists. I want to know what this guy's handwriting looks like. This is the memo from the EPA. These are his actual pen strokes. He said, "No, you can't say this. This is just speculation." This was embarrassing to the Whitehouse. So this fellow resigned a few days later. The day after he resigned he went to work for Exxon-Mobil.

You know more than a hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote this: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it."

The second misconception: Do we have to choose between the economy and the environment? This is a big one. A lot of people say we do. I was trying to convince the first Bush administration to go to the Earth Summit. They organized a big Whitehouse conference to say, "We're on top of this." One of these viewgraphs caught my attention and I want to talk about it for a minute. Here is the choice we have to make according to this group. We have here a scale that balances two different things. On one side, we have gold bars. Mmmmm. Don't they look good! I'd just like to have some of those gold bars. On the other side of the scale we have. The Entire Planet! Hmm? I think this is a false choice for two reasons. Number one, if we don't have a planet. The other reason is that if we do the right thing, then we are going to create a lot of wealth and we are going to create a lot of jobs, because doing the right thing moves us forward.
I've probably given this slide show a thousand times. I've tried to identify all those things in people's minds that serve as obstacles to them understanding this. Whenever I feel like I've identified an obstacle, I try to take it apart, roll it away, remove it, blow it up. I set myself a goal: communicate this real clearly. The only way I know to do it is city by city, person by person, family by family. And I have faith that pretty soon enough minds are changed that we cross a threshold.

Let me give you an example of the wrong way to balance the economy and the environment. One part of this issue involves automobiles. Japan has mileage standards up here. Europe plans to pass Japan. Our allies in Australia and Canada are leaving us behind. Here's where we are. There is a reason for it. They say that we can't protect the environment too much without threatening the economy and threatening the auto makers, because auto makers in China might come in and just steal all our market. Well, here is where China's auto mileage standards are now. We can't sell our cars in China today because we don't meet China's mileage standard.

California has taken some initiative to have higher mileage cars sold in California. The auto companies have sued California to prevent this law from taking effect because as they point out, eleven years from now this would mean California would have to have cars for sale that are as efficient eleven years from now as China's are today: clearly too onerous a provision to comply with. Is this helping our companies to succeed? Actually, if you look at who's doing well in the world it's the companies that are building more efficient cars. Our companies are in deep trouble.

Final misconception: If we accept that this problem is real, maybe it is just too big to do anything about. There are a lot of people who go straight from denial to despair without pausing on the intermediate step of actually doing something about the problem. That's what I would like to finish with: the fact that we already know everything we need to know to effectively address this problem. We've got to do a lot of things, not just one. Increasing end use efficiency we can remove global warming pollution that would other wise be put into the atmosphere.
More efficient electrical appliances,
Higher mileage cars ,
Other transport efficiency ,
Renewable technologyl,
Carbon capture sequestration,
They all add up and pretty soon we are below our 1970 emission. We have everything we need, save perhaps political will. In America, political will is a renewable resource.
We have the ability to do this. Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, with the electricity we use, the cars we drive. We can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands. We just have to have the determination to make them happen.

(http://www.metroactive.com/metro/05.31.06/gifs/inconvenient-truth-0622.jpg)

States and Cities

Are we going to be left behind as the rest of the world moves forward? All of these nations have ratified Kyoto. There are only two advanced nations in the world that have not ratified Kyoto and we are one of them. The other is Australia. Luckily several states are taking the initiative. The nine northeastern states have banded together on reducing CO2. California and Oregon are taking the initiative. Pennsylvania is exercising leadership on solar power and wind power. US cities are stepping up to the plate. One after the other, we have seen all these cities pledge to take on global warming.

Rising to the Occasion

What about the rest of us? Ultimately this question comes down to this: Are we as Americans capable of doing great things even though they are difficult? Are we capable of rising above ourselves and above history? The record indicates that we do have that capacity. We formed a nation. We fought a revolution and brought something new to this Earth, a free nation guaranteeing individual liberty. America made a moral decision that slavery was wrong and that we could not be half free and half slave. We as Americans decided that of course women should have the right vote. We defeated totalitarianism and won a war in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously. We desegregated our schools and cured some diseases like polio. We landed on the moon, the very example of what's possible when we are at our best. We worked together in a completely bipartisan way to bring down communism. We have even solved a global environmental crisis before, the hole in the stratospheric ozone layer. This was said to be an impossible problem to solve because it's a global environmental challenge requiring cooperation from every nation in the world. But we took it on, and the United States took the lead in phasing out the chemicals that caused that problem. So now we have to use our political processes in our democracy and then decide to act together to solve those problems. But we have to have a different perspective on this one. It is different than any problem we have faced before.

Our Only Home

You remember that home movie of the earth spinning in space. One of those spacecraft continuing on out into the universe, when it got 4 billion miles out in space, Carl Sagan said, "Let's take another picture of the earth." See that pale blue dot. That's us. Everything that has ever happened in all of human history has happened on that pixel. All the triumphs and all the tragedies, all the wars, all the famines, all the major advances: it's our only home. And that is what is at stake: our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization.
I believe this is a moral issue. It is your time to see this issue. It is our time to rise again to procure our future.

There's nothing that unusual about what I'm doing. What is unusual is that I had the privilege to be shown it as a young man. It is almost as if a window was opened through which the future was very clearly visible. See that? That is the future in which you are going to live your life.

(http://www.space.com/images/blue_dot_010925_03.jpg)

Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves. "What were our parents thinking? Why didn't they wake up when they had a chance?"

We have to hear that question from them, now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on January 22, 2007, 09:06:35 pm
the Nightmare Scenario of a Flooded New York (from A Day After Tomorrow)

(http://phim.sgnhotels.com/photos/the_day_after_tomorrow_01.jpg)

(http://away.com/images/outside/200405/the_day_after_tomorrow.jpg)

(http://einsiders.com/reviews/archives/images/Day%20After%20Tomorrow%201.jpg)

(http://www.sandcastlevi.com/images/movies/day-after-tomorrow%20ny-flood.jpg)

(http://www.wetwired.org/img/datm.JPG)



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on January 29, 2007, 02:10:13 am
Experts: Latest climate report too rosy By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
1 hour, 17 minutes ago

 


WASHINGTON - Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.


But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas — Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the        United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including        NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."

In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.

But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year — twice the rate it was losing in 1996.

Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say. The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments — including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia — and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.

Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."

___

On the Net:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on January 31, 2007, 02:23:57 am
Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
 


WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations that White House officials for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record). They expounded — and at times tried to outdo each other — on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen.        Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with        NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.

"I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized."

"The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis.

Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.        President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes.

Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science.

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."

At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., had his own view of the science.

There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time."

"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

House committee: http://oversight.house.gov



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on January 31, 2007, 02:26:44 am
Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming
POSTED: 2:06 p.m. EST, January 30, 2007

Story Highlights
• Chairman said officials mislead by "injecting doubt" into global warming science
• House panel looking for evidence of political pressure on government scientists
• Advocacy groups says half of scientists told to delete material from reports
• Sens. McCain, Obama to express views on global warming at hearing
 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

Administration officials were not scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change. Present Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."

Two private advocacy groups, meanwhile, presented to the panel a survey of government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

Survey: Scientists pressured to downplay threat
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group. The report also was based on "firsthand experiences" described in interviews with the Government Accountability Project, which helps government whistleblowers, lawmakers were told.

At the same time, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, sought to gauge her colleague's sentiment on climate change. She opened a meeting where senators were to express their views on global warming in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.

Among those scheduled to make comments were two presidential hopefuls -- Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth. (Watch why the president has proposed his own global warming initiative javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2007/01/23/todd.warming.politics.points.cnn','2007/02/06');','2007/01/30'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2007/01/23/todd.warming.politics.points.cnn','2007/02/06');','2007/01/30');)

U.N. climate change report expected soon
The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels. (Watch how global warming my be changing Asia' climate javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2007/01/24/riminton.hk.climate.cnn','2007/02/07');','2007/01/30'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2007/01/24/riminton.hk.climate.cnn','2007/02/07');','2007/01/30');)

They agree sea levels will rise, but not on how much. Whatever the report says when it comes out at week's end, it is likely to influence the climate debate in Congress.

At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their research -- based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act -- revealed "evidence of widespread interference in climate science in federal agencies."

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented, that they had been pressured to change findings and had been restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly.

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on January 31, 2007, 02:50:03 am
Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

 


WASHINGTON - Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations that White House officials for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record). They expounded — and at times tried to outdo each other — on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen.        Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with        NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.

"I am no climate-change denier," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the committee, but he questioned whether "the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized."

"The mere convergence of politics and science does not itself denote interference," said Davis.

Administration officials were not called to testify. In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.        President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly.

Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said "the reality is that science and politics are intermixed."

Pielke maintained that "scientific cherry picking" can be found on both sides of the climate debate. He took a swipe at the background memorandum Waxman had distributed and maintained that it exaggerated the scientific consensus over the impact of climate change on hurricanes.

Waxman and Davis agreed the administration had not been forthcoming in providing documents to the committee that would shed additional light on allegations of political interference in climate science.

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," said Waxman, adding that he is "not trying to obtain state secrets."

At Boxer's Senate hearing, her predecessor as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., had his own view of the science.

There is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing global warming, declared Inhofe, who once called global warming a hoax. "We all know the Weather Channel would like to have people afraid all the time."

"I'll put you down as skeptical," replied Boxer.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

House committee: http://oversight.house.gov


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 02, 2007, 05:35:06 am
Global warming man-made, will continue By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago

 


PARIS - International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

 
The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, called it a "very impressive document that goes several steps beyond previous research."

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

The 21-page summary of the panel's findings released Friday represents the most authoritative science on global warming. The panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The scientists said the changes are "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told The Associated Press in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.

"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.

Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in        President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Trenberth said scientists do worry that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona said. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

The panel, created by the        United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years — although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases — this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.

___

On the Net:

Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb2007.pdf



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on February 05, 2007, 02:21:24 am
In Antarctica (where the South Pole is), most of the ice sits on land. In the Arctic (where the North Pole is), the ice floats on water. If Earth's average temperature increases and the ice caps start melting, which one would be more responsible for raising sea levels?

Materials-
•   Two clear bowls
•   Ice cubes
•   Ruler
•   Piece of wood that will sit on top of one of the bowls
 
 
 

Fill each bowl halfway with water. In one bowl, add six ice cubes. Measure the height of the water. This will represent the Arctic ice cap melting. Measure the height of water in the other bowl. Place the wood on top of the bowl, and place six cubes on the wood, so that meltwater will fall into the bowl. This will represent the Antarctic ice cap melting. Once the ice has melted, measure the height of water in each bowl.    (http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/world/images/arrow.gif)
Which bowl had a rise in water level? Did one bowl stay at the same level or go down?
Remember that when water freezes, it expands. This means that ice will take up more space than liquid water. Ice in the water should take up more space than when it melts. Ice floating on water, like in the Arctic, will not raise water levels. Ice on land, as it is in Antarctica, will raise water levels, because as it melts, it will flow into the surrounding ocean. There is so much water tied up in Antarctica that melting even a portion of it would raise sea levels worldwide.

 http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/world/meltingice.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on February 05, 2007, 02:23:37 am
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level 

When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise. People believe that when this floating ice melts, water level doesn’t rise an additional amount because the freshwater ice displaces the same volume of water as it would contribute once it melts. Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change of state, so it won’t affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.


In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.


 
  (http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/float_1.jpg)
Figure 1: A freshwater ice cube floats in a beaker of concentrated saltwater. Note that the ice cube floats much higher in the saltwater than it would in a glass of freshwater because saltwater has a greater density.

  (http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/float_2.jpg)
Figure 2: When the freshwater ice melts, it raises the water level. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater; so the floating ice cube displaced less volume than it contributed once it melted.


Noerdlinger's collaborator, Professor Kay R. Brower, of the New Mexico Institute of Technology, Socorro, validated the effect experimentally as seen in Figures 1 and 2.

Source: University of Colorado Boulder

 http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on February 05, 2007, 02:25:30 am
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels


By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several centuries.

 
It is one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks that have sought to gauge the impact of climate change on the world's oceans and lakes. Just last month two researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, and a separate paper in Science today predicts that by the end of this century lakes and streams on one-fourth of the African continent could be drying up because of higher temperatures.

The new Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASA satellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from the ice sheet into the ocean -- equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in three months -- is causing global sea level to rise by 0.4 millimeters a year. [n]The continent holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated 20 feet.[/b]

"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us we have to pay attention."

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.

But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led to increased snowfall.

"It looks like the ice sheets are ahead of schedule" in terms of melting, Alley said. "That's a wake-up call. We better figure out what's going on."

Velicogna acknowledged that it is hard to predict how fast the ice sheet will melt in the future but said, "I don't expect it's going to stop in the next couple of years."

Scientists have been debating whether the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding or shrinking overall, because the center of the sheet tends to gain mass through snowfall whereas the coastal regions are more vulnerable to melting.

Velicogna and her co-author, University of Colorado at Boulder physics professor John Wahr, based their measurements on data from the two GRACE satellites that circle the world more than a dozen times a day at an altitude of 310 miles. The satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic region in one fell swoop to determine if it was gaining or losing mass," Wahr said.

But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.

"The Antarctic is really a puzzle," said Taylor, who writes for the Web site TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. "A lot more research is needed to understand the degree of climate and ice trends in and around the Antarctic."

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, two South African researchers are reporting today in Science that their computer models indicate that by 2100 climate change may rob the south and west of Africa and areas in the upper Nile region of a significant portion of their current water supply. Warming may reduce the rainfall needed to replenish up to 25 percent of Africa's surface water, said Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz at the University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, South Africa.

"Water is essential to human survival," they wrote, "and changes in its supply can potentially have devastating implications, particularly in Africa, where much of the population relies on local rivers for water."

Congressional Democrats, including Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said yesterday that the two new papers show that the United States must act quickly to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Bush administration opposes such curbs on the grounds that they could hurt the country's economy and has instead invested money on new technology to limit greenhouse emissions and further climate science research.

"Climate change is not just someone else's concern but a very real threat to the lives and livelihood of people across the globe," Kerry said.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on February 05, 2007, 02:28:18 am
VANISHING ICE

Konrad Steffen arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the 2002 summer fieldwork season and immediately observed that something significant was happening in the Arctic. Pools of water already spotted the ice surface, and melting was occurring where it never had before. “That year the melt was so early and so intense — it really jumped out at me. I’d never seen the seasonal melt occur that high on the ice sheet before, and it had never started so early in the spring,” said Steffen, principal scientist and interim director at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado.

  (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/Images/map1.gif)
By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. “I was really surprised by the change,” Serreze said. “By the end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several centuries.”

Seasonal melt areas on the Greenland Ice Sheet are generally located along the edges of the ice sheet at its lowest points. In 2002, however, the melt started unusually early and progressed higher up the ice sheet than at any time in the past 24 years. Surface melting extended up to 6,560 feet (2,000 meters) in elevation in the northeast portion of the island, where temperatures normally are too cold for melting to occur. In addition, the total melt area covered 265,000 square miles (686,350 square kilometers), representing a 16 percent increase above the maximum melt area measured in the past 24 years.

Serreze’s team coincidentally discovered that in September 2002, Arctic sea ice extent was approximately 400,000 square miles (1.04 million square kilometers) less than the long-term average of 2.4 million square miles (6.2 million square kilometers), and that much of the remaining sea ice was unusually thin and spread out.

To determine whether their independent findings were related, the research teams measured the sea ice extent and ice sheet melt using passive microwave data from satellites, including data from the NIMBUS-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) (1978-1987) and its successor, the DMSP Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) (1987-present).


  (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/Images/greenlandiceedge.jpg)
A researcher observes the edge of the Greenland Ice Sheet in 2001. (Image courtesy of Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado at Boulder)
Passive microwave sensors provide data that are processed into brightness temperatures. Brightness temperatures are both a measure of the physical temperature within the snow and a gauge of emissivity, or the ability of water or ice/snow to emit radiation at the microwave frequencies (frequencies in the centimeter wavelength range). Dry snow emits much less radiation than wet snow, which behaves almost like a perfect emitter (blackbody), giving off a wide range of frequencies of radiation. Therefore, dry snow and ice have lower brightness temperatures than wet snow surfaces.

The brightness temperature of seawater (ice-free ocean) is much lower than that of ice/snow or melting ice/snow. By calculating daily brightness temperatures (from the daily pass of the satellite over the Arctic), scientists can determine the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and the extent of melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Because the microwave instrument can “see through” clouds and darkness, ice extent can be monitored year-round, even during storms and winter darkness.

To validate, or confirm, their calculations of ice extent, the sea ice team used images from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The Greenland team validated its findings with climatological data from 20 automatic weather stations distributed over the entire ice sheet. The passive microwave data and the MODIS images are archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of NASA’s Distributed Active Archive Centers.

The Greenland team has access to year-round passive microwave data from the last 24 years for their study area, a significant observation period. During that period, Steffen documented an overall trend of increasing melt area in Greenland, taking into account years with a great deal of melt, like 2002, and years with less-than-average melt, like 1992 when the Mt. Pinatubo eruption sent aerosols into the atmosphere, which reflected solar radiation and resulted in cooler temperatures and less melt.

Steffen and Serreze believe the accelerated melt in 2002 may be linked to shifts in Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns. Air circulation is driven by pressure differences, and in 2002 unusual stationary low-pressure areas occurred in the Arctic. A relatively stationary low-pressure cyclone over the Atlantic Ocean northeast of Greenland moved air from the North Atlantic onto the ice sheet, which is rare. While it is normal for cyclones to form over the North Atlantic, they usually are quite dynamic and are not “locked” in one place, as occurred during the summer of 2002.
 
   Emissivity and Brightness Temperatures
by Jason Wolfe

Remote-sensing satellites measure the amount of radiance reflected or emitted by the Earth’s surface. Scientists who study the temperature of objects at the Earth’s surface need an additional factor called emissivity to accurately calculate temperature. Emissivity represents the effectiveness of different objects to radiate thermal energy and is a ratio of an object’s radiant energy to that of a blackbody at the same temperature. A blackbody is an ideal object that absorbs all incoming energy without reflecting back any energy.

Given the emissivity of an object, microwave radiances are converted to brightness temperatures, which are a measure of the intensity of thermal radiation emitted by an object. 
The low sea ice levels in 2002 seem to be part of a general downward trend in Arctic sea ice over the past 24 years, which appears to be driven by a combination of higher temperatures and altered wind fields that tend to break up the ice cover. A key feature of 2002 was the persistent stormy conditions in summer, with low sea level pressure over the central Arctic Ocean from June through August. Temperatures were also unusually high from January through August. “I’ve never seen this situation occur before,” said Serreze.

The unusual late winter warmth and the increased ice melt seen in the Arctic in recent years appear to be signs of a positive trend in the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO, which is very similar the North Atlantic Oscillation, is a large-scale atmospheric circulation phenomenon — a cyclic shifting of atmospheric mass between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. When the AO is in a positive state, as has generally been the case for the last two decades, atmospheric pressures are low over the Arctic Ocean, winds are usually stronger than normal, and the wind transports warm air into the Arctic. Serreze explained, “Researchers at the University of Washington have shown that variations in atmospheric circulation seem to play a strong role in creating regional differences in sea ice thickness that precondition the ice for extensive summer melt and breakup. However, the stormy conditions we saw in summer 2002 don’t really fit the AO framework, so we’re still not sure why the summer was so stormy.”

Steffen added, “It’s not by chance that we had the minimum sea ice distribution and the maximum melt that year; having so little sea ice affected the local climate around Greenland quite substantially. Because the sun wasn’t reflecting off the sea ice, the air close to the ocean surface was warmed, and certainly the ocean water was much warmer. This has a very strong effect on cyclones.”

But were the 2002 ice minimums an indication of continual warming in the Arctic, or was 2002 just another peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle?

Warming trends have been observed over Greenland in the past, but the warming has progressed at a much slower rate. In the early 1930s, average temperatures over Greenland were as warm as those observed recently, but it took about 30 years of gradual warming to reach those levels. That warming trend could have been part of a natural, long-term cycle in the Arctic. But today, the Arctic is warming much faster, reaching current warm temperatures in less than a decade. And the warming is starting earlier in the year, with the greatest warming generally occurring in the spring and late winter.

If the warming is part of a continuing trend, higher Arctic temperatures and less ice may have long-term effects on both sea level and navigable waters in the Arctic. Steffen, Serreze, and colleagues estimate that a warmer climate over Greenland might lead to an increase in the rate of sea-level rise. Increased melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet sends more meltwater into the surrounding ocean. It also increases the rate of ice flow off Greenland, because the meltwater penetrates the ice sheet and forms a thin film between the ice and bedrock, which causes the glaciers to slide off the continent faster.


  (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/Images/seaice.gif)

In September 2002, satellite data showed that sea ice extent was 4 percent lower than any previous September since satellite monitoring began in 1978. For the period between 1987 and 2001, lower-than-average concentrations of ice floes appear in blue, and higher-than-average concentrations appear in yellow. The lavender line indicates the median ice extent for 1987 through 2001. (Image courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)

  (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/Images/graphmaps.gif)
The Greenland Ice Sheet melt area increased on average by 16 percent from 1979 to 2002. The minimum melt extent was observed after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1992. (Images courtesy of Konrad Steffen and Russell Huff, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder)


A trend in lower concentrations of Arctic sea ice may mean that historically unnavigable areas of the Arctic may open, such as the famed Northwest Passage. If current warming continues and results in lower ice concentrations, the Northwest Passage could become accessible to ice-strengthened ships, opening the area not just as a trade route, but also as a means to economically exploit the far north. This could have profound economic implications in addition to sociological implications for Arctic peoples such as the Inuit, who depend on the ice cover for travel and hunting.

Some researchers, however, believe that recent Arctic warming is only a recurring peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle. A group of Alaskan researchers recently published their assessment of Russian long-term observations of air temperature from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from Arctic seas. They found a great deal of variability in Arctic temperatures, with cyclic fluctuations on a timescale of 60 to 80 years. A climate cycle of this length might mean that the Arctic will cool again soon, rather than continue warming.

Given these findings and the world’s interest in global climate change, long-term observations are essential to understanding Arctic climate change. “Climatologists generally need a 30-year mean (or average) to be able to talk about trends in climate variability. With the availability of data from satellites that have been in orbit for 24 years, scientists now have close to that 30-year standard, which is unique,” said Steffen.

“The real question is, is this recent trend unusual?” said Serreze. Both teams will rely on the orbiting “eyes” of satellites to observe Arctic ice conditions over the next few years as they attempt to determine whether these changes are part of a long-term climate cycle or whether the Arctic is experiencing an ongoing warming trend.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abdalati, W. and K. Steffen. 2001. Greenland Ice Sheet melt extent: 1979-1999, Journal of Geophysical Research. 106:33,983 - 33,989.

Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, and A.V. Yulin. 2002. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters. 29(10):1029.

Serreze, M.C., J.A. Maslanik, T.A. Scambos, F. Fetterer, J. Stroeve, K. Knowles, C. Fowler, S. Drobot, R.G. Barry, and T.M. Haran. 2002. A record minimum Arctic sea ice extent and area in 2002. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(3):1110.

This article contributed from Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) Alliance: Supporting Earth Observing Science 2003
For a copy, e-mail nasadaacs@nsidc.org.

 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Byron on February 08, 2007, 01:24:05 am
This is quite obviously, the watered down version:

Scientists: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming
POSTED: 12:55 a.m. EST, February 3, 2007
Story Highlights
• Scientists release a 21-page report strongly linking humans to climate change
• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal
• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100
• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century


 
 
(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon deliver the grim news on global warming javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/sots.france.global.warming.report.aptn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/sots.france.global.warming.report.aptn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03');)

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the climate. (Watch what happens to our planet when manmade emissions get trapped in the atmosphere javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/obrien.climate.warming.facts.cnn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/tech/2007/02/02/obrien.climate.warming.facts.cnn','2007/02/16');','2007/02/03');)

The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.

The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/02/01/lawrence.atlantis.california.cnn','2007/02/15');','2007/02/03'); javascript:cnnVideo('play','javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/02/01/lawrence.atlantis.california.cnn','2007/02/15');','2007/02/03');)

"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated.

The group will meet again in April to discuss the socioeconomic impact of climate change.

Defining 'likely'
The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.
The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web site.

The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers, scientists and other climate change experts.
Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.

The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."

The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.

Renewed concern in U.S.
Friday's report comes amid renewed debate in the United States. (Full story)
In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for the use of more environmentally friendly technologies to "confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

It was the first time he has discussed the issue in a State of the Union address.
The White House has said Bush's proposals would stop the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles within 10 years.

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate held hearings on climate change this week. (Full story)

CNN's Peggy Mihelich and David E. Williams contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 12, 2007, 03:24:08 pm
I feel out of place here.  Will I be the only voice of reason or should I hype up the emotion just a tad so that I don't feel so disjointed?  I'm kidding - I just thought it would be fun to tweak a pair of you just for "old time's sake".   :-*

    I'm unmoved by the AR4 summary to the IPCC's latest attempt!
 

The summary and associated report should have come with the following title page so that scientists who went to read it wouldn't be as let down as I was:

  ** - Anecdotal Evidence Alert! - ** 
  ** - All Coincidences are Converted to Evidence! - ** 
  ** - No Data to be found HERE! - ** 
  ** - Our Computer Models Still Don't Work! - ** 
  ** - We Haven't Made a Single Correct Prediction Yet! - ** 

I have noticed that everyone who has posted in this thread has gone out of their way to portray the situation as dire as possible.  By using graphics from movies and horror stories from other sources, all you do is ellicit an emotional response - not a logical or "ACTUAL" one.  People get scared - but they don't actually do anything.  Furthermore, I notice how so many of you are heaping up the conspiracy to conceal evidence (for lack of a less meaningful term), yet you fail to cover the other side of the story.  What about the mainstream movement to conceal any evidence to the contrary of GCC, GW or the man-made nature of the two?  I have yet to see any of the articles or stories portraying the IPCC as corrupt as the administrations of the countries that aren't convinced?  Hasn't anyone noticed that, ever since the debacle of the AR2 report - where scientists fled from it en mass, there has been no scientific vetting of the documents (AR3 & AR4).  Why are there no discussions as to why, only scientists who agree to agree with the findings of the report (up front & before anything is learned) are invited to participate?  Oh well - I could go on at length with reasons to portray the IPCC as nefariously as you all do the skeptics...  Maybe we should just discuss the DATA and not the charcters involved in the conspiracies on both sides.

That will be difficult since it still isn't available, the computer models still don't work, and the predictions have all been incorrect.  It's like watching any other scientific theory in its infancy, struggling to survive the weight of its own initial promises.  Maybe we should give them some time to get ANYTHING correct before we start rushing headlong to embrace it with open arms.   ::)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Chronos on February 12, 2007, 03:30:47 pm
Welcome, Merlin, and cheer up, at least you'll have no log-in problems here.  Welcome aboard.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 12, 2007, 07:17:54 pm
Welcome, Merlin, and cheer up, at least you'll have no log-in problems here.  Welcome aboard.
Thanks for the warm welcome friend,  I appreciate it.    :D 
 



BTW - I'm not grumpy, I was just having a little fun whilst pointing out an obvious oversight on behalf of the GW crowd.  I myself am undecided, so I like to hold down the middle as well as I can on that issue.

I do admit to having my butt CHAPPED a little bit about losing my original log in over at Atlantis Rising.  More so that no one seems to give a darn.  Silly me for hoping for a bit of professionalism.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on February 13, 2007, 10:07:35 am
Quote
Dangers of Disinformation

President George W. Bush's new international anti-malaria campaign has been greeted with enthusiasm by its victims, but with pseudoscience by commentators.

That is not unusual: Fallacies infect every debate about the environment and affect policy, taxpayers' money and victims' lives.

Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, look at the evidence, modify the hypotheses and probe further. Then activists, news media and politics take over.

Look at climate change: The public hears again and again that there is scientific consensus, that it's happening now and that we are on the brink of disaster

This is nonsense. But if we scientists don't yell "Danger!" no one listens. For years, the public has been fed a lusty diet of climate doom and gloom, cooked and served by alarmists who use the language of science to push an agenda. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the "climate consensus" or be branded a callous skeptic.

I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage. Every discipline has many critical, unanswered questions and many dangerous distortions.

I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.

Recently, the Associated Press quoted an entomologist claiming an unprecedented outbreak of malaria in Karatina, Kenya, at 1,868 meters. The heart rending article began, "The soft cries of children broke the morning stillness as parents brought them in to the hillside hospital one by one...drained by a disease once unknown in the high country of Kenya."

But there's nothing new about malaria in Karatina. Between World War I and the 1950s, there were 10 disastrous epidemics in the region, and they extended much higher.

We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.

In November, I was in Nairobi along with thousands of people attending the UN's climate change conference.

I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place "above the mosquito line" but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.

Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.

http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/bulletins.php?bulletin_id=1171289794 (http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/bulletins.php?bulletin_id=1171289794)

Paul Reiter has no axe to grind when it comes to climate change.  Gore does ....  Who is telling the truth? 




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 13, 2007, 01:25:50 pm
Essan -

This is exactly what I have been pointing out for the past year at the "other forums" and the past 10 years with students.  Not necessarily always about climate change, but the "evolution" of Truth due to those who have an agenda.

I know, I know - it's easy to point out that people with an agenda have been around forever, trying to change the minds of those who would be a party to it, but things are different in the past 30 years in my opinion.  It's no longer just "an agenda" that is at play here...  It has become that "the agenda" is to make headlines.  The author's example is a wonderful one, but its subject matter could just have easily been Global Climate Change (GCC), Global Warming (GW), Sectarian violence in the Middle East, Dark Matter, Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, or the Economy.  It really matters nought to the press.  Once they seize on an issue, the mainstream is going to flow in the direction that media directs.

Have you ever noticed that the media does not argue with itself?  Think about it for a minute...  (I'll wait)...  Alright, when was the last time that the media came out with competing positions on an issue?  It doesn't happen anymore.  Each of them "build upon" the stories of their peers, forever worsening the situation until even the most unimportant issue becomes dire - or - fades to black.  We've all seen issues simply disappear, but have we taken the time to question why?  It's because someone, somewhere (in the media) realized that the story was wrong.  No hoopla, no apologies - they just simply bury it.  It's funny really - everyone loves to talk about the "BIG OIL" monopoly, and the Telecom Monopoly, The "Old Boys Club" on Wall Street, but how many talk about the handful of "mini-monopolies" that make up the News agencies?  How can papers in LA, NY, Chicago and Dallas compete with one another to "make sure the story is correct" when they are all paid by the same people?  There  must be an unwritten rule somewhere that won't allow them to report stories in opposition to stories reported by their own (other) entities.  I know that the party line states that "nothing like this will happen", but let's be realistic - when was the last time Big Media Outlets went head-to-head on a story?  Even Fox News does this with CNN...  That's like cats sleeping with dogs.  I miss the "real", not the "fake" rivalry.

So that brings us back to the discussion at hand.  The author of the article makes a similar point to one that I made awhile back, "...no consensus among scientists", only a consensus amongst pro-man-made-GW scientists.  Most scientists with an opposing view are just biding their time protecting their fellowships, grants, and funding.  Once we "come off the bench" we're going to take a whoopin where it hurts most, in the wallet, and that beating is going to come first from the media.  The rest of their lapdogs will follow to kick us while we're down.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on February 13, 2007, 09:45:12 pm
Good to see you over here, Merlin.

Quote
Hasn't anyone noticed that, ever since the debacle of the AR2 report - where scientists fled from it en mass, there has been no scientific vetting of the documents (AR3 & AR4).  Why are there no discussions as to why, only scientists who agree to agree with the findings of the report (up front & before anything is learned) are invited to participate?  Oh well - I could go on at length with reasons to portray the IPCC as nefariously as you all do the skeptics...  Maybe we should just discuss the DATA and not the charcters involved in the conspiracies on both sides.

The IPCC may well be a corrupt organization, any organization that allows government bureaucrats a hand in editing scientific work (and allows to do it as a matter of routine) has a lot to answer for.

However, the IPCC's failings have nothing to do with global warming. Granted, there never is an absolute scientific consensus, but the reason why scientists have begun to distance themselves from the reports they issue is because the information simply doesn't go far enough.  The last report, for instance, is a watered down version of the effects of global warming on the planet, it isn't the truth.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on February 13, 2007, 09:58:44 pm
Quote
Paul Reiter has no axe to grind when it comes to climate change.  Gore does ....  Who is telling the truth? 


Essan, I actually don't remember the mosquitoes in Narobi playing all that big of a role in An Inconvenient Truth, in fact, I have seen the movie twice and don't remember them at all in the movie.

Some of the science is a little off, in other parts, there was not, as yet, any firm scientific consensus but theory at the time pointed to global warming being responsible - the idea that global warming would bring on stronger storms, for instance. There is a case for that, but it has yet to be proven conclusively.

Overall, the danger of global warming is very real, and if the best the global warming skeptics can do is poke some holes in things here and there, well, fine, we've seen that story before.  They did the same thing when it comes to evolution and it hasn't gotten them far with most sensible people.

Finally, does Gore have an agenda?  You bet, just like the fossil fuel companies have an agenda of their own by trying to stop what he would ideally like to keep in place because it would cut into profits.  At worst, Gore's agenda (even if global warming didn't exist) would lower our pollution levels on the planet.  At best, it will stop the planet from going down a slide that it most likely wouldn't recover from for a long, long time.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on February 13, 2007, 10:00:16 pm
Cool graphics, by the way, people.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on February 14, 2007, 10:21:31 am

Overall, the danger of global warming is very real, and if the best the global warming skeptics can do is poke some holes in things here and there, well, fine, we've seen that story before. 

Well personally I don't dispute global warming.  I dispute misinformation (on all sides) and I dispute the emphasis on carbon emissions to the exclusion of other human activities.

Did you know that 10% of all carbon emissions come from Indonesia.  Not from cars.  Not from power stations.  But from deforestation.

I've not actually seen An Inconvenient Truth.  How much time was spent discussing the destruction of rain forests and their huge impact not just on global carbon emissions but on regional climate as well? 

btw I don't drive, don't fly and use as little electricity as I can - I support all efforts to reduce industrial carbon emissions.   But I don;t believe everything I read about AGW.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 15, 2007, 11:14:27 am
Good to see you over here, Merlin.

Thanks - good to be here.

Quote
The IPCC may well be a corrupt organization, any organization that allows government bureaucrats a hand in editing scientific work (and allows to do it as a matter of routine) has a lot to answer for.

That's never a good thing.  The bureaucrats don't allow us scientists to edit their laws, so why do we let them alter our research?

Quote
However, the IPCC's failings have nothing to do with global warming. Granted, there never is an absolute scientific consensus, but the reason why scientists have begun to distance themselves from the reports they issue is because the information simply doesn't go far enough.  The last report, for instance, is a watered down version of the effects of global warming on the planet, it isn't the truth.

This, we have to disagree upon.  I am not the only physicist who has questioned the legitimacy of the assumptions made in the science in order to get the theories to coalesce.  I am not the only mathematician who has shaken his head in  disgust  when the references for the citations are reviewed and the math turns out to be entirely contrived.  I am also, nowhere nearly the only theorist who is amazed that none of their computer models (based upon their theories) work without incremental perturbations ("fudge factors") being installed in order to arrive at a pre-determined result.  In fact, of the two universities I spend most of my time at, all of the math and science departments are overwhelmingly populated with skeptics.  Most of which are so because none of the predictions are correct. 

I realize that theory is no less a viable theory in the face of no observational evidence; that much is certain.  However, I do know for a fact that when, observation serves to disprove the predictions of a theory - time after time - there is something wrong. One thing that may be wrong is the theory, another might be the way we observe, but certainly we cannot blame the test in this case...  The test is our existence and we couldn't screw that test up - it's pure, unadulterated observation.

Something that may produce enough success to keep scientists moving forward, yet not enough to prove a theory can often times mean that you are close to being correct.  Lord knows, I've been there - done that, too many times to count.  Unfortunately, there is another method for creating succesively close (but otherwise inaccurate) results.  That is to create a "mechanical theory" for something that is "fluid", and use a lot of "fudge" and assumptions to "fine tune" it.    IMHO, Gertrude Hawk and Mrs. Fields have nothing on the IPCC, there's enough fudge in the previous reports to give cavities to all of the teeth in the entire third-world.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Same old Merlin - a stuck record.

The media doesn't offer competing sides of a story?  Gee, maybe that's because there aren't two sides to the truth.  The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

As for their not being as scientific consensus concerning global warming, more baloney. Take a poll, did we? 

Whereas you claim that global warming evidence is "anecdotal," your evidence to the contrary happens to be simply opinion layered atop more opinion. Yep, that sure warants equal time! 

Allison


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on February 24, 2007, 08:04:31 am
Carbon emissions get more time than they deserve ;) 

It's a bit like blaming someone's poor health on too much smoking, whilst the facts that they eat fast food, drink too much, sit around watching TV all day and never exercise are all ignored .....

Global Warming/climate change has become a one issue debate.  It ain't as simple as that.  Why do the AGWers ignore other factors?  Maybe because they find the real truth  too inconvenient? 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm
Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 25, 2007, 07:47:50 am
Allison,

Hopefully you don't stop reading at "hopefully".


Same old Merlin - a stuck record.

You got me there Allison - I am stuck on the same point-of-view.  Scientists tend to do that (at least credible ones do) when they are certain they are correct, or have at least raised a valid point.

The media doesn't offer competing sides of a story?  Gee, maybe that's because there aren't two sides to the truth.

I'd like to answer that a little differently than you are predicting.  I'll do it with a question instead of a comment.  First - we have to remove the pollution effect from the discussion becuase you and I are in heated agreement (I suspect); global pollution is bad.  Now, to the "meat of it".  Are you even sure that GCC is a bad thing?  Aside from the adverse financial effects it will have on the world's economies, is there a reason to think that GCC is going to hurt the planet?  Find some data on that and let's discuss it.  Also, since we know the planet moves through phases all on its own, are we certain that increasing temperatures aren't a "planetary defense mechanism" for something else we've done?  What if we are about to reduce the "immune response" of the planet?  These are just a couple of things that come to mind with the scientists who are furiously trying to find out "WHAT THE ACTUAL MECHANISM BEHIND GW & GCC REALLY IS."

{Hypothetically speaking}  How lousy would it be to find out that all of our pollution in the ocean was causing the planet to warm up inorder to correct the balance we screwed up?  We stop the one mechanism available to the planet to repair itself and then the oceans "die" - causing the weather to ruin the planet...  I'm certain, however, that the press would be there to make sure that the world knew the truth - "The scientists screwed it up!"  Mia culpa non grata and they would be very quick to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

I would just hate to eat all the birds, that eat the fleas that the rats carry after we've already killed all of the cats that hunt the rats...  You could get a plague that way...  Oh yeah, we did that already.  Sometimes - patiently studying a problem to determine the entire scope BEFORE we act is a really good thing.

The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

I would hate to apply this logic to our system of vetting, politics, or law...  The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression!  For the record - the "skeptics" first developed in the scientific community; the oil companies came to them when they heard the message could benefit them.  Don't make assumptions just because they fit your angst.  I happen to be one of the skeptics and I do not receive one iota of revenue from "Big Oil", neither do either of the universities I am tenured at.

As for their not being as scientific consensus concerning global warming, more baloney. Take a poll, did we?

I'm not a fan of bologna; too fattening, although turkey bologna is tasty when served with a pickle.  Anyway, yes - there are a number of polls out there, and yes - I have been a part of several.  You are trying to boil the issue down to a single, all-encompassing topic that exists only in the media - not in the scientific community (where this discussion belongs).  There are many issues about GW and GCC that will never resound within the general public because the processes are just too complicated; hence they never get reported.  So this leaves only the uncomplicated "stuff" that makes the news, to which, the media debates in the press.  From our point of view, it's like watching the subject of the formation of the universe explained while leaving 50% of the information in the file and then reading only every third word from the prepared speech.  Sadly - that is only one error we find in the GW/GCC debate.

Whereas you claim that global warming evidence is "anecdotal," your evidence to the contrary happens to be simply opinion layered atop more opinion. Yep, that sure warants equal time! 

Hmmm....  I suppose that you must have missed all of the evidence.  Well, that can only mean one thing - You don't care to know the truth.   You must have also missed that I have never said that GW isn't happening, or that I know for certain that man isn't causing it.  You assume it - which is a little lower on the food chain than an opinion.  My point all along is that the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories, and that the [anecdotal] evidence thus far is entirely inconclusive.  Beyond that, there are a number of questions that need to be answered first (there are scientists trying to answer them) before we go rushing headlong into the abyss of carbon reduction.  We've already discussed these, so I won't bore you with more reality.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 25, 2007, 07:57:34 am
Carbon emissions get more time than they deserve ;) 

It's a bit like blaming someone's poor health on too much smoking, whilst the facts that they eat fast food, drink too much, sit around watching TV all day and never exercise are all ignored .....

Global Warming/climate change has become a one issue debate.  It ain't as simple as that.  Why do the AGWers ignore other factors?  Maybe because they find the real truth  too inconvenient? 

Anecdotal evidence is so convenient - and it resounds deeply (and quickly) with the general public.  It's like talking about a fat guy in McDonald's, eating a pie, a Big Mac, a biggie fry and a bucket of cola, "Do you think he knows why he's fat?"  It's easy to assume he's fat because of that buffet laid out in front of him - BUT - it doesn't make your observation true.  That big fat guy you are picking on might be my brother-in-law who treats himself to one "Gut-Busting-Meal" per month, but othewise is big & fat because he's confined to a wheelchair post vehicle accident where his thyroid gland (and other necessary hormone regulation systems) was removed by a piece of 1/2" black iron pipe doing 55mph.  The "easy" answer is always so comforting at first, but anecdotal evidence sucks when you are forced to look at reality; doesn't it?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 25, 2007, 08:25:08 am
Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

Winston Churchill said something once that needs to be brought to the discussion:  "A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on."  You know why?  Because lies don't need to slow down for investigation, contemplation or discussion - they are like a nasty virus that makes everything they come in contact with, sick.  In this case, what we really have is a half-baked story, developed from observation only and filtered through the preconceived notion that man is at fault. 

In fact, the Natural Causes for this have not been investigated - so they certainly cannot have been excluded as contributors or suspects.  That's just a complete fabrication of the GW/GCC crowd.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.

 ???

Where are you getting this information from?  Methane, in its natural and man-made forms can have half-lives as long as 28 years depending upon the circumstances.  But what about SO2 (Sulfur-dioxide) & SO4 (sulphate)?  They are horrible for the environment as well and they last even longer.  Why isn't anyone trying to figure out their effect?  It is because they are most prevalent in natural form (from volcanic activity), thus they may be excluded.  This means that the natural events ARE NOT BEING investigated. 

The issues of carbon and methane emmissions are so complex that the general public is forced to believe the experts - otherwise, they would be perpetually "reacting" to the claims coming out in the media, and there would never be a "side" to take; everyone would be "for" & "against", depending upon the news.  So, someone stepped forward to choose sides for us, and what better way to do it than to split it right down "environmental lines".  If you are PRO-environment, you buy the whole GW story, "Hook - line & sinker".  If you are PRO-business, you hope for proof that GW is inevitable and that man can do nothing.  Well, that's what the media wants you to believe.  I'm PRO-logic, and I'm the guy that both sides hates.  I think the world is polluting the hell out itself, but I see no empirical evidence that global CO, SO2, SO4, CO2 & CH4 emmissions are proven to be a direct effect of man, or, that any of the the chemicals are causing global climate change.  I haven't seen any evidence at all that (GW) is causing global climate change (GCC) - In fact, I see just the opposite in the data!  So far the data in support of the Media's GW model is completely anecdotal & coincidental, wheras the evidence for GCC initiating GW actually makes sense!
 
The theory that the planet is heating up and creating its own added heat - to continue the warming cycle is just another potential answer for why GW is happening. I have been following the research of a team of scientists who are working on that model.  The evidence, if taken at face value, looks mighty damning to the IPCC report. Of course, the media is hardly interested, but I am.  The reason "why" I am is not because I don't want GW to be man-made though. It is because I want to know why the planet appears to be heating up. I want to know "why" because I want to know IF there is anything that CAN be done. I also want to know IF anything NEEDS to be done. If, in fact, this is a normal process and the planet is attempting to achieve "meteorological equilibrium", then the last thing I want to do is get in its way. It hearkens me back to the old addage, "If it ain't broke - don't break it!"

Anyway, the research into GW is so new and unsolved that there is no way that the IPCC can actually come out and definitively state that "mankind" is the cause - or that we can do anything about it.   The Assessment Reports (AR) are used to convey the findings of the IPCC.  AR1 in 1990 issued by the IPCC was a well written and well-vetted report that was not attacked.  AR2 (1995) was also - initially, but then wound up being altered (bastardized) prior to printing to the point that many of the contributing scientists removed their names from the authorship report.  AR3 (2001) was a total white-wash where only scientists who agreed with the idea of man-made GW were invited to participate.  That brings us to the AR4 report of 2007.  It was a foregone conclusion that it was going to take a strong stance on the man-made effects of GW.  They didn't bother trying to prove that GW even exists.  Somewhere between AR3 & AR4, GW became a fact, no longer a theory to debate; at least as far as the press is concerned.  It is a "sleight-of-hand" that has occurred in the realm of environmental science that only a select group of skeptics seem to have caught.  Many of us are trying to figure out why the "other" potential causes of GCC have been so quickly dismissed; particularlly the ones that blame the planet for changing things on its own.

Here is a summary of the "other" theory behind GW that has been kept relatively quiet.

There are other greenhouse gases that all GW fanatics acknowledge as being as bad (or worse) than carbon; methane and sulfur dioxide. Each gas comes from many sources, both natural and unnatural are measured in high concentrations across the planet's atmosphere. Computer modeling and simulations predict the activity and dispersion of the gasses, and try to determine how they manufacture global climate change.

The methane (CH4) emanating from draining bodies of water (swamps, creeks, wetlands) is decreasing naturally in random areas across the planet. This should be a good thing, however environmentalists will tell you that wetlands are important for wild-life... Luckily for some (unlucky for others) the Siberian lakes and permafrosts are melting slowly, and are replenishing that methane in the atmosphere at alarmingly high rates, further fueling GW (according to the IPCC). But at least new wetlands are being created; right? Volcanic activity is at an all-time low above ground, but at an unprecedented (in modern times) level under the oceans. That sulfur dioxide still manages to get to the atmosphere, and takes with it billions of cu. ft. of CO2. Much more CO, CO2 and SO2 arrive in the atmosphere from natural causes like vulcanism (including the sulfur lakes in N. Africa and the Mediterranean regions) than any other (man-made) source on the planet. Amazingly, as the temperature rises and the polar ice melts, the sea level rises as does the pressure on the volcanic plates; causing more vulcanism. This is what the researchers are calling the "Conveyor Belt Effect" or "Global Conveyor Theory". 
 
From a different point of view, it could also be said that the U.S. is a minor player in the global production of methane.  We use far less of it, we create less of it and we process next to none in comparison to China, most of Africa, and the Middle-East.  The EVIDENCE (from the IPCC) shows that the global saturation of CH4 is actually increasing, though the use of it world-wide is decreasing.  This can only mean "natural sources" are causing the increase...  Right? 
 
Peat bogs & perma frosts, hot springs & sulphur springs, swamps and bayous appear to be the culprits.  Atmospheric S02 & SO4 reflect sunlight back into space, causing localized cooling - creating unpredicatble weather patterns.  These patterns deliver cold air to hot areas and vice versa.  Ultimately the chemicals rain back down on the vegetation; killing it - releasing CO2 & CH4.  This creates a cycle in and of itself.   Add to it all of the escaping CH4, CO & CO2 from the natural sources that are not a product of the "Global Conveyor".  Man's contributions are puny although toxic.  Pollution is a problem. 

Even if you are a believer that mankind is causing GW, you have to ask yourself what started it all. It matters not, what version of the mechanism you choose to believe; the impetus is on the beginning; that which tipped the balance. From there, you venture back into history with the data and theories in your hands and compare it to what happened in days gone by. Can your data explain what happened 50, 75, 100, 1K, 10K, 1M years ago? If so, are the mechanisms in place to explain your hypothesis? Only if you answer yes to all of the questions can you be 90% certain that you know the cause.

The IPCC cannot boast that their theory answers the last two questions; only the first. Their computer models have been thoroughly unhinged in the past three outings, and their data was criticized by everyone (including the Queen) in the AR3. I'm not betting that AR4 fares any better, because thus far - I've been unimpressed.  Again - the big hold up with their report was the fact that Facts keeping appearing to disprove their current theory (as offered).  Observation continues to get in the way of theory - a sure sign of problems.

The "Global Conveyor Theory" actually can answer all three questions, and does so quite succintly. Their data is still in the early phases (because few climatologists want to work on an alternate theory of GW due to media pressures), their finances are tight (and scrutinized like a terrorist organization's by the GW fanatics), and their membership is small (you get the drill). I have faith that they will manage to bring a bit of attention to themselves in the near future once their computer models are complete. We wait and see with fingers crossed.

Ultimately, I want to know "what" to do, "if" we are able to do anything. Who knows - maybe we're trying to fix what ain't broke? Of course, all of this is a debate on GCC, what about the fact that most humans are filthy littering pigs?  Maybe - just maybe, if we cleaned up our act and stopped pooping where we drink (figuratively & literally), we might be able to affect a bit of change that would be noticeable to everyone.  We all know how much humans love immediate and obvious gratification!



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 25, 2007, 01:59:43 pm
Quote
Allison,

Hopefully you don't stop reading at "hopefully".

Why should I have to?  Mostly what you ever offer in defense is snottiness and ego, by this time I have grown used to you and your delusions, Merl.

Quote
You got me there Allison - I am stuck on the same point-of-view.  Scientists tend to do that (at least credible ones do) when they are certain they are correct, or have at least raised a valid point.

Except you haven't been correct once during the GW debate, Merl - you don't believe in it! And you've also never been correct about anything either.  My favorite was when you cited a whole host of scientific papers that you claimed backed up youir case - some of them written by Michael Mann and guys who have done the actual research to advance the global warming theory. I take it was cause you thought none of us knew who those guys were.

You're a hustler, Merl.  You may know about physics, but you know zilch when it comes to climatology.

Quote
Aside from the adverse financial effects it will have on the world's economies, is there a reason to think that GCC is going to hurt the planet?


Call me naive, but I think that flooded coastlines and vanishing species are going to hurt the planet, Merl.  That's the other really dumb arguments advanced by GWS (global warming sketics), "Hey, maybe global warming is a good thing!"

Believe what you want, though, you always do.


Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
The global warming skeptics get more time than they deserve anyway, their view is in the way minority - a view bought and funded by oil company propaganda.

I would hate to apply this logic to our system of vetting, politics, or law...  The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression! 


Yeah, sure, Merl, a tiny percentage of scientists should get equal time with all the REAL scientists who advance the global warming consensus.  I suppose if we could find one or two accredited nutjobs to advance the Great Sphagetti Monster's creation of the unverse theory you'd be all for allowing that, too, right?

Yep, let's just toss all the scientific rules out the window for you when it comes to global warming cause you don't like it.

Quote
For the record - the "skeptics" first developed in the scientific community; the oil companies came to them when they heard the message could benefit them.  Don't make assumptions just because they fit your angst.  I happen to be one of the skeptics and I do not receive one iota of revenue from "Big Oil", neither do either of the universities I am tenured at.

Yes, but your area is physics, not climatology. I am not "making assumptions to fill my angst."  The oil companies do fund the propaganda, just as the Bush people have been editing the scientific reports.  Any real scientist would be ashamed of this process.

Quote
Hmmm....  I suppose that you must have missed all of the evidence.  Well, that can only mean one thing - You don't care to know the truth.
 

Merl, don't put your own baggage on me, you're the one that doesn't care to know the truth.  You're the one biased against the idea that human beings are causing global warming.  You also seemingly don't believe there is a scientific consensus (there is). You've got issues, Merl.

Quote
My point all along is that the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories, and that the [anecdotal] evidence thus far is entirely inconclusive. 


Gee, it's emotionally charged cause the fate of the planet is at stake if we don't do something?  If you can't get emotional about that, what good are you?

Quote
Beyond that, there are a number of questions that need to be answered first (there are scientists trying to answer them) before we go rushing headlong into the abyss of carbon reduction.  We've already discussed these, so I won't bore you with more reality.

Don't put that crap on me, Merl, you are the one disconnected to reality.  I have been following the scientfic information, all you have been doing is trying to discount it.





Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 25, 2007, 02:14:32 pm
Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm
Why?  because most of the natural occurrences have also been investigated and ruled out as the main cause,  too, although they do contribute, just aren't the main contribuitors.

Winston Churchill said something once that needs to be brought to the discussion:  "A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth can get its pants on."  You know why?  Because lies don't need to slow down for investigation, contemplation or discussion - they are like a nasty virus that makes everything they come in contact with, sick.  In this case, what we really have is a half-baked story, developed from observation only and filtered through the preconceived notion that man is at fault. 

In fact, the Natural Causes for this have not been investigated - so they certainly cannot have been excluded as contributors or suspects.  That's just a complete fabrication of the GW/GCC crowd.

Wrong again, Merl.  Apparently, you didn't see this article that was released in the fall, even though we printed it a couple of times at AR:

Sun 'not to blame' for global warming

The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," US National Centre for Atmospheric Research spokesman Tom Wigley said.

Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

Sunspots observations

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another three degrees Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.

He said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.

Global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots.

Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.

Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.

- Reuters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740577.htm


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 25, 2007, 02:19:17 pm
February 19, 2005

Why global warming is not natural
Report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent



THE strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a study of rising temperatures in the oceans.  

The rise in marine temperatures — by an average of 0.5C (0.9F) in 40 years — can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, research has shown. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,” said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.”

Dr Barnett’s team examined seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and compared the patterns with those predicted by computer models of potential causes of climate change.

Natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases matched the observations almost precisely.

“What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model,” Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned.”

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, rising temperatures can be observed up to 2,300ft below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 330ft down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. “All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one,” Dr Barnett said.

The results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, should increase pressure on the US Administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force this week, he said. “It is time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join,” he said. “The debate is not — have we got a clear global warming signal; the debate is — what we are going to do about it.”

In a separate study a team led by Ruth Curry, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut, has established that 20,000 sq km of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516179.ece

Key Quote?

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people."

Which means all of the scientists who suggest that there is still some kind of debate are not being rational.  :)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on February 25, 2007, 02:56:42 pm
Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 04:55:15 pm
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that gets the blame, methane does, too.  However, methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is why it gets the majority of the blame.

 

Where are you getting this information from?  Methane, in its natural and man-made forms can have half-lives as long as 28 years depending upon the circumstances.


As opposed to the 100 years or so that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere?  Where are you getting your information from?  I thought it was common knowledge that CO2 has a much longer lifespan in the air than methane.


Quote
The issues of carbon and methane emmissions are so complex that the general public is forced to believe the experts - otherwise, they would be perpetually "reacting" to the claims coming out in the media, and there would never be a "side" to take; everyone would be "for" & "against", depending upon the news.


I agree that it is complex, however, the short answer is that, when CO2 rises, temps usually follow, even if the time that it takes them to rise sometimes takes many years.


Quote
Even if you are a believer that mankind is causing GW, you have to ask yourself what started it all. It matters not, what version of the mechanism you choose to believe; the impetus is on the beginning; that which tipped the balance. From there, you venture back into history with the data and theories in your hands and compare it to what happened in days gone by. Can your data explain what happened 50, 75, 100, 1K, 10K, 1M years ago? If so, are the mechanisms in place to explain your hypothesis? Only if you answer yes to all of the questions can you be 90% certain that you know the cause.

Gosh, you are long-winded, Merlin!  Your argument is actually very much the same one that creationists use to make their point - simply because scientists don't have all the answers, you seem to believe that we don't have any of the answers. Anyone knows that theories get revised and as new data arises, apparently you believe that global warming should be held to a different standard.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on February 28, 2007, 01:27:30 pm
I'm going to print some material I found from the other forum as I found it useful:

Surprises from the Sun's South Pole

From
HERE
(http://www.physorg.com/img/logo-content.gif)


(http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/surprisesfro.jpg)

A joint ESA/NASA mission, Ulysses (named after the hero of Greek legend) is charting the unknown reaches of space above and below the poles of the Sun. Credits: ESA


Although very close to the minimum of its 11-year sunspot cycle, the Sun showed that it is still capable of producing a series of remarkably energetic outbursts - ESA-NASA Ulysses mission revealed.


In keeping with the first and second south polar passes (in 1994 and 2000), the latest high-latitude excursion of the joint ESA-NASA Ulysses mission has already produced some surprises. In mid-December 2006, although very close to the minimum of its 11-year sunspot cycle, the Sun showed that it is still capable of producing a series of remarkably energetic outbursts.

(http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/1-surprisesfro.jpg)

Variations of the coronal temperature measured with the SWICS instrument on board ESA-NASA’s Ulysses from December 1990 to January 2007. Solar wind flow from coronal holes is characterized by high solar wind speed (700-800 kilometres per second) and low coronal temperature (1 – 1.3 million Kelvin). Credits: R. von Steiger and G. Gloeckler


The solar storms, which were confined to the equatorial regions, produced quite intense bursts of particle radiation that were clearly observed by near-Earth satellites. Surprisingly, similar increases in radiation were detected by the instruments on board Ulysses, even though it was three times as far away and almost over the south solar pole. "Particle events of this kind were seen during the second polar passes in 2000 and 2001, at solar maximum," said Richard Marsden, ESA's Ulysses Project Scientist and Mission Manager. "We certainly didn't expect to see them at high latitudes at solar minimum!"

Scientists are busy trying to understand how the charged particles made it all the way to the poles. "Charged particles have to follow magnetic field lines, and the magnetic field pattern of the Sun near solar minimum ought to make it much more difficult for the particles to move in latitude," said Marsden.


One of the puzzles remaining from the first high-latitude passes in 1994 and 1995 has to do with the temperature of the Sun's poles. When Ulysses first passed over the south and then the north solar pole near solar minimum, it measured the temperatures of the large polar coronal holes.

"Surprisingly, the temperature in the north polar coronal hole was about 7 to 8 percent lower compared with the south polar coronal hole," said Professor George Gloeckler, Principal Investigator for the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer (SWICS) on board Ulysses.

"We couldn't tell then whether this was simply due to progressive cooling of both polar coronal holes as the Sun was approaching its minimum level of activity in 1996, or whether this was an indication of a permanently cooler north pole."

Now, as Ulysses again passes over the large polar coronal holes of the Sun at solar minimum we will finally have the answer. Recent SWICS observations show that the average temperature of the southern polar coronal hole at the current solar minimum is as low as it was 10 years ago in the northern polar coronal hole. "This implies that the asymmetry between north and south has switched with the change of the magnetic polarity of the Sun," said Gloeckler. The definitive proof will come when Ulysses measures the temperature of the north polar coronal during the next 15 months.

Source: European Space Agency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on February 28, 2007, 01:35:30 pm
The climatic effects of water vapour
Feature: May 2003


Contrary to common belief, the greenhouse effect may have more to do with water in our atmosphere than gases such as carbon dioxide

Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter "greenhouse effect", and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct. While increases in carbon dioxide may be the source of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and therefore global warming, the role of the most vital molecule in our atmosphere - water - is rarely discussed. Indeed, water barely rates a mention in the hundreds of pages of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/16/5/7/pwten1_05-03.jpg)

Figure 1
The distribution of water in the atmosphere varies strongly with time, location and height, which makes it difficult to model. This image shows the distribution of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere using model data from September 1996. The humid tropics (red) contain almost 100 times more water vapour than the dry poles (blue).



Many aspects of the seemingly simple water molecule conspire to make it difficult to model its effect on our climate. Unlike most other atmospheric gases, the distribution of water in the atmosphere varies strongly with time, location and altitude (figure 1). Water is also unique among atmospheric molecules because it changes phase at terrestrial temperatures. This means that it can transfer energy from its frozen form at the poles to its liquid and vapour forms in the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, water moves with the winds and can even diffuse up to the stratosphere, where it is responsible for destroying the ultraviolet-shielding ozone layer.

The atmosphere plays a crucial role in the Earth's radiation budget because it absorbs both the incoming radiation from the Sun and the outgoing radiation that is reflected from the planet's surface. However, the radiation in each of these processes has very different wavelengths. The Sun radiates approximately as a black body with a temperature of 5800 K, which peaks in the optical region at a wavelength of about 0.6 µm. The reflected radiation profile, on the other hand, is much closer to a black body at a temperature of 275 K, and has a peak at much longer infrared wavelengths (about 11 µm). The physical processes that lead to the absorption of radiation in the two regions are different, but water vapour plays the dominant role in both.

Balancing the books


(http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/16/5/7/pwten2_05-03.jpg)

Figure 2
The global energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. Radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere in the ultraviolet (UV) and visible (VIS) regions of the spectrum contributes to the emission in the infrared region (IR). The incoming solar radiation is either reflected directly back into space, absorbed by the atmosphere or absorbed by the Earth's surface. The 67 W m-2 ultraviolet-visible absorption that is due to atmospheric trace gases, such as water, also translates into infrared emission, which combines with the infrared surface heat to emerge as some 195 W m-2. However, the measured atmospheric absorption is up to 30 W m-2 higher than models predict, and this is known as the absorption anomaly.


Physicists have been modelling the Earth's atmosphere for over a century, and we have built up a very detailed understanding of the key processes that are involved in the global energy budget (figure 2). For example, it is now well established that the top of the Earth's atmosphere receives a surface-averaged energy input from the Sun of 342 W m-2. This is calculated by knowing the amount of energy that is radiated by the Sun and the angle that the Earth subtends. If the incoming and outgoing radiation is not equal then the global energy budget does not balance and the temperature of the planet will change until a new balance is established. What is feared is that a build-up of greenhouse gases is causing an increase in the absorption of the outgoing, infrared radiation.

Satellite measurements show that 235 W m-2 of incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, but the latest models and measurements suggest that the atmosphere is responsible for just 67 W m-2 of this amount. The rest is absorbed by the ground and by the oceans, which play a key role in the energy budget due to their large heat capacity and their ability to store carbon dioxide, and, of course, water vapour.

The greenhouse effect is precisely the difference between the long-wave radiation that is emitted by the Earth's surface and the upward thermal radiation that leaves the tropopause - the upper boundary of the turbulent portion of the atmosphere that we all inhabit. The greenhouse effect is about 146 W m-2 in clear skies and some 30 W m-2 higher under cloud cover.

There are a number of popular misconceptions about the greenhouse effect, notably that it is a bad thing. On the contrary, the greenhouse effect is a significant factor in making the Earth habitable. Without it the average temperature on Earth would be lowered by about 30 K, which would make most of the planet's surface decidedly chilly. Furthermore, it is the water vapour in the lower 10 km or so of the atmosphere, rather than man-made carbon-dioxide emissions, that contributes most to this warming effect.

(http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/16/5/7/pwten3_05-03.jpg)

Figure 3
Water in the atmosphere absorbs both incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun (a) and outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth (b). The red line in (a) and the blue line in (b) show the black-body spectrum that would be seen if there was no atmosphere. Note that the scales on each graph are different, indicating the different wavelengths of the incoming and outgoing radiation. The various dominant absorptions (dips) are mostly due to water, carbon dioxide, ozone and some molecular oxygen. Water vapour dominates throughout the (a) visible and (b) infrared. Carbon-dioxide absorption takes place mainly in the infrared and the bulk of it occurs in a narrow region between 12 and 18 µm. This is one of the mechanisms by which the surface of the Earth remains warm.


The absorption of light by molecules in the atmosphere generally results in two basic molecular processes: bound-free and bound-bound transitions. Bound-free transitions take place in the more energetic ultraviolet region of the spectrum and cause the molecules to break up. In bound-bound transitions, which occur at longer wavelengths, the molecules jump from some combination of rotational and vibrational states to another, which produces a very distinct "signature" (figure 3). It is therefore very easy to identify which atmospheric absorbers are at work, although it is much more difficult to work out the actual numbers. Nevertheless, large databases that list all the known molecular transitions and their associated properties have been compiled. The most widely used is the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN), which has been developed over many years by Larry Rothman, who is now at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge in the US.

But when the absorption values in the HITRAN database are used in model-atmosphere calculations, the results are disturbing. For clear skies, the models predict that the atmosphere absorbs much less sunlight than is measured by a variety of satellite and aircraft. The difference between the predictions and the measurements can be as large as 30 W m-2. (see "Radiation budget is called to account" by A Maurellis Physics World November 2001 pp22-23). This problem has become known as the absorption anomaly. And there are even worse problems in understanding absorption models when the sky is cloudy.

Not all models underestimate the amount of atmospheric absorption because some physicists choose to add extra absorption to their models to mop up the surplus radiation. However, the physical cause of the missing clear-sky absorption and its exact wavelength distribution remain unresolved, and a source of fertile speculation. Everyone's favourite molecule is always a candidate.

Our favourite molecule is water. Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region. Indeed, ask any infrared astronomer about which regions of the spectrum provide the best views and you will get a list of the wavelengths where water does not absorb - the so-called atmospheric windows. After all, there have to be some pretty strong reasons to brave the inhospitable climate of Antarctica to build the South Pole Telescope, as US astronomers have recently undertaken. Water absorption bands are also present in the optical region and extend all the way to the ultraviolet, although they are less strong at shorter wavelengths. The precise effect of these absorption bands is hard to determine, despite the best efforts of many talented and dedicated scientists.


An incredible lightness of being

Air is largely composed of the diatomic molecules nitrogen and oxygen. So why is the transport of light through our atmosphere dominated by trace amounts of triatomic molecules such as water, carbon dioxide and ozone? After all, these molecules are only present above our heads at a level of about one part in 100,000.

The answer lies in the physics of the individual molecules involved. Molecules absorb radiation at characteristic wavelengths that excite one or more of their rotational, vibrational or electronic degrees of freedom. The probability that absorption occurs in a particular molecule gives the intensity of each line in the absorption spectrum. The intensities of these spectral lines depend on the net distribution of electronic charge within the molecule via dipole moments, which describe how the molecule responds to an applied electric field - such as that of an incoming light beam.

Symmetric linear molecules, such as N2, O2 and even CO2, have symmetric charge distributions and therefore they do not have a permanent dipole moment. Furthermore, dipole moments cannot be induced in symmetric diatomic molecules by vibrational or rotational excitation because this does not change their topology. N2 and O2 can therefore only absorb light through electronic excitation. There are some important oxygen absorption bands that are associated with electronic excitation in the visible portion of the spectrum (see figure 3), but these do not extend over many wavelengths and so do not block major amounts of radiation. This means that oxygen accounts for just 2% of the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight, and nitrogen accounts for essentially none.

(http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/16/5/7/pwten4_05-03.jpg)

Figure 4
The vibrational and rotational modes of water are very different to those of carbon dioxide. (a)-(c) Water has three vibrational modes that can all absorb or emit light. Carbon dioxide has four vibrational modes as it can bend in two directions, as shown by the black and green arrows in (b). The "symmetric stretch" mode (a) preserves the symmetry of carbon dioxide and therefore does not absorb light. (d) Carbon dioxide can rotate about its centre-of-mass in either of two directions that are perpendicular to the molecular axis. Both rotations have the same moments of inertia. Water, on the other hand, rotates asymmetrically about the three axes with a different moment of inertia in each direction. This asymmetry is responsible for the much greater complexity of water-vapour spectra.



The water molecule, on the other hand, has a bent triangular structure, as does ozone - which is not as symmetric as the formula O3 might suggest. Both of these molecules therefore possess permanent dipole moments, which means that they can absorb very long wavelength light that excites their rotational states. The asymmetry of water and ozone molecules causes the moments of inertia that govern the quanta of rotational motion to be different in each spatial direction (see figure 4). These "asymmetric top" molecules have complicated energy levels, which interact with light to produce dense spectral lines that contain little obvious structure.

More importantly for climatic issues, the vibrational degrees of freedom in water, ozone and carbon-dioxide molecules can absorb light in the infrared region. In the case of carbon dioxide it is these vibrations that break the symmetry of the molecule and enable it to become excited by atmospheric radiation. O3, like its near relative O2, has a number of low-lying electronic states that absorb light in the near ultraviolet. Unlike O2, however, the extensive vibrational and rotational structure of ozone means that its electronic transitions absorb radiation over a wide range of wavelengths. But what is so special about water that makes its absorptions extend all the way from the far infrared to the near ultraviolet?

The simplest answer to this is that water, unlike the other triatomic species, contains two atoms of hydrogen. The presence of hydrogen atoms has two important effects. When a water molecule rotates about its centre-of-mass - which is near the oxygen atom - it does so with small moments of inertia. This leads to a very wide-ranging rotational structure that causes absorption bands for all types of transitions to extend over large regions of the spectrum. Furthermore, the vibrational motions of water have a large amplitude because hydrogen atoms are very light. As a result, water does not vibrate as a simple harmonic oscillator - as most molecules do - and its vibrational transitions do not obey the general harmonic-selection rule. The only transitions allowed by this rule are those in which a vibrational quantum number changes by a single quantum. For water, transitions that involve changes of up to eight vibrational quanta are atmospherically important, which means that the water-vapour spectrum covers a large range of wavelengths and line intensities, and is generally very complex (figure 5).

Water, water on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?

The vibration-rotation spectrum of water has been the subject of numerous laboratory studies over many decades. Despite their atmospheric importance, the line intensities of water in the near-infrared and visible regions of the spectrum are actually very weak. To measure the line spectra, researchers shine light over a large range of wavelengths through a very long column of water. This simulates the several kilometres of water vapour that solar radiation traverses before it reaches the Earth's surface.

These long pathlengths are achieved in the laboratory by shining light through relatively short tubes - up to 50 m long - that have high reflectivity mirrors at their ends so that the light passes through the tube many times. Using this idea it has been possible to observe line intensities from strong transitions as well as numerous signatures of weak absorptions. High-resolution molecular spectroscopy has no difficulty in accurately measuring the wavelength of the spectral lines, but obtaining reliable measurements of the intensity of the lines - which tell us how much radiation is absorbed - presents much more of a challenge.

Water is also a nasty molecule to work with. Not because it is dangerous or attacks the experiment, but because its concentration is difficult to control. It forms droplets, it sticks to the walls of the tubes, it behaves unpredictably, and it does not mix properly with other gases. It is also present in the air in variable quantities, which makes it difficult to perform control experiments. Worse still, the absorption spectrum of water displays a huge dynamic range. Strong lines that are totally saturated (fully absorbing) in the atmosphere are close to very weak absorptions that must also be considered in any complete atmospheric model. Indeed, the individual dependence on the wavelength of light of these strong absorption lines is an important issue for atmospheric models.


Experiments that were performed by Roland Schermaul and the late Richard Learner at Imperial College in London in 2001 have cast previous measurements of the absorption spectrum of water into considerable doubt. The study was motivated by the European Space Agency (ESA), which was concerned that the uncertainty in water-vapour data was preventing important information on trace molecules in the atmosphere from being obtained. Schermaul and co-workers used the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK to study the absorption of light by water vapour in air at wavelengths that varied from the near infrared to the orange. They found that the strong spectral lines absorbed significantly more light - between 5% and 25% - than previous laboratory measurements had suggested. This conclusion was given partial support by first-principle quantum-mechanical calculations, which can be used to estimate the strength of these absorptions.

(http://physicsweb.org/objects/world/16/5/7/pwten5_05-03.jpg)

Figure 5
A laboratory spectrum showing some of the thousands of absorptions of light that can take place in water vapour. The spectrum extends from the near infrared (left) almost to the green. At long wavelengths the absorption is saturated, but it becomes less so at shorter wavelengths. The band structure reflects the various ways in which water molecules can absorb light through their vibrational and rotational degrees of freedom. This spectrum was obtained by Roland Schermaul and co-workers using the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.


In a parallel study, Schermaul and co-workers also measured the absorption of light by pure water vapour in an attempt to identify many of the weaker absorption lines that were predicted to be present in the spectrum (see figure 5). Similar studies were performed by Michel Carleer and co-workers from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium in 2002, who made measurements at shorter wavelengths that extended all the way into the ultraviolet - where the absorption lines of water are all weak.

These measurements were put into atmospheric models by Joanna Haigh's group at Imperial College to find out if they could explain the absorption anomaly. When the strength of the strong water absorption lines was increased in the model, the absorption of incoming sunlight rose by about 8 W m-2. This increased by a further 3 W m-2when the weak line parameters that were measured by Schermaul and co-workers were included. Together these increases represent about half of the absorption anomaly. Unfortunately, however, the situation is not quite this straightforward.

The increased absorption due to the weak water lines is generally accepted. Indeed, further increases are to be anticipated once the new, shorter-wavelength data from Carleer's team are also included in the models. However, other experiments, such as those performed by Linda Brown and colleagues from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that were reported in 2002, find significantly smaller increases in the strength of absorption by the strong lines. This issue remains unresolved, although calculations of the vibration-rotation spectrum of water might be able to shed light on it in the near future. Quantum-mechanical calculations have become essential for interpreting the results from experiments, especially for assigning individual observed lines to transitions between a particular pair of energy levels. Calculations can also provide a complete set of transitions that allow for even the weakest lines. The 30,000 or so water absorption lines that are listed in the HITRAN database, for example, can be supplemented by about one billion water transitions that have been computed in a separate attempt to model the steam in the atmospheres of dwarf stars (see Jones et al. in further reading).

The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. Ozone accounts for 8%, and methane and nitrous oxide - the atmospheric concentrations of which have been increased by human activity - contribute a further 8% to the greenhouse effect.

Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide?

We should not pretend that the effects of carbon dioxide are unimportant in the greenhouse effect. While the atmosphere has always contained a significant amount of water vapour, it is the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the period of industrialization that is causing so much concern. It turns out that typical abundances of carbon dioxide are sufficient to make most of its absorption bands relatively opaque (see figure 3). Because the strong absorption bands are saturated, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases its absorptions logarithmically rather than linearly - a fact that is recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is strongly related to temperature, as can be seen in figure 1. It might therefore appear that an increased greenhouse effect, which causes the atmosphere to get warmer, would also lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere. This would result in a positive-feedback system that causes the Earth to become increasingly warmer. However, as is often the case with atmospheric processes, the situation is not quite this simple. Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth's climate.

We have tried to outline some of the unresolved issues concerning water in the atmosphere. But there are others. For example, it is well known that at low temperature pairs of water molecules will stick together to form a weakly bound molecule known as a dimer. The absorption properties of the water dimer at visible wavelengths will be different from those of a single water molecule, but these remain to be characterized. Furthermore, it has so far proved impossible to determine the proportion of atmospheric water molecules that are present as dimers in either laboratory or atmospheric measurements. And we have not even dared to discuss the many problems in understanding clouds. Clouds are highly variable in their make-up, distribution and size. They contain aerosols and mini droplets of water vapour, which have spectroscopic properties that are even more uncertain than those of normal water vapour.

Another problem is that there are few data that tell us about the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere over history, which makes it difficult to determine the climatic effects from long-term changes in the atmosphere's water-vapour content. Fortunately, ESA's environmental satellite ENVISAT is now able to provide global coverage, and measure water-vapour signatures in the visible and near-infrared regions. Using complex mathematical techniques, the absorption spectra that are measured by satellites such as ENVISAT can be used to determine water-vapour columns, provided that accurate water-vapour spectroscopy is available.

A complete solution to the various problems that are associated with water absorption can only be obtained by constructing an accurate and comprehensive theoretical model of the spectrum of water. A significant step in this direction was taken in the last few months by Oleg Polyansky and co-workers at University College London. They showed that a combination of advanced quantum-mechanical calculations and high-performance computing can be used to predict the positions of water spectra with an accuracy that approaches that from experiments. These calculations included the effects of special relativity, quantum electrodynamics and the coupled motions of electrons and nuclei, which were generally neglected in previous studies. The team is currently trying to improve the accuracy of these calculations, and to obtain similar accuracies for the intensity of the absorption lines.

It is clear that the absorption of radiation by water vapour determines many characteristics of our atmosphere. While we would not try to provoke any worldwide movement that was aimed at suppressing water emissions, it would seem that the climatic role of water does not receive the general attention it deserves.

About the author
Ahilleas Maurellis is in the Earth-Oriented Sciences Division of the SRON National Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, 3584 CA Utrecht, the Netherlands, e-mail a.n.maurellis@sron.nl. Jonathan Tennyson is head of the Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Positron Physics group at University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK, e-mail j.tennyson@ucl.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://physicsweb.org/images/header_logo_small.gif)

Credit also goes to I Am That I Am for finding both the previous two posts. 



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on February 28, 2007, 04:12:56 pm
Except you haven't been correct once during the GW debate, Merl - you don't believe in it! And you've also never been correct about anything either.  My favorite was when you cited a whole host of scientific papers that you claimed backed up youir case - some of them written by Michael Mann and guys who have done the actual research to advance the global warming theory. I take it was cause you thought none of us knew who those guys were.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell Byron:  Just because you SAY I'm wrong, doesn't make it so.  To say that I haven't been right about a single thing in the GW debate is simply hilarious, as it ignores the facts.  To say that, and I quote, "And you've also never been correct about anything either," just makes you look hysterical. 

As for the scientific papers - you still fail to recognize the significance of my point when I posted the links to them; even though I spelled it out for you.  In fact, you and I have been through this a couple of times already - you just don't want to see the truth.  In this case, I don't claim that I know the truth - I simply point out that the GW crowd doesn't either!  The assortment of scientific papers were to provide multiple views of the same aspect - many conflicting, and more than that - most showed signs of an evolving policy development.  The fact that many of the proponets of GW contradict each other is bad, but, from a scientific perspective - the evolution of the science is worse.  It is a sign that the science is nowhere nearly completed.  Again, as I have said many times, my complaint is that the work is incomplete - not that it is incorrect.  Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I just can't stand policy based upon incorrect, incoherent or incomplete analysis.  At any rate, I know you're a smart girl Allison - I find it hard to believe that, someone as well-versed in GW as you are, didn't understand the purpose for supplying links to the variety of sites I did.  Maybe you should go back and re-read my posting...  Ultimately though, think what you want about the posting  - I grow weary from trying to explain the obvious to you.

You're a hustler, Merl.  You may know about physics, but you know zilch when it comes to climatology.

Don't let *someone* read this - she'll accuse you of calling people names...  Anyway, you're partially right - I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you, Byron, Kristina, Al Gore or anyone else in this forum.  I have also never advertised myself as such, for I have always debated this topic from a logical point-of-view.  It's like Ben Franklin said, "Any scientist can be a scientist.  Once the fundamental understanding of science is taken to heart, the difference between chemistry and biology is location."  As long as I find fault with the "method" I can be certain that the "process" is flawed, therefore the "data" is uncertain.

Call me naive, but I think that flooded coastlines and vanishing species are going to hurt the planet, Merl.  That's the other really dumb arguments advanced by GWS (global warming sketics), "Hey, maybe global warming is a good thing!"

Believe what you want, though, you always do.

Come on Allison - that's not what I'm saying at all.  Don't try so hard to paint me with a brush that won't work.  Put the rhetoric and emotion aside for just a second and consider what I AM ACTUALLY SAYING (not what you expect me to say).  My point regarding the future effects of GW is that, none of the computer models have proven accurate (or even close), all predictions regarding climatic effect have been wrong and GW assumptions continue to be altered due to observational evidence.  In light of this, I think we need to investigate why all of the observational evidence continues to violate the theory.  Currently, the mainstream GW theory can not accomodate a cause for GCC and the GCC theory does not explain GW - yet - the media would have us believe that they are synonymous. 

Ultimately, instead of "believing what I want" as you would say, I would like to have something to believe in.  Something that is based in logic, proven with evidence and demonstrated through observation.  We don't have that, and even an academy award won't make Al's documentary any more legitimate.


Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yeah, sure, Merl, a tiny percentage of scientists should get equal time with all the REAL scientists who advance the global warming consensus.  I suppose if we could find one or two accredited nutjobs to advance the Great Sphagetti Monster's creation of the unverse theory you'd be all for allowing that, too, right?

You see Allison, this is what you always do.  Instead of debating the Q & A, the facts, the logic or the evidence - you launch into some nonsensical reply that is, on its face, irrelevent.  We aren't talking about one or two scientists; we're talking about thousands, and you would know that if you didn't keep ignoring the critical reveiws.  So far, every article or journal that has been offered as support for my "skeptical opinion" has been written off by you as either: 1) Big Oil, 2) A nutcase (nutjob) 3)  A right-wing conspiracy or a variation of them all.  A pattern quickly develops as it appears  you will continue to ignore the criticism, no matter how much there is.  Spaghetti Monsters and their creation myths aside, you still failed to acknowledge that your version of the 1st amendment and/or freedom of the press appears  kind of lopsided.  That trait seems at odds with your liberal side.  All I said was, "The notion that only the majority should get access to the public would have made sure that most of the good things in life never occurred.  So much for gay rights, emancipation, suffrage and independence from oppression,"  I didn't mention creation myths or monsters of any sort.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yep, let's just toss all the scientific rules out the window for you when it comes to global warming cause you don't like it.

Well, since the scientific method (which I know quite well) demands discussion & debate while viewing all possible angles, I am perplexed by your sarcasm.  To be honest, I dread pointing out to you, lest you lash back with vicious tone, but it is I who is attempting to bring some science to the discussion - not you.  You would only allow the popular opinion to be expressed while strangling dissent according to your previous reply.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Yes, but your area is physics, not climatology. I am not "making assumptions to fill my angst."  The oil companies do fund the propaganda, just as the Bush people have been editing the scientific reports.  Any real scientist would be ashamed of this process.

Allison, I am a professor of theoretical physics and statistical studies since leaving the world of revenue (a little humor for the sidelines).  I am immersed in all things liberal for many hours of the day, and I am surrounded by peers in every discipline of science, math, statistics, and sociology.  I get your point, and I understand it - hell, I'm not even trying to say that you are wrong!  Crimeny - you see conspiracy in everything, which causes you to miss the significance of real conspiracies when they arise.  You also spend too much time trying to assign blame, when you could be trying to create answers.  You continue to paint on this canvas with a spray gun, when a fine brush is required.  Big oil is not the problem, and if you think about it {logically}, you'll realize it.  We can discuss that later if you like- it would make a good thread.  Anyway, Dubyah isn't editing peer-reviewed scientific papers, and neither is Albert.  However, entire governments of the EU, America, and associated U.N. countries have been editing the AR4 document.  There's the beauty - AR4 isn't peer-reviewed.  That ceased after AR2 when the contributing scientists (many of them) removed their name from the authorship due to meddling from the U.N. and affiliated governments.  Long story - but interesting, I suggest you read about it.  You are right however; I am ashamed of the process - the whole process.  I think both sides and the middle are guilty of bad science, political influence, and attempting to appeal to a growing cult of personality instead of wowing us with their research.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
You also seemingly don't believe there is a scientific consensus (there is). You've got issues, Merl.

I never said that there was not a consensus.  I was disagreeing with you when you said that there is no consensus that the GW & GCC science is flawed and anecdotally based on observation instead of logic and data.  I have been very clear on this point, I cannot imagine why your are having such a difficult time understanding my position.  Though there is a "consensus" (several different ones), it does not necessarily mean "majority".  It often times is defined as a, "general agreement or concord", and that is how I see the various "consensuses", as concordances.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Gee, it's emotionally charged cause the fate of the planet is at stake if we don't do something?  If you can't get emotional about that, what good are you?

No Allison, that's not what I said, or meant, and you should have understood that.  I'll post it again so that you may re-read it:  "the debate is too emotionally charged, it is being played out in the public instead of the laboratories".  I take the whole issue very seriously, but running around yelling fire in a smoke-filled room doesn't save a life; it wastes energy and causes panic.  Human beings make seriously stupid decisions when they do so under duress. 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on February 24, 2007, 02:41:43 am
Don't put that crap on me, Merl, you are the one disconnected to reality.  I have been following the scientfic information, all you have been doing is trying to discount it.

I have yet to put fecal matter on any part of you - I'm simply not into that; to each his (or her) own, I say.  I suppose that you think reality and popularity/majority are synonymous.  That would be the only way I could ever be accused of being disconnected from it.  C'est la vie...  Unlike some others, I don't mind less company when I formulate opinions, theories or predictions - it's fewer people I have to share the victory with when I turn out to be right.  That's pretty arrogant sounding, I know, but it doesn't make it any less truthful. 


It's been a pleasure, as always Allison.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Psycho on March 01, 2007, 01:34:30 pm
I just printed this in the other forum, might as well print it over here, too, as ammo against the next pre-emptive strike against Gore:

Gore does use a lot of energy, that isn't the point, the energy he uses is electricity generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution.


Quote
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility BillThink Tank Blasts Gore for Hypocrisy, Defenders Call Report a Last Gasp from Warming Skeptics

Al Gore, left, and Davis Guggenheim poses with the Oscar for best documentary feature for the film "An Inconvenient Truth" at the 79th Academy Awards Sunday, Feb. 25, 2007, in Los Angeles. (Kevork Djansezian/AP Photo)
 (http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/ap_gore1_070226_sp.jpg)

By JAKE TAPPER

Feb. 26, 2007 — Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."



The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.


Related:  Is Gore's Energy Consumption Hypocritical?




The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with an Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month of Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.



"Considering that he spends an overwhelming majority of his time advocating on behalf of and trying to affect change on this issue, it's not surprising that people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo would go after him," said the former Gore aide.



Kreider says she's confident that the Gores' utility bills will decrease. "They bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home," she said. "Unfortunately that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road."



Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with "An Inconvenient Truth" who has come under fire for personal habits —

and not all the criticism has come from the Right.



Writing in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004, liberal writer Eric Alterman criticized producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. David, he wrote "reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable." New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that "one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year."


Related:  Is Gore's Energy Consumption Hypocritical?




In an interview in 2006, David told ABC News that she was limiting her use of private planes and was flying commercial far more frequently.

So, as usual, the right wing propaganda machine is only giving you part of the story, the one that favors them.

As for the other theories put forward that the sun and other factors are what is driving global warming, to put it politely, you guys are entitled to your opinion. :)




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 01, 2007, 06:01:25 pm
I don't particularly follow the "skeptics" much in the news, although I do follow the [whole] issue through journals and discussions.  To be honest, I haven't ever heard much noise made out of the sun - as in the cycles of the sun - until someone over at AR posted something about it.  Because the solar flare and sunspot activity has been so closely monitored in the past, it's pretty easy to discount both as a potential culprit in the GCC - GW discussion.  I agree that there is some anecdotal evidence that it may be contributing to an already increasing temperature - but I see nothing that would indicate causality.

From a different perspective, I am certain that the potential for celestial influence, as a whole, has not been fully investigated, and I can make that comment with complete certainty.  In short, this planet's entire existence has been marked with cyclic phenomena - all of which is described, none of which explained.  At some point, the cycles of asteroid/meteor/comet bombardements, ice ages, incredible volcanic activity, world-wide & regional flooding and mass extinctions have to become more than just an "unfortunate coincidence".  Problem is, We've only been looking at the local astronomy in depth for 100 years and it takes thousands and millions for us to have moved through the universe at the intervals that the "coincidences" occur.

So, no - the "celestial question" has not been answered; not even slightly. 



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 01, 2007, 06:36:58 pm
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged


When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.


So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece)

Interesting point of view - whether you agree with it or not.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 01, 2007, 06:48:51 pm
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.  Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.   In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.  "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.  Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.  "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.  By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.  "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.  "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."  The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.  "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.  These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.  Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.  "Mars has no moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. 

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.  He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.  But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.  Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.  "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

Another interesting scientific opinion, whether you agree with it or not.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 01, 2007, 07:09:25 pm
Here's a partial list of the specific glaciers that are not shrinking as GW & GCC predict, but are in fact - GROWING:


NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier


As an aside, the Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the  1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.


Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day.   http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html (http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html)

Want to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers?  Click here: http://www.nve.no/ (http://www.nve.no/)


CANADAHelm Glacier & Place Glacier
ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
RUSSIA
Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)


GREENLAND
- Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.   One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml)


NEW ZEALAND

All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.  The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the  foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)  Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known  glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier


SOUTH AMERICA- Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia) is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation, 30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile, is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier)

Chile - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere)
is also growing.


UNITED STATES
- Colorado
- Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuckson)
- California (Mount Shasta)
- Montana
- Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year September 20, 2004

How about this article?  "Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming"
15 Feb 07 - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm)

A very interesting quote....

"Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting. I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino, a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams into South America.

It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt. But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.

With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.

I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.  Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in Göteborg, Sweden."

Find the whole source here:  http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf  (http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf)

It's a lot of reading, but fun nonetheless.




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jade Hellene on March 02, 2007, 02:59:39 am
Quote
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News


I have to say, I always find it amusing when people who don't believe in global warming go about citing evidence they believe is against it on other worlds.  They haven't even visited any of those other worlds and are simply working from photographs to make their assumptions.

And yet, huge chunks of ice are breaking off at the South Pole and yet, for some reason, that isn't evidence enough for them.

Quote
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.  "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.  "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."


Well, it's certainly nice to see that there is one alternate global warming sketptic that has been put in his place by his peers. Simply put, he is not to be taken seriously.

Quote
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."  The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.  "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.


More common sense, can't have that.

Quote
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.  He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.  But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.


Wel, that's all well and good.  I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.  If a global warming skeptic doesn't like science, he can simply make up his own science to give his own theories credence.  I'm beginning to suspect a creationist conservative is at the heart of this.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 02, 2007, 12:02:11 pm
First, I want to say that I was attempting to bring the discussion back to something more intersting, and to talk about GLOBAL WARMING (GW) & GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (GCC).  It's more fun to discuss and debate than argue. 

Now, I posted some recent articles on the subjects - and then I posted the glacier information to show that I was interested in discussing GCC more than GW.  I read all of the information, and found it all interesting - but I in no way endorse any of it.  It was simply fodder for the forum.  Also, I don't really care to direct the discussion, but GCC is the part I am most interested in.  I believe that they are two separate issues, and this is the one that is more fun to debate.  Take note that the weather patterns have definitely changed...  Glaciers shrink in some areas and growing in others, desertification in new areas, record growth in others, record "Highs" in some spots - and equally strange "Lows" in many others...  GCC at its best.

I have to say, I always find it amusing when people who don't believe in global warming go about citing evidence they believe is against it on other worlds.  They haven't even visited any of those other worlds and are simply working from photographs to make their assumptions.

Awesome point.  What you are referring to is perceived observational evidence.  Did you notice that, from the article, we can't determine if he offers any other potential reasons for why martian polar melting could be happening?  From the article it looks like he's making the assumption that, since it's happening here, and it's happening there - this must be evidence!  This almost defines "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE" for us.  Though NASA doesn't know why the polar melting is happening either, there is no reason to suspect that the same event is linking the two planets.

And yet, huge chunks of ice are breaking off at the South Pole and yet, for some reason, that isn't evidence enough for them.

Well, I wouldn't say that southern polar ice breakage is proof of anything other than a change in conditions, but I see your point.  This is partly what Habibullo Abdussamatov is saying though.  Polar ice in both locations is disappearing... There must be a correlation.  I agree with you though - I'm not seeing it as anything other than coincidence from what I read in the article.

Well, it's certainly nice to see that there is one alternate global warming sketptic that has been put in his place by his peers. Simply put, he is not to be taken seriously.

Though I don't necessarily agree that his theory is correct (or viable), I also don't agree that he has been sidelined by his peers.  Though the mainstream may not advance any credibility to his theory, his peers are truly taking him seriously.  I wish that everyone would remember that "nothing new ever begins as a popular movement".   SO, measuring a theory's accuracy by its popularity is not very accurate in itself.  Habibullo Abdussamatov is a celebrated scientist in his country and has been given quite a number of research grants and ISS funding to continue his research.  You see, he isn't a skeptic for skeptic's sake - he's contradicting GW because he doesn't think it's correct. He's not a part of the "establishment" or big oil, he's a scientist that has an opposing point of view.

I'm posting another link to an article that tells more of the story.  I should have done it last night, but I didn't want to overwhelm folks with too much reading.  His theory really is interesting, and he has a lot of "quiet support".  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)  Do yourself a favor and read the whole article.  Even if you are a staunch supporter of GW & GCC as offered by the mainstream, it won't hurt to visit this man's thoughts on the subject.


More common sense, can't have that.

"There is nothing so as uncommon as common sense..."   I love that quote.  Anyway, you're right - there are alternate theories as to why Mars is heating up (wobbling and tilting).  According to NASA, those theories are just that though - best guesses.  They have no proof that their theory is correct - just like he has no evidence to prove that their theory is wrong.  It's a stalemate.  Maybe he can capitalize on their lack of research into the subject - he is Dr. Abdussamatov, the head of Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory (considered by the rest of the world to be at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment and one of the world's best equipped observatories).  This is the cold war equivalent to our very best of the best in space-based research.



Wel, that's all well and good.  I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.  If a global warming skeptic doesn't like science, he can simply make up his own science to give his own theories credence.  I'm beginning to suspect a creationist conservative is at the heart of this.

Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Like I said, I'm neither pro or con on this guy's research - I just thought it was an interesting twist that no one - not even NASA or the IPCC had been investigating...



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jade Hellene on March 05, 2007, 04:40:03 pm
Well, that was a very reasonable response, Merlin, so reasonable that I barely found anything to take issue with, with the possible exception of this:

Quote
Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Nothing overtly, save for the fact that his anecdotal evidence (presumed warning on Mars) smacks of over-reaching to look for some explanation other than the one that science is currently offering.  I also happen to know that the fossil fuel companies have funded a lot fo misinformation into this debate.  Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular.  Either way, I am more apt to believe the majority of scientists who believe global warming (by humans) to be fact.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 05, 2007, 07:58:56 pm
Well, that was a very reasonable response, Merlin, so reasonable that I barely found anything to take issue with,

Thank you Jade.  Though I could tell that you do not believe that there is a possibility that An Inconvenient Truth might be inaccurate, you did a wonderful job of trying to remain unbiased in your rebuttal.  To that, I owe you an equal amount of respect when replying.  ISn't this good fun?

with the possible exception of this:

Quote
Wow, Jade that's a tough call.  This guy is a bonafide scientist, and runs a research facility in Russia that's been around since the 1830's.  I didn't really detect a "conservative" or "creationist" bent to his theory.  What, in particular, makes you suspect that?

Nothing overtly, save for the fact that his anecdotal evidence (presumed warning on Mars) smacks of over-reaching to look for some explanation other than the one that science is currently offering.

I cannot disagree with your opinion.  It does appear to be overreaching and it is most definitely anecdotal.

I also happen to know that the fossil fuel companies have funded a lot fo misinformation into this debate.  Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular.  Either way, I am more apt to believe the majority of scientists who believe global warming (by humans) to be fact.

My God (if you really exist), if only all people in this thread were this reasonable.  If I had a highlighter, I'd swipe it over the section that reads, "Perhaps this is one example, perhaps he's simply someone who has concocted a theory that is, for the moment, unpopular."  That is the most wonderful statement because it begins with "Perhaps" - meaning that you leave plenty of room for him to make his case in the future.  "Perhaps" he isn't part of the "conspiracy" - maybe he truly thinks he's right...  Maybe he's wrong.  I'm so happy I could almost....  Nahh - now I'm just being silly.

Anyway, I agree - there has been a huge amount of disinformation in this debate - some intentional, some accidental, and even more because the media is dying to create a firestorm that will fuel adevertising sales for years to come.  I am a proponent of caution, caution toward rushing to judgement.  I am concerned by so much of the data included within the IPCC's report and that the information being "leaked" {wink - wink} to the media is incomplete or inconsistent, that I take pause when I see/hear it. 

I feel like I've been here before...  DDT, Asbestos, DES, {2,4-d}, Saccharin, Rf emissions from cell phones, Red dye#5, living under power lines, toluene, etc., etc.  Keep in mind that the governments, world-wide lied to us about all of these - and still are in many cases.  The research "for" or "against" was labeled as complete, incomplete, absolute, absolutely nonsense, correct, incorrect ....  There was nothing to hang your hat on until it finally dies in the press.  In most cases, the individual governments took different stances and it remains the same today.  The evolution of the IPCC's GW/GCC makes me feel that same sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach - like something's missing.  I think that the Russian scientists are feeling a little of the same, but unlike this country - where it has become taboo to be skeptical, they are free to investigate at their leisure.

Again - I'm not agreeing with him, I'm just saying it looks like he has the comfort level to research the "un-obvious" possibilities in order to exclude them without bias.  I wish I had that same relaxed environ to work in.

It has been a pleasure Jade.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Majeston on March 05, 2007, 08:55:18 pm

My God (if you really exist),

 :)

baby steps   ;D

"Many noble human impulses die because there is no one to hear their expression."


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Daffy Duck on March 07, 2007, 05:01:56 pm
Hey Merlin, hat's off to a positively outstanding post [re: "Global Conveyor Theory," Feb. 25].  I for one appreciate the thought and effort you put in to your posts, but I often wonder why you do it.

There was a lot of information and ideas offered in that post that people should take in to consideration.  At least people with no predispositions should; the rest are probably hopeless.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 08, 2007, 11:24:42 am
Hey Merlin, hat's off to a positively outstanding post [re: "Global Conveyor Theory," Feb. 25]. 

I appreciate it Daffy, but you now run the risk of being a "Merlin apologist", "Merlin Chrony", "Neo-con", "conservative - co-conspirator" - or whatever.  At this point, I'd have to say that you are quite brave for voicing your consideration of anything I say.  My hat's off to you, and I wish you all the best trying to defend yourself later.  ;)  Here is a link to a fellow "Cautious Observer" who's a little skeptical of the rush to pronounce the science "complete":  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece)  I think he raises some very interesting points, unpopular as they are, his logic is unflappable.


I for one appreciate the thought and effort you put in to your posts, but I often wonder why you do it.

The easy answer is:  I see so much disinformation-turned "tribal knowledge" in the 18-28 generation these days, that I cannot resist trying to correct it.  It helps that I'm a pretty fair typer too, so it really doesn't take me very long to convert my thoughts to text.

Now, the more "Thoughtful Answer" is:  Because I am trying to provoke thought, interest in investigation, a desire to research and most of all - a willingness to see a few realities:

  • The "popular" idea/theory is rarely the correct one, or the most correct one
  • Just because something is said, and evidence is offered, it does not mean that it is correct
  • Our history is literally littered with "great theories" and hypothesis that make sense - but are wrong; hence my cautionary tale.
  • Logic and common sense are not the same thing, and things that "make sense" are often wrong

All told, I can think of hundreds of examples where 'Common Sense', fueled by observational evidence, gave us the wrong answers. And it was only through investigation, research and a re-evaluation of the observed evidence that we learned just how incorrect our initial 'Theories' were.  In fact, I could find enough such examples to fuel an entire thread**.  The FACT is, the most obvious evidence that a theory is "shaky" is when our predictions based upon that theory are wrong, and our Model Builders (using that theory) are unable to duplicate test outcomes that match observed activities.  Did you know that there is an entire branch of theoretical physics, engineering, biology, economics, politics, sociology, chemistry, etc., etc. called "Model Building"?  That's right!  What they most often do is create tests, build prototypes, software, and whatnot to test other's theories.  Climatology is no different.

I'm here for the same reason most others are - to effect change, even if it is upon myself.

There was a lot of information and ideas offered in that post that people should take in to consideration.  At least people with no predispositions should; the rest are probably hopeless.

To be honest, I have tried not to preach "What I believe" in this thread.  I am trying to get people who otherwise have no opinion to take a look and those who have an opinion to take a second look, and make sure that they are basing it on fact - and not rhetoric.  I myself, have decided that I do not have enough information to make an informed decision as to what is causing the planet to warm up (GW).  I can see all sorts of examples of pollution, to which I say, "Knock it off," but otherwise I am unmoved by the IPCC's reporting.  As for global climate change (GCC), I have not seen any evidence that would link it to GW, nor do I see any evidence that GCC is actually occuring outside of the statistical history of our past 250,000 years.

I've had a bit of fun below, describing what happens (based upon history) when we "follow common sense" while ignoring evidence, or, refusing to search for proof.

** Why we don't let "Popular Theories" control our destiny

I often do a 'run-through' of just how error-ridden Common Sense Theories are with logic and theory classes.  I do it for obvious reasons, but you would be surprised by how many people are actually surprised that the 'Common Sense Theory' ISN'T CORRECT!  It will generally take me a couple of days to break people out of the paradigm that has taken 20 years (or so) to build.  In some cases, because the Common Sense Theories are so "practical", and easy to understand - some students willo argue in favor of them even though they know they are wrong...  After all, science once tried the common sense approach, in the guise of Aristotelian physics...  You know what I'm talking about, "heavy objects fall faster than light objects," and those sorts of thoughts.  But science escaped such pre-medieval mentality four centuries ago, when Galileo showed that you have to do experiments, and analyze them critically & logically, to judge hypotheses or theories for accuracy.  Let's take a look:

The Obvious Ones  -  The ones that hardly need explanation today.  Aristotle's logic at its best.

1.  Flat Earth.  -  WRONG  Uh...  No explanation should be required for this one.
2.  Earth at the center of the universe.  -  WRONG  This needs no explanation
3.  Once the solar system was viewed, the Earth was placed at the center of it.  - WRONG   This needs no explanation
4.  A boulder falls faster than a pebble.  - WRONG  Newton taught us otherwise.
5.  The sky is blue because there is an ocean above, as evidenced by rainfall.  - WRONG Though the "blueness" of the sky is due to moisture content, we all know why the theory was wrong.
6.  All things in nature are made up of a combination of the four elements:  wind, earth, air & fire -  WRONG  This needs no explanation.

The Less Obvious Ones - These are the ones that have some basis in science, but were still developed through the Aristotlean mindset.

7.  All things stop at Absolute Zero, thereby allowing even energy to be stopped, dismantled and destroyed.  This violates the basic physics premise that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only "phase changed".  Absolute zero cannot be achieved as long as there is any energy whatsoever in the universe, at the very least. Without any energy we would never be able to measure it!   The process of "cooling" actually requires energy consumption, and energy - in the form of work - produces energy in the form of heat.  Allowed to sit in a complete universe, all by itself, a single atom will still possess a minimum of one electron (energy).  Once degradation occurs, the energy from gluon to quark and W & Z particle transfer will still radiate out through the universe.
8.  For the religious, 'retrograde motion' of the celestial bodies was "proof" that "God" was behind the motion of the heavens.  For the scientists, 'retrograde motion' proved to be a serious issue for the Ptolemean, Aristotlean & Copernican models of how the Earth "fit" in the universe  - Retrograde motion was solved by Kepler, refined by Newton and viewed by Galileo.  It turned out to be due to the elliptical nature of orbits, their intersection about the ecliptic, and the fact that not all orbits of all bodies are circumscribed about the same point in space. 
9.  Color is viewed by all things in any condition as symmetrical or 'absolute'; red is red, blue is blue...  The perception of color is dependent upon the number of receptors, the medium with which the photons are traveling within and the frequency of the photons reflecting off of the object.
10.  Light "waves" through and unseen force as evidenced by the alteration of focal points through heat waves, manipulating in air molecules.  Enter - "The Aether" or "The Ether".  -  Turns out, there is nothing where "nothing" is.  The presence of an 'unseen force' was disproven by a veritable littany of scientists from Brouch to Einstein, and the scientific community discounts it today; entirely.
11.  Light is a particle called a photon, and moves like an atom and is therefore subject to the classical physics guiding the actions of particles.  Only if it wants to, otherwise, it moves as a wave and violates classical physics.
12.  Light is a wave, moving like pure energy with no mass, adhering to the laws of QED & QCD.  -  Unless it "feels like a nut" and moves like a particle, ignoring the quantum limitations and instead, adopting the classical physical laws.
13.  The motion of the galaxies is like that of the solar systems; a pinwheel where the objects furthest from the center move more slowly than those closest.  Uh - no.  Turns out to be incorrect, and it is a recent finding (in relative terms).  It turns out that the motion of the galaxies is not like that of a solar system or like that of a spinning plate.  Instead, even though their orbits are much greater (and less effected by gravity from the center), objects in the outer reaches of solar systems are moving at nearly the same speeds as those in the inner sanctum; enter Dark Matter.
14.  The "Vacuum of space" is cold, dark and empty.  -  Vacuum energy has become a recently adopted (speculative) theory for where 'virtual particles' come and go from.  This is oft-referred to as "Einstein's cosmological constant", as it would mean that "Empty Space" wasn't actually empty afterall.  Because it is not empty, the preponderance of "Vacant Space" would be a huge source of energy - pushing expansion.
15.  WYSIWYG with the universe.  Look around, measure everything - apply your theory and viola, we have an explanation for how it began and how big it is (age).  -  We wind up missing 96% of the necessary mass, a temperature roughly 1/2 degree above absolute zero (when it's really 2.735 degrees above), and an age for the universe ranging between 5 & 20 billion years; enter Dark Energy

Alright, so in the end, we see that the Aether fell victim to science, as did the cosmological constant, but now we are adding vacuum energy, dark matter and dark energy.  Did we really correct these failed theories, or just change their names?  All-in-all, it doesn't matter - the "Common Sense" science Theories always fall victim to observation sooner or later.

Hope everyone was entertained.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 11, 2007, 04:29:33 am
Report outlines global warming's effects
POSTED: 11:28 p.m. EST, March 10, 2007

• Scientists' report will be released at April conference
• Report says parts of world will have water shortages, others floods
• Food production will increase at first, then famine will hit, report says
[/i]
 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.
At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.
Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.
For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.
The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.
But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.
The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.
"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.
"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.
The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.
For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.
But the present is nothing compared to the future.
Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.
And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.
The report's findings
The report included these likely results of global warming:
•  Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.
•  Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.
•  Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.
•  By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
•  About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.
•  Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.
•  Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.
•  At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.
Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.
Africa, Asia to be hardest hit
The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.
"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."
This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.
"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.
Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."
The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 11, 2007, 04:38:38 am
Quote
Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

Well, it sure would be nice to read this report before it is handed over to the government officials for their "editing," seeing as how the public is just getting the watered down version of it!

Oh, and shame on all the people that keep wanting to pretend that global warming either doesn't exist or that human beings aren't the cause of it.

I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

A more fitting comparison was when tobacco companies continued to act like there was still a debate whether cigarettes caused lung cancer, long after the link had been proven.

It's 2007, let's all get with the times.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 11, 2007, 03:26:50 pm
Quote
Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

Well, it sure would be nice to read this report before it is handed over to the government officials for their "editing," seeing as how the public is just getting the watered down version of it!

Of that we can agree.


Oh, and shame on all the people that keep wanting to pretend that global warming either doesn't exist or that human beings aren't the cause of it.

Criticality and skepticism are good things Allison, whether you like it or not.

I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

I forget no such thing - I, in fact, know the history of the flat earth theory - do you?  I take note that you chose only to criticize the one example (out of so many) that you thought you had found a flaw in.  Many-a-website will claim that the flat-earth theory is purely religious, however; that doesn't make it true.

Note that I never said that any of those were "Commonly accepted" as you assert, at the very most, I said, "Common-sense approach found to be wrong".  However, in this particular thread reply, I simply offered it as "A Theory" that was dismissed due to the application of logic and evidence.  Now, you also assert that it was a purely Church proffered idea and that "science" had nothing to do with it...  Well, I disagree.  On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD).  Anyone who has read Aristotle knows that he believed the earth to be round, and historical buffs know that Erasthenes and Ptolemy proved it, but that wasn't my point.  My point was simply that it was a theory, and that evidence and logic disproved it.

I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

A more fitting comparison was when tobacco companies continued to act like there was still a debate whether cigarettes caused lung cancer, long after the link had been proven.

No, that would be a conspiracy to defraud - something they were tried and convicted of.  Aside from the fact that this was never a bonafide scientific debate, your example does not mesh with the discussion anyway.  These are more of your attempts to bash skeptics over the head with hysteria, claiming that there is overwhelming evidence, while delivering none.  Have you noticed that you haven't supplied any data yet?  I have.  Have you noticed that the IPCC hasn't supplied any data to the public yet?  Yeah - me too...  Unlike you, I have read the full report.  As I stated at AR.com, it's a tasty morsel - I can't wait to see what it looks like when the bureaucrats are done with it.  I'm hoping it's not going to be a repeat of AR2, I'd like to have something to discuss that hasn't had all of its support witdrawn by the authors.

It's 2007, let's all get with the times.

Timing means nothing when you are talking about a rush to judgement Allison.  From my perspective, sometimes percentages mean nothing at all, even when they are 90-100%.  Here's an example:

The IAEA is 100% certain that North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb in October 2006, and that this weapon was in the .5-2K Ton range.  Many stories from N. Korea and China have emerged, indicating that the bomb yielded less than anticipated results but that it was otherwise successful.  Well, what if I told you that there is a 99% certainty that someone's full of poop.  What if I told you that, not only were the N. Koreans lying - but so is Washington, China and the UN's IAEA?  Would you be surprised?  Now, I realize that you won't want to believe it because it comes from me, but you should at least consider the possibility that I'm making a cogent point.  Here goes:

  • The U.S. knows N. Korea bought completed weapons manufacturing and assembly plans from Pakistan's A. Q. Khan - he admitted it.
  • We know N. Korea is enriching uranium and plutonium; we've seen it and they admit it.
  • The 6-party talks are going nowhere - America and N. Korea refuse to back down; ego issues.
  • Korea is freezing to death because of a lack of resources, and their citizens are starving; they want to conceed, but Kim Jong il won't.
  • The U.S. is tired of looking like the bad guy (maybe it is - maybe it isn't), and wants to put the issue to bed.  Dubyah needs a victory.
  • A plan is hatched.  The U.S., via China signals N. Korea to do the unthinkable - detonate a "device", call it a "gadget" if you will.
  • It becomes apparent that they don't have enough HEU or HEP to achieve critical mass, "a little birdie" tells them how to ostensibly avoid that problem.  Use a matrix implosion and high speed neutron trigger.
  • So, they build a device that has a plastic explosive trigger, sequentially detonated, measuring 2 K tons (force) and surround it by a heavy lead & concrete reinforced box.  They then apply neutron detonation techniques ensuring that the loosed energy is recycled momentarily in the absence of a chain reaction (This gives the appearance of a neutron flux matching a detonation).
  • Overall, they build a "dirty bomb" that is 90% convential explosion, 5% atomic and 5% wasted neutron emmission.
  • This accounts for the complete lack of a blast wave, a very insignificant EMP, barely readable Hi-E and no spectrum at all.  It would also account for the seismological readings pegging the max force at about 1 K tons.
  • Most of (1.5 K) initial tonnage in the form of conventional explosive was converted into kinetic energy, usurped by the gadget and redeveloped in the miniscule blast that did trigger momentarily.  Think of it as a stiffled sneeze that sort of "whimpers", although you expended an enormous amount of energy trying to keep it from coming to fruition...  Conservation of energy at its best!

Now that the "test" has occurred, eveyone gets to save face and return to the bargaining table.  Viola!  A conspiracy for the greater good, and no one got hurt.  All the while, the IAEA maintains its legitimacy (it did not lie), China looks neutral, N. Korea looks like it knows what it's doing, and the U.S. looks no worse than it did before.  Now, the impetus in ON to keep it from happening again.  Everyone looks like a bunch of winners at the bargaining table, and now all eyes are turned to Iran.  All because of a simple percentage - that means nothing at all.  Don't believe the IPCC's 90% is anything other than a number.  Wait for the data.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 11, 2007, 04:11:43 pm
Quote
On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD). 


Hi Merlin, most of those guys actually weren't scientists, but working with the church:


Lucius Caelius (or Caecilius?) Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius
Cosmas Indicopleustes (literally "who sailed to India") of Alexandria was a Greek a monk, probably of Nestorian tendencies.
A major feature of his Topography is Cosmas' worldview that the world is flat, and that the heavens form the shape of a box with a curved lid, a view he took from unconventional interpretations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosma_Indicopleustes
Theodore (c.350 - 428), was bishop of Mopsuestia, a city in what is now Turkey which has since declined into a village which is now known as Yakapinar, from 392 to 428.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia
Diodorus of Tarsus was a bishop, early monastic reformer and opponent of arianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodore_of_Tarsus

One can hardly be considered a "scientist" if their theories are taken from religious texts or are faith-based.  Scientists were not responsible for the circulation of the flat earth theory, it was the church.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 11, 2007, 04:24:17 pm
Hi Merlin, most of those guys actually weren't scientists, but working with the church:

One can hardly be considered a "scientist" if their theories are taken from religious texts or are faith-based.  Scientists were not responsible for the circulation of the flat earth theory, it was the church.

Like I said - check who was "running the show" at the time.  Like it or not, most of the science for centuries was coming through the church.  There was a very fine line separating 'science', 'philosophy' & 'religion' - in fact, much science during the Dark Ages was merely apologetics!   Besides, if you read my initial post, it said "Why we don't let "Popular Theories" control our destiny," I figured that I could avoid the standard anti-religious rhetoric that way.

If it brings the discussion back to the overall debate - I'll remove the flat earth example.  Otherwise, let's move along.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 11, 2007, 04:37:27 pm
Hi Merlin,

Actually, as I understand how the flat earth theory came out of fashion, the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes (3rd Century bc) first proposed that the world was a sphere, and by the time of Pliny (1st century ad) it was commonly accepted that the world was a sphere.

Actually, the only guys resistant to the idea were the Chrisitian authors.  Apparently, Christianity was split on the shape of the world, but let's not mistake them for being scientists:


A few Christian authors directly opposed the round Earth:

 
Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture - flat earth in a Tabernacle.Lactantius (245–325), after his conversion to Christianity became a trenchant critic of all pagan philosophy. In Book III of The Divine Institutes[17] he ridicules the notion that there could be inhabitants of the antipodes "whose footsteps are higher than their heads". After presenting some arguments which he claims advocates for a spherical heaven and earth had advanced to support their views, he writes:

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another;

In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes[18] St.John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c.293–373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen[19].

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) also argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[20]

Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote: "The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[21]

The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans. At least one early Christian writer, Basil of Caesarea (329–379), believed the matter to be theologically irrelevant.[22]

Different historians have maintained that these advocates of the flat Earth were either influential (a view typified by Andrew Dickson White) or relatively unimportant (typified by Jeffrey Russell) in the later Middle Ages. The scarcity of references to their beliefs in later medieval writings convinces most of today's historians that their influence was slight.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 11, 2007, 04:54:19 pm
Somehow you missed the section where I said:

Quote
I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

BTW, as I said earlier - there are many places on the internet to find accusations that this was a purely Christian viewpoint - but they are not the only purveyors of the error.  We see maps dating prior to the Birth of Christianity, and these maps had little indication of anything sphere-like.  Round - maybe, but sphere-like - not so much. 

It's tough to argue with the maps...  Sometimes, you cannot find what you're looking for by typing "Flat Earth" in Google or Wikipedia.  Get creative, and look at what the ancients "Actually Believed".  Maybe you can find out the information and edit Wikipedia so that it's correct!  Anyway, Like I said just previously - this is silly to waste this much time on cutting and pasting from one site or another that supports your view.  Can we possibly move along now that you've cited Wikipedia?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 11, 2007, 05:43:14 pm
Merlin,

The whole issue I had with your earlier statement (which is a valid one if we are to realize the need to be factual) was that the flat earth theory was something that science was putting forth. It was not.  As you know, science is an ever-evoliving process that changes it's theories put forth when new information arises.

This differs from faith-based beliefs concerning the world, that remain intransigent no matter what new information presents itself.  The names you mentioned earlier (bishops and monks) certainly fall in the latter category.

Sure, we can move on, but I hope that the point isn't going to be that science believed all sorts of nutty things in the past. Humanity has certainly believed in a lot of strange things in the past, but they were mostly along the lines of supersitition and prejudice, science has certainly had nothing to do with them.  Science actually has a history of being generally conservative about the things they believe in and choose to accept.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 11, 2007, 06:37:16 pm
Merlin,

The whole issue I had with your earlier statement (which is a valid one if we are to realize the need to be factual) was that the flat earth theory was something that science was putting forth. It was not.  As you know, science is an ever-evoliving process that changes it's theories put forth when new information arises.

But science did adopt the theory for awhile.  Are you intentionally ignoring what I'm saying?

This differs from faith-based beliefs concerning the world, that remain intransigent no matter what new information presents itself.  The names you mentioned earlier (bishops and monks) certainly fall in the latter category.

Oi vey...  This is like beating my head against a wall...  Those GUYS WERE CONSIDERED SCIENTISTS!  Aside from just the flat-earth, they had other writings, concepts and theories that were adopted by the mainstream scientific community then - and - later.  Just because THOSE guys also adopted a position that was unpopular does not make them un-scientists.  Look at Einstein - he offered a very "un-scientific" theory (Cosmological Constant) that was meant to maintain his belief in GOD, but it did not revoke his position as a scientist.

Sure, we can move on, but I hope that the point isn't going to be that science believed all sorts of nutty things in the past.

But they have, and that was the point!  To say otherwise is to ignore history.  As a scientist, I fully embrace the fact that we have been entirely retarded at times.  Still, to this day, we make silly "common sense" mistakes.

Humanity has certainly believed in a lot of strange things in the past, but they were mostly along the lines of supersitition and prejudice, science has certainly had nothing to do with them.  Science actually has a history of being generally conservative about the things they believe in and choose to accept.

Oh my god (of physics) that statement does not track with history at all.  Please Jason, let's not go there in this thread.  Go to the science forum and start a new thread - I'll be happy to trot out all of the utter nonsense that "Science" has believed and scientists have proffered for the past 3,000 years.  Truth is stranger than fiction - I promise you.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 12, 2007, 12:24:09 am
Quote
But science did adopt the theory for awhile.  Are you intentionally ignoring what I'm saying?

No, I just don't believe in what you're saying because it isn't the truth. Following the first century, the main proponents of the flat earth theory were from the church. You are suggesting they were scientists, which is simply not the case.

Quote
Oi vey...  This is like beating my head against a wall...  Those GUYS WERE CONSIDERED SCIENTISTS!


Wrong again, they were considered "theologians."  And as for beating your head against the wall, join the club.  I have just explained to you that all the people you cited doing the writings were bishops, monks, and Christian theorists. You continue to ignore it even though I even also supplied proof.  I don't know where the disconnect here is, but I'm getting a bit tired of saying it.

Quote
But they have, and that was the point!  To say otherwise is to ignore history.  As a scientist, I fully embrace the fact that we have been entirely retarded at times.  Still, to this day, we make silly "common sense" mistakes.

Science has hypthesized things in the past that later were proven not to be true, with more information.  It never said that the world was flat, that (and most similar beliefs) are the work of theology and superstition, not science.

Quote
I'll be happy to trot out all of the utter nonsense that "Science" has believed and scientists have proffered for the past 3,000 years. 


Well, that would be diffilcult since most of the major sciences are less than 2000 years old.  Anything you couild trot out, Merlin, would not be relevant anyway.  As I have said many times during this discourse, science evolves and changes many times as new information presents itself.  Religion is the one that remains stubbornly resistant to change. Is science holding onto beliefs that might be outdated?  Well, of course, sometimes it does take awhile to overturn current scientific theory, but I haven't seen anything that would overturn the current consensus on global warming, other than wishful thinking by a lot of people who don't want it to be true.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:44:02 am
(http://www.stjoan.com/er1/report.gif)
Film:
An Inconvenient Truth
(http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/poster.jpg)
Former Vice-President Al Gore wants people to wake up to the serious dangers of global warming and actively change their lifestyles to become more environmentally conscientious. He makes a whopping impact for his case by unleashing some sobering facts and statistics about the ramifications of dumping carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment in his hot button film documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The buzz on this film has exploded like a meteor. Recently his wife, Tipper Gore, quipped about the sudden change in her husband’s media rising profile: “I went to sleep with a recovering politician and woke up with a movie star.”

Climate scientists back up Gore’s concepts; the science is correct. “The whole key for us is learning about global warming and become a conscious consumer,” said Gore. So strong is this impassioned environmental crusader that 100% of the profits from his film and eponymous titled book will go to a non-profit bipartisan effort to support bold action to confront global warming.

British Physicist Stephen Hawking, author of the world wide best seller “A Brief History of Time” has done ground breaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He noted to the Associated Press in Hong Kong, “Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as a sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.”. He feels if we as a human race want to continue to survive for generations, we need to find new homes like space settlements that can continue without support from Earth, relocating to a permanent base on the moon or a colony on Mars, because there’s an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:48:00 am
Sound far fetched? Consider the fact that over two thousand scientists in 100 countries pulled together research in a 20 year period forging a dangerously real climate crisis consensus. One that suggests all the nations on Earth must work together to solve the crisis of global warming if we want to continue any future quality of life on our planet.


(http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/earth.jpg)
 Gore articulated through a savvy slide show presentation some key factors that have produced such climate threatening evidence:

Dumping of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment has literally changed the relationship of the Earth and the Sun. CO² emissions are being absorbed into the oceans increasing the saturation of calcium carbonate to levels that will prevent formation of corals and interfere with the making of shells by any sea creature.
Melting of the North Polar ice caps and destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and West Antarctica, threaten a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as 20 feet.
Cutting and burning of forests along with global warming cause the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Gore shared a telling anecdote about his sixth grade teacher who truly believed that continents are so vast that it’s impossible for them to move and form together. One of his classmates asked this instructor if ever the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa fit together at one point in time. The teacher responded, “That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!” Of course, now we know at one time the two countries fit right together then moved apart millions of years ago. And they’re still moving.
Mark Twain’s famous aphorism expresses this sentiment as well:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:50:22 am
The late Carl Sagan was famous for saying, “If you had a globe covered with a coat of varnish, the thickness of that varnish would be about the same as the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere compared to the Earth itself.” Gore says that we have grown so enormously and our technologies have advanced so vastly that we are capable of having major influence on the Earth’s thinning atmosphere, particularly altering the concentration of its molecular components. Since we’ve increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they thicken and trap infrared radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere and continue out to the universe. The result, the Earth’s temperature of its atmosphere and oceans are getting dangerously warmer.

(http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/edit.jpg)

What’s really infuriating about this climate of chaos and horrific deterioration of our precious environment is that our United States government is ignoring it in favor of supporting the fat profits of oil dependency. Gore alluded, “By ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global climate change, [President Bush and his administration] are threatening the Earth’s future.” On June 21, 2004, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused President Bush and his administration of distorting science.

As impassioned as Gore is about his subject matter and tireless dedication to championing his cause since losing the presidential election in 2000, one senses his heart and soul are in the right place when watching this absorbing documentary tightly directed by Davis Guggenheim. What’s puzzling is though he cites references to scientists like Roger Revelle, none are interviewed. I don’t doubt his credibility. Just check out his in depth book version of the documentary. Replete with gloriously detailed graphics, stunning photography and numerous sources cited that back Gore’s claims; the book satiates the inquisitive mind far richer than the film does. The screen version would benefit greatly by visiting some perspective scientists and climatologists, getting inside their heads on this subject matter. Here we get just Gore and his crafty slide show.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:51:46 am
Climatologist Mark Seeley Offers His Thoughts on ‘Truth’


(http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/glacier.jpg)

U of M Climatologist Mark Seeley talked after the preview screening of An Inconvenient Truth at Landmark’s Edina 4 Theatre. His reaction to the film, “Uff da,” he replied. Quite concerned about global warming’s effects, he elaborated, “Eight of the last nine winters have been in the top 25% of warmest weathers.” He suggested just this year that the climate models in our first three months changed in whole numbers. Our memorial weekend also had disturbingly inflated dew point values. As Gore pointed out that the climate is getting wetter, Minnesota also shows numbers on the rise with wetness since our last dry spell, which was the summer of 1988.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:54:38 am
Q & A Session followed with film attendants

Question: “What is it like to speak in such clear terms about issues like global warming?”

Seeley: “Mr. Gore is not a scientist but he’s been at it for a long time. We need to exercise our passion of this issue. It’s a matter of ethics. There’s not a lot of science in this movie. I’m put off by the science in this movie. Science is about trying to define with confidence and certainty… I think the human race has a philanthropic gene. We want to do right by our environment. I have a long term history of studying observational evidence. Faith based communities are trying to cope with this issue. They’re guided by their faith. Ethics, emotions and politics need to be weaved in when we talk about global warming. 

(http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/earth2.jpg)

Question: “Temperatures have been increasing on Mars like the Earth. Is global warming a hoax?”

Seeley: “Labeled contrarians have been personally attacking this idea but the vast majority of people are accepting global warming.”

Question: “What do you see as definite signs of global warming?”

Seeley: “There is global warming. Land transformation, the Earth’s atmospheric composition, and human related climate drivers are all reasons to take action. It’s important to have these discussions, especially with our children.”

Question: “Doesn’t science require a proof theory?”

Seeley: “Science is not our only tool to dealing with this. It’s a moral issue.”

Audience Comment: “Regarding world population balance, please don’t have as many children as your parents did. Why didn’t Gore emphasize we today are having too many children.”

Question: “Scientific credentials should speak loudly on these issues. Instead of ‘The British are coming; The British are coming’ it’s become ‘The British might be on their way.’ What things would you change in the science of the film?”

Seeley: “It’s a moral problem but then he [Gore] doesn’t talk about what the morals are. Gore is advocating on a personal and political level. We all have our individual philanthropic passions. Mine are what has happened to my family. [Note of interest regarding Mark’s quote here. Gore’s impetus for his life long passion to global warming stems from a near fatal car accident his son experienced.] I expend my energies on multiple sclerosis. It affects me personally. I can’t always be steered in the direction someone would like to steer me in.”

 
 
Michael Reinbold, a continuing web reporter, freelances as a writer and banquet caterer. A passionate believer in SJA's mission of social justice and collaborative ministry, Michael is an SJA Choir member, mass reader, Team Oz AIDS rider and Grace House volunteer cook. With an extensive background in theater, photography and fundraising, he relishes all aspects of the arts, staying fit and inspiring and working with people.
Check out detailed information about Gore’s documentary. Go to www.climatecrisis.net. You can purchase the book An Inconvenient Truth now available at all major bookstores.

http://www.stjoan.com/er6/inconvenient/inconvenient.htm


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 01:57:01 am
(http://www.stjoan.com/eventreview/aboutauthor.gif)

(http://www.stjoan.com/eventreview/michaelr2.jpg)

Michael Reinbold, a continuing web reporter, freelances as a writer and banquet caterer. A passionate believer in SJA's mission of social justice and collaborative ministry, Michael is an SJA Choir member, mass reader, Team Oz AIDS rider and Grace House volunteer cook. With an extensive background in theater, photography and fundraising, he relishes all aspects of the arts, staying fit and inspiring and working with people.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:08:00 am
Environment | 29.01.2007
Expert: Most Alpine Glaciers Gone in 30 Years

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 

(http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2324761_4,00.jpg)

Europe's glaciers keep melting away
Rising temperatures will cause a rapid melting of Europe's glaciers and have most of them disappear within three decades, according to an expert.

Speaking at a recent conference on the future of the Alps in Austria, Roland Psenner of the University of Innsbruck had little hope for the survival of Europe's icy giants.

 

"The future of the Tyrolean glaciers looks pretty liquid," he said, according to Austrian national broadcaster ORF. "We're losing about 3 percent of glacial mass per year."

 

He said the melting at the current rate would make most glaciers disappear by 2050, with only a few at altitudes of more than 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) surviving.

 

Global meltdown


Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:

(http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,930118_4,00.jpg)
 
Many, like the Morteratsch glacier in Switzerland, are already rapidly retreating
But Psenner also told the Web site of German newsmagazine Der Spiegel that a more rapid disappearance is likely: At current melting rates, the glaciers could be gone as early as 2037.

 

The Web site also reported that a recent report by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WMGS) at Zurich University showed that the world's glaciers lost between 60 and 70 centimeters (23.6 and 27.5 inches) in 2005.

 

"There's a clear tendency that the rise in temperatures and consequently the melting of glaciers is speeding up," Michael Zemp of the university's geographical institute told the Web site.


 
DW staff (win)


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2324737,00.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:10:16 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Grinnell_Glacier2.jpg)

Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park (US) showing recession since 1850 of 1.1 km (0.7 miles) USGS


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:13:17 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png)

This map of mountain glacier mass balance changes since 1970 shows thinning in yellow and red, and thickening in blue.

Summary
The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.

All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.

During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].
Notes
This sample of mountain glaciers excludes the primary ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

It should be acknowledged that glacier sampling is heavily biased towards North America and Europe. Africa has only a handful of glaciers, whereas Australia has none. However substantial unsampled mountain glaciers do exist in South America, Asia and the margins of Antarctica. Despite their importance, none of the marginal Antarctic glaciers have had their mass balance sampled at least 5 times since 1970.

These estimates of ice sheet thinning do not include glacier mass lost due to iceberg calving. Such calving is not significant for most mountain glaciers, since only a small proportion of these glaciers terminate in the ocean.


Reference

Dyurgerov, Mark B. and Mark F. Meier (2005). "Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot". Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Occasional Paper 58. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:16:01 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png)

Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and NSIDC. The increasing downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.

References
Dyurgerov, Mark B. (2002). "Glacier Mass Balance and Regime: Data of Measurements and Analysis". Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Occasional Paper 55. 
Dyurgerov, Mark B. and Mark F. Meier (2005). "Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot". Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Occasional Paper 58. 
J. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308 (5722): 675 - 677. 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:18:09 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Alps-glaciers.png)

This map from the annual Glacier Commission surveys in Italy and Switzerland shows the percentage of advancing glaciers in the Alps. Mid-20th century saw strong retreating trends, but not as extreme as the present; current retreats represent additional reductions of already smaller glaciers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 12, 2007, 02:22:19 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/170.12806E_43.67770S.gif/800px-170.12806E_43.67770S.gif)

These glaciers in New Zealand have continued to retreat rapidly in recent years. Notice the larger terminal lakes, the retreat of the white ice (ice free of moraine cover), and the higher moraine walls due to ice thinning. Photo.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 12, 2007, 03:13:48 am
Quote
Oi vey...  This is like beating my head against a wall...  Those GUYS WERE CONSIDERED SCIENTISTS!

Merlin, only you would invoke the names of Christian fundies and elevate them to the level of scientists.  Don't you know that xtianity has been the greatest barrier to real science in this and any age??  How silly of you.  Guess we'll just have to ignore all the people that have been persecuted for the last 2000 years, all cause they had beliefs that differed from xtianity.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 12, 2007, 03:15:34 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/170.12806E_43.67770S.gif/800px-170.12806E_43.67770S.gif)

These glaciers in New Zealand have continued to retreat rapidly in recent years. Notice the larger terminal lakes, the retreat of the white ice (ice free of moraine cover), and the higher moraine walls due to ice thinning. Photo.

Cool graphic!


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 12, 2007, 04:29:52 pm
No, I just don't believe in what you're saying because it isn't the truth. Following the first century, the main proponents of the flat earth theory were from the church. You are suggesting they were scientists, which is simply not the case.

Because you ignore what is being said.  FIRST - I never limited the discussion to the first century or later, in fact, I think I left that wide open.  I think what's going on here is that you have confused the "Flat Earth Theory" from the Flat Earth Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society) with the idea that was once widely adopted that the Earth was flat.  One was a relatively recent occurance in theology & the theological sciences, the other was well witnessed by the fact that maps, carvings and cartouches all represent the planet as being flat.  Check WIKI for proof of my point:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_theory)  Here's a great quote from that website:

Quote from:  The Wikiest Pedia around
Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.

Like I said before, "ROUND - BUT NEVERTHELESS - FLAT!"  You should consider that you are referencing the one theory - I am trying (in vain) to describe the other.

Wrong again, they were considered "theologians."  And as for beating your head against the wall, join the club.  I have just explained to you that all the people you cited doing the writings were bishops, monks, and Christian theorists. You continue to ignore it even though I even also supplied proof.  I don't know where the disconnect here is, but I'm getting a bit tired of saying it.

And you continue to ignore that more than just a few of the aforementioned men were referenced and cited by other scientists.  I realize this is shocking to you - but people didn't hold other people's religious beliefs against them in those days...  Considering the Church held many of the purse-strings.  Plus - you refuse to discuss the other evidence that was offered - How about the maps, the carvings, the parchments and whatnot?  Again - you are thoroughly debunking an already debunked theory (Flat Earth Theory), but you are avoiding the discussion that people really did believe the earth was flat...  Astonomers, astrologers, geographers too!  These guys I named were just a recent handful of examples - not the end of the story, and I gave you plenty of evidence otherwise to see my point.  Give up the religious aspect and go back to what I originally said:  Science thought the earth was flat - for many years.

Science has hypthesized things in the past that later were proven not to be true, with more information.  It never said that the world was flat, that (and most similar beliefs) are the work of theology and superstition, not science.

Aside from being incorrect by saying that no scientist said the world was flat, you just made my point for me.  That's what I have been saying since the beginning; "Science is flawed" and just because it's believed (or popular) doesn't make it correct.  The Earth was once believed to be flat, and not just by a few whacky Christians.

Well, that would be diffilcult since most of the major sciences are less than 2000 years old.  Anything you couild trot out, Merlin, would not be relevant anyway.  As I have said many times during this discourse, science evolves and changes many times as new information presents itself. 

Actually - that's what I said.  You merely restated it.  My whole point being that science EVOLVES.  Go back and look at my original posting.  I was referencing the fact that the GW/GCC science is still so flawed (theory not matching observation) that I choose to wait it out.  Whether or not you think anything I would post would be relevant is irrelevant to me.  The fact is - science changes rapidly, randomly, slowly, specifically - by leaps, by bounds, by creeps and by crawls...  It's unpredictable, and the path to truth & knowledge is paved with some whacky theories; but relatively conservative ones.


Religion is the one that remains stubbornly resistant to change. Is science holding onto beliefs that might be outdated?  Well, of course, sometimes it does take awhile to overturn current scientific theory, but I haven't seen anything that would overturn the current consensus on global warming, other than wishful thinking by a lot of people who don't want it to be true.

You are arguing with me like I disagree with you here...  Somewhere along the line you missed the fact that I am a physicist, and that I am routinely skeptical of religion - ALL OF THEM.  You'll get no argument from me that the "Flat Earth Society" was ridiculous, and still are - however, you won't find a supporter in me when you intimate that we should believe a theory until it is overturned.  We need not look too far to find a host of examples of why that's not a great idea.

Anyway, I leave you with sincere regards.  I suspect that you and I have our wires crossed between the "Flat Earth Theory" (as offered by the Flat Earth Society or its many predecessors) and the reality that the Earth was thought (or conceived) to be flat for many of the past 5,000 years of science (I have no idea of where your 2,000 year number comes from).  For your edification, I found this information at your favorite repository of information:  The WIKI  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics)

Best of luck.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Matt on March 13, 2007, 03:54:25 am
Report outlines global warming's effects
POSTED: 11:28 p.m. EST, March 10, 2007
Story Highlights
• Scientists' report will be released at April conference
• Report says parts of world will have water shortages, others floods
• Food production will increase at first, then famine will hit, report says
 
 
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/story.global.warming.gi.jpg)

Smoke billows from chimneys at a power plant in Chifeng, Mongolia. Scientists say they are 90 percent certain global warming is caused by humans.

 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.

The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.
Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The report's findings

The report included these likely results of global warming:
Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.
Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.
At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.

Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.

Africa, Asia to be hardest hit
The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."


This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.   
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 09:37:57 am
Matt -

This article from CNN is simply more of the same, and it's from CNN - no less.  That's like FOX, only the opposite.  Anyway, I'm not being critical of you - but I am the article.  As has become very popular of late, and this issue in particular, nothing new is being shared.

I'm patiently waiting for the "Non-governmentally screwed with" report to be issued (I've read it), and then I'll be waiting for the mountains of evidence to be made manifest.  That's where the discussion begins (in my mind), not with the endless streams of opinion, media soundbites, and irrational public outbursts based on other media sources.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 10:32:11 am
I love this interview Brandon.  I've read it several times and I just can't help commenting on it.

Q & A Session followed with film attendants

Question: “Temperatures have been increasing on Mars like the Earth. Is global warming a hoax?”

Seeley: “Labeled contrarians have been personally attacking this idea but the vast majority of people are accepting global warming.”

Hmmmm...  Was that a "No"?  I hate answers like that.  That's like saying, "Very few men admit to it, but most people believe they do it." 

Question: “What do you see as definite signs of global warming?”

Seeley: “There is global warming. Land transformation, the Earth’s atmospheric composition, and human related climate drivers are all reasons to take action. It’s important to have these discussions, especially with our children.”

Another "vague" answer.  The question was specific - the answer was general with no detail whatsoever.

Question: “Doesn’t science require a proof theory?”

Seeley: “Science is not our only tool to dealing with this. It’s a moral issue.”

Wow - No matter how many times I read this, I just cannot get used to the feeling of the little hairs on my neck standing at attention, or that creepy feeling in the pit of my stomach.  This answer is really as telling as it is obscured.  "Nahh - we don't need science to prove this theory, it's a moral issue!"  Did I miss the "ANSWER"?

Question: “Scientific credentials should speak loudly on these issues. Instead of ‘The British are coming; The British are coming’ it’s become ‘The British might be on their way.’ What things would you change in the science of the film?”

Seeley: “It’s a moral problem but then he [Gore] doesn’t talk about what the morals are. Gore is advocating on a personal and political level. We all have our individual philanthropic passions. Mine are what has happened to my family. [Note of interest regarding Mark’s quote here. Gore’s impetus for his life long passion to global warming stems from a near fatal car accident his son experienced.] I expend my energies on multiple sclerosis. It affects me personally. I can’t always be steered in the direction someone would like to steer me in.”

What did I miss (aside from an answer)?  Is he intentionally evasive, or is this guy just 'wandering' unexplainably?

Michael Reinbold, a continuing web reporter, freelances as a writer and banquet caterer. A passionate believer in SJA's mission of social justice and collaborative ministry, Michael is an SJA Choir member, mass reader, Team Oz AIDS rider and Grace House volunteer cook. With an extensive background in theater, photography and fundraising, he relishes all aspects of the arts, staying fit and inspiring and working with people.

Alright - I'll bite, why was this guy being interviewed?  He had nothing at all to add to this discussion, and he definitely didn't.  He reminds me of some other folks I know...  They run around yelling fire, fire, fire because they came into a room where someone else is yelling fire, fire, fire.  Then I run in the room with an extinguisher and start dancing around like them (I love to dance), but I stop long enough to ask - "Where's the fire?"  After a long, lengthy discussion & painful investigation - we learn that there was no fire, just some guy's idea of a joke.  He yelled "Fire!" before leaving the room - four hours prior.

These guys have no idea of why they believe in GW - they do it because Al's into it, and Al is passionate about it.  Oiy veh...




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on March 14, 2007, 10:55:35 am

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

Changes in physical and biological systems are now affecting climate


Quote
Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

Quote
Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

Well duh!  Increase the population ten fold and what do you expect .....

Quote
By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

By 2050 (haven't seen predictions for 2080) there will be about 2,500,000,000 more people on the planet than there are today.


This report could well prove interesting when it's released .........


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 12:34:33 pm
Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

A little environmental stewardship could go a long way.

Quote
Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

Well duh!  Increase the population ten fold and what do you expect .....

I love how nothing is "Environmentally" or "pollution" related...  Everything is global warming-related.  Doesn't matter that these folks poop where they grow their crops, pee where they bathe, or bathe where they drink anymore.  Nor does it matter that over population, crowding density, and increased taxing of already limited crops are running rampant - This Is Global Warming!!!  Please.  Soon - the fact that the mailmen/women don't deliver in sleet and freezing rain anymore will be attributed to GW.

Quote
By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.
About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

By 2050 (haven't seen predictions for 2080) there will be about 2,500,000,000 more people on the planet than there are today.

Don't interject details into the discussion or find fault with the "science", it only brings out the "morality issue" - then the whole topic disintegrates into name-calling, false-labeling and hurt feelings.  This is one of those discussions best left alone until the EmoTioN wears off.   ;D

This report could well prove interesting when it's released .........

Interesting is a word I would use; however, not in the way that people think.   ;)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 12:37:48 pm
Quote
Quote from: Jason on March 12, 2007, 12:24:09 am
No, I just don't believe in what you're saying because it isn't the truth. Following the first century, the main proponents of the flat earth theory were from the church. You are suggesting they were scientists, which is simply not the case.

Because you ignore what is being said.  FIRST - I never limited the discussion to the first century or later, in fact, I think I left that wide open.  I think what's going on here is that you have confused the "Flat Earth Theory" from the Flat Earth Society


Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

I actually find the whole evolution of how the flat earth theory came about a fascinating one.  And yet, the people you cited (again, not scientists, but theologians) existed in an era where they were arguing against an already discredited theory.  They were not in a position to control a scientific consensus, which is what you were suggesting.  

As I said earlier, science evolves and changes it's opinions based on new information.  It does not hold onto to outdated ideas centuries  after the fact, that is something that religion specializes in.

And no, I am not mistaking the Flat Earth Society for Flat Earth Theory.

As for knocking Wikipedia, well, you certainly have a point in that it is not always accurate.  However, not only is it the Wikiest Pedia around, it is also the free-est, quickest source for information around, and it usually cites it's references.  


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 01:51:06 pm
Quote
Alright - I'll bite, why was this guy being interviewed?  He had nothing at all to add to this discussion, and he definitely didn't.  He reminds me of some other folks I know...  They run around yelling fire, fire, fire because they came into a room where someone else is yelling fire, fire, fire.  Then I run in the room with an extinguisher and start dancing around like them (I love to dance), but I stop long enough to ask - "Where's the fire?"  After a long, lengthy discussion & painful investigation - we learn that there was no fire, just some guy's idea of a joke.  He yelled "Fire!" before leaving the room - four hours prior.

Merlin, I'm sure you already realize that CNN and some of these other articles printed are not in the business of detailing the science behind global warming.  I agree, they probably should be so that people will understand them better.  However, what most of these media sources end up doing (and this goes for Matt's CNN article as well) is paraphrasing a scientific reportand breaking it down so that the general public understands it better.

On the other hand, does someone have to be a scientist to be able to voice an opinion on global warming?  People have opinions on all sorts of things, and some of the anti-global warming propaganda has been far more ridiculous.

Here's one for you:

Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming
 

 
LYNCHBURG, Va. The Reverend Jerry Falwell says global warming is "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism.

Falwell told his Baptist congregation in Lynchburg yesterday that "the jury is still out" on whether humans are causing -- or could stop -- global warming.

But he said some "naive Christian leaders" are being "duped" by arguments like those presented in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth. Falwell says the documentary should have been titled "A Convenient Untruth."

Falwell said the Bible teaches that God will maintain the Earth until Jesus returns, so Christians should be responsible environmentalists, but not what he calls ... quote ... "first-class nuts."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6140669&nav=S6aK

I hope you agree that that the counter argument against global warming tends to be far more ridiculous.

Quote
These guys have no idea of why they believe in GW - they do it because Al's into it, and Al is passionate about it.  Oiy veh...

You don't know that.  The movement against global warming is not based on some spell Al Gore has the entire world under. Based on my personal observations, a lot of the people against the idea of global warming tend to be so because they don't like Al Gore, however the theory (first originated in the 1950s, I believe) has been gathering steam for the last 30 years.  Gore just brought more attention to it.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 01:57:38 pm
Quote
Ooops, shouldn't have chop down all those billions of trees .....  of course, the fact that populations have risen so massively in such a short time in these areas doesn't exactly help.  Took less just over 1 day for all those who died in the Boxing Day tsunami to be 'replaced' .....

Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 02:01:53 pm
Quote
Don't interject details into the discussion or find fault with the "science", it only brings out the "morality issue" - then the whole topic disintegrates into name-calling, false-labeling and hurt feelings.  This is one of those discussions best left alone until the EmoTioN wears off.   


It's only an emotional issue because of all the resistance offered on behalf of the "other side," mainly the skeptics and the oil companies.

Look at things from another angle - say, an astreroid was headed towards the earth in about two to ten years, and we all knew that.  Would we be spending all this time discussing whether or not the asteroid was actually going to be hitting the earth or not or would be using our two to ten years to try and stop it?

Of course, we'd try to stop it, just to be on the "safe" side.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 03:23:51 pm
Essan & Merlin,

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 09:13:14 pm
Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

Negative...  Read what I wrote and comprehend it for what it says - not what you think it's going to say.

I actually find the whole evolution of how the flat earth theory came about a fascinating one.  And yet, the people you cited (again, not scientists, but theologians) existed in an era where they were arguing against an already discredited theory.  They were not in a position to control a scientific consensus, which is what you were suggesting.

I could make the point again (since you refuse to admit that I was right) by citing the references to THEIR WORK by other scientists, but at this point, you just continue repeating the same thing - and ignoring the rest.  I won't bother. 

As I said earlier, science evolves and changes it's opinions based on new information.  It does not hold onto to outdated ideas centuries  after the fact, that is something that religion specializes in.

And as I said in the very beginning of this meandering point of view - Science evolves and changes as observations are matched to theories.  Theories that do not match observations are failed theories - however, THEY DO NOT THROW THOSE THEORIES OUT UNTIL THEY HAVE A REPLACEMENT.  It most certainly does hold onto outdated and outmoded ideas - until they are torn out of the clinched fists of those who resist, by supplying new working theories.  Science is a religion in and of itself.

And no, I am not mistaking the Flat Earth Society for Flat Earth Theory.

Yet, I notice that you still have not admitted that I was correct??  Strange how YOU are the one who latched onto the religious aspect and not me.  I am the one who said that it was a part of science for 5,000 years - and you disagreed. 

As for knocking Wikipedia, well, you certainly have a point in that it is not always accurate.  However, not only is it the Wikiest Pedia around, it is also the free-est, quickest source for information around, and it usually cites it's references.

I knock it for obvious reasons, however it could be worse...  It could be conservapedia.com (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)) - now that's a farce.  I knock Wiki because it is so liberally slanted that it's embarrassing and its incorrectness in facts is matched only by its error in the most technical portions.  All I wish for is a "neutral reference".  BTW, I am aware of 9 universities that have banned its use in course work due to accuracy and copyright infringement issues.   

I give up on this issue of Flat Earth...  I swear, one of these days, someone in these forums are going to admit when they are wrong, suck it up, and move along (like I have - when I've made an error).


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 14, 2007, 10:01:41 pm
Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 12:37:48 pm
Merlin, I didn't bring up the Christian theologists and suggest they were scientists, you did.  When you cited them as the chief proponents of the flat earth theory, you moved the discussion to one in that time frame.

Negative...  Read what I wrote and comprehend it for what it says - not what you think it's going to say.

Sure, you said:

Quote
Now, you also assert that it was a purely Church proffered idea and that "science" had nothing to do with it...  Well, I disagree.  On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD).  


And since you refuse to concede the point that these guys were not,  by any stretch of the imagination, scientists,  but theologians, you aren't anymore right this time than you were any of the other three times you said it.



Lucius Caelius - early Christian author
Cosmas Indicopleustes - Greek monk
Theodore - bishop of Mopsuestia
Diodorus of Tarsus - bishop, early monastic reformer [/li][/list]


They were speaking from a theological viewpoint, not a scientific one, and weren't anymore qualified to speak on the shape of the earth than Jerry Falwell is qualified to speak on global warming.  Your refusal to concede this, simplest, most logical of viewpoints, is something I find entirely baffling.

Quote
I could make the point again (since you refuse to admit that I was right) by citing the references to THEIR WORK by other scientists, but at this point, you just continue repeating the same thing - and ignoring the rest.  I won't bother.


And just who was citing their "work," other theologians?  Each other?  By the first century (at the time these guys were even writing), the idea of a round world had already begun to take hold (per Pliny), and the flat earth idea was an outdated philosophy.  The only people holding onto the idea were theologians like these guys, who's influence was limited. I harp on this idea because I didn't know that myself until I looked into it. 

As you said, it's hard to argue with old maps.

Quote
Theories that do not match observations are failed theories - however, THEY DO NOT THROW THOSE THEORIES OUT UNTIL THEY HAVE A REPLACEMENT.  It most certainly does hold onto outdated and outmoded ideas - until they are torn out of the clinched fists of those who resist, by supplying new working theories. 


I would almost agree with you save for the fact that it takes a lot of time and testing (these days) for something to achieve a scientific consensus. So some of the things being thrown out were not widely accepted anyway.

Quote
Yet, I notice that you still have not admitted that I was correct??  Strange how YOU are the one who latched onto the religious aspect and not me.  I am the one who said that it was a part of science for 5,000 years - and you disagreed. 


I do disagree and you are not correct.  I agree with Allison in that religion has always been the greatest impediment to science.  The proof is all around us.  The idea of the flat earth is symbolic of that impediment.  As I said earlier, the Greeks had already worked out the idea that the world was a sphere by the third century bc.  What was the entity that rejected that wisdom, apparently because the source was pagan in nature?  The church.  And they rejected it through theological ideas, which is why I find it a bit silly to refer to these guys as "scientists."

The same early Christianity that these guys were part of also went around destroying pagan temples and are credited with playing the biggest role in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all because they believed it to be sinful to build on pagan wisdom.  That certainly isn't science, it's stupidity.

Quote
I swear, one of these days, someone in these forums are going to admit when they are wrong, suck it up, and move along (like I have - when I've made an error).

Well, I'll admit I was wrong right now.  In the topic in other forum, "Science, the Bible & Evolution," the topic of the flat earth came up earlier.  As I remember, I had taken the  viewpoint that all the world had believed in a flat earth (per Christian theology) at the age of Columbus. That's a common myth we all learn back in grade school. Turns out, that was a minority viewpoint, and that most of the world already believed the world was round, they just didn't know how big it was.




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 10:39:56 pm
Essan & Merlin,

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?



That's actually a good question.  For starters, I would be happy if the "current theory" would match developing observations, instead of observations being "fitted" to the theory.  Another example would be that the current theory was able make accurate predictions instead of generally vague guesses that then are "interpreted" to be 'realitively accurate'.  I would be more than a little happy if models built from the theory would work also, contrary to what's happening now, where the models do not and have not worked.  I would be happy to see that the details of the theory were based on scientific 'leg work' instead of being retrodicted on past events...  Any of these would be a great start.

Moving forward, I would like to see that something, in the form of data, would actually work out as offered.  For example, I would like to see an explanation for why newer research that does not match the predictions is discarded without explanation, labeled as being  inconclusive or anomolous.  Research showing that the total ice mass on the planet is actually growing, though it is shrinking in particular areas, is not discussed at all.  Also, specific ice masses that are still being referred to as 'shrinking' aren't actually shrinking.  Though some of them may be decreasing in area, they are increasing in height.  Their total mass improves, yet they are still referred to as "reductions".  It is 'science' like this that keeps the skeptics from being able to focus on the logic.  Where there's smoke - there's fire, you know.

As for specifics:  I would like to see an actual correlation of direct pollution in the form of carbon (all other pollutants removed) to area temperature.  I would also like to see a direct correlation of total precipitation in areas of increased carbon, correcting for any other potential contributors such as: de-forestation, increased particulate material influx, increased industrial activity (aside from carbon contributions), increased volcanic activity and natural phenomenas like methane and CO2 release.  A matrix of evidence linking GW to GCC would also be nice, and this could be achieved in a number of ways.  1) A detailed satellite map showing an increase in carbon content regionally, an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature, and an increase or decrease  or variability in regional precipitation.  ALL OCCURING IN THE SAME REGION  2)  A model that shows an average (nominally stated) increase in carbon in the atmosphere, subtracting  all naturally occuring chemicals and activities, where weather patterns change, climates increase and precipitation deviates from a thousand year norm  3)  A graph showing all GW/GCC retrodictions plotted against the exact same analyses (chemical comp, humidity, precip., & temp.) from ice-core, tree ring and geologic - showing an ACTUAL CHANGE in activity over the past 5,000 years. 

The third one is easy, and the reason why it isn't being offered by the GW/GCC crowd is because it refutes the theory.  Though certain chemicals (CO2) are increased today, specific others (equally damaging ones) were much higher in the past CH4, and everyone knows that methane is a real bad green house gas.  Amazingly, these events occurred during an ice age when the methane was so high...

Well, I think I was specific enough here.  Although, I would like to make it clear that I withold judgement on other grounds also.  I am concerned by the GW/GCC crowd's willingness to use emotion to promote their agenda.  This is usually a sign of someone who is "weak on facts", in my 20 years experience.  The final concern I have is the massive use of "weasel-wording", "word-smithing" and "legalease" utilized throughout the debate and the reports.  None of those talents inspires confidence in the theories.





Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 14, 2007, 11:40:27 pm
And since you refuse to concede the point that these guys were not,  by any stretch of the imagination, scientists,  but theologians, you aren't anymore right this time than you were any of the other three times you said it.

To set the record straight, it was Allison who brought the religious aspect into the discussion when she said:

Quote from: Allison
I notice that Merlin had this big list of things that he said were once commonly accepted theories (like the flat earth), he forgets that science never actually proposed there was a flat earth - if anyone did it was religion.

Notice that she is the one who said that "science never proposed it" and attributed the theory to "religion".

Now, my very next reply was:

Quote from: Me
I forget no such thing - I, in fact, know the history of the flat earth theory - do you?  I take note that you chose only to criticize the one example (out of so many) that you thought you had found a flaw in.  Many-a-website will claim that the flat-earth theory is purely religious, however; that doesn't make it true.

Note that I never said that any of those were "Commonly accepted" as you assert, at the very most, I said, "Common-sense approach found to be wrong".  However, in this particular thread reply, I simply offered it as "A Theory" that was dismissed due to the application of logic and evidence.  Now, you also assert that it was a purely Church proffered idea and that "science" had nothing to do with it...  Well, I disagree.  On one hand, most astronomy at the time was controlled (or funded) by the church - but on the other, there were a number of "scientists" who authored texts on the subject; arguing for a flat earth.  They are:  Lactantius (265-345 AD), Cosmas Indicopleustes (540 AD), Severian of Gabala (380 AD), Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 - 430 AD), and Diodore of Tarsus (394 AD).  Anyone who has read Aristotle knows that he believed the earth to be round, and historical buffs know that Erasthenes and Ptolemy proved it, but that wasn't my point.  My point was simply that it was a theory, and that evidence and logic disproved it.

I agree that the Christians certainly worked to keep this theory afloat, but it was not they who instituted it, nor they who refuted it.  Looking back to many of the maps from the very earliest periods, we see a round earth - but not a spherical one.  The inability to determine that distances separated radially as one approached the equator indicated than there was no concept of the planet being a "ball", therefore; it is simple deductive reasoning to determine that they estimated the planet to be round & flat.  Earlier than that, we see carvings of lands in a purely rectangular form with no indication whatsoever that they even regarded the planet as a separate object at all.

Take note that I did not emphasize the religious aspect of anything - that's your bag.  Also take note that I referred to them as "scientists at that time ...  arguing for a flat earth ...  authoring texts".  I chose a specific timeframe to look at in that sentence only in order to point out that there were "notables" who believed it and authored papers on the subject.  But then you have to acknowledge the next sentence where I used even more popular men who disputed it - in the same time period.  Then we get to the meat of my proof:  The whole next paragraph!  That was proof for the ages, beginning to end.  That which you have ignored since the first posting.

Here's a bit of info on some of the guys you are so offended by:

Lactantius:  Born a pagan and in his early life taught rhetoric in his native place, Cirta in Numidia where an inscription mentions a certain L CAECILIUS FIRMIANUS.  Lactantius had a successful public career and at the request of Emperor Diocletian he became an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia.  He was later forcibly converted to Christianity during the persecutions which he wrote of frequently.  In fact, much of his later "Apologetic" writings for the Church were considered to be heretical and were thought to be subliminal attempts to subvert the Church.

Cosmas Indicopleustes:  Andrew Wiesner of UPENN describes the one remaining text of his, "The Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes" as thus:  Cosmas, a sixth century native of Alexandria, spent the earlier years of his life as a seafaring merchant. He traveled extensively during this time, and his surname would suggest that his travels extended as far as India. He eventually retired from commercial enterprises and gave himself over to the monastic life, probably among the Nestorians. During this phase of his life he composed treatises on geography, cosmography, and scriptural exegesis. The Christian Topography is the only one of his works to have survived, and contains treatments of all of these topics.  Despite his wide store of particular geographical information gained in the course of his travels, Cosmas prefers to present his image of the world with a highly abstract constructive demonstration, not at all descriptive. On the one hand, the argument is very much like Greek geometrical demonstration. It proceeds from postulates upon which the validity of each step of the contruction is ultimately grounded. On the other hand, these *postulates* are like no other.  Cosmas represents a strange confluence of Greek scientific and early Christian theological ideals. The two inhabit the same space at the same time, though uncomfortably, in this text." 

I would say that he was considered to be much more than a "religious guy" by his peers;considering he was cited by geographers and cartographers alike.

I could go on, but it's getting late.

They were speaking from a theological viewpoint, not a scientific one, and weren't anymore qualified to speak on the shape of the earth than Jerry Falwell is qualified to speak on global warming.  Your refusal to concede this, simplest, most logical of viewpoints, is something I find entirely baffling.

What I refuse to concede is that the view was religious.  It was adopted (as I said many times already) for religious reasons, but it did not originate with religion as Allison (and you) claimed.  I have already conceded that the named individuals were religious figures, but I have also made my point clear:  They were also "scientists". 

And just who was citing their "work," other theologians?  Each other?  By the first century (at the time these guys were even writing), the idea of a round world had already begun to take hold (per Pliny), and the flat earth idea was an outdated philosophy.  The only people holding onto the idea were theologians like these guys, who's influence was limited. I harp on this idea because I didn't know that myself until I looked into it. 

No, not just other religious guys.  Go look up bibliographies on their life at a university site.  You can see all of the references and citations for yourself.  And, for the third time, I agree that it was outdated and outmoded by their time...  That's why I offered them up!  They were supporting a defunct theory.  I cannot see why this is so hard for you.

As you said, it's hard to argue with old maps.

Thank you.  I'm thrilled that you got that point {finally}

I would almost agree with you save for the fact that it takes a lot of time and testing (these days) for something to achieve a scientific consensus. So some of the things being thrown out were not widely accepted anyway.

Well - I suppose that you just simply do not want to agree.  It matters not how much you rationalize, the facts remain the same and you would know I'm right if you cared enough to look.  I suspect that you don't find what you don't look for.  Sign of the times I guess.

I agree with Allison in that religion has always been the greatest impediment to science.  The proof is all around us. 

First, that isn't the point we have been debating at all.  If it were, there would have been no debate.  I have entire threads in forums dating back years (and years) saying that the church is to blame for our "stunted scientific growth".  No, that has not been the debate at all - this is an illegal lane change.   ;D 

The idea of the flat earth is symbolic of that impediment.  As I said earlier, the Greeks had already worked out the idea that the world was a sphere by the third century bc.  What was the entity that rejected that wisdom, apparently because the source was pagan in nature?  The church.  And they rejected it through theological ideas, which is why I find it a bit silly to refer to these guys as "scientists."

It's not about winning or losing, it's about getting to the truth.  For the record, you are saying "scientist" now, the same way I was from the beginning.  Use of the quotes (at least for me) means that you are being sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek, or are being 'generally kind'  - as I was when I first made the statement - go back and see for yourself.  At the time, they were "scientists" - I never said they were good ones, just that they were.  Until the time of universities, there were a lot of "scientist", a term typically bestowed; not always earned.  Also, let's not forget that I never dated the Flat Earth discussion - I just offered evidence that the theory predated religion and that the religions upheld it - even in the face of its thorough debunking.  I've been consistent and clear on the subject - and remained on topic.

The same early Christianity that these guys were part of also went around destroying pagan temples and are credited with playing the biggest role in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all because they believed it to be sinful to build on pagan wisdom.  That certainly isn't science, it's stupidity.

No doubt.  Christians have more blood on their hands than the Muslims do; they were pigs.

Well, I'll admit I was wrong right now.  In the topic in other forum, "Science, the Bible & Evolution," the topic of the flat earth came up earlier.  As I remember, I had taken the  viewpoint that all the world had believed in a flat earth (per Christian theology) at the age of Columbus. That's a common myth we all learn back in grade school. Turns out, that was a minority viewpoint, and that most of the world already believed the world was round, they just didn't know how big it was.

Great - I'm glad we're all together now.  Let's get back to where we were going...







Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on March 15, 2007, 09:15:13 am

Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.

That depends on whether rising temps are due to carbon emissions: carbon emissions are increasing directly as a result of population increase.  Less people = less energy requirement = less burning of fossil fuels.

Of course, it's far to late to do anything about it now.   But unless we decide the Chinese can't have electricity, the simple fact is that carbon emission will continue to rise by a considerable amount whatever we in the west decide to do ....  Of course, China has other problems due to its massive population (more people in China today than in the entire world in 1900): food and water.   And to provide food they need to cut down the forests to grow more rice ..... which in turn produces more methane ....



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 15, 2007, 11:25:08 am
Interesting answer, Merlin, I do disagree that the use of emotion is a sign that global warming proponents are weak on the facts.  The facts and evidence (anecdotal though some of it may be) is enough to convince the vast majority of the scientific community out there.  I would like to get into the specifics now of what would be needed to convince the remaining dissenters. 

If you had one specific thing you could point to that you would say would make an airtight case for global warming (by humans), what would it be?

Essan, I would also like an answer from you concerning this question as well, if you don't mind:

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?

I would also like to refer that question to anyone else who comes to this thread that takes issue with the general overall scientific consensus on this issue, with the more specific the answer, the better.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 15, 2007, 01:20:03 pm
Jason - I don't know whether or not you have picked up on this from past forums, but, I am an environmentally minded guy.  I preach conservation and stewardship nearly religiously.  So, although I take issue with GW & GCC as offered, I am not at all against the idea that we are pooping in our own bed.  Just wanted that on record with you.


Essan, I agree the population expansion is a problem, too, but it has nothing to do with rising temps.  The sad truth is that rising temps will bring flooded coastlines, and more people are bound to die, regardless of how many there are - a lot of the major cities are built by the coastlines.

I have to agree with Essan here for a handful of reasons, although I do not discount what you say; not in the slightest.  I wish the GW/GCC experts would make a bigger deal about global population growth and "sprawl".

-  First, I still haven't seen specific data proving any link between carbon and regional temp increase; much less global. 
-  Next, it is a little discussed reality that population expansion is actually at the heart of global increases in "greenhouse gases".   People do not bother to consider the repercussions of their actions in most cases, and the more it occurs, the more complex the problems become.  Unfortunately, as "Complexity" grows, interest in solving the problem decreases.  It's the old, "What can I do" problem.  Here's what I mean:

  • Deforestation occurs for a number of reasons (not just profit taking), most notably to keep up with demand for lumber and cellulose products.  But also to make way for new projects:  housing, industry, roadways
  • Deforestation decreases the region's ability to filter carbon compounds from the air.  Increased carbon content is predicted (current models) to increase the total precipitation, resulting in higher humidity on already hot days.  This causes people to run their A/C even more, sit in idling cars longer - both of which only increase carbon output.  It becomes a perpetual motion machine.
  • Deforestation allows increased amounts of soil to be washed into basins, heads and lowlands, thereby causing an increase in methane release.
  • Higher concentrations of methane has been shown to alter the normal flow of weather (due to density differences), and radically promote the formation of precipitation laden depressions; thereby causing an increase in run-off.  This creates a "mini-loop" that continues until something else (cold air mass) comes along an interrupts it.

On an individual level, most "citizens" cannot control a large enough piece to see results, therefore, many quit trying.

There's an easy way to avoid the power consumption issue - put nuke plants in.  Also, mandate that all new construction (homes & businesses) meet strict energy consumption guidlines by installing "alternate energy equipment" (solar & radiant systems), and force 'brown-outs' in individual properties where consumption exceeds limitations.  Of course, we could always tell China and India that they cannot expand into the 21st century without "knocking and equal number of folks" back into the 19th. 

Stewardship - that's what we need.  We need someone willing to tell people that they are doing it to themselves - but not in an abstract "GW/GCC way".  It needs to be done in a real - in your face - manner, and the issue of global population growth and "consumption" cannot be danced around. 

Everytime we abandon an old neighborhood, industrial facility, hospital, office building or strip mall so that we can clear-cut a forest in order to install a brand new structure - we hurt ourselves.  At the very least, force the developers of new land rehabilitate an equal amount of old & dilapidated land somewhere else.  MAKE IT THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.  In most of the western world, we avoid density increases in habitation, instead, creating massive "urban sprawl".  Maybe we could all take a page from the Japanese and begin increasing density instead of area.  We over-harvest our rivers, lakes & streams of water so that we can spread it on our ever-increasing fields for farming and grazing, so that our bacteria and organic levels soar in the headways and basins - driving methan e production to increasing levels....  Just a few examples of how "stewardship", good planning, and a little investigation could turn-the-tide against Global environmental issues as a whole.

As for carbon - I just haven't seen the evidence, it all seems to be anecdotal in light of the many other "obvious" contributors.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 15, 2007, 01:36:40 pm
Interesting answer, Merlin, I do disagree that the use of emotion is a sign that global warming proponents are weak on the facts.  The facts and evidence (anecdotal though some of it may be) is enough to convince the vast majority of the scientific community out there.  I would like to get into the specifics now of what would be needed to convince the remaining dissenters. 

I guess I should have picked my words a little better.  After re-reading it, it comes off sounding a little askew of what I intended.  What I was really trying to say is, "I have found, in the past, that research that is incomplete and/or inconclusive will generally allow for the inclusion of materials "other than research related items"; particularly when that research creates an emotional connection with those working on it.  This can include, marketing programs and advertising intended to drum up interest that could not otherwsie be developed.  I see that emotion plays a very large part in this debate and it obscures the deficiencies in evidence that exist.  Even scientists are not immune to emotional issues.

If you had one specific thing you could point to that you would say would make an airtight case for global warming (by humans), what would it be?

It's a toss - up between the top two I named last evening:

1)  An actual correlation of direct pollution in the form of carbon (all other pollutants removed) to area temperature.  Where a direct correlation of total precipitation in areas of increased carbon, correcting for any other potential contributors such as: de-forestation, increased particulate material influx, increased industrial activity (aside from carbon contributions), increased volcanic activity and natural phenomenas like methane and CO2 release. 

2)  A matrix of evidence linking GW to GCC, such as: A detailed satellite map showing an increase in carbon content regionally, an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature, and an increase or decrease  or variability in regional precipitation.  ALL OCCURING IN THE SAME REGION.  Or, A model that shows an average (nominally stated) increase in carbon in the atmosphere, subtracting  all naturally occuring chemicals and activities, where weather patterns change, climates increase and precipitation deviates from a thousand year norm. Or, A graph showing all GW/GCC retrodictions plotted against the exact same analyses (chemical comp, humidity, precip., & temp.) from ice-core, tree ring and geologic - showing an ACTUAL CHANGE in activity over the past 5,000 years.

I would probably lean more toward item #2 if I were compiling a wish list, but I would definitely take notice if someone could manage any of #1.




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Essan on March 17, 2007, 07:12:53 am

Essan, I would also like an answer from you concerning this question as well, if you don't mind:

I gather from reading your past posts that you're both waiting for more "proof," that human beings are behind global warming. Do either of you care to say exactly what sort of proof that you're looking for?


I'd like to see every possible other cause - big and small - eliminated as a possibility ;)   When everything has been eliminated, and only carbon emissions are left, then I will accept that carbon emissions alone are responsible for current climate change.

But my point isn't that human activity isn't causing climate change.  It's than carbon emissions are not the be all and end of of it - as is currently the popular perception.  There are many other ways in which humans impact on the climate.  there are also many natural cycles that impact on the climate. 

I also say that reducing our carbon emissions in the UK  will make no difference since our contribution compared with that of other countries is negligible.  However, most of the suggestions for cutting emissions are sensible for other reasons (removing reliance on Russia for gas, reducing energy costs etc)

I basically sit in the middle with my own views which don't quite make me a 'believer' nor a 'sceptic' - so sometimes I find myself disagreeing with both sides!  :D


(btw I am, for the record, in daily correspondence with a number of climate scientists and include some professional meteorologists amongst my circle of friends)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 21, 2007, 11:06:10 am
I heard an interesting story on NPR this morning regarding Al's movie.  I want people to know that I'm posting it not because I'm a skeptic, but because it comes from a different angle and someone who ISN'T me.  It was thought-provoking and it displayed a level of professionalism not typical of NPR.  Anyway, here is the story.

Environment
Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond
by Renee Montagne and Richard Harris
Morning Edition, March 21, 2007


Lead in quote from Paramount Classics :
"Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed the national spotlight as a champion for climate change issues. Though many scientists appreciate his efforts to raise awareness of global warming, some take issue with his data and conclusions."

Former Vice President Al Gore goes to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify on climate change before a joint meeting of two house committees. Gore has championed the issue of global warming for decades; he has books and an Oscar-winning documentary to his credit.

Now that he is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about climate change, but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions. NPR's Science Correspondent Richard Harris spoke with Renee Montagne to help sort through some of the questions.

Would you say that Al Gore – given all of his history with this subject – is a credible voice on global climate change?

Gore is a lay person, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees.

Human activities are contributing to climate change, those changes will become more pronounced as the time goes on, and it is possible that those changes could be severe. But that said, scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that he draws to make those arguments.

Can you give us some examples of some of the concerns that scientists have?

I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie.

One other dramatic moment in the film has to do with Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed. Gore implies – he never says, but he implies – that Katrina was due to human-induced global warming. And I think if a scientist were to talk about this, most scientists would say, "These are the kinds of things that we expect to see more of as a result of global warming," but people are careful not to attribute specific storms or events to global warming.

Again, Gore doesn't do that exactly, but he sort of leaves the impression, and it's a very lawyerly way he does this. If you actually read it word for word, you can't say, "This he said wrong." But he leaves the impression that Katrina was [a result of] global warming and I think scientists don't go that far.

Is this partly cultural in the sense that, by nature and by profession, scientists care about all of the details?

I think it's partly cultural, and I think that in that sense, Al Gore is very well attuned to the culture of Washington, D.C. The culture of Washington, D.C. is: "Don't do anything unless there is a crisis." And that's been the problem with global warming for all these years: It's something serious to be worried about – the worst case scenarios are pretty scary – but Al Gore has realized that if you want to get attention, you really have to focus on the crisis. You have to make people worry about things maybe a little bit more than scientists would say.

Is there some element of – if you will – professional jealousy here?

Among the scientists? No. I think the scientists are actually pretty grateful by and large that Gore has succeeded in bringing their issue to the public's attention. But scientists do care very much about how precise the details are. And when it's not exactly right, they bristle a little bit. But, [that's] the difference between a popularizer, like Gore, and scientists, for whom the details really are what's most important.



** From here on out is completely my commentary - not to be confused with the article. **

What's disheartening is that everyone who questioned his methods, data and overall science were labeled as detractors and skeptics...  If you actually read what [the scientists] said - you would see that all they were skeptical of was his delivery and the picture he painted.  As a "popularizer", he gets to play fast and loose with the facts - We get it, he's an "Ad Man" in that sense.  We've all 'been there, done that' in order to get attention drawn to something we feel strongly about.  Having said that though, you have to take into account the reality that he bounces back and forth between portraying only the 'worst-case scenario', and acting as a lawyer who treads a fine line between truth and lying by ommission.  I'm not here to litigate Al's trustworthiness or track record for accuracy - I gave that up in the other thread, but history has recorded that Al has, on more than a handful of occurances, 'skirted the truth' and has earned a reputation for speaking in legal-ese that does not do the truth justice.  Politicians and Marketing companies have done this for eons - it ain't new.

That was the point that most of us [scientists] were trying to make with Al's movie - "It's as much entertainment as it is one possible future (hundreds of years away in some cases) - and there is no science in that movie that bears the moniker of actual research.  It's an infomercial".


I, for one, am happy that there has been a resurgence in environmental attention.  If nothing else, we might actually slow our overall pollution down in the haste to do away with all things carbon.  Ultimately, we might even spend a couple of bucks on researching alternative modes of transport and energy.  Research is always a good thing whereas standing on one's laurels never is.  Fossil fuel is so last year - I'm ready for the day when Detroit needs High-E physicists!






Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 22, 2007, 07:10:31 am
Republicans frosty on Gore's global warming warnings
POSTED: 1:47 a.m. EDT, March 22, 2007


Story Highlights• Al Gore calls global warming a moral issue, not a political issue
• Rep. Joe Barton: "You're not just off a little; you're totally wrong"
• Gore reveals nothing about whether he'll join the 2008 presidential race
• Frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton says Gore's proposals "extremely intriguing"


(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/story.gore.pool.jpg)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday to plead with lawmakers to fight global warming with moral courage, while Gore revealed nothing about whether he'll join the 2008 presidential race.

The former vice president is a Democratic favorite for the presidential nomination even though he says he's not running.

Fresh off a triumphant Hollywood appearance in which his climate-change documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," won two Oscars, Gore drew overflow crowds as he testified before House and Senate panels about a "true planetary emergency." (Watch Gore compare the planet to a baby with a fever )

He said the issue should not be partisan or political, but Gore faced skeptical Republicans who questioned his personal commitment to reducing energy usage and the science behind his film.

"You're not just off a little; you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.

Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point -- Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said. (Watch how seeds of doubt have been planted )

Gore insisted that the link is beyond dispute and is the source of broad agreement in the scientific community.

"The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."

Gore's congressional testimony marked the first time he had been to Capitol Hill since January 2001, when he was the defeated Democratic presidential nominee still presiding over the Senate in his role as vice president.

It comes 20 years after Gore, then a congressman from Tennessee, held the first hearings in Congress on global warming.

It also brought him face-to-face with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who could have her front-runner status threatened if Gore decided to challenge her for the party nomination. But there were no political fireworks between them at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. (Interactive: View one poll's results)

Clinton said she found some of Gore's ideas "extremely intriguing" and asked for more details on proposals such as a carbon-based tax, a cap-and-trade system and a carbon neutral mortgage association.

In a day of testimony, Gore first appeared before a joint hearing by two House committees, with his wife, Tipper, sitting behind him and a stack of boxes beside him containing hundreds of thousands of messages asking Congress to act on global warming.

Chilly exchanges
Later, he testified before the Senate panel where partisan bickering grew even louder.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has labeled global warming a hoax, complained that the Democratic leadership gave Gore extra time and advantages not afforded typical witnesses.

Inhofe then grilled Gore about his personal energy use at his Tennessee mansion and showed the final frame of Gore's film that read, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" (Read more about Gore's Oscar-night speech)

When Gore tried to respond at length, Inhofe cut him off.

Democratic Chairwoman Barbara Boxer kept trying to bring order to the hearing. She told Inhofe he can't control things anymore now that Republicans have lost their majority.

"Elections have consequences, so I make the rules," she said, holding up her gavel to cheers from the audience.

Gore sighed heavily and proposed that he and Inhofe have breakfast and privately discuss it away from the cameras.

Kyoto protocol 'demonized'
Gore said he hopes whoever is elected president in 2008 "can use his or her political chips" to lead the world toward a new global climate treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol that requires 35 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gases.

The Bush administration argues Kyoto would hurt the U.S. economy and objects that high-polluting developing nations like China and India are not required to reduce emissions.

"I fully understand that Kyoto, as a brand, if you will, has been demonized," Gore said.

Gore was warmly welcomed back by some of his critics, such as Rep. Ralph Hall, a Texas Republican who remembered serving with Gore's father and bantered with Gore about an evening boat ride they took together.

"You're dear to us, but I just don't agree with you on this," Hall said.

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," Gore said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 22, 2007, 07:14:19 am
Typical Republican tactics!

First, they whine because they didn't get enough advanced notice that Gore was going to testify, then when he gets up there, jerks like Bg Oil **** Daniel Imhofe won't allow him to answer any of the questions put to him.

So glad that Barbara Boxer put him in his place!

Global warming is real, it IS a moral issue, and we have to do something about it. 

The Republican response to it..?  As always, ignore it and attack the messenger!  Pathetic!



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 22, 2007, 07:35:38 pm
I think Barton and Inhofe acted foolishly too, however, the article doesn't portray the discussion quite as it occurred.  I had the good fortune to catch it on TV, and it's real easy to say that this article is one possible opinion of the media circus that the democrats put on.  I thought it was pretty interesting when the CNN commentator said:  "Al gore was in washington today - preaching his gospel of global warming to the already converted.  Gore knew his audience, but there were a few non-believers..."  Yes - that's right, he was an invited guest; invited to stir the emotional pot some more.

Anyway, I would not call what Barton and Inhofe did "Typical Republican Tactics" - particularly from reading this article.  I personally enjoyed the interchange between Barton and Gore early on.  Barton kept asking specific questions and Gore would meander for minutes at a time, speaking from what only could be described as a script, and Barton got tired of it.  I have to admit - I was tired of it too.  Many of his answers were so long-winded and unresponsive to the question asked, I was beginning to think that he [Al] had a hearing problem.  Then I realized (as Barton must have) that Al couldn't answer the question - because he didn't know.  While I was watching it I was given to the image of someone trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.  Al was being evasive as heck and speaking in "legalese".  It was kind of funny to watch Barb Boxer come to Al's rescue a few times.  I thought Barton made a fair case, asked fair answers and only became frustrated because Al proved he didn't understand the science well enough to answer unscripted questions.  Once Barton revealed that, I think it was just in poor taste for him [Barton] to make an attempt to charge after him for a "death blow."  That was just un-professional.

Even though I think Inhofe is a sneaky bastard, I didn't see that he was "out-of-line" with his questions or comments; particularly the ones where he highlighted the fact that Al shouldn't have expected this to be a mutual admiration society meeting.  I didn't think he was "out-of-order" by commenting that the panel had afforded him priviledges that no other witnesses had received either - the facts stood on their own; former V.P. or not.  I also thought that, in this panel meeting, he [Inhofe] was very moderate with his wording.  The first comment that sent Boxer into a frenzy was:  James Inhofe:  "My perspective has been, that some of the statements you have made have some inaccuracies or are misleading."   Seems tame to me, considering the way the article portrayed him.  The next was the overhead graphic listing a very large sampling of scientists that do not support the "Standard GW Model", and was entitled - "Is There Really A Consensus?".  Yes - Barbie Boxer hit the roof again...  The last time was when Al was questioned as to how he can justify "preaching," when he himself is a huge carbon consumer.  The whole idea of being carbon-neutral because he can afford to buy more carbon credits than most others in the country, particularly when the "credits" are voluntary and subjective, rings hollow with most of us who are REAL CONSERVATIONISTS - eliminating pulltuion from our lives.

I don't like either Barton or Inhofe, I think they're both angry men with as little science to support their contentions as Al has, but the perspective of the article's author was clearly biased and hardly reflects what actually took place in the hearing room.  In the future, it would be nice to see Al stand on his own two feet in a debate that isn't 90% populated by his supporters and without the "moderator" ready - willinging and able to rescue him (from himself).


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Quote
I personally enjoyed the interchange between Barton and Gore early on.  Barton kept asking specific questions and Gore would meander for minutes at a time, speaking from what only could be described as a script, and Barton got tired of it.  I have to admit - I was tired of it too.  Many of his answers were so long-winded and unresponsive to the question asked, I was beginning to think that he [Al] had a hearing problem.  Then I realized (as Barton must have) that Al couldn't answer the question - because he didn't know.  While I was watching it I was given to the image of someone trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.  Al was being evasive as heck and speaking in "legalese".  It was kind of funny to watch Barb Boxer come to Al's rescue a few times. 


Merlin,

what a load of bull!!

Boxer came to Al's rescue simply because he couldn't answer the question??  How about, they wouldn't let him answer the question, nothing more.  Long-winded?  Sure, that's Gore!  They wanted yes and no answers to complex questions.  Point is, neither of these guys even wanted the answers to the questions, they just wanted to look good on TV, which they didn't.  Imhofe finally had his first big shot at Gore and was completely embarrassed on TV and Barton came across as a simply another global warming denier.

You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.

I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently.  Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke.  They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance.  It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened. 

I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 23, 2007, 03:39:12 pm
Long-winded?  Sure, that's Gore!  They wanted yes and no answers to complex questions.  Point is, neither of these guys even wanted the answers to the questions, they just wanted to look good on TV, which they didn't.  Imhofe finally had his first big shot at Gore and was completely embarrassed on TV and Barton came across as a simply another global warming denier.

The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty.  Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well.  The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was.  So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty. 

You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.

They are both conservatives - so that must mean.......  What exactly?   I have no idea why you made this comment in the middles of your thought process.

I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently. 

** ASSERTION ALERT **

Actually, I don't have any feelings either way for him.  He's like any other "celebrity personality" as far as I'm concerned.  Just like Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon and her wife Tim Robbins - they attempt to trade on their "popularity" as if it is some form of credibility.  That's what Al's doing.

You're right though...  If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired.  If however, you only watched the soundbites  on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment.  It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.


Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke. 

Of course, it could also be said that Gore was measured, unresponsive and evasive to the simply put - easy to answer questions that he did not, or could not answer honestly, on TV, without contradicting previous statements.  I was hearkened back to the days of him as a senator, dodging questions like a bumblebee in rush hour traffic.  His lawter-speak was pretty telling, unless of course, you were a staunch supporter and believe everything he says; bar none.  You say tomato - I say...

They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance.  It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened. 

In some opinions, yes, maybe it did look that way.  In others, she looked like an abused child taking her anger out on a pet (that was the one reference I heard this morning on the radio that rang true with me - some others were just awful).   I doubt they'll be playing it much longer once the whole transcript makes the rounds of the papers.  The "soundbites" on the news don't really paint the picture of how petty she was being, but the transcript does.  The transcripts also tell the tale of just how much time Al spent hiding behind the hem of her skirt.

I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.

That would have made the abused child analogy a lot more clearly I suppose, but resorting to violence never helps solve anything in a debate.  It's a sign of a weak mind to become violent when you aren't getting your way.

It really wasn't my intent to get off the subject of The Inconvenient Truth - any comments on the "Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond" article?  If I remember correctly, it was you who said that I was THE ONLY SCIENTIST in the world that disagreed with Albert, or that GW hasn't been proven to be man-made...  By my count, the "skeptics" are numbering in the thousands now.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 27, 2007, 03:04:30 pm
Report: World's greatest rivers in danger
POSTED: 10:21 a.m. EDT, March 20, 2007


Story Highlights

• Pollution, global warming and development are threatening rivers, report says
• About 20 percent of freshwater fish, plant species are extinct or endangered
• Report calls on governments to radically step up efforts to preserve rivers
• Pollution near Yangtze River has increased more than 70 percent in past 50 years

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/03/19/endangered.rivers.ap/story.danube.afp.gi.jpg)

The Danube has lost 80 percent of its surrounding wetlands and flood plains because of dams, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature.

GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The Yangtze River gets more than half of China's industrial waste and sewage. Europe's Danube has lost most of its surrounding wetlands. And the Rio Grande has become so shallow that salt water is seeping in, bringing ocean fish that threaten freshwater species.

Pollution, global warming and rampant development could destroy some of the world's most iconic rivers in the coming decades, threatening to wipe out thousands of fish species and cause severe water shortages, the World Wide Fund for Nature said in a report Tuesday.

Only 21 of the planet's 177 longest rivers run freely from source to sea, with dams and other construction destroying the habitats for migratory fish and other species by altering the water's natural ebb and flow, the WWF said.

About a fifth of the world's 10,000 freshwater fish and plant species are either extinct or endangered, the report said, calling on governments to radically step up efforts to preserve rivers, lakes and wetlands.

"Unabated development is jeopardizing nature's ability to meet our growing demands," said Jamie Pittock, who heads WWF's freshwater program.

The report focused on some of the world's most important rivers: the Nile, the Danube, the Rio Grande, South America's La Plata, Australia's Murray-Darling and Asia's Yangtze, Mekong, Salween, and Ganges rivers.

The Danube -- home to more than half of Europe's fish species -- has lost 80 percent of its surrounding wetlands and flood plains because of dams, the report said.

Construction to ease shipping channels -- dredging, pumping water or straightening banks -- also threaten animals and plants in the river, which runs from Germany to the Black Sea, WWF said. Less than 7 percent of its basin is protected.

In China, pollution in the main stem of the Yangtze River has increased by more than 70 percent over the last 50 years. Almost half of the country's industrial waste and sewage is discharged in the river, the report said.

Garbage heaps, pig waste and discharge from factories, hospitals and mines -- possibly including radioactive waste -- lie at the bottom of the reservoir at the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric project, the WFF said.

In the Rio Grande, low water levels have allowed salt water to enter and ocean species to crowd out freshwater fish. Excessive extraction, primarily for agriculture, is threatening the river, which flows along the U.S.-Mexican border.

At the same time, rising populations along both sides of the river need more and more water, increasing pressure on the 69 fish species found only in the Rio Grande, the WWF said.

Global warming is threatening fish populations in Africa, where even small temperature changes can dramatically alter water levels and fish productivity, the report said. The Nile, the world's longest river, is expected to reach a critically low level by 2025, threatening a source of drinking water for thousands of years.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 27, 2007, 03:06:47 pm
Study: Global warming may create 'novel' climates
POSTED: 11:25 a.m. EDT, March 27, 2007




Story Highlights• Study: Global warming may destroy some climates and create new ones
• Rain forests could face unexpected changes, species may struggle to adapt
• Current climates in the Peruvian and Colombian Andes may disappear

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/03/26/climate.change.ap/story.global.warming.3.jpg)



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says.

Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.

Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists, reported in February that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes, particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams' researchers concluded.

This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the tropics tend to have little variation in weather.

But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a region that is accustomed to regular changes.

Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said, adding that that is speculative and needs further study.

Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula may also be affected, the researchers said.

And they said mountain areas such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing altogether.

That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all -- rather their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas would not occur elsewhere on Earth.

That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams observed.

If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said. "But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current experience and outside the experience of these species."

Alan Robock, a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University welcomed the report, calling it the first he has seen "that not only looks at species extinctions, but also looks at regions where novel climates will appear."

"While the idea of novel climates may seem like a positive consequence of humans using the atmosphere as a sewer and causing rapid, unprecedented climate change, I would argue that mitigation of our pollution should be an even stronger reaction to these results," said Robock, who was not part of the research team.

"The potential consequences and how these new regimes will be populated are poorly known, and the potential for new threats to humans through disease vectors could be a real danger," he said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/26/climate.change.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 27, 2007, 03:12:13 pm
Quote
The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty.  Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well.  The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was.  So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty. 


You must have been watching that debate with your heart and not your mind, Merlin.  I don't know anyone else who saw that characterized it in the same way.  Boxer came to Gore's rescue?  Well, in order for someone to come to another's rescue, they would, by definition, first have to be in some kind of trouble first. 

The only trouble that Gore managed to get himself in was that he was asked a question that his questioners would not give him time to answer.

Apart from the typical petty commentators in the conservative press, Boxer got good reviews for it. Imhofe, by still pretending he was the one who was the head of the committee, was the one who came across as petty and unfair.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on March 27, 2007, 03:20:17 pm
Quote
You're right though... If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired. If however, you only watched the soundbites on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment. It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.

I watched the whole debate from beginning to end, and it impresses me how many lawmakers have gotten beyond the idea of whether global warming is actually happening (and whether human beings are the prime factor) to what we can actually do to make a difference.  I'm disappointed that some people still think that there is a debate going on in science (there isn't), but I suppose there will always be a few skeptics somewhere. 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on March 27, 2007, 08:44:05 pm
Quote
The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty. Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well. The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was. So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty.

Your funny, Merlin.  How many drinks did you have before you came up with that one?  How would you like it if anytime you wrote one of your responses at AR, Smiley ran around and deleted it, or worse, yet, edited it for content.  Is that fair?  Nope.  But that's just what Imhofe was trying to do to Gore by not letting him answer.  Really funny how that point would never hit home unless it was first tried on you!

As for Boxer "squandering an opportunity by looking petty," may I ask to who? She was on all the talk shows after that and was practically being congratulates.  Imhofe was on one, too - whining to FOX News! 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.
They are both conservatives - so that must mean....... What exactly? I have no idea why you made this comment in the middles of your thought process.

Only because you aren't trying.  Yep, both are conservatives and both believe human beings are causing global warming!  Which means (once again) yours is the minority viewpoint.  Not to worry, I'm sure you think you're still right - that and some loose change will still buy you a nice cup of coffee.  :)

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently.
       

Actually, I don't have any feelings either way for him. He's like any other "celebrity personality" as far as I'm concerned. Just like Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon and her wife Tim Robbins - they attempt to trade on their "popularity" as if it is some form of credibility. That's what Al's doing.

Gee, care to mention the stands of any conservative celebs in there, or is it all about bashing liberals?  Don't you have a platform to cite your views, if so, why on earth would you begrudge any other celeb theirs?  Everyone has a right to an opinion.

Quote
You're right though... If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired. If however, you only watched the soundbites on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment. It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.

I watched the whole thing, I make it a point to see as many of the global warming hearings as I can, and it wasn't anything even remotely like you are saying. You said you had a "relative" who shared your opinion and it made you feel vindicated. I imagine if you're biased against Gore and/or the idea that human beings are behind global warming, that wouldn't take much, now would it?

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke.
Of course, it could also be said that Gore was measured, unresponsive and evasive to the simply put - easy to answer questions that he did not, or could not answer honestly, on TV, without contradicting previous statements. I was hearkened back to the days of him as a senator, dodging questions like a bumblebee in rush hour traffic. His lawter-speak was pretty telling, unless of course, you were a staunch supporter and believe everything he says; bar none. You say tomato - I say…

Gore has always been long-winded, that's just the way he talks.  As for being "evasive," well, hey, in order to be evasive, you first have to be given the chance to answer a question - which he wasn't.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance. It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened.
In some opinions, yes, maybe it did look that way. In others, she looked like an abused child taking her anger out on a pet (that was the one reference I heard this morning on the radio that rang true with me - some others were just awful). I doubt they'll be playing it much longer once the whole transcript makes the rounds of the papers. The "soundbites" on the news don't really paint the picture of how petty she was being, but the transcript does. The transcripts also tell the tale of just how much time Al spent hiding behind the hem of her skirt.

You're so funny, Merlin, but repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true.  Anyone with eyes can see that Imhofe was trying not to let Gore answer the questions, still acting like he was in charge of the committee, and got called on it by Boxer when it came to a head.  You're seeing it through your overly-partisan eyes doesn't make it anymore true.

Careful, Merlin, I know you don't like Boxer or Gore, but if you keep this up, you're going to wind up looking so blinded by your dislike for the two of them that you will have lost all grasp of reality.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.

That would have made the abused child analogy a lot more clearly I suppose, but resorting to violence never helps solve anything in a debate. It's a sign of a weak mind to become violent when you aren't getting your way.

Of course, I was kidding - maybe not. :)

Quote
It really wasn't my intent to get off the subject of The Inconvenient Truth - any comments on the "Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond" article? If I remember correctly, it was you who said that I was THE ONLY SCIENTIST in the world that disagreed with Albert, or that GW hasn't been proven to be man-made... By my count, the "skeptics" are numbering in the thousands now.

Yeah, hope they aren't all "relatives" that share your opinion of Gore.  I never said you were the ONLY SCIENTIST  that didn't believe in global warming, I said, that you were in the minority (which you are) and that climatologists are better off to judge whether global warming is happening than physicists (which they are).

I go where the truth is, Merlin! It has nothing to do with Al Gore, at least not for me.  One one hand, we have the earth clearly warming up and we have the rise of greenhouse gases and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible.

On the other hand, we have oil company funded propaganda, the Bush Administration editing scientific reports to play down global warming, and seemingly everyone who doesn't believe in global warming also bashing AL GORE. 

We can get into the scientific data, but only the least objective people would believe the second argument.

Toodles :)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on March 28, 2007, 11:48:12 am
Anyone have the transcript of Gores testimony?  I thought we would start a separate topic on that and see exactly what was said, and by whom.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on March 28, 2007, 04:06:06 pm
I apologize in advance - I had to keep it short today.

Your funny, Merlin.  How many drinks did you have before you came up with that one?  How would you like it if anytime you wrote one of your responses at AR, Smiley ran around and deleted it, or worse, yet, edited it for content.  Is that fair?  Nope.  But that's just what Imhofe was trying to do to Gore by not letting him answer.  Really funny how that point would never hit home unless it was first tried on you!

First, I don't visit AR anymore because of a similar situation with the Smiley One.  I stick by my convictions.  Thank you however, for noticing that I am humorous - it shows that you might not actually be a lost cause.  I'm not much of a drinker though - so I cannot blame CH3CH2OH for my words.  I guess this is your attempt to get back at me for asking you if you were drunk at AR?  Touche - I think we're even now.  ;)

As for Boxer "squandering an opportunity by looking petty," may I ask to who? She was on all the talk shows after that and was practically being congratulates.  Imhofe was on one, too - whining to FOX News! 

I didn't see Inhofe whining to anyone.  I watched an interview with him on MSNBC and PBS a couple of days later, but all I saw was him answering questions - no extraneous commentary.  You ask who she looked petty to?  Well, here's my take on it from what I saw & heard; she looked petty to:  Me, to the commentators on MSNBC who discussed it (Ad Nauseum) for an hour the following evening, to the reporters at the Nashville Post, the reporters for the Washington Post, to any number of colleagues at the university I was at - watching the circus, and a large number of other sources that I hurried through at Google News.  You must have missed it because you weren't looking for it.

Only because you aren't trying.  Yep, both are conservatives and both believe human beings are causing global warming!  Which means (once again) yours is the minority viewpoint.  Not to worry, I'm sure you think you're still right - that and some loose change will still buy you a nice cup of coffee.  :)

You seem to equate being in the minority as: a) "A bad thing" or b) Meaning that it somehow makes me incorrect.  I contend that neither are correct.  You see - I have spent my life being in the minority (for a time) until I wind up (in many cases) being surrounded as the majority builds around me.  I remember very well another case where the "Majority" thought that I (and another) were completely off our rockers for believing in a physical theory that required 11-dimensions in order to explain the nature of things.  It was dubbed "Supergravity" although it was really a wholisitc view of Membrane Theory.  I worked in and on that theory for 8 years until I was told that "String Theory" had taken over and my research was yanked - I joined the civilian world...  3 years later, when M-theory solved the problems of String Theory (making them "super" as in "super gravity") by using our theories, math and science - I was suddenly in the majority...  I preferred being in the minority; the limelight is no place for a scientist.  The research grants were being thrown at us like flowers at a parade... 

I was also part of a little known team in 1987 that theorized (and published research) the existence of particles so energetic that they could actually violate all of our theories & predictions for cosmic ray's origins and mechanism.  We were laughed at by everyone from Weinberg to Ovrut, Hawking to Green...  4 years later, the "Oh-My-God-Particle" was trapped in a proving ground over Utah.  Again, the funding came rolling in like clowns at a circus.  Both are examples of how "The Majority" can be so majorly wrong  - even though they are popular, their theories are popular, their math seems correct, their observations seem correct, and the media hails them as "The Ones in the Know". 

Paradigm - it's a fascinating word.  Look it up sometime and I think you'll find out that, to switch from a theory to a paradigm is not a good thing.  All-in-all, I'm very much at home in the minority - I do not seek to bask in the glory of success like so many others - I just look for facts and enjoy the hunt.  Once the "truth" has been revealed (whether I'm right or not), I just move along to the next mystery -satisifed that 'we' know the answer; whatever it may be.


Gee, care to mention the stands of any conservative celebs in there, or is it all about bashing liberals?  Don't you have a platform to cite your views, if so, why on earth would you begrudge any other celeb theirs?  Everyone has a right to an opinion.

I only named them because they were recent examples - not because of their politics.  In fact, without looking it up, I couldn't tell you what Sarandon & Robbin's politics are.  Should I have included Pitt & Jolie instead?  To be honest, I don't keep them categorized in my mind based on politics...  Tom Selleck?  The actor who played Moses?  Hell - I don't know.  Anyway, they all are certainly allowed to preach from whatever pulpit these create for themselves - I don't care one iota.  My point was: Their popularity lends absolutely nothing to their credibility!  I thought it was clear, let's not belabor this point.  Al is not a scientist, he doesn't use the science available correctly (see my previous post where scientists referred to him as a "popularizer"), and he's a celeb - using his status to popularize a theory. 

I watched the whole thing, I make it a point to see as many of the global warming hearings as I can, and it wasn't anything even remotely like you are saying. You said you had a "relative" who shared your opinion and it made you feel vindicated. I imagine if you're biased against Gore and/or the idea that human beings are behind global warming, that wouldn't take much, now would it?

I can see how you and I would have completely different views of the same event - you cannot even read what I write and quote me properly...  It's frustrating really, considering that I have been so consistent.  I've already said that I do not have any feelings at all about Gore other than believing hehas made his bed for himself.  The reputation he has is well earned, and he is a popularizer - just as the article stated.  I also said, in a previous post, that I didn't vote for him because of his partner (Kerry).  The rest of my impression is formed from his actions since he was a senator.  I have been specific in my comments about him.  Also, I am not "biased against" the theory that humans are behind GW.  No matter how many times you ignore what I say and then spout off the same rhetoric - it won't become true.  To say that I "am biased" indicates an emotional response and an intentional decision to ignore one item and support another; I have done no such thing.  I have merely said that there is no IRREFUTABLE PROOF that GW & GCC are linked to each other or that the two are linked to mankind's actions.  They have managed to create a list of coincidences while ignoring everything that refutes the theory.  That is NOT BIAS AGAINST that you are seeing from me, that is the scientific method being applied to a scientific problem.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Gore has always been long-winded, that's just the way he talks.  As for being "evasive," well, hey, in order to be evasive, you first have to be given the chance to answer a question - which he wasn't.

Well, for whatever reason, it appeared to me that he was cut off whenever he diverged from answering the question, or, whenever he began prostlytizing (selling his 'canned rhetoric') - which had nothing at all to do with the question.  Inhofe's actions were no different than a lawyer's in a court room when the witness goes on a tangent...  Al knew what was going on.  In fact, it appeared as though he was using it to his advantage. 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
You're so funny, Merlin, but repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true.  Anyone with eyes can see that Imhofe was trying not to let Gore answer the questions, still acting like he was in charge of the committee, and got called on it by Boxer when it came to a head.  You're seeing it through your overly-partisan eyes doesn't make it anymore true.

Nope.  And in your words, "..repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true."  No matter how much you sell it, Allison, I'm not going to buy it - the truth is out there for all to see, and my interpretation is based on what was said and done.  I'm not a partisan, in fact, I made my opinion of the two men you so obviously dislike quite apparent from the outset (I'm not a fan of either one).  Additionally, I thought all of them looked unprofessional.  It was a staged event that had no purpose beyond flouting Gore.  He's the democrat's "rock-star of the moment" and they wanted to show him off.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Careful, Merlin, I know you don't like Boxer or Gore, but if you keep this up, you're going to wind up looking so blinded by your dislike for the two of them that you will have lost all grasp of reality.

Then you know very little Allison, and your refusal to read what I write is boring.  Aside from saying that Boxer looked petty for lashing out the way she did, I have not said anything here that would enable you to think I feel negatively about her.  Gore is an even better example of your failure to read and comprehend though.  Not only have I said that I don't dislike him, I have actually credited him with specific accomplishments!  This certainly is not a case where I have allowed emotion to cloud my judgement - how about you?

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Of course, I was kidding - maybe not. :)

I abhor violence for the sake of it.   It's a never ending cycle until the resources run out or someone comes to their senses; I'm all for conservation in every form.  I have no further opinion on the subject.

Yeah, hope they aren't all "relatives" that share your opinion of Gore.  I never said you were the ONLY SCIENTIST  that didn't believe in global warming, I said, that you were in the minority (which you are) and that climatologists are better off to judge whether global warming is happening than physicists (which they are).

As I stated earlier - my "relative" is a journalist; also a liberal.  Anyway, there were debates in the other forum where you, Brandon, Byron and Katrina intimated that I was in a very - very small minority.  A couple of you even claimed I was alone.  I claimed otherwise, and I went so far as to say that the numbers would continually increase as this issue becomes more poularized and experts begin to see what we have to lose by rushing headlong into the fire.  That is happening now, and will continue to for years to come.  I agree, however, climatoligists are better suited to tell us about the weather than physicists are.  The thing is, I'm not looking for a weather prediction - I'm looking for evidence of a theory that is practically unprovable due to its scope, size and complexity.  This theory requires the insight and contribution of paleoclimatologists, archaeologists, geologists, historians, chemists, physicists and theoreticians of every discipline because of the "all-encompassing" nature of it.  Who do you think is doing the vast majority of the "physical modelling" and the molecular interativity determinations?  Physicists!  If it were me, I would welcome all of the assistance I could get - EVEN IF IT WAS CRITICAL.  I don't mind being here in the minority - it's cozy and quiet (not a bunch of buzzing) and it makes getting my work done really easy.


I go where the truth is, Merlin! It has nothing to do with Al Gore, at least not for me.  One one hand, we have the earth clearly warming up and we have the rise of greenhouse gases and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible.

I thought that you might be on to something in the beginning of your reply, but then you fizzled out at the end.  If you were really "going where the truth is", the following sentences wouldn't allow you to arrive at a conclusion; ANY CONCLUSION.

"We have the earth clearly warming up".  --  Do we? 
"..and we have the rise in greenhouse gases"  --  Alright...
"..and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible."  --  Not necessarily, but I'll stipulate to it for the sake of argument.

We begin with an assertion, we state a fact, and then we conclude with a comment.  That arrangement does not, in any way, constitute a complete or compelling argument.  Most of all, it still doesn't make any of Al's "science" correct; particularly his conclusion.  You have to acknowledge that every detail Al gave was at the extreme.  There are no scientists standing behind his "SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS", and many are running away from the de-glaciation data; the ice caps are moving - not disappearing in many areas.

On the other hand, we have oil company funded propaganda, the Bush Administration editing scientific reports to play down global warming, and seemingly everyone who doesn't believe in global warming also bashing AL GORE. 

Well, that's an extremely one-sided and minimalist commentary that serves only to propagandize the debate - not locate a solution; kind of like The Inconvenient Truth.  Are there detractors that are funded by the oil industry?  Yes.  Has the Bush Administration edited scientific papers to de-emphasize aspects of documents that they disagree with? Yes.  Are people who disagree with GW, as offered by AL, questioning him?  Yes.  However, you don't bother asking any followup questions, so I took the liberty for you:  Are there detractors of GW (as offered by AL) outside of Big Oil?  Yes - many   Has any other administration ever edited science papers?  Every one of them   And, finally - Why would anyone else be questioned about the science in "The Inconvenient Truth" except AL?  Rhetorical question

We can get into the scientific data, but only the least objective people would believe the second argument.

I must misunderstand this comment.  Since there is no such thing as subjectivity in the scientific method, objectivity isn't really an issue.  If you have data - bring it.  I haven't seen you post anything other than newspaper articles or cuts & pastes from the Wiki on the subject, so, by all means - trot the evidence out that supports AL's specific predictions or even his overall conclusion!  Prove his case, he certainly hasn't.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:37:11 pm
The Solution to Global Warming
A $10 Billion Sun shield for planet Earth
Last update:  06/11/2006
 

       


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Executive Summary
     The proposal is to build a very large orbiting shield which will intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth and reflect it back into space.  The shield will consist of a very thin metal foil covering a sparse matrix of ribs.  In order to minimize the cost, the materials needed for this shield will come from the Moon.  The shield will be built robotically both to save cost and because humans are not suited to working in space.  How large a shield will be necessary?  Our initial estimate is 6 percent of the cross-sectional area of the Earth.  Since the cross-sectional area of Earth is about 50 million square miles, the shield will need to be about 3 million square miles (roughly the size or area of Australia).  Since the shield will orbit the Earth, it will only intercept sunlight when it is on the sunny side of the Earth.  Thus the effect of the shield will be to reduce incident radiation from the Sun by about 3%.   How long will it take to build this shield?  Suppose that we could build one square mile in the first year of assembly.  By doubling the effort each year thereafter (through the expansion of our Lunar manufacturing facilities), we could complete the shield in about 22 years.  Including three years of startup, the entire project could be completed in 25 years.  One additional year would double the size of the shield to 6 million square miles and give a reduction of 6% in the incident sunlight (if this were deemed necessary).

      The cost of this project would be surprisingly low.   Since the very very vast majority of material would come from the Moon, that part will be FREE.  All we need to pay for is the startup facilities.  The startup facilities would consist of a large electromagnetic projectile launcher (EMPL) built on Earth and configured to throw its payloads to the Moon - as in Jules Vern's Moon gun (cost about $5 billion).  We would require just one robotic mission to the Moon to put in place the initial manufacturing capability (cost about $1 billion).  Other costs include sending additional materials to the Moon via the EMPL. These would include robots, computers, and other parts which could not be built easily on the Moon from materials found there (cost about $2 billion).  We will also require one mission to the orbital site of the shield which would put the initial assembly equipment in place (cost about $1 billion). Finally, there would be the cost of supervising the construction of the shield over 22 years (cost about $1 billion).  Thus the total cost of the Sun shield which would solve the global warming problem would be about $10 billion.   

      Of course there are several major hurdles to overcome before this shield could be built. The first question would be what latitudes would the shield cover.  Assume that we choose to build a shield which is 3000 miles wide and 1000 miles high.  We could orient this either North to South or East to West.  If it were oriented with its long side going around the Earth, it would cover about 50 degrees from East to West and about 17 degrees from North to South.  This could be from 8.5 degrees South to 8.5 degrees North on either side of the equator.  If the shield orbits Earth twice per day, then its shadow would take about 1.5 hours to pass overhead on each orbit.  If the shield were turned 90 degrees, it would cover 17 degrees from East to West and 50 degrees from North to South.  In this case it would cover from 25 degrees South latitude to 25 degrees North latitude and would pass overhead in only a half hour.  The second problem would be to put the proposal before the United Nations in an attempt to secure global approval for the shield.  We feel sure there will be plenty of people who will oppose this plan - either because they don't believe it can be accomplished or because they have some objection - such as worrying about the shield falling or because it will get in the way of astronomical telescopes.  There are even a few people who do not believe that global warming is actually happening.  However, the seriousness of global warming grows greater with each passing year and we need to do something before it is too late.

Problem solved  (* 07/13/2005 *)
      A possible problem with this shield proposal was that it would block satellite signals from satellites which orbit above it.   However, it appears that simply by punching a bunch of holes in the foil, we can eliminate this problem.  Thus the foil would look like a swiss cheese or a checkerboard.  This would allow the satellite signals to pass through with little attenuation.  Obviously this will require a somewhat larger shield area to make up for the holes - but this is not a problem either.

 
 
http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:40:41 pm
What is the evidence of global warming?
Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) concentration increasing

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily for 50 years.
First look at the CO2 concentration over 400,000 years from the Vostok ice cores

(http://www.androidworld.com/Vostok_Ice_Core.jpg)

Compare this to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements over the last 50 years

(http://www.androidworld.com/Mauna_Loa.jpg)

Methane (another greenhouse gas) buildup

Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb. (* new 3/22/06*)  Aparently as much as 400 billion tons of methane may be trapped in the frozen tundra in the arctics.  This is about 3000 times the current methane content of the atmosphere.  Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.  The warming and thawing of the tundra may start a chain reaction which could release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which would greatly exacerbate the global warming problem.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:43:03 pm
Surface temperature increasing

Global average temperatures are slowly increasing
Temperatures have risen about 0.7 deg Celcius over the last century.

(http://www.androidworld.com/CO2TempChart.jpg)

Many of the hottest years on record are recent ones. The ten hottest years were:
 2005, 1998, 2002,  2003, 2004, 2001,  1997, 1995, 1990,  1999
Graphically you can see the trend starkly.

(http://www.androidworld.com/Global_temps.gif)

Temperature hit 100 in London (August 10, 2003) for the first time in recorded history.




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:44:29 pm
Ocean temperatures increasing

Recent headline:  Caribbean coral suffers record die-off.    (* 3/31/06 *)
Costal ocean temperatures are so high that sea corals are being killed globally.
Up to 90% of corals are dead or dying in many areas.
It is now too late to derail or delay the disaster.
The increase in the temperature of the oceans is providing fuel for stronger and more frequent hurricances and typhoons - like last year when we saw a record number of hurricanes in the Caribbean.   Japan also set a record for the number of typhoons to hit Japan.
Sea levels are slowly increasing, threatening cities such as Venice, Italy
Sea level as measured at San Francisco, California, USA.

(http://www.androidworld.com/sealevel.jpg)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:49:38 pm
Glaciers melting

In Montana's Glacier National Park only 27 of the 150 glaciers which existed in 1910 remain today and they will be gone in only 20 years.
Glaciers are in retreat all over the world.
Here is a spectacular site by Gary Braasch called " World View of Global Warming"
He shows numerous "before" and "after" pictures of glaciers - such as the following:

(http://www.androidworld.com/Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg)

Upsala Glacier         

(http://www.androidworld.com/Sw_Rhone_Glacier.jpg)

Rhone Glacier


Over 90% of the ice shelf north of Ellesmere Island (Canada) is gone.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:51:38 pm
Animals are dying

Animal ranges are changing due to changes in the local climates.
Walruses are starving in the Bering Sea because they are adrift on ice flows in water too deep to feed.
In Canada, polar bears are starving because Hudson's Bay is ice-free too long each year so they cannot catch enough seals to survive. Pregnant females are losing so much weight that they fail to produce enough milk for their cubs, which then suffer increased mortality. Once females fail to attain a minimum weight they won’t give birth at all, and scientists can already document a 15 percent drop in birth rates.
Also in Canada, river temperatures are so high now that salmon are being killed on their way to their spawning grounds - thus killing off the salmon FOREVER. 
Frogs are dying all over the world - not just a few frogs here and there but WHOLE SPECIES are dying off FAST.
Vanishing Frogs
Recent Amphibian Declines in Lower Central America
Amphibious Assault

Plants effected

Plants are germinating earlier and earlier and moving farther and farther North.
Nearly 4 million acres of mature white spruce forest on the Kenai Peninsula (in Alaska) have been killed by a growing population of spruce bark beetles (Dendroctonus rufipennis) since about 1987.
Louisiana (USA) is losing land at a rate of about 25 square miles per year.
This effect has now been shown to be primarily due to subsidence of
the land.  A new NOAA report  says that the northern part of the Gulf
of Mexico is sinking at a rate of 60 inches per century or about 0.6 inches
per year (whereas sealevel is only rising by 8 inches per century).   
Worldwide there are increases in droughts and forest fires.  


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:53:34 pm
Study says sun getting hotter

WASHINGTON (AP) - The sun is getting hotter, adding heat to an Earth already thought to be warming from greenhouse gases.

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

The increase is only a small fraction of the total heat from the sun, but in a century it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming thought to be caused by greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.

''This is a significant increase,'' said John Firor of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ''It would increase the rate at which we go into warming.''

Firor said that based on the current estimate of how greenhouse gases will warm the planet over the next century, the solar heat increase found by Willson would boost that warming trend by about 20 percent.

Although studies show that the Earth has warmed about one degree in the last century and the trend continues, there is a division among scientists about what is causing it. Some believe it is a natural cycle for the planet, unrelated to humans. Others blame the warming on an increase in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood.

At an international meeting in Japan in three months, the United States and other nations will debate the need to reduce the burning of fuels in order to slow global warming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 07:58:47 pm
Arctic changes are the greatest

Alaska data


Average temperature has risen 3 degrees C (= 5.4 degrees F) in the last 30 years.
The sea level around Alaska has risen a foot in the last century.
The permafrost is melting - which is causing buildings to sink into the mud.
98% of glaciers & sea ice are melting.
Alaska glaciers

(http://www.androidworld.com/Denali_1919.jpg)

Denali 1919 

(http://www.androidworld.com/Denali_2004.jpg)

2004


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:01:29 pm
(http://www.androidworld.com/Holgate_1909.jpg)

Holgate 1909 

(http://www.androidworld.com/Holgate_2004.jpg)

2004


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:04:59 pm
(http://www.androidworld.com/Muir_glacier_1941.jpg)

http://www.androidworld.com/Muir_glacier_1941.jpg

(http://www.androidworld.com/Muir_glacier_2004.jpg)

2004


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:07:45 pm
Over 90% of the ice shelf north of Ellesmere Island (Canada) is gone.
Scary pictures of the northern polar regions in 1979 & 2000 
Polar ice has been decreasing by 1% per year since 1979.

(http://www.androidworld.com/artic_1979.jpg)
                                   
1979                                                            2000



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:24:17 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)

This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations. The most recent documentation for this data set is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones (2006). "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850". J. Geophysical Research 111: D12106. DOI:10.1029/2005JD006548.  Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990.

This figure was originally prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data and is part of the Global Warming Art project.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:27:27 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:28:49 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)

Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:31:56 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png)

Recent increases in atmospheric CO2. The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the northern hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the northern hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:33:43 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and shows how high levels of CO2 have been sequestered in the form of hydrocarbons (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) now being re-released in the combustion of fossil fuels.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:35:24 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png/646px-Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png)

Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases broken down by sector for the year 2000.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:39:46 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png)

Global glacial mass balance in the last 50 years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 01, 2007, 08:41:38 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png)

Calculations of global warming from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 02, 2007, 06:47:58 am
The Solution to Global Warming
A $10 Billion Sun shield for planet Earth
Last update:  06/11/2006
 

I'm all for it, although I suspect that environmentalism would be tossed out the window the morning after.  Though I question global Warming as offered by the IPCC (and Al Gore), I do not disagree that the planet warms up from time to time or is potentially warming up now.  This would certainly solve that problem and it would leave the buildup of Methane and Carbon for us to continue dealing with.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 02, 2007, 07:32:07 am
What is the evidence of global warming?
Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) concentration increasing

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily for 50 years.
First look at the CO2 concentration over 400,000 years from the Vostok ice cores

This is very old information.  One of the most prominent reasons for questioning this is that it shows a cyclic nature in the atmosphere.  Secondly, we have no way of telling from that data, is temperature following CO2 or is CO2 following temperature.  But that's not all that has kept scientists from wondering...  Let's keep going.

Compare this to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements over the last 50 years

Now we are measuring CO2 concentrations in the air and are comparing it to dissolved gases in ice cores.  This is the same thing that always occurs, and it is what gets the emotionally-driven scientists in trouble with the logically minded scientists.  Dissolved gases will always be smaller than concentrated ones, and measuring in the vicinity of an active volcanic ring is a sure-fire way to measure a lot of CO2.  This presentation could have come from the Inconvenient Truth movie, they are comparing extremes.

Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb. (* new 3/22/06*)  Aparently as much as 400 billion tons of methane may be trapped in the frozen tundra in the arctics.  This is about 3000 times the current methane content of the atmosphere.  Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.  The warming and thawing of the tundra may start a chain reaction which could release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which would greatly exacerbate the global warming problem.

First, you started out by saying, "What is the evidence of global warming?"  Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence.  The whole "Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb" headline isn't science or proof - it's  hype.  What you didn't include was the part where naturally occuring methane dissolves quite rapidly in the lower atmosphere and hardly ever makes it to the upper one.  Only really massive and rapid onslaughts of naturally occuring methane cause this sort of problem and thus far we haven't seen any signs of this; only slow - gradual increases. 

Also because of the density of (natural) CH4, massive releases are predicted to alter the localized weather, causing at first - a cool down.  Only later will they show the effects generated...  Maybe.  The data isn't able to be resolved due to its age.  Furthermore, because of ancient history, they theorize that it may have occurred at least twice before - leading them to question if Global Warming is man-made or of a cyclic nature.  The most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when methane eruptions caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.  The "grand daddy" of these catastrophes occurred 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when a series of methane outflows came close to wiping out all life on Earth...  Maybe.  We see the mass extinction event and we see a lot of methane, but we cannot ascertain which came first.  Again - we have no way of telling what came first - the methane or the temperature increase of 10-12o.

Probably the best argument, in-lieu-of evidence was the following by a friend who is a paleochemist:

"Greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from increased volcanic activity, warmed the earth and seas enough to release massive amounts of methane from highly sensitive clathrates and gas hydrates, setting off a runaway greenhouse effect in the previous two episodes of rapid global warming.  In both cases, it appears as though the signs first showed up at the poles, therefore this time we should expect to see the same thing (if it is happening again).  Humans appear to be able to emit carbon dioxide in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that initiated these chain reactions in the past.  The U.S. Geological Survey states that, "burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes, the equivalent of an estimated 15,500 additional volcanoes the size of Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii."  If they are right, then it may be mankind that is triggering this new event.  Of course, all of this is assumed, based up the data we have from the past.  The idea that the K/T Boundary Event was caused by a meteor throws a monkey-wrench into the theory.  If the methane did not follow the volcanic activity but came simultaneously, then we are the tail wagging the dog in this new proposal.  It might best be time to turn off the sun till we can sort this all out."

I like him - he's honest.  I'll look through your other posts and comment as I complete them.




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 11:00:24 am
Quote
This is very old information.  One of the most prominent reasons for questioning this is that it shows a cyclic nature in the atmosphere.  Secondly, we have no way of telling from that data, is temperature following CO2 or is CO2 following temperature.  But that's not all that has kept scientists from wondering...  Let's keep going.

Don't confuse things.  The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed.  Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps.  The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 11:05:04 am
Quote
Now we are measuring CO2 concentrations in the air and are comparing it to dissolved gases in ice cores.  This is the same thing that always occurs, and it is what gets the emotionally-driven scientists in trouble with the logically minded scientists.  Dissolved gases will always be smaller than concentrated ones, and measuring in the vicinity of an active volcanic ring is a sure-fire way to measure a lot of CO2.  This presentation could have come from the Inconvenient Truth movie, they are comparing extremes.

I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 11:10:12 am
Quote
First, you started out by saying, "What is the evidence of global warming?"  Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence.


Merlin, I think this is the case of someone seeing only what they want to see. Melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, rising ocean temps, all evidence of global warming.  With respect, the scientific disagreement on this isn't anything at all like you suggest, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

By the way, the Supreme Court (a conservative one) just ruled today that governments have the right to curb emissions from cars that cause greenhouse gases.  If that isn't a sign of how opinions on global warming have fallen away from the sketpics, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 02, 2007, 02:51:32 pm
Don't confuse things.  The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

I'm not confusing anything Jason, and - while we're at it, I'm not the one simplifying either.  What you are failing to notice is that there is no data whatsoever that proves CO2 is the catalyst for warming.  There is no proof that CO2 controls temperature - so I have no idea of what you are speaking of.  All we have is anecdotal evidence that says the two have risen  with one another in the past.  We have as many physical models displaying temperature increasing CO2 as we do for CO2 increasing temperature.

Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed. 

But that's just the thing...  The ice cores don't say much.  They indicate, as we have already discussed, that temperature and CO2 rose in the past in the same time frames, which hints of a related mechanism controlling both.  What it doesn't say is, "Which came first, or if either is controlled by the other?"  Just as the expert geologist who wrote the article referring to "ticking time bombs" said, 'we cannot be certain of the mechanism, but we have our suspicions'.

Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps.  The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).

The problem is the word "almost".  Either they "do" or they "don't".  The fact that they don't always rise together is because the situation is very - very complicated (as I have preached for a long while).  Also, it makes logical sense that CO2 follows temps and not the other way around; as many physical models have predicted.  In that case, the fact that temps have increased and decreased without noticeable CO2 alterations would indicate that there is a threshold to surpass before the effect is made manifest.  The other way around, we are unable to explain 4 episodes of global warming in the past.

Keep in mind Jason - I used to be a standard model of GW supporter...  I changed camps when the data stopped adding up.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 02, 2007, 03:03:38 pm
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

Oh please, that's absurd.  NO EVIDENCE?  They've done nothing but refute the theory with data!  Are you sure that you aren't confusing media talking heads like Rush Blowhard for "experts" and "scientists"?  I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry.  Aside from myself, I know 30+ in my immediate "sphere" that agree that the issue has become 'emotionally charged' to the point that the data is being skewed so that Everything becomes evidence of GW.  Don't confuse what I said - I spoke clearly, you can at least read and comprehend what I took the time to say before ignoring it and responding emotionally.

As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.

You clearly are looking for me to portray this in a negative light, even if I am not.  I did not use the word hysterical - that was your word.  What I said was that the data was being interpreted askew by emotionally-driven scientists.  I didn't call them emotional or hysterical. 

Otherwise - you are comparing apples to watermelons.  If there were an asteroid coming for the planet, we wouldn't be arguing.  There would be evidence to show that a big rock was flying its way toward us.  I'll bet arguments ensue over the best way to divert it though!  In the case of GW, the growing skepticism is due not to politics, but, adherence to standard practices & logic.  We want to see the models making correct predictions and we want to see some evidence showing a smoking gun. 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 02, 2007, 03:26:54 pm
Merlin, I think this is the case of someone seeing only what they want to see. Melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, rising ocean temps, all evidence of global warming.  With respect, the scientific disagreement on this isn't anything at all like you suggest, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

Don't make me laugh.  I'm very much in a position to know that the scientific disagreement with the Standard Model (& the AL Gore Model) of GW is exactly as I suggest.   The only irresponsible act I see on the subject is for the mainstream to continue rushing headlong into the abyss before we know what to do.  Keep in mind, whatever we save right now is going to be replaced and increased upon by next year.  As the world's population continues to grow and the industrialization and modernization of China, India and South America continues, the U.S. could shut off all carbon sources - and - the results will be null.  That's not really the issue though, the issue is "what" is causing the Earth to heat up.   Since melting glaciers, dying coral reefs and rising water temps are not proof of "what" is causing GW, I have no idea why you would bother trying to insinuate that I'm "seeing only what I want to see".  This is just more of the same...  "How dare you disagree with the majority because of all the bad stuff happening!"  I'm not swayed by the lack of evidence.  As I have told folks in this forum already, I am immune to the majority position's mob mentality and ensuing tactics.  I will go where the evidence leads me - not the rhetoric.

By the way, the Supreme Court (a conservative one) just ruled today that governments have the right to curb emissions from cars that cause greenhouse gases.  If that isn't a sign of how opinions on global warming have fallen away from the sketpics, I don't know what is.

If you are referring to the 5-4 decision that empowers the EPA to regulate the emissions of vehicles (I assume you are), then yes, I would say that times are changing.  It was a stupid argument that the EPA put up in defense, so they should have lost.  Keep in mind that I am a huge environmental proponent Jason - I have been steadfast in my defense of planetary stewardship for the past 25 years.  Because of that, I support the decision, but most specifically for my own reasons.  Ultimately, I would like to see fossil fuel go the way of the dinosaur and this is the first step to making regulations too tough for gasoline engines to meet. 

GO SOLAR!  GO HYDROGEN!  GO NUCLEAR!


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:48:31 pm
Quote
Don't confuse things. The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

I'm not confusing anything Jason, and - while we're at it, I'm not the one simplifying either. What you are failing to notice is that there is no data whatsoever that proves CO2 is the catalyst for warming. There is no proof that CO2 controls temperature - so I have no idea of what you are speaking of. All we have is anecdotal evidence that says the two have risen with one another in the past. We have as many physical models displaying temperature increasing CO2 as we do for CO2 increasing temperature.

The overall trend is, where there is rising CO2, rising temps usually follow, even if it is years away.  Does that always happen?  Well, of course there are exceptions.  Simplifying things would be to suggest that CO2 is the only factor that controls temps, and it isn't, there are other things that control temperatures as well.  I think that there is enough evidence that CO2 leads, but that it doesn't always lead.  Your problem (and that of some of the other people who are also arguing against global warming) is that they expect temps to rise almost instantaneously with the rise of CO2, and it doesn't always work like that.  Climate measure itself in more than a few years, but in decades, sometimes even centuries. It’s important to think in terms of not a couple of years here and there, but in the overall trend, which is up.
Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:00:24 am
Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed.
But that's just the thing... The ice cores don't say much. They indicate, as we have already discussed, that temperature and CO2 rose in the past in the same time frames, which hints of a related mechanism controlling both. What it doesn't say is, "Which came first, or if either is controlled by the other?" Just as the expert geologist who wrote the article referring to "ticking time bombs" said, 'we cannot be certain of the mechanism, but we have our suspicions'.
The ice cores don't say much because we are treading new ground.  Was there industrialization in the past, fossil fuel burning, cars, etc?  Hardly. We can use the past as a model for what might happen, but we can hardly use it as a projection of what's happening today, other than, of course, CO2 and temps go hand in hand.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:00:24 am
Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps. The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).

The problem is the word "almost". Either they "do" or they "don't". The fact that they don't always rise together is because the situation is very - very complicated (as I have preached for a long while). Also, it makes logical sense that CO2 follows temps and not the other way around; as many physical models have predicted. In that case, the fact that temps have increased and decreased without noticeable CO2 alterations would indicate that there is a threshold to surpass before the effect is made manifest. The other way around, we are unable to explain 4 episodes of global warming in the past.
Merlin, I give you more credit than thinking that climate and CO2 simply work in a straight line, they don't.  As you know other factors also affect climate, it is far more complex than you give it credit for, and yet the overall trend is CO2 first, temps second.
Here is the graph that I Am that I Am was always so fond or printing at AR:

He printed it to try and point out dicrepancies, but you can see that, for the most part, CO2 almost always leads.  Like I said, we are looking at the big picture here, not an anomaly here and there:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/800px-)


Quote
Keep in mind Jason - I used to be a standard model of GW supporter... I changed camps when the data stopped adding up.
Well, you are a bright guy, Merlin, I have faith that you will find your way back to recognizing the inherent dangers behind global warming again. :)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:51:33 pm
 
   
Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

Oh please, that's absurd. NO EVIDENCE? They've done nothing but refute the theory with data! Are you sure that you aren't confusing media talking heads like Rush Blowhard for "experts" and "scientists"? I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry. Aside from myself, I know 30+ in my immediate "sphere" that agree that the issue has become 'emotionally charged' to the point that the data is being skewed so that Everything becomes evidence of GW. Don't confuse what I said - I spoke clearly, you can at least read and comprehend what I took the time to say before ignoring it and responding emotionally.
Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.

I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises.  With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.
You clearly are looking for me to portray this in a negative light, even if I am not. I did not use the word hysterical - that was your word. What I said was that the data was being interpreted askew by emotionally-driven scientists. I didn't call them emotional or hysterical.

Otherwise - you are comparing apples to watermelons. If there were an asteroid coming for the planet, we wouldn't be arguing. There would be evidence to show that a big rock was flying its way toward us. I'll bet arguments ensue over the best way to divert it though! In the case of GW, the growing skepticism is due not to politics, but, adherence to standard practices & logic. We want to see the models making correct predictions and we want to see some evidence showing a smoking gun.

I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever.  As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.
             
              
       


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm
Quote
Don't make me laugh.  I'm very much in a position to know that the scientific disagreement with the Standard Model (& the AL Gore Model) of GW is exactly as I suggest.


Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.  Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: cydonia on April 03, 2007, 12:23:03 am
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Quote
Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer


The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: cydonia on April 03, 2007, 12:24:32 am
Can someone unemotionally prove that what is asserted in this article is false?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 05, 2007, 11:34:05 pm
The overall trend is, where there is rising CO2, rising temps usually follow, even if it is years away.  Does that always happen?  Well, of course there are exceptions.  Simplifying things would be to suggest that CO2 is the only factor that controls temps, and it isn't, there are other things that control temperatures as well. 

I'm not simplifying, but I'm also not buying into the "It's so somplicated that you'll have to take my word for it answer".  I - for the second time in this recent discussion - realize exactly how complicated it is to determine what is "cause" and what is "effect".  What you are refusing to acknowledge is the fact that the GW models have not made one successful prediction.  In fact, their retrodictions completely violate their own theory - which is why they do not offer them.  One major problem:  The only way to make the models work is to have temp. increase prior to CO2 and then have CH4 steadily increase at a later date.  THIS WOULD INDICATE A SERIOUS FLAW IN THE THEORY.  Say what you want about complexity, I understand it - and have authored 11 papers on the subject; all peer-reviewed.

I think that there is enough evidence that CO2 leads, but that it doesn't always lead.


We disagree - since there is no evidence that has determined that.  Even the models don't predict this.  You need to do more research, but that's the last I have to say on the subject of doing more research - I'm tired of spending time trying to convince people to do their own work instead of just cutting and pasting whatever graphic they think supports their view...  Particularly when they don't have a view of their own - just a regurgitation of whatever they've heard. 

Your problem (and that of some of the other people who are also arguing against global warming) is that they expect temps to rise almost instantaneously with the rise of CO2, and it doesn't always work like that. 

You have absolutely no idea if this is correct or not.  You say that like we have witnessed this prior and have established some sort of repoire with the planet...  Either that or you think there is some sort of computer model out there that demonstartes this exact hypothesis...  {giggles}  But there isn't.  "MY PROBLEM", as you put it, is that there are people out there who don't have a frickin clue as to the dynamics or systems involved in the process, and yet they'll sit in front of a computer and orate [ad nauseum] about just how little "other people" understand.  I had a friend (professor of geology) today tell me about an argument he had online last weekend where someone told him he clearly had no idea of what he was talking about...  The subject was plate tectonics.  For the record - never did I intimate, insinuate or otherwise claim that temps and levels would rise simultaneously.  My point was simple:  FIGURE OUT WHICH CAME FIRST; the experts don't know yet.

The ice cores don't say much because we are treading new ground.  Was there industrialization in the past, fossil fuel burning, cars, etc?  Hardly. We can use the past as a model for what might happen, but we can hardly use it as a projection of what's happening today, other than, of course, CO2 and temps go hand in hand.

But that answer doesn't point to WHAT the problem is.  The fact that there was no fossil-fuel burning and industrialization actually removes manking from the previous quotient.  That's the point!  Now, I'm confused by your commentary...  If they go "hand in hand" as you say, then how can either be the catalyst for the other?  You just castigated me [in error] for *claiming* (which I didn't) that they are linear with one another and simultaneous and yet, you just said that very thing!?!  I'm only a physicist - not a paleoclimatologist, but can they be both simultaneous and linear while being non-linear and separated (time-wise)?  Is this meant to be a paradoxical reply?  I am unaware of a current theory that would have us apply quantum uncertainty and/or multiverse theory to the physical models of GCC & GW.

Merlin, I give you more credit than thinking that climate and CO2 simply work in a straight line, they don't.  As you know other factors also affect climate, it is far more complex than you give it credit for, and yet the overall trend is CO2 first, temps second.
Here is the graph that I Am that I Am was always so fond or printing at AR:

??  I have no idea why you keep saying that I am simplifying and you are pointing to complexity.  This is like being in an episode of "Punk'd" I think....  Is this opposite day?  For the final time:  I AM SAYING THIS IS SO COMPLEX THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING FORCED TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY ARE TOLD BECAUSE THEY:

a)  DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND IT'S COMPLEXITY, or
b)  BECOME BORED WITH THE 'DETAILS' AND JUST STICK WITH THE RHETORIC

Finally, the graph was never even commented on by me so I have no idea why you would bring it up.  The graph is based upon a morsel of data, not a dataset.  It is extrapolated, adjusted and adjucated - not even worth utilizing, but it certainly does not indicate what you are claiming.  It also doesn't support the assertion that you say "I am" was making.

Well, you are a bright guy, Merlin, I have faith that you will find your way back to recognizing the inherent dangers behind global warming again. :)

I do.  I see an environmental machine that's making a hell of a lot of money.  Money that could be spent developing the technology that would actually benefit us right now by reducing pollution. 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Majeston on April 06, 2007, 06:37:00 pm
New Gag Rule Issued on US Scientists
 
 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:34:54 AM PDT
 
 CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS —
 
 Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest."
 
 On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing "Public Communications." This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal "open science" policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
 
 Although couched in rhetoric about the need for "broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas," the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:
 
 Any "fundamental research communication" must "before the communication occurs" be submitted to and approved by the designated "head of the operating unit." While the directive states that approval may not be withheld "based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research," it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
 National Weather Service employees are allowed only "as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public".
 
 Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks "advance notice" of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it "is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations."
 
 "This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature."
 
 The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print, despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.
 
  This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.
 
 [link to www.dailykos.com]


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 07, 2007, 01:36:52 am
Yes, the Bush Administration makes a lot of noise about how it wants to stop global warming, but, as usual, their actions don't match their words! I swear, I have never seen an administration depend more on people either not paying attention or believing them to be stupid.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 07, 2007, 01:40:46 am
The latest climate change report also makes some noise, but, as usual, is only a watered down report of the actual dangers of global warming.

Shows what happens when you keep letting the damned bureaucrats edit scientific information.

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/04/04/belgium.climate.ap/story.ch.earth.jpg)


Delegates' debate on climate change report 'going slow'
POSTED: 4:12 a.m. EDT, April 5, 2007
Story Highlights• Delegates from 120 nations debating language in climate change report


• Severity of climate threat a source of contention
• Some delegates say talks going slow, but expect progress as deadline nears
• Report to be released Friday in Belgium


BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Scientists and diplomats on Wednesday debated the urgency of changes in the Earth's climate as they worked on a report that will guide the world's policymakers for decades to come.

In closed-door meetings, delegates from more than 120 countries argued over revisions in a 21-page draft text, in one case highlighting how global warming will reduce staple crops in countries such as China and India, where millions of people could go hungry.

The delegates slogged through line-by-line approval of the report on how the climate has changed and projecting future scenarios, from the extinction of frogs to the likelihood of more fierce floods and storms. (Watch what makes this report different from previous UN statements )

The conference is due to release the authoritative text Friday at 10 a.m. ET. Traditionally early sessions move slowly until the delegates begin feeling deadline pressures, and delegations prepared to meet well past midnight Wednesday and Thursday nights.

"It's going slow," said Swedish delegate Mattias Lunblad.

Talks snagged in the first several paragraphs over a key sentence that set the tone for the whole report. With 90 percent confidence, the draft says: "Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."

Some countries disputed the level of confidence attached to the statement, and wanted either the wording toned down or the level of certainty reduced, delegates said. The issue was handed to a small "contact group" to resolve.

The United States, which has refused to coordinate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions with other countries, was playing a low-keyed role so far, said delegates on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

"We have made too little progress so far," said Hans Verolme, of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, or WWF, who is attending the sessions.

"We want to make sure that what comes out in the end is crisp, well structured and understandable to the layman," he said.

R.T.M. Sutamihardja of Indonesia, said one difficulty was juggling the interests of each country in weighing the impact of climate change.

"If we want to include everything, we would need a bigger map," he told The Associated Press outside the conference room.

The report stressed that climate changes will have a more devastating impact on poor countries -- and poorer citizens within rich countries -- which are less capable of adapting to shifts in weather patterns.

Many of the regions expected to be worst affected already suffer severe water shortages and hunger, which will only get worse, the final report is to say, while some parts of North America and Europe will benefit in the short-term from milder winters and longer growing seasons. (Watch Australians grapple with devastating drought )

The report is a synopsis of a more than 1,400-page assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with contributions from more than 1,000 of the world's leading climate experts, on the impact of global warming and the vulnerabilities of economies, ecosystems and human health.

It will be presented at a Group of Eight leaders summit in June in Germany, during which the EU will press President Bush to sign on to international talks to cut emissions.

It also will be the basis for a major conference in December in Bali, Indonesia, to set an international framework for controlling the emissions of carbon dioxide after 2012, the expiry date of the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates emission curbs for industrial countries.

It is the second of four reports by the climate change panel. The first, issued in February, updated the science of climate change, concluding with near certainty that global warming is caused by human behavior.

Six years in the making, the panel's latest assessment is based on scientific data on changes that already have occurred, including changing bird migrations, the earlier appearance of spring in temperate climate zones and the bleaching of tropical coral reefs from warmer sea water.

New reports appear almost daily. On Wednesday, scientists at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Boulder, Colorado, announced that the area of ocean covered by ice last month was the second-lowest in recorded history, beaten only by the March 2006 record.

Walt Meier, a scientist at the center, said the Arctic sea report was a "milestone in a strong downward trend" reflecting warmer Arctic temperatures.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/04/belgium.climate.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Luke Hodiak on April 07, 2007, 03:40:18 am
Here's a summary of the latest climate change report, Allison:


(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/story.drought.jpg)

The Lake Eucumbene shoreline in Old Adaminaby shows the effects of Australia's 'Big Dry' drought on March 12.

Climate report: World's poorest will suffer most

POSTED: 11:53 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights• NEW: Report: Poor countries will see increased hunger and water shortages
• NEW: Scientists: Climate change will affect billions of people
• North America will see more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires
• Africa will be hardest hit, Europe will see its Alpine glaciers disappear

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The world faces increased hunger and water shortages in the poorest countries, massive floods and avalanches in Asia, and species extinction unless nations adapt to climate change and halt its progress, according to a report approved Friday by an international conference on global warming.

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but, in the end, agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

Five days of negotiations reached a climax when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

"The poorest of the poor in the world -- and this includes poor people in prosperous societies -- are going to be the worst hit," Pachauri said. "People who are poor are least able to adapt to climate change."

The report said up to 30 percent of species face an increased risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees above the average in the 1980s and 1990s.

Areas in drought will become even more dry, adding to the risks of hunger and disease, it said. The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.

"This is a glimpse into an apocalyptic future," the Greenpeace environmental group said of the final report.

Without action to curb carbon emissions, man's livable habitat will shrink starkly, said Stephen Schneider, a Stanford scientist who was one of the authors. "Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting."

"We can fix this," by investing a small part of the world's economic growth rate, said Schneider. "It's trillions of dollars, but it's a very trivial thing."

Negotiators pored over the 21-page draft meant to be a policy guide for governments. The summary pares down the full 1,572-page scientific assessment of the evidence of climate change so far, and the impact it will have on the Earth's most vulnerable people and ecosystems.

More than 120 nations attended the meeting. Each word was approved by consensus, and any change had to be approved by the scientists who drew up that section of the report.

Parry denied the hard-fought editing process resulted in a watered-down version, but acknowledged that "certain messages were lost."

At one point early Friday, it looked like the report "was not going to be accepted. It was very, very close to that point," said David Karoly, one of the scientific authors from the University of Oklahoma.

Though weakened by the deletion of some elements, the final report "will send a very, very clear signal" to governments, said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

The summary will be presented to the G8 summit of the world's richest nations in June, when the European Union is expected to renew appeals to President Bush to join in international efforts to control emissions of fossil fuels.

This year's series of reports by the IPCC were the first in six years from the prestigious body of 2,500 scientists, formed in 1988. Public awareness of climate change gave the IPCC's work unaccustomed importance and fueled the intensity of the closed-door negotiations during the five-day meeting.

"The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

At the final session, the conference snagged over a sentence that said the impact of climate change already were being observed on every continent and in most oceans.

"There is very high confidence that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases," said the statement on the first page of text.

But China insisted on striking the word "very," injecting doubt into what the scientists argued were indisputable observations. The report's three authors refused to go along with the change, resulting in an hours-long deadlock that was broken by a U.S. compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.

It is the second of four reports from the IPCC this year; the first report in February laid out the scientific case for how global warming is happening. This second report is the "so what" report, explaining what the effects of global warming will be.

For the first time, the scientists broke down their predictions into regions, and forecast that climate change will affect billions of people.

North America will experience more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. It can expect more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires, it said. Coasts will be swamped by rising sea levels. In the short term, crop yields may increase by 5 percent to 20 percent from a longer growing season, but will plummet if temperatures rise by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit. (Watch a worst-case scenario for U.S. cities )

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said.

Parts of Asia are threatened with massive flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Europe also will see its Alpine glaciers disappear. Australia's Great Barrier Reef will lose much of its coral to bleaching from even moderate increases in sea temperatures, the report said.

Separately, an independent organization that keeps tabs on glacial melting in Austria's Alps said its latest survey confirms that the ice sheets continue to shrink significantly and predicted most will vanish by the end of the century.

The Austrian Alpine Association said experts measured 105 of Austria's 925 glaciers last year and found they had receded by an average of 52 1/2 feet, with one of the sheets shrinking a dramatic 262 feet during 2006. (Watch how the effects of climate change could hurt the Great Barrier Reef )

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 09:11:14 am
Merlin, I can sincerely say that I have never been emotional in any response I have ever given to you, that last one to me certainly sounded emotional with all those explanation points.

And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you.  Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are.  And, for the record, exclamation points are not just for showing emotion in the world of internet chats & blogs.  Many of us, who were educated prior to the blogospherical revolution remember that those punctuation marks are used for emphasis and vigorous - forthright delivery.  If we are to use your understanding of punctuation usage as a yardstick, I assume that things have changed.  I still remember what my English Literature teacher taught me in 11th grade:  "Stridency is seldom approved in speech, best to let your words convey your points; use punctuation to make them clear."


I have yet to see a skeptic do more than poke holes in scientific data which is usually changing as new data arises.  With that new data, nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening. I have seen some crazy alternative theories, like the Mars one printed earlier, but it isn't accepted by the general scientitific community. As for the 30+ you know, I have no information on your private circle, but I am sure you know that no scientific theory has ever excaped complete criticsm.

But again - you glaze over a pertinent point, you create a 'paper tiger' to destroy and completely ignore the major point being made.  To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not.  But then you go on to say that "nothing has arisen to suggest that global warming isn't happening" - that's the 'paper tiger', since I am not suggesting that GW isn't happening, nor have I ever.  I'm sure that somewhere along the line you'll make another snide comment about my words and their meaning, but you cannot argue the point; never have I claimed that the planet's climate is not in a state of change.  My point all along has been that we cannot prove why it is happening, what the catalyst for the initial change was and what it will take to stop it.  We also cannot seem to make the connection between GW & GCC, therefore we insinuate, intimate and postulate...  Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.

You are correct - no scientific theory ever escapes criticism completely; scientific Laws do.  Some theories get less than others though, and those are the ones that, despite their inability to make perfectly accurate predictions - are close, consisent and remarkable.  Then there is the Standard Model of GW...  As a scientist working on the hypothesis in the beginning, we apologized for the fact that our predictions were all wrong and we went back to the drawing table.  We continued to refine our opinions and models until they started to make accurate predictions, but that only required little bits of influence from man, but still, the situation was a runaway model...  Nowadays, when monsoon, typhoon, hurricane and tornado seasons are down (not up), large swaths of the world's northern hemishpehere grows ice pack back and the rainy season in the South hemisphere dumps pre-1950s levels of precipitation (all contrary to the predictions) - they incorporate all of those anomolies into the press released rhetoric and shout "See - Told you GW was Manmade and Happening right now!"  They'll go on to say things like, "..arid areas are going to become even drier" or "wet areas are going to become wetter" or "costal erosion is going to increase" or "...the poorest of the world are going to have it worse than the rest."  PUHLEASE - that's no prediction.  Any idiot can see that those "guesses" are easy to make since the most arid areas on the planet have been steadily growing for the past 2,000 years.  Costal erosion is a process we've been aware of for the past 5,000 years.  And finally, the poorest of the world have always had the most problems; in our "western" perception.  The poorest have a harder time (by our standards) because they have fewer resources to call upon to correct their living situation.  If they live on a coast, it's going to erode - if they live in a desert - it's not going to spontaneously erupt into a jungle.  Rhetoric is not science, and science is not being discussed here - rhetoric is.


I am not looking to portray you, or anyone in a negative light, however, I disagree with anyone who portrays scientists (who are simply presenting their findings in global warming) as emotional, alarmist, hysterical, whatever.  As for the "growing skepticsm," I don't see it, in fact, what I see is the scientific consensus firming up that industry (man) is responsible.

But your sentiment does not match your prior actions.  You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home.  Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response.  It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism.  You have consciously decided to respond negatively to all skepticism and criticism, probably by marginalizing its importance and rationalizing how it can never be true.  All based upon your own belief that you know the facts and the facts are as you know them.   Unlike you, I require that a theory (no matter how popular it is) provides evidence in support of itself - not build itself around observational evidence found laying in the middle of the floor. 

I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor).  He couldn't be bothered to climb off of his self-sacrificial cross long enough to even comprehend the question.  I'm used to it though - particularly with the emotionally driven supporters of a theory that they, themselves, do not understand.
              
       


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 09:56:25 am
Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.

This tactic has never worked for Byron, so I'm surprised that you would even bother; unless this was an attempt at humor...   Attempting to adopt my position so that you can switch with me, unfortunatley, requires that you ignore that I have been consisent throughout - and you have adopted every position available for tenancy on your side of the debate.  I suggest that - if you do not have a confident enough grasp of the facts or the underlying science you should stick with cutting and pasting from the internet.  Your sarcastic condescension is funny though  - don't think that humor was lost on me.   ;D

Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.

Your antics are so transparent - a little adolescent but with a hint of maturity.  You confuse your terms (using them inproperly in the context) which either means you are young or do not have as good a grasp of the language as you want us to believe.  To be passionate about something does not require one argues/debates emotionally.  One can certainly discuss a scientifically-based subject  passionately - without interjecting emotional material.  An prime example would be my incessant use of logic.  It is a ceaseless attempt to draw the subject away from the shouts of "Tragedy!" and back toward "Reality".  Like it or not, I have never portrayed a dire picture of what will happen if we do adopt the GW model.  I have never claimed that we are all doomed or that any continent, country, business, or individual will be adversely affected by adopting the Kyoto protocol or by curbing carbon emmissions.  Nay, I have done none of this.  On the other hand, how many times have you and your fellows adopted those very same issues as evidence in support?  That's right - you can say it...  I already know the answer.  Comparatively speaking, I have been a model of dispassionate response.  Keeping in mind that "doom & gloom" is never evidence - pro or con, I cannot imagine why it even comes up in the debate...  Oh, that's right, for "popularization" - I almost forgot what role Al Gore played in this whole debacle.

"Point is", I am passionate about the truth, the scientific method and most of all - what we are teaching today and it shows.  However, my replies are punctuated with emphasis - not emotion.  I hope you know understand the difference.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 07, 2007, 02:42:09 pm
Quote
And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you.  Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are. 


With respect, Merlin, you re not the person to lecture anyone on that.  An objective mind (as you claim to be) would arrive at the topic with no preconceived notions for or against global warming. You have clearly made your mind up against it, and no matter what information comes out, there apparently is no changing it.

Quote
To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not.

It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.


Quote
Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.

I disagree, and, as I am sure you are aware of, so does the vast majority of the scientific community. 

Quote
I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor).


Very difficult to have a scientific discussion if you can't at least have some graphs or cite some of the original research of scientists.  Why make an exception for humor, so apparently exceptions can be made to needle those who don't share the same beliefs?  That sounds a little immature.

Quote
But your sentiment does not match your prior actions.  You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home.  Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response. 


Hardly.  Big oil has been very much responsible for putting a lot of the propaganda out there, I have yet to see you acknowledge that fact. As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax.  Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress.  I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).

Quote
It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism.


Unlikely, I have simply not seen the growing skepticsm, nor any scientific reason for it other than people do not want to believe they are responsible.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 02:48:16 pm
Can someone unemotionally prove that what is asserted in this article is false?

I'd like to get this on the record first:  I don't personally have an issue with any aspect of the Prius or Toyota, in fact, I think any attempt to reduce fossil-fuel usage is a good thing.  I also recognize that NiMH is a huge improvement over NiCad in density and toxicity. 

Having said that, there's this:  http://www.sprol.com/?s=sudbury+basin (http://www.sprol.com/?s=sudbury+basin)  Sudbury, Ontario has been voted one of the worst places in the world due to the environmental disaster that the Inco copper and nickel mine have created.  This place kind of speaks for itself - whether or not Toyota is involved.

There is the issue of Netal Metal Hydride in the waste stream.  Though NiMH batteries are not considered hazardous waste they contain do contain “mild toxins” that will degrade in the solid waste stream and make themselves quite evident when incinerated (Battery Digest, 2001).  As the proliferation of them grow with popularity, this problem will only compound itself as the years of their use increases. 

Let's take a quick peek inside the battery itself:  In NiMH batteries, the anode consists of many different alloys of "metals", including V, Ti, La, Ce, Zr, Ni, Cr, Co, Pr, Nd and Fe - the cathode Nickel oxyhydroxide and the electrolyte is Potassium hydroxide.  Vanadium and its compounds are toxic, as are Chromium compounds, Neodymium, and Lanthanum.  Nickel sulfide areate and dust is recognized as being a probable carcinogen as well.  That's just taking a quick peek.  So, mining the materials for all of this must be a bit of a mess - but can you imagine the smelting and eventual manufacturing?

Though a great amount of the smelting discussed in the editorial from the Central Conneticut State University editorial (The Recorder) is in Canada, the author never really touches on the fact that the actual manufacturing process takes place in a country that has essentially ZERO health or environmental regulations.  Not wanting to sound "too passionate" about the subject, but I'd like to see just how the process is occuring in China before I give Toyota "a pass" on the battery issue.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 07, 2007, 03:18:17 pm
Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm
Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.

This tactic has never worked for Byron, so I'm surprised that you would even bother; unless this was an attempt at humor...

It wasn't, and I haven't even read enough of your debates with Byron to even know what you're referring to.

Quote
Attempting to adopt my position so that you can switch with me, unfortunatley, requires that you ignore that I have been consisent throughout - and you have adopted every position available for tenancy on your side of the debate.

If that is meant to elicit an emotional response from me, forget it. Consistent throughout?  You could say that.  You start out by saying that human beings are not responsible for global warming, cite the opinions of a few fellow scientists you know to back yourself up, and from there on, apparently feel you are free to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.  With respect, Merlin, that is not science, that is silliness.

 
Quote
I suggest that - if you do not have a confident enough grasp of the facts or the underlying science you should stick with cutting and pasting from the internet.  Your sarcastic condescension is funny though  - don't think that humor was lost on me.

I suggest you look back on my posts.  Very little of what I have said to you has been cut and pasted (with the exception of the graph to prove my point).  As for not having a confident grasp of the facts, well, as new science arises, the facts, do, at times, change, so no, I am afraid I don't have a grasp of all the facts, nor will I ever claim to. The difference between you and me is that I will, at least, admit that, your ego will apparently will never allow you to do the same.

Only a poor scientist will ever admit to having all the facts.  The evidence, though, points to human beings being responsible for global waming, as I said, that consensus is hardly getting out of fashion, but is firming up.


Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 02, 2007, 04:55:33 pm
Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.

Your antics are so transparent - a little adolescent but with a hint of maturity.  You confuse your terms (using them inproperly in the context) which either means you are young or do not have as good a grasp of the language as you want us to believe.

Hardly.

  
Quote
To be passionate about something does not require one argues/debates emotionally.  One can certainly discuss a scientifically-based subject  passionately - without interjecting emotional material.

Again, if what you suggest is "emotional material" the citing of all the money Big Oil has pumped into it's propaganda campaigns, or Imhofe's usage of the word, "hoax," then you are entitled to your beliefs.  Personally, as I said, that is simply a fact and it is now part of the historical record.  It is, however, no different than your numerous attempts to cite how much money Al Gore has made by alerting people to the dangers of global warming (which is, incidentally, only a fraction of what Big Oil has made during it's last few record setting quarters).

It is, frankly, impossible to have a debate on global warming without bringing in the consequences of what will happen if we do not act. Can we have a debate as to whether CO2 or some other agent is initiating global warming?  Yes we can, but I have yet to see any credible alternate hypothesis emerge, and, as the graph shows (though the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated), it's apparent that the two are linked. The fact that CO2 leads most of the time would seem to close the case as to what is responsible, as well as what will happen (eventually) if we do not act, based on past climate models.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 04:04:10 pm
With respect, Merlin, you re not the person to lecture anyone on that.  An objective mind (as you claim to be) would arrive at the topic with no preconceived notions for or against global warming. You have clearly made your mind up against it, and no matter what information comes out, there apparently is no changing it.

Wrong - try something new...  Try reading.  I was in support of it, then I changed my mind.  Beyond that - even in this forum I have been asked:  "What would change your mind?"  I have answered specifically, consistently and honestly.  If you choose to ignore that, then the problem is yours - not mine.  Evidence, logic and the proper application of the scientific method is all it takes.

It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.

Wrong - that chart does not show that.  It is a macroscopic sampling that has an error rate larger than its precision.  The four times I am referring to are not anomolies - they are trends, and they are not included (per se specifically) on that chart.  Those four periods are mined from other, more precise, data sets consisting of dendochronological and ice core samples (including other Vostok cores).  Are you aware that there is very much more that leads and lags the temperature and Co2  emissions?  How about deuterium concentrations?  It's kind of eerie that the emissions seem to follow so closely to deuterium...  Like they were linked! 

(http://serc.carleton.edu/images/usingdata/datasheets/vostokicecoreda.jpg)

I disagree, and, as I am sure you are aware of, so does the vast majority of the scientific community. 

You are allowed to do that in this country.  As for the majority - well, I don't mind being in a smaller, more friendly environment where the masses are moving away; it's cozy here - and quiet.

Very difficult to have a scientific discussion if you can't at least have some graphs or cite some of the original research of scientists.  Why make an exception for humor, so apparently exceptions can be made to needle those who don't share the same beliefs?  That sounds a little immature.

Who cares how it sounds to you?  Are you really so miserable that humor cannot be allowed into a debate; particularly when it is most often applied to make fun of one's self when we make mistakes?  You don't strike me as such, but your exclusion of humor appears foreign to me.  And why should I post graphs & data in the Inconvenient Truth Thread?  We're debating the validity of a popularizing documentary about a highly complex scientific issue written by a former V.P. that's a lawyer.  If this were a real - scientific thread, seeking to actually accomplish something I would be a man-possessed  with graphics, charts and data galore.  That's exactly what I was suggesting, but so far, two of the biggest GW/GCC fans have not taken the bait.  I can only surmise that it is because you do not feel comfortable with having to have a science-based discussion where cuts & pastes are disallowed and you cannot reference news sources or blogs.  That takes away 90+% of the postings in this thread, leaving only the ones discussing the procedural issues, logic and the personal opinions (most of which would be removed at an academic site).  I wonder.... Will you be the one to "take me to task"?

Hardly.  Big oil has been very much responsible for putting a lot of the propaganda out there, I have yet to see you acknowledge that fact.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough when I said:  "I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry."  Otherwise, I have not acknowledged it specifically because it matters nought to me - I'm not associated with them and I don't know anyone who is.  If it makes you feel better though, I'll say the words:  The Oil Industry and the current Administration have played fast and loose with the facts - just like Al Gore did, but for their own [opposite] agenda.  That agenda would be to refute the idea that GW or GCC are happening at all; of which I have never subscribed to.

As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax.  Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress.  I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).

I'm lost here...  You are claiming facts in evidence for something we aren't discussing.  You are off on a tangent and I cannot tell why, so allow me to drop some bread crumbs so that you may find your way back. 

Anyway - You have used the term "hoax" more than once (to be sure), however, the most recent one had nothing to do with Inhofe.  I think I made my opinion of him and his actions clear.  I'm certain that I made my thoughts on his "case" known as well.  Now, as for the use of the offending term - allow me to refresh your memory:

Quote from:  YOU
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."  

I do notice that you are introducing another "emotional term" into the discussion while arguing against doing so with the term "hoax" or "Big Oil".  It is "conservative".  I'm surprised that you didn't revert to the more hysterical "Neo-Conservative conspiracy" term, but I credit you for noticing that that would have only highlighted my point.  Why bother trying to label things?  Why not just let the chips fall where they may?

Since you brought it up - are you certain that it is only conservatives who think GW / GCC is a "hoax" that are critical of Gore's personal life?  You should check your facts.  Beyond that, Al brought it on himself by preaching that we should all do our very best, while living in a pallacial estate that consumes huge sums of energy - all while proclaiming to be "carbon neutral".  It's a joke - a farce and a gag to accept that.  But, keep in mind, I'm the one who credited him in the other thread (AL GORE - Oscar Award Winner) for converting his stance into gold.  I even took my hat off to him. 

Unlikely, I have simply not seen the growing skepticsm, nor any scientific reason for it other than people do not want to believe they are responsible.

Exactly as I stated.  You couldn't have made my point any more clearly for me.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
Quote
Wrong - try something new...  Try reading.  I was in support of it, then I changed my mind.  Beyond that - even in this forum I have been asked:  "What would change your mind?"  I have answered specifically, consistently and honestly.  If you choose to ignore that, then the problem is yours - not mine.  Evidence, logic and the proper application of the scientific method is all it takes.

With respect, Merlin, people do not need to know your entire history nor lfie story in order to debate you. As for the scientific evidence, there has been very little new information that casts doubt on the idea that human beings aren't behind global warming.  I agree that there are some questions raised by data occasionally that need to be answered, but questions about the data do not invalidate all the trends  altogether, unless, of course, one has already developed a bias against it.   

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 02:42:09 pm
It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.

Wrong - that chart does not show that. 


Really, it doesn't say that?  Let's have another look:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg/800px-)

The blue line is CO2, the red one, of course, temps. As we can see once again, CO2, for the most part, leads.

Quote
Are you aware that there is very much more that leads and lags the temperature and Co2  emissions?  How about deuterium concentrations?  It's kind of eerie that the emissions seem to follow so closely to deuterium...  Like they were linked!


There are many other factors that both raise and cool the planet, but deuterium is a red herring. As I said just because CO2 causes global warming, it isn't the only factor that causes global warming, the relationship is complicated.  You are assuming a straight line where all the weather changes of the earth are caused by simply oine thing and it doesn't work like that.

Quote
Who cares how it sounds to you?  Are you really so miserable that humor cannot be allowed into a debate; particularly when it is most often applied to make fun of one's self when we make mistakes?


That's another red herring.  As for using humor to make fun of one's self, I have yet to see you do that. Most of the humor I have seen you use is to either make fun of Al Gore or the people you or the people debating you. Personally, I don't find that either constructive of informative, but hey, if you need to do that to make a point, no one is stopping you. Don't expect me to do the same in return, whenever possible, I prefer to take the high ground.

Quote
I can only surmise that it is because you do not feel comfortable with having to have a science-based discussion where cuts & pastes are disallowed and you cannot reference news sources or blogs.  That takes away 90+% of the postings in this thread, leaving only the ones discussing the procedural issues, logic and the personal opinions (most of which would be removed at an academic site).  I wonder.... Will you be the one to "take me to task"?

You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on Today at 02:42:09 pm
As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax.  Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress.  I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).

I'm lost here...  You are claiming facts in evidence for something we aren't discussing.  You are off on a tangent and I cannot tell why, so allow me to drop some bread crumbs so that you may find your way back. 


You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.


Quote
Anyway - You have used the term "hoax" more than once (to be sure), however, the most recent one had nothing to do with Inhofe.  I think I made my opinion of him and his actions clear.  I'm certain that I made my thoughts on his "case" known as well.  Now, as for the use of the offending term - allow me to refresh your memory:


Quote from:  YOU
Quote from: Jason on Today at 11:05:04 am
I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

I do notice that you are introducing another "emotional term" into the discussion while arguing against doing so with the term "hoax" or "Big Oil".  It is "conservative".  I'm surprised that you didn't revert to the more hysterical "Neo-Conservative conspiracy" term, but I credit you for noticing that that would have only highlighted my point.  Why bother trying to label things?  Why not just let the chips fall where they may?

I'm sure I used the word, "hoax," more than once here. Jerry Falwell thinks it's a hoax, too.  The term is perfectly applicable to the discussion as the idea that global warming is a "hoax," has been propagated by anyone from the likes of (at one time or another) Imhofe, Falwell, Michael Crighton, among many, many others. You suggest that my usage of the word is to elicit emotionalism into the debate. Years from now, it will be part of the historical record that people like these considered it a "hoax."

As for possible usage of the term, "neo-con" and labelling, well, people are on the other side of the debate are labelled "environmentalists."  It doesn't make sense that one side has a name, while the other side doesn't.  Your wording:

Quote
"more hysterical "Neo-Conservative conspiracy" term

Certainly seems to elicit emotionalism, though, especially that word, "hysterical."  I try and stay away from derogatory terms whenever possible.


Quote
are you certain that it is only conservatives who think GW / GCC is a "hoax" that are critical of Gore's personal life?  You should check your facts. 


The vast majority are conservatives, let's face facts: people are never in perfect agreement on anything.

Quote
Beyond that, Al brought it on himself by preaching that we should all do our very best, while living in a pallacial estate that consumes huge sums of energy - all while proclaiming to be "carbon neutral".  It's a joke - a farce and a gag to accept that.


As I understand it, the reason why his utility bills are high is because he is using green energy, which costs more.  He is also getting solar panels put in his house and drives a hybrid, but that's beside the point.  This attack on Al Gore is the exact same thing that you are accusing others of doing to divert attention, except that is is made by you. 

Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 05:29:16 pm
It wasn't, and I haven't even read enough of your debates with Byron to even know what you're referring to.

We'll have to take your word for that then.

You start out by saying that human beings are not responsible for global warming, cite the opinions of a few fellow scientists you know to back yourself up, and from there on, apparently feel you are free to insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.  With respect, Merlin, that is not science, that is silliness.

Wrong again.  I never said any such thing.  What I said, and have said consistently is that, "The proof for that assertion does not exist."  Keep the facts straight - it's easier to remember them that way.  I do not, nor have I insulted you or anyone else who disagrees with me.  That's just purely an emotional response to being told you aren't consistent.  I forgive your silliness.

I suggest you look back on my posts.  Very little of what I have said to you has been cut and pasted (with the exception of the graph to prove my point).  As for not having a confident grasp of the facts, well, as new science arises, the facts, do, at times, change, so no, I am afraid I don't have a grasp of all the facts, nor will I ever claim to. The difference between you and me is that I will, at least, admit that, your ego will apparently will never allow you to do the same.

Wrong again.  I have, in here and elsewhere, admitted many errors.  I make them.  The difference between us has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with experience.  The most obvious side effect to more experience (on my behalf) is that I do not engage in discussions that I do not know a hell of a lot about; take note of the few threads I do participate in.  In this case, I participate in two formal scientific/academic forums - both of which are the primary reason for why I am completely up-to-date on the latest information.  They are also the reason why I was able to read the IPCC report long before it was issued and how I know that the models, simulations and predictions are all incorrect.  This is also how I know that the retrodictions invalidate the theory.  I'm here to learn and educate, and I think you have the potential to be a good debater Jason, but for the time being, you shouldn't leap to conclusions without first packing a chute.

As for looking back at your posts - you should re-read what I said.  I did not accuse you of anything specific.  Go ahead - re-read it without a preconceived notion and take a look at all of the posts that surround yours and mine.

Only a poor scientist will ever admit to having all the facts.  

And I suppose that this is your left-handed way of accusing me of acting as such?  I'm sure there is a famous saying in there somewhere - but I think you missed it.

The evidence, though, points to human beings being responsible for global waming, as I said, that consensus is hardly getting out of fashion, but is firming up.

The evidence that is being spoon-fed to the public certainly does.  But you are mistaken to think that there are more scientists moving toward it than away...  This goes back to the discussion earlier - you aren't seeing what you don't want to see.

It is, however, no different than your numerous attempts to cite how much money Al Gore has made by alerting people to the dangers of global warming (which is, incidentally, only a fraction of what Big Oil has made during it's last few record setting quarters).

Excuse me??  Do you have me confused with someone else?  My attempts to credit Al with making a profit are as offered - credit where credit is due.  Do not portray my motives as your own - I do not see demons in every dark alley and I do not have a boogeyman under my bed.  Not everything is a conspiracy to defraud or slander.  As you say, "it's a matter of public record" - Al has profitted from this process and I'd pat him on the back if he were here - not rub his nose in it.

It is, frankly, impossible to have a debate on global warming without bringing in the consequences of what will happen if we do not act.

I agree that the results of inaction in any discussion are a point of contention, however, I disagree that they are paramount to a disussion.  Quite frankly, this thread has been mostly a lot of rhetoric about the consequences - not the evidence; that's what makes it an emotional (vs. scientific) discussion. 

Can we have a debate as to whether CO2 or some other agent is initiating global warming?  Yes we can, but I have yet to see any credible alternate hypothesis emerge, and, as the graph shows (though the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated), it's apparent that the two are linked.

You do realize that the charts run in reverse don't you?  They run left to right, and the temperature fluctations noticeably precede CO2.  Furthermore, recent work has tended to show that deglaciation CO2 increases lags temperature increases by about 600 years.  This and other observations of the surface and subsurface activity during the creation of the samples conceals much of the information we hope to get from them.  I suggest that you spend some time looking at the information contained in the following links:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html)
http://serc.carleton.edu/usingdata/datasheets/Vostok_IceCore.html (http://serc.carleton.edu/usingdata/datasheets/Vostok_IceCore.html)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/662?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=the+evolution+of+climate+over+the+last++&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/662?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=the+evolution+of+climate+over+the+last++&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html)

The information at most of these sites is very detailed and requires patient determination to get through.  You will not find a "smoking gun" in bold print, highlighted and flashing neon; you'll need to read and comprehend.  If you look at the information critically, and assume an unbiased approach, you'll see that the precision is really quite weak.  Most of the information given also admits that the system of trapping the airbubbles in the ice is really not understood well at all.  Surface and subsurface interactions are a serious wild-card and deglaciation events (watch the temp. swings) confound much of the oxygen, carbon, methane and nitrogen readings.  It also goes on to say that the temperature derivations are "best guesses" based on prediction model that the temperature 'would have followed' CO2.  Like it or not - that's circular logic at worst - an assumption at best.  You can choose to trust my experience of not - it doesn't matter to me, but I've been 'here' before and I recognize all of the same signs as when I was 'here' last.  Much of this science is based on assumption and it only takes 1 or 2 to be wrong for the whole thing to be turned on its ear; hence why I reserve judgement in the absence of irrefutable evidence for a mechanism or active model.

The fact that CO2 leads most of the time would seem to close the case as to what is responsible, as well as what will happen (eventually) if we do not act, based on past climate models.

Actually it doesn't, but I covered that above.  Even if it did, it would still be anecdotal evidence that could, at best, be a clue - not evidence. 

All-in-all, you admit that you do not understand a bit of this and you further acknowledge just how complicated this is.  That's a good start.  For the heck of it, let's assume that temps. did follow CO2 - what next?  Why did the carbon increase in the past?  Why does methane not follow either carbon or temp?  Why does deuterium seem to precede carbon and follow temp.?  And then there's nitrogen...  It does its own thing altogether - like elemental formaldehyde absorption of ozone. 

As I have said a number of times - if we plug all of these (and many more) variables in our computer models, it shows temperature being artificially controlled (unknown heating), leading the process with methane slowly ramping up, carbon following linearly (but lagging a bit) until saturation points are achieved.  At that point we have historic level increases in nitrogen and formaldehyde.  Ozone is the next to collapse and then absorption grows again.  We wind up with graphs quite similar to the graph you posted.  On the other hand, if we artificially kick start the process by "mysteriously" increasing carbon (replicating mankind's influence) we have to achieve levels of carbon a hundred times higher than current levels in order to net a temp increase of 1oC.  Unfortunately, carbon levels a hundred times higher than today would change our entire existence.  This model also predicts that the world's oceans would have dissipated that heat immediately.  Like I said - the models don't work.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 07, 2007, 06:35:11 pm
With respect, Merlin, people do not need to know your entire history nor lfie story in order to debate you. As for the scientific evidence, there has been very little new information that casts doubt on the idea that human beings aren't behind global warming.  I agree that there are some questions raised by data occasionally that need to be answered, but questions about the data do not invalidate all the trends  altogether, unless, of course, one has already developed a bias against it. 

You made the claim - I answered.  If you kept up with the discussion you would have understood the answer.    

Really, it doesn't say that?  Let's have another look:

Nope, it still doesn't.  Keep trying.

There are many other factors that both raise and cool the planet, but deuterium is a red herring. As I said just because CO2 causes global warming, it isn't the only factor that causes global warming, the relationship is complicated.  You are assuming a straight line where all the weather changes of the earth are caused by simply oine thing and it doesn't work like that.

There you go again...  I'm assuming nothing and I acutually do understand the complexity...  Apparently you don't see the significance of deuterium - it was a test to see if you would bother researching or just dismiss it out-of-hand.  You've made my point; thanks. 

That's another red herring.  As for using humor to make fun of one's self, I have yet to see you do that. Most of the humor I have seen you use is to either make fun of Al Gore or the people you or the people debating you. Personally, I don't find that either constructive of informative, but hey, if you need to do that to make a point, no one is stopping you. Don't expect me to do the same in return, whenever possible, I prefer to take the high ground.

You do know what a "Red Herring" means - don't you?  Well - let's assume that you do.  You are insinuating that I am inserting evidence or commentary to refute or switch the discussion.  Since I remained on topic both times, we can eliminate the "direction change" - leaving only the "refutation".  So, all we need to do is go back through the thread and find out where I used humor to make fun of AL or other people and compare it with the many times I have used humor for other reasons...  Like - to make people laugh, even at my own expense.  I'll let you handle that part, I already know the answer.  Here's a hint:  I know that I'm my own worst critic.    ;D

You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

You too have a future in politics - you avoided answering that question completely.  You even went so far as to try and cast dispersions about my motives!  Transparent - but well done.  That now make three of you who are unwilling to demonstrate your GW/GCC knowledge and understanding in a format that is limited to only knowledge the poster possesses and not their ability to cut & paste bone.  I'm speaking figuratively of course, since you provide only scientific data and have only cut & pasted a graph or two.  I was actually thinking that you might be the one to take me up on the offer.  C'est la vie.

You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.

No you aren't, now your just being evasive and argumentative. 

I'm sure I used the word, "hoax," more than once here. Jerry Falwell thinks it's a hoax, too.  The term is perfectly applicable to the discussion as the idea that global warming is a "hoax," has been propagated by anyone from the likes of (at one time or another) Imhofe, Falwell, Michael Crighton, among many, many others. You suggest that my usage of the word is to elicit emotionalism into the debate. Years from now, it will be part of the historical record that people like these considered it a "hoax."

And wouldn't it be a hoot if the newspapers read, "Though not a 'Hoax' as the skeptics of the 21st claimed, the gradual warming of the Earth due to gravitational and magnetosphere variations appears to be finally coming to an end."

As for possible usage of the term, "neo-con" and labelling, well, people are on the other side of the debate are labelled "environmentalists."  It doesn't make sense that one side has a name, while the other side doesn't.

I disagree - I am labelled an environmentalist by everyone who knows me or encounters me riding my bike to work in the rain & snow, filling my Rabbit-diesel up with McD's french-fry grease or carrying my lunch in a paper sack with that big goofy green symbol on the side.  Besides - "Neo-con" has nothing to do with the GW/GCC debate - it's a political term in its own right.

Your wording:

{snip}

Certainly seems to elicit emotionalism, though, especially that word, "hysterical."  I try and stay away from derogatory terms whenever possible.

Funny - it was you who used it first (we just had this discussion).  I was using it as a means of tipping my hat to you.   ;)

The vast majority are conservatives, let's face facts: people are never in perfect agreement on anything.

Much better - I'll agree with that.

As I understand it, the reason why his utility bills are high is because he is using green energy, which costs more.  He is also getting solar panels put in his house and drives a hybrid, but that's beside the point.  This attack on Al Gore is the exact same thing that you are accusing others of doing to divert attention, except that is is made by you. 

???  I didn't say anything about how much he pays - I commented on how much he consumed.  If he were using the National average of 10-11,000 annual Kw and paying through the nose for it, I would pat him on the butt and tell him, "Good job buddy - way to live the life."  But here are the real facts:  221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006.  More than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.  They have a 20 room mansion, and they both work out of their house - that's their excuse.  Then they begin talking about "footprints"...

Look, it isn't my intention to beat up on the guy for livin' large, I was just saying that he brought it on himself by doing so and preaching otherwise.  Once he puts up solar power cells and replaces every incandecent bulb w/ a compact flourescent one, he'll be about halfway to what my family has been doing for years.  I'd like to see him on a bike, using recycled materials more, driving less, flying less and supporting more local 'renewable source' strategies.  Until his REAL USAGE, not his arbitrary "carbon footprint" becomes "neutral", the critics will hound him.

Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.

It's gaining more popularity - not evidence, and I don't care what the public comes to believe.  Popularization is the archenemy to truth in most cases.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 08, 2007, 02:08:15 am
Quote
You made the claim - I answered.  If you kept up with the discussion you would have understood the answer. 
   

The answer being, while you claim to have once been a believer in global warming,  now you are not, which makes clear that you have a bias. Nothing hard to understand about that.

Quote
There you go again...  I'm assuming nothing and I acutually do understand the complexity...

That's what you say, and yet I see no proof of that.

Quote
Apparently you don't see the significance of deuterium

Because there isn't any.  I have read a lot of global warming papers and not one has cited it as a major factor.

Quote
- it was a test to see if you would bother researching or just dismiss it out-of-hand.  You've made my point; thanks.
 

Actually, I did research it.  Had I found something of value, I would have added something to the discussion about it.  You have, yourself, several times, dismissed my point about the complex relationship between CO2 and temps, though, once again, proving that you are not objective.  In your own verbiage, thanks for proving my point, thanks. 

Quote
You do know what a "Red Herring" means - don't you?  Well - let's assume that you do.  You are insinuating that I am inserting evidence or commentary to refute or switch the discussion.  Since I remained on topic both times, we can eliminate the "direction change" - leaving only the "refutation".

Actually, you are trying to switch the discussion, Merlin.  When you aren't bringing up things that don't even remotely apply (Flat Earth Theory, for instance), you are bringing things up that science is not supporting as a factor (deuterium).  Then, when none of that works, you either attempt to insult the person you are debating or talk down to them, all weak tactics.

Quote
So, all we need to do is go back through the thread and find out where I used humor to make fun of AL or other people and compare it with the many times I have used humor for other reasons...  Like - to make people laugh, even at my own expense.


Very little of that, very much joking at Gore's expense, though, as I remember.


Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You are welcome to post whatever you want in this thread, I assume, just as Bee, Brandon, Allison or whoever are also free to post whatever they like.  What I dont understand is why you even want to puit contraints on the other posters.  I don't see anyone advocating putting constraints on you - meaning you can have a scientitic discussion as well as discuss the movie and all the latest GW news as well.

You too have a future in politics - you avoided answering that question completely.  You even went so far as to try and cast dispersions about my motives!  Transparent - but well done.  That now make three of you who are unwilling to demonstrate your GW/GCC knowledge and understanding in a format that is limited to only knowledge the poster possesses and not their ability to cut & paste bone.


Again, you want to set new parameters for the debate, seemingly excluding graphs, global warming news, reports, and opinion while you (wanting to retain your ability to make jokes), would no doubt continue to make light of Gore and the people you are debating to your heart's content.  You are actually the one being transparent here, Merlin.  If you want to bring up some scientific points here, Merlin, by all means, go ahead, no one is stopping you.  You certainly didn't have that type of discussion in the other forum, so I don't know why you are so insistent upon only having it here.

As for the rest of us demonstrating global warming knowledge, by that I imagine you mean, be supportive of your view of the data.  If that happens to be your criteria, than I imagine you will, of course, be disappointed, irregardless.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
You were the one that claimed that words like "Big Oil" and "Hoax" were meant to create a more emotional debate, so I couldn't imagine why you were "lost" when I gave you the reasons why I elaborated why they should be a part of the discussion.  I suppose that I'm lost as to why you are lost.

No you aren't, now your just being evasive and argumentative. 


Hardly, I thought I gave a pretty fair explanation.

Quote
And wouldn't it be a hoot if the newspapers read, "Though not a 'Hoax' as the skeptics of the 21st claimed, the gradual warming of the Earth due to gravitational and magnetosphere variations appears to be finally coming to an end."

Yes, especially as neither has even been cited as a cause.

I'm going to skip the Gore stuff cause I frankly think it's silly to keep debating his electric bills.

Quote
Quote from: Jason on April 07, 2007, 05:17:48 pm
Ultimately, if your gripes is that the science hasn't proven that humans are behind global warming, then I'm sure that will be played out and eventually become known to the public.  But the theory (gathering steam for the last thirty years) is only gaining more credence, not less.

It's gaining more popularity - not evidence, and I don't care what the public comes to believe.  Popularization is the archenemy to truth in most cases.
 
 

It's gaining more popularity because of the movie.  The recent scientific data has only enhanced the central theory.  The data would be even more dire were it not constantly being edited by bureaucrats.








Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 08, 2007, 02:55:17 am
Quote
Wrong again.  I never said any such thing.  What I said, and have said consistently is that, "The proof for that assertion does not exist."  Keep the facts straight - it's easier to remember them that way.  I do not, nor have I insulted you or anyone else who disagrees with me.  That's just purely an emotional response to being told you aren't consistent.  I forgive your silliness.

You crack me up, Merlin. I imagine that, to you, "silliness, " is not an insult, too?  The hypocrisy is so shameless here that one can cut it with a knife.

The proof certainly exists that the world is warming up.  Here is another graph that shows the CO2/temperature Vosktok Ice core correlation (CO2, again, being the part in blue):

(http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif)

You mentioned four other time periods where CO2 lagged, it did not follow,  All that proved was that CO2 was not the instigator of those warming trends. Warming trends take about 5000 years to complete.  As I said, there is a lag time when it comes to CO2, and even though it may not have been the instigator, it certainly did function as an amplifier to the warming taking place, most likey being responsible for 5/6 of even those warming trends. As I said, the relationship between CO2 and temps is complex.

Quote
Wrong again.  I have, in here and elsewhere, admitted many errors.  I make them.  The difference between us has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with experience.  The most obvious side effect to more experience (on my behalf) is that I do not engage in discussions that I do not know a hell of a lot about; take note of the few threads I do participate in.


If you are suggesting that I am not acquainted with this subject, you are entitled to your opinion (mistaken though it is). From the way it looks to me, you are simply of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your own point of view doesn't know what they are talking about which is, you'll excuse me, a completely self-centered, narcissistic point of view.

And you can have it, too. The day I have to belittle someone's intelligence during a debate is the day I will know I am in the wrong. 


Quote
In this case, I participate in two formal scientific/academic forums - both of which are the primary reason for why I am completely up-to-date on the latest information.  They are also the reason why I was able to read the IPCC report long before it was issued and how I know that the models, simulations and predictions are all incorrect.  This is also how I know that the retrodictions invalidate the theory. 


We only have your word that they are incorrect.  Since you have made clear that you have a certain bias on the subject, I am not even certain we can trust your interpretation of the data.  In any event, if the case for global warming were getting weaker, we would actually be seeing hints of that with each new report being released.  It's not there, if anything, the predictions are getting more dire. The lack of scientific disagreement in the press (for, at least the last ten years now) speaks volumes. 

Quote
The evidence that is being spoon-fed to the public certainly does.  But you are mistaken to think that there are more scientists moving toward it than away...  This goes back to the discussion earlier - you aren't seeing what you don't want to see.

There isn't any evidence of that either. 

Quote
All-in-all, you admit that you do not understand a bit of this and you further acknowledge just how complicated this is.  That's a good start. 


And I never said that either, I said the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated, I have always said that, at the old forum and at this one.  Again, you seem to think that climate works only in a linear progression, with either one factor affectiing temps and only one, and that is simply not the case.  I'm really getting a bit tired of explaining this.

Quote
On the other hand, if we artificially kick start the process by "mysteriously" increasing carbon (replicating mankind's influence) we have to achieve levels of carbon a hundred times higher than current levels in order to net a temp increase of 1oC.  Unfortunately, carbon levels a hundred times higher than today would change our entire existence.  This model also predicts that the world's oceans would have dissipated that heat immediately.  Like I said - the models don't work.

Yes, they do work, the oceans have risen in degrees (causing coral reef to be dying off), you keep ignoring the lag time, you're using only a small sampling of years.  Believe what you want, though, it's apparently a free country. If you believe there are errors in the new data and that scientists are lining up to follow the skeptic position, my advice would be to stop talking about it and make yourselves known to the press. You are certainly not doing any good talking among yourselves.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 08, 2007, 03:00:15 am
(http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/klim_img/CO2_T_Vostok1.gif)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 08, 2007, 03:01:17 am
(http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/klim_img/CO2_T_Vostok2.gif)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 08, 2007, 03:02:15 am
(http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/klim_img/CO2_dD_Taylor.gif)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Bee Cha on April 08, 2007, 03:03:12 am
(http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/klim_img/10Be_dD_Taylor.gif)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Metatron on April 08, 2007, 10:58:37 am
Politics Waters Down IPCC Climate Disaster Report

Written by: Elaine McKewon



Some scientists who helped produce the latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have said that the science was watered down to appease government representatives involved in approving the final draft of the report.

 

Even in its softened version, Friday’s report forecasts scenarios over the coming decades that many find unthinkable: three billion people without adequate water supply, agriculture and forests decimated around the globe, melted glaciers and ice sheets, one-third of the world’s species driven to extinction and major global regions ravaged by floods, violent storms and storm surges. The report also forecasts an unprecedented environmental refugee crisis as major populations get displaced. 

The report confirmed that the hardest-hit nations will be poor developing countries who lack the resources to adapt to climate change, not the industrialized economies who have produced the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions that led to the crisis. Poor regions within wealthy countries may also be left more vulnerable to climate change. The future of New Orleans, which was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, may well depend upon federal assistance to construct Category 5 levees and restore the marshlands along Louisiana’s southern coastline.

Owing to the gravity of the findings, and the urgent need for governments to take action, some scientists have found the political mitigation unacceptable.

“The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game,” said John Walsh, professor of climate change and chief scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ International Arctic Research Center, who co-authored the report’s chapter on polar regions and vowed never to help produce another IPCC report.

The IPCC reports are consensus documents written by the world’s leading climate scientists, yet every effort is made to convince governments around the world to adopt the reports prior to their release. This political reconciliation process has resulted in a softening of some of the scientific findings as drafts are finalized.

Yet other scientists argue that the right balance was struck between science and politics, and that getting governments on-side before the document’s release bolsters the ability of the report to get policy makers to take action to combat climate change. 

Joel Smith, former deputy of the US Environmental Protection Agency told the PBS NewsHour, “The report is actually adopted by the governments that participated in this meeting line by line. So they get to work with us on the science. So they can’t just simply say, ‘It is a report of the scientists,’ and walk away from it. They have bought into it.”

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, agreed with Mr Smith that the political process led to a more effective result. He also emphasized that scientists retained the right of veto.

“It's informative,” said Professor Oppenheimer on NewsHour. “It lays out for governments, what are the vulnerabilities? Where are there going to be changes that they have to get prepared to be ready to adapt to? Where are there changes to society, like in agriculture or health, that are so threatening, that they ought to cut emissions in order to avoid those sorts of changes?”

In May, the next report of the IPCC will recommend policies and economic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While the scientific community is all but universally united behind the IPCC consensus, there will almost certainly be further political wrangling before the recommendations are implemented in some countries, including the United States. 

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and now its ranking Republican, told Fox News, “The IPCC process more closely resembles a Democrat or Republican Party convention platform battle over the specific wording of an issue plank, not a scientific process.” He added, “the latest IPCC summary will surely spawn another round of media alarmism and hype.” Senator Inhofe once famously labeled climate change “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.

Yet the new head of the environment committee, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), hit back: “This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all.” Senator Boxer has held six hearings on climate change since taking over the helm in January and has now invited the Bush administration to respond to last week’s US Supreme Court decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It is not yet clear how the Bush administration will respond.

The Bush administration, which has been accused of routinely censoring climate change reports produced by US government scientists, has so far maintained that it will not cap greenhouse gas emissions and will not participate in the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush walked away from the protocol in 2001, saying that it would “wreck” the US economy and was unfair because it did not impose stringent enough controls on developing countries.

Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee will also hold a hearing on April 17 to review the IPCC’s findings. Committee chair Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said the report packed a “powerful and sobering message” and that governments need to act now to reduce the vulnerability of their most at-risk communities.

“For the first time, the world’s top scientists are able to confidently attribute changes in a wide variety of ecosystems in all parts of the world to human-induced global warming,” said Mr Gordon in a statement. “We can neutralize some of the impact by better adapting our society to these changes. We should identify our vulnerable communities and begin working to reduce these vulnerabilities.”




I think someone predicted that this was going to happen, even in the face of global support for the theory, they still decided to "edit its content".  I think we scientists should get to walk into the UN and begin throwing out all of the meaningless laws from the rulings just like how they throw all of the science out of the decisions.  Bastards...



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Metatron on April 08, 2007, 12:43:45 pm
Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.  You should listen (read) more and make an attempt to understand something very important:  An issue this complex can not be taught to you by the press.  They don't understand it any better than you, so how can they teach you anything other than the emotional (hysterical) viewpoint?  That aspect is the only thing the press can share since the science is too boring to translate into a news story.  By default, the media will never have correct information available.  Contributors like Tom, Brooke, Zaphod, I Am and Merl are very good about stripping the problem down to its core, exposing the hype and making it easy to understand.  You should pay more attention to that.  My political science professor used to reiterate that,  "Hysteria and hype are clothing, so getting to the truth is like making love - you have to get her (him) naked first."

First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

Deuterium concentrations in the ice core samples are no more a Red Herring than temperature variations are, and to say that they are means that you have absolutely no grasp in the process or a desire to look at it.  And, to say that 'I did research it and found nothing' is either BS or means that you misspelled something.  Just Googling deuterium in vostok ice core returns 19,100 hits, the first of which explains why it is important to understand.  You are lucky, I would have made it harder on you by asking you to explain the significance of all the measurements of deuterium concentrations, oxygen isotope compositions, isotopic composition of O2 and N2, N20 levels and isotopic composition, sodium ion concentrations, CO2 and methane levels, and 14C concentrations.  Deuterium or 2H is different from regular hydrogen in that it has picked up a neutron.  It occurs naturally as 2H2 or D2, but it also is a side-effect to another process that causes it to bond to oxygen and create heavy water D2O.  That's what he was probably trying to draw your attention to.  Once you understand why it happens you'll get an idea of why the measurements and graphs don't say what you think they say.  Simple chemistry that can be explained at Wikipedia if you like. 

You also missed the part where he pointed out the lag in measurement.  The graph you keep showing does not represent the lag (or the precision problem), but the text he included (and the links) explain it very well.  I think it's obvious that neither of you are interested in questioning the data so I don't see why you don't just come right out and say it.  Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.  Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.  You should try looking at the data for once.  At the very least it will make you a better informed supporter.

I don't share his level of skepticism but I do think the data is more questionable than the experts would have us believe.  I think man may be to blame for aspects of global warming, but I don't know if we are to blame.  The issues with the evidence makes me nervous, but not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on April 08, 2007, 03:04:18 pm
Same old Merl, each time he begins losing an argument (and, coincidentally, his "poise" as well), he begins to call out the old ball and chain (Meta) for back-up.  I imagine, if things begin to get really heated, we shall be seeing "Shep" here as well.

Quote
Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.


Says who, yourself?  Being Merl's wife, Meta, that doesn't actually make you the most impartial observer now, does it?  Anyone who has read any of this can see that the young man has always been calm, even respectful at times, whereas, Merl has consistently played the part of an ass. Must be pleasant being outclassed by a college student.


Quote
First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

To explain the complexity of the process, one has to have a grasp of it first and, near as I can tell anyway, this is simply another line of his bull (i.e., "I've decided the theories behind global warming has no merit, therefore everyone else should come to that conclusion as well").  Neither of you has actually managed to rub anyone's nose in anything, you are forever rescuing one another, though, it seems.

Quote
You are lucky, I would have made it harder on you by asking you to explain the significance of all the measurements of deuterium concentrations, oxygen isotope compositions, isotopic composition of O2 and N2, N20 levels and isotopic composition, sodium ion concentrations, CO2 and methane levels, and 14C concentrations. 

And that has exactly what to do with any of this, Meta (or is is Merl this time)? Even if deuterium is a contributor to the effect of global warming, CO2 and methane are still considered to be the overall causes. Of course, other elements effect climate, the reason greenhouse gases get the most blame is because they trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the earth.  The more greenhouse gases are trapped, the more the earth is warmed. Strip away all the other factors people factor into this - solar variations, lag times, even storms  and that is still what you have.  It has been proven time and again over time, and it is proving itself again right now.


Quote
I think it's obvious that neither of you are interested in questioning the data so I don't see why you don't just come right out and say it.
 

You mean, it's obvious that none of them share his skepticsm.  Why doesn't Merl just come right out and admit it, he's a global warming skeptic?

Quote
Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.


Except that if you read back over the last page, hubbie Merl is the one making all the jokes and telling people they are all messed up, Meta.  The college students look more mature than he does!

Quote
Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.

Juvenile?  Excuse me, isn't he the one insulting people and calling in his wife for back-up?  How juvenile is that?

Quote
You should try looking at the data for once.  At the very least it will make you a better informed supporter.

You don't know that any of us have or have not looked at the data, and you don't even know if any of us have seen more data than either of you.  Glad to hear that you are not quite the global warming skeptic that he has become, Meta, perhaps, in that case, you would also like to debate Merl..?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Majeston on April 08, 2007, 04:32:18 pm
Same old Proteus.


Really friend,  what is it with you? 


The only time you enter any conversation is to begin a fight or join in one.


You never add anything worthwhile to the conversation,  you simply like to fight and argue.


Why not bring something tangible to the conversation instead of something about who

might or might not be related to Merlin?  IIRC  Merlin has already stated that Metatron

was not his wife.  Even if she was what has that to do with anything?

Quote
You don't know that any of us have or have not looked at the data, and you don't even know if any of us have seen more data than either of you.

Proteus instead of using such a silly ploy just produce your data and research.  It seems likely that you have none and more likely

just an off the cuff opinion and a personal agenda of dislike for Merlin that has carried over for several years now.  It's a common

tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

to him.

The process of GW and it's causes are quite complex and it is very obvious that no-one really knows what degree man's

contribution really has on it.   Climatic changes on a global scale OTOH have been proven to occur in varying cycles

and degrees since the planet formed and will most likely continue until the planet ends.   Theorizing who or who

is not Merlin's wife will have very little impact on GW.  These are the tools and techniques of someone who has

nothing better to do than strap on a suicide belt and blow himself up in the local university because he has  nothing

better to offer.


No need to reply to this Proteus,  I'm not here to join this discussion or continue this silly game of tit-for-tat. 



.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 08, 2007, 06:39:11 pm
Thanks buddy - but Proteus knows that Metatron isn't my wife.  So do a number of other people but I really don't care; that joke has run its course.  As for "Shep", that was a one time case of early wireless internet "unsecurity" that ended long ago (with a firewall) and never returned.  I guess if you don't have anything to offer to the discussion - it must still be fun to discuss it.   ::)

As for the rest of his angry drivel - I'll let Metatron handle it for herself.  She lives in her work and only comes out on holidays (if at all) so hopefully you (Proteus) will hold your breath till that time.  I'll be sure to tell her you were asking about her when I talk to her tomorrow, but I doubt you'll make it more than 4 minutes.  Keep trying though, I'm pulling for you.   8)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 08, 2007, 07:08:36 pm
The process of GW and it's causes are quite complex and it is very obvious that no-one really knows what degree man's

contribution really has on it.   Climatic changes on a global scale OTOH have been proven to occur in varying cycles

and degrees since the planet formed and will most likely continue until the planet ends. 

I have an article that quotes a famous and reputable "Pro-Global Warming Scientist" that sums up my point quite nicely.  I make it clear up front that this guy is a friend of mine and therefore I am a bit biased to accept his viewpoint.  Having said that, he and I do disagree on a number of things, but isn't that what friends are for? 

Anyway, here's the section of the article that I wanted to share:

Various models running different scenarios predict sea-level rise as little as 18 centimeters (seven inches) or as much as 59 centimeters (23 inches). None of these models, however, completely includes the potentially greater contributions to such a rise from the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate modelers do not include effects on land-based ice in these regions because they cannot reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting.

Greenland's glaciers are melting and moving faster on average, but those shifts do not follow a simple, upward linear trend. For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea. Additionally, roughly 80 percent of its recent increase in water discharge occurred in just one year before stabilizing, according to Ian Howat of the University of Washington. As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: "The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea-level rise--but it matters." In fact, many variables come into play in Greenland's ice sheet. "You're trying to figure out what is going on with an immense, remote and complex beast, and it isn't easy," Alley adds.

And other important factors, such as the convection that forms thunderstorms, can only be approximated because they occur on too small a scale. "There is no way that the models are able to directly simulate these things," says climate modeler Stephen Zebiak of Columbia University. "So researchers just try to capture the net effect of the processes."

Despite these flaws, global models are increasingly credible: when fed the factors at play in climate over the past 100 years, they accurately match what has been observed to occur. Such precision gives scientists greater confidence in their ability to assign probabilities to the future. And all models agree that the world will warm at least 0.4 degree Celsius in the next 20 years.

I think I have included Rich's comments before, but  don't remember if they were here or the other forum.  He's a sharp guy who I have a lot of respect for - he's honest and his viewpoint is a very 'measured' one.  Note the section I increased the font on.  Read exactly what he said - not what you think/want him to say.  It's a great discussion point for later. 

Here's the link to the whole article:  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5)



Theorizing who or who is not Merlin's wife will have very little impact on GW.  These are the tools and techniques of someone who has nothing better to do than strap on a suicide belt and blow himself up in the local university because he has  nothing better to offer.

It's an attempt to divert the discussion from anything but the questions asked.  No need to waste time thinking or researching when you can just disparage the person asking the question.  Hey - this sounds like what Jason keeps accusing me of with AL Gore (but has no proof).  You nailed it when you used the word "tactic".  I can't honestly say that none of the others (Allison, Brandon, Byron, Jason, etc.) would stoop to this (because one other has) but it is a rarity.  Leave it to him to go rushing headlong into a gunfight carrying a whiffelbat.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on April 08, 2007, 07:34:14 pm
Thanks buddy - but Proteus knows that Metatron isn't my wife.  So do a number of other people but I really don't care; that joke has run its course.  As for "Shep", that was a one time case of early wireless internet "unsecurity" that ended long ago (with a firewall) and never returned.  I guess if you don't have anything to offer to the discussion - it must still be fun to discuss it.   ::)

As for the rest of his angry drivel - I'll let Metatron handle it for herself.  She lives in her work and only comes out on holidays (if at all) so hopefully you (Proteus) will hold your breath till that time.  I'll be sure to tell her you were asking about her when I talk to her tomorrow, but I doubt you'll make it more than 4 minutes.  Keep trying though, I'm pulling for you.   8)

Why, is four minutes all you last with her? :)

As for "Shep," not quite, and don't bother trying to explain it. Shep was an alias of yourself that you created to give yourself back-up, one of a few you created at Atlantis Rising, as I recall.  You even created a few Absonite clones, as I remember, back when the two of you were bickering.  It was quite the joke there for a time, as I recall, and the fact that you do such a things undermines a great deal of what you say now.

But the point is, what you are saying now apparently has no credibility either, since you see the need to pull such pranks again.  Point is, if anything of what you say had some validity to this discussion, you wouldn't need to call in the wife, now would you? So much for the false bravado (on your part, of course).

Abs,

Quote
Proteus instead of using such a silly ploy just produce your data and research.  It seems likely that you have none and more likely

just an off the cuff opinion and a personal agenda of dislike for Merlin that has carried over for several years now.  It's a common

tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

First off, Abs, I don't dislike Merlin, I find him (and yourself) great fun.  The forum wouldn't be half as much fun if neither of you were here.

Second, research, mine is related to Atlantis - specifically Cuba, Antillia & Greek myth.  I have posted some of it at the old forum, some here, too, I assume you missed it, but, since you are only interested in Sarmast's exploits, I suspect you ignore everything else.

Third (and this is my favorite): tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior

Abs, do you really think God wants you to be a bigot?  Just some advice, but I woiuld lay off that sort of stuff (if you want to go to heaven, that is). 

As it happens, I don't consider Merl to be superior to myself, I actually find it a bit comical how insecure he is, not to mention how seriously he takes himself. I don't intend anything personal, it is simply great fun to needle a person with those types of personality flaws.  :)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 08, 2007, 08:35:57 pm
Quote
I'm here to learn and educate

Well, you just put your finger on your biggest problem, Merlin.  First, in order to educate people, you have to know more about the subject you are lecturing them on than they do.  Your field of study is physics, it isn't climatology. In other words, this is not an area of your expertise, dear.

I actually remember the first time you and I debated on global warming, about eight months ago, at the other forum.  There, like here, you made the assertion that there were legions of scientists who didn't believe in it, but were too afraid to speak out about it (actually, a pretty transparent point since there is no proof).

I told you about the Science Magazine study, wherein, something like over 928 abstracts were studied.  In them, not one took issue with the idea that human beings were causing global warming.  So you produced a selection that you claimed did, apparently not thinking that any of us would bother reading any of them.

Turns out that not only didn't any of them take issue with GW, some of them actually were written by some of the main proponents of the Global Warming theory, guys like Michael Mann, who created the "Hockey Stick."  When I called you on that, you fled the discussion and we didn't see you again for months. 

You're not an expert at global warming, Merlin. You're certainly not in a position to lecture anyone here on it, and if you were honest about it, you would admit that the prognostications for what will happen again will be getting worse, not better.



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 08, 2007, 08:41:53 pm
Study: Climate change could bring new U.S. Dust Bowl
POSTED: 4:01 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights• Bottom line: "Better start planning" for parched Southwest, says researcher
• Study, published in journal Science, yields "scary results," scientist says
• Computer models show transition to drier conditions due to climate change


(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/04/06/dust.bowl.ap/story.mead.gi.jpg)
Drought results in cracked mud among the ruins of a Mormon pioneer town in Nevada, flooded 70 years ago when the Colorado River was dammed to create Lake Mead.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Changing climate will mean increasing drought in the southwestern United States, where water already is in short supply, according to a new study.

"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the states and federal government is that they'd better start planning for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

Seager is lead author of the study published online Thursday by the journal Science.

Researchers studied 19 computer models of the climate, using data dating back to 1860 and projecting into the future. The same models were used in preparing the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Watch how the latest panel report is different )

The consensus of the models was that climate in the southwestern United States and parts of northern Mexico began a transition to drier conditions late in the 20th century and is continuing the trend in this century, as climate change alters the movement of storms and moisture in the atmosphere.

The reduction in rainfall could reach levels of the 1930s Dust Bowl that ranged throughout the Midwestern United States, Seager said in a telephone interview.

That does not mean there would be dust storms like those of the 1930s, Seager said, because conditions at that time were complicated by poor agricultural practices. But he said the reduction in rainfall could be equivalent to those times when thousands of farmers abandoned their parched land and moved away in search of jobs. (Watch drought hit Australian farmers hard )

Currently, most water in the Southwest is used in agriculture, but the urban population of the region is growing and so the water needs of people are growing as well, he explained.

"So, in a case where there is a reduced water supply, there will have to be some reallocation between the users," Seager said. "The water available is already fully allocated."

He said he feels that adjustments can be made to deal with the change, perhaps by withdrawing some land from production and by conserving water in urban areas.

"But it's something that needs to be planned for," Seager said. "It's time to start thinking how to deal with that."

Jonathan T. Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, said the finding "agrees with what is already happening in the Southwest, and will be further complicated by the already declining spring snowpack due to warming."

"These are scary results, but scary in part because they are results of well thought-out scientific work by a large number of strong scientists," said Overpeck, who was not part of the research team. (Watch a worst-case scenario for coastal U.S. cities )

In other reports in this week's issue of Science:

• Researchers led by Alan Gange of the University of London reported that as a result of warming temperatures some species of mushrooms and toadstools in southern England have begun to fruit twice a year rather than once.

They found that some species that previously only fruited in October now also fruit in April. In addition, the length of the fruiting period has grown over time and in the last decade alone it has more than doubled, they found.

• Deep waters in the North Atlantic some 125,000 years ago were warmer than they are now and may have helped melt the Antarctic ice sheets, according to researchers led by Jean-Claude Duplessy of the Laboratory of Climate and the Environment of Institute Pierre Simon Laplace outside Paris.

Deep North Atlantic water flows south, then rises to the surface near Antarctica. The researchers said current warming climate trends indicate similar conditions to that period could occur in the next couple of centuries.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/dust.bowl.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 08, 2007, 08:51:39 pm
Damage already done for some natural wonders
POSTED: 2:00 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• Report of regions at risk is undergoing governmental review
• World Wildlife Fund for Nature lists 10 regions suffering irreversible damage
• Some coral reefs can recover; melted glaciers cannot, says WWF scientist
• Attention needed to adapting to change, not just preventing it, scientist adds

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/04/06/natural.treasures.ap/story.glaciers.afp.jpg)

Nyang-Chu Valley of the Himalayas outside Gyantse in Tibet in February already shows the melting of massive glaciers.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- While governments grapple with the politics of global warming, some of the world's greatest treasures already are being damaged and threatened with destruction.

Conservationists have drawn up priorities for action to salvage some of nature's wonders that are feeling the heat of climate change -- from the Himalayan glaciers to the Amazon rain forests and the unique ecosystem of the Mexican desert.

Many of the regions at risk were singled out in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an authoritative body of 2,500 scientists. The report is undergoing governmental review at a five-day conference in Brussels. (Full story)

On Thursday, diplomats and scientists were negotiating the text of a 21-page summary of the full 1,572-page scientific report. It projects specific consequences for each degree of rising global temperatures, which the IPCC agrees is largely caused by human activity.

On the sidelines of the conference, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature issued a list of 10 regions suffering irreversible damage from climate change. The group also listed where it has projects to limit further damage or help people adapt to new conditions.

"What we are talking about are the faces of the impacts of climate change," said Lara Hansen, WWF's chief scientist on climate issues.

The WWF is among the largest of many nongovernment organizations to take up the challenge of climate change.

The Nature Conservancy, based in Arlington, Virginia, is another. It has projects to protect coral reefs off Florida, in the coral triangle of Indonesia and in Papua New Guinea. It also is trying to preserve native alpine meadows in China and conserve vegetation in California's Sierra Nevada mountains.

Though climate change has been discussed for decades, Hansen said the effects were now becoming visible. "It's only in the past decade that we can go outside and see for ourselves what's happening," she told The Associated Press.

Some damage is reversible, Hansen said. Although melted glaciers cannot be restored, some coral reefs can recover.

But as natural landmarks deteriorate, she said more attention will have to be paid to adapting to change, not only trying to prevent it, and not enough experts are being trained to help people acclimatize.

"There's a massive void ahead of us in getting new people," she said.

Climate hotspots
The 10 areas listed by WWF are known climate hotspots, and only a small example of jewels of nature threatened by climate upheavals. The environmental group says it has teams on the ground in each place to monitor change and help people adapt. They include:


Corals, from the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to the MesoAmerican Reef off Belize. With just 1 C (1.8 F), corals lose their color and die. They also are damaged by the growing ferocity of tropical storms. (Watch what forces are putting pressure on the fragile corals )


The Chihuahua Desert straddling the U.S.-Mexican border. North America's largest desert, it encompasses the Rio Grande basin, vast grasslands and 3,500 unique plant species, including an array of cactus and yucca.


Caribbean turtles. WWF says six of seven species are endangered, as rising sea levels swamp nesting beaches and feeding grounds. Conservation efforts are focusing on the Hawksbill turtle.


The Valdivian rain forest in Chile and Argentina. The Alerce tree, which can live 3,000 years, is menaced by forest fires and declining rainfall. Melting glaciers means groundwater will become more scarce.


India's Sunderbans, home to the largest wild population of Bengal tigers and to 1 million people. The rising water of the Bay of Bengal and the increasing violence of rainstorms could inundate many coastal islands and destroy mangrove forests. (Watch how rising sea levels are taking land away from people in the Sunderbans )


The Yangtze River, which provides water, food and electricity to 450 million people. Glaciers in the Tibetan plateau that feed the upper Yangtze are shrinking, adding to water flows now but threatening shortages once the glaciers reach a critical point.


The Amazon, the channel for about one-fifth of all fresh water drained into the world's oceans. Projections say that within 50 years temperatures could rise by 2-3 C (3.6-5.4 F), turning between 30 percent to 60 percent of the rain forest into a type of dry savanna.


The Bering Sea, which supports wild salmon, whales, dolphins, walrus, sea lions and polar bears. Warmer winters are leading to the earlier break-up of spring ice and driving salmon stocks closer to the pole. Melting ice is diluting sea water and affecting nutrients for small organisms on which fish feed.


Himalayan glaciers, which regulate the water supply to hundreds of millions of people in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some glaciers are receding by 10 to 15 meters (33 to 49 feet) per year, causing floods now and threatening summer drought in the future.


East African coastal forests and the offshore ecosystem, until now an area of stable climate that supports a huge variety of plants, animals and marine life. Scientists predict the area will be vulnerable to more frequent and intense storms that will damage agriculture, shoreline mangroves and coral reefs.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/natural.treasures.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 08, 2007, 08:59:41 pm
I'm going to print the article Merlin quoted here in it's entirety because I think it's key to show how the government is watering down the global warming info released in these reports and how the situation is actually much worse than is being presented by the media:

GLOBAL WARMING
Conservative Climate
Consensus document may understate the climate change problem
By David Biello


(http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77_1.jpg)

ICEBERG  from Greenland's Ilulissat Kangerlua glacier shows the influence of climate change

Paris--The signs of global climate change are clear: melting glaciers, earlier blooms and rising temperatures. In fact, 11 of the past 12 years rank among the hottest ever recorded. After some debate, the scientists and diplomats of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their long-anticipated summary report in February. The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming. By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.

More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries participated in the IPCC process, which will release three more reports this year. This first report examined only the physical science of climate change. Scientists drafted as lead authors prepared chapters on subjects ranging from a historical overview of climate change science to regional projections. Governments and other reviewers then submitted more than 30,000 comments. Finally, the lead authors and diplomats gathered in Paris to review the final document word by word, changing an emphasis here ("unequivocal" triumphed over "evident") or leaving out a controversial finding there.


For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

The document's conservatism also reflects the nature of climate change science. Various models running different scenarios predict sea-level rise as little as 18 centimeters (seven inches) or as much as 59 centimeters (23 inches). None of these models, however, completely includes the potentially greater contributions to such a rise from the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate modelers do not include effects on land-based ice in these regions because they cannot reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting.

Greenland's glaciers are melting and moving faster on average, but those shifts do not follow a simple, upward linear trend. For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea. Additionally, roughly 80 percent of its recent increase in water discharge occurred in just one year before stabilizing, according to Ian Howat of the University of Washington. As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: "The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea-level rise--but it matters." In fact, many variables come into play in Greenland's ice sheet. "You're trying to figure out what is going on with an immense, remote and complex beast, and it isn't easy," Alley adds.

And other important factors, such as the convection that forms thunderstorms, can only be approximated because they occur on too small a scale. "There is no way that the models are able to directly simulate these things," says climate modeler Stephen Zebiak of Columbia University. "So researchers just try to capture the net effect of the processes."

Despite these flaws, global models are increasingly credible: when fed the factors at play in climate over the past 100 years, they accurately match what has been observed to occur. Such precision gives scientists greater confidence in their ability to assign probabilities to the future. And all models agree that the world will warm at least 0.4 degree Celsius in the next 20 years.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&colID=5

This month the IPCC releases its second report, which focuses on global warming's impacts, ranging from intensifying droughts to heavier downpours and other extreme weather events. The third report--due out in May--will discuss options for mitigation, such as alternatives to fossil fuels. In the U.S., the commitment to such alternatives remains precarious--the budget for biofuel and hydrogen research has risen, but funding for other renewable energy sources has declined. And all that has been budgeted for such research represents less investment than the U.S. made in the 1970s.

"There is at least a perception among at least some students," Alley notes, "that the support for the search for solutions to energy and global warming is not yet reliable enough for those students to commit their future to it." Given the conservative IPCC estimates, the need for such solutions seems evident.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=5B9E73AD-E7F2-99DF-3F71280BCE41ED77&pageNumber=2&catID=2



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 08, 2007, 09:08:54 pm
Now, here is a section that Merlin didn't print, however, it is worth discussing:

For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

Once you rule out the sun as the major factor contributing to global warming and put the onus on human activity (something some of us have been trying to tell the global warming skeptics for month), the chief cause tends to be human activity.

Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on April 09, 2007, 01:09:59 am
Quote
Guys,

I don't the patience of Brooke or the resolve of Merl, so I'm just going to pick and choose what I feel like commenting on.  Jason, most of your last replies make you look like an angry teenager and it's you who is acting the fool.  You should listen (read) more and make an attempt to understand something very important:  An issue this complex can not be taught to you by the press.  They don't understand it any better than you, so how can they teach you anything other than the emotional (hysterical) viewpoint?  That aspect is the only thing the press can share since the science is too boring to translate into a news story.  By default, the media will never have correct information available.  Contributors like Tom, Brooke, Zaphod, I Am and Merl are very good about stripping the problem down to its core, exposing the hype and making it easy to understand.  You should pay more attention to that.  My political science professor used to reiterate that,  "Hysteria and hype are clothing, so getting to the truth is like making love - you have to get her (him) naked first."

First and foremost, I think it's obvious that Merl's trying to explain the complexity of the process to you without rubbing your noses in the obviousness of some of it.  Since I really don't care, I'll go right ahead and do it.

First off, Metatron, please show exactly which responses of mine make me look like an "angry teenager." As for acting like a "fool," since you seem to be acquainted with Merlin, I will assume that comment would be directed towards anyone who dares to disagree with Merlin in your eyes and not take it personally. There is a lot of posturing on Merlin's part (and now yours, too), which I find a bit suspicious, not to mention unseemly. 

The data speaks for itself. The data does not need a lot of people such as yourself and Merlin claiming to have a secret grasp on the data all apparently for the petty goal of trying to win a debate. Neither of you are winning the debate, only showing the depths that you will go to try and win it. We can all read the same scientific journals, news stories, and analysis by people more qualified to judge the data than any of us (though, judging by the pomposity of both Merlin's and now, your own posts, I doubt that you would ever admit that), and make our own evaluations.  Simply because we don't buy someone else's rather biased view of the data does not mean that we don't have a grasp of the facts. To suggest that we are somehow supposed to buy into anyone's version of the facts (when no one but he is even saying them) not only happens to be silly, it's also a little crazy.

As Allison has said, neither of you are in an a position to lecure any of us on this subject. Merlin (and perhaps yours) mistake is in coming here thinking you are in a position to "teach" on every topic that you decide to speak on.  Even if you were a climatologist extolling the role that deuterium concentrations play (seemingly over CO2) in global warming, I would still have issues with it because you would be one of the only  (if not the only) climatologist saying it.

Quote
Instead, you make jokes, pick at him and tell him he's all messed up.  Your tactics really do look juvenile to those of us who have a basic grasp of chemistry and didn't mind reading the information he referenced.  You should try looking at the data for once. 


Apparently, you can't read.  Merlin was the only one making jokes (in fact arguing earlier that he should have the right to), and, of course, telling me that he believed I didn't know what I was talking about.  I realize that you are naturally predisposed to be biased in favor of him, but at least be honest about it. I suggest you go back and read the exchanges if you still have questions about them. I would ask for a retraction of that statement, but from the stridency of your comments, I gather your own personal pride is more important to you than the truth.

I'm sure that you will again say that the rest of us don't know what we are talking about.  You are entitled to your opinions, and, of course, apparently, the attitude you have to affect to go along with it. No one who has actually followed the global warming debate could possibly be swayed by any of the arguments raised here against it, except, of course, if the only reason they were even here arguing was to give moral support.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 09, 2007, 08:04:03 am
Now, here is a section that Merlin didn't print, however, it is worth discussing:

Just so that you are aware Allison, I did post the link for all to read at their leisure.  I was not trying to "remove" anything.  I wanted to highlight some of the comments of my friend, while at the same time claryify something I said earlier to Jason and offer a little unbiased evidence to support it.


For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

Once you rule out the sun as the major factor contributing to global warming and put the onus on human activity (something some of us have been trying to tell the global warming skeptics for month), the chief cause tends to be human activity.

I'd hearken you back to the discussion we had prior (at the other forum) where we mutually agreed that "editing at the hands of politicians is a bad thing".  I don't care if it helps or hinders my viewpoint - Disinformation or lying by ommission is ALWAYS bad.  Bureaucrats - doing anything at all is bad enough, much less authoring a scientific report.  And they wonder why people accuse them of doing bad things...  Also remember - I'm not one of the supporters of the "SUN THEORY", although I still disagree that it has been conclusively studied in order to rule it out as a contributor (my stance all along).


Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.

I certainly don't see it that way, and I doubt many other do either.  The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promised.  For now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions".  I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on April 09, 2007, 07:35:23 pm
Quote
I'd hearken you back to the discussion we had prior (at the other forum) where we mutually agreed that "editing at the hands of politicians is a bad thing".  I don't care if it helps or hinders my viewpoint - Disinformation or lying by ommission is ALWAYS bad.  Bureaucrats - doing anything at all is bad enough, much less authoring a scientific report.  And they wonder why people accuse them of doing bad things...
 

Well, there's another agreement! But something this should tell you is that the reason why they are doing the watering down is cause the situation is actually worse than the press says it is.  Very few people are denying that the world is warming up and that humans are responsible, and so, they are reduced to arguing to what degree it is a danger and muffling the news that things like the sun have been ruled out.

Quote
Also remember - I'm not one of the supporters of the "SUN THEORY", although I still disagree that it has been conclusively studied in order to rule it out as a contributor (my stance all along).

Yeah, I keep waiting for that report to come out saying that the sun IS responsible, when all the scientific evidence has ruled it out as the main cause.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on April 08, 2007, 09:08:54 pm
Game, set and match.  People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves.  Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.

I certainly don't see it that way, and I doubt many other do either.  The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promised.  For now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions".  I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.


Here I was already under the impression that you had already seen all of that and that was the reason for your skepticsm.  You can already tell that tests to be included won't bode well for those who don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming. Look at the first two parts of the report as a precursor of what is to come. Have they ever cited any other credible possibilities or made mention of tests that concluded that anything other than man is responsible?  Nope.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on April 09, 2007, 09:20:56 pm
Well, there's another agreement! But something this should tell you is that the reason why they are doing the watering down is cause the situation is actually worse than the press says it is.  Very few people are denying that the world is warming up and that humans are responsible, and so, they are reduced to arguing to what degree it is a danger and muffling the news that things like the sun have been ruled out.

They're watering it down because it doesn't support their agenda.  Science be damned with most of them.  Look at the ones who are doing the most to lessen the effect:  Argentina, Venezuela, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia.  Hmmmmm....  Think they have an agenda that doesn't mesh with Carbon reduction or pollution reduction in general?  Uh Huh - me too.

Yeah, I keep waiting for that report to come out saying that the sun IS responsible, when all the scientific evidence has ruled it out as the main cause.

Well, we don't disagree there - entirely.  Note that I said that I disagree that the sun's contributions have been conclusively investigated.  To the best of my knowledge, there have been only the most rudimentary (cursory) searches for links.  On the surface it has been eliminated, based almost entirely on sunspot and solar flare activity.  Since they are both comparatively low many scientists just moved along without looking any more deeply.  There are, however, many other aspects to look at.  We could discuss those if you are interested, but for now - I'd just like to have it on record that there is a decent chance that there is a contributory link still to be investigated, and it isn't a very mainstream one as far as I can tell.  In fact, what I think I said on the subject a month ago was, "From a different perspective, I am certain that the potential for celestial influence, as a whole, has not been fully investigated, and I can make that comment with complete certainty." 

Here I was already under the impression that you had already seen all of that and that was the reason for your skepticsm. 

Let's look at what I said again - just to keep things straight:

The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promisedFor now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions"I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures.  That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.

Note that I am specifically dealing with is in the public domain in the first section (underlined).  I reiterate that in the bolded section which came next.  The next section (underlined) is a declaratory statement of that which I know is not coming.  The 1,600 page report is just that - A Report.  It does not include the scientific method section covering processes and procedures, logic and references, staus and standings or methodology; like any other peer-reviewed paper would.  The final bolded section is exactly what I have been saying all along - If there is a way to being me back to agreement with GW, it will be with the "nuts & bolts" - not with the fluff.  I want to see exactly how they arrived at the results they are verbalizing.

My apologies if I was unclear - it was not my attempt to confuse.

You can already tell that tests to be included won't bode well for those who don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to try this one more time.  Call me silly, but I suppose that I'm a glutton for punishment.

I, and every other skeptical scientist [not affiliated with oil companies] are skeptical for a reason - NOT BECAUSE we "don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming", as you put it.  It is not a conscious decision to disbelieve that mankind is pure and innocent or that we choose to side with him over Mother Earth.  It's a little ridiculous to continue making that kind of statement after all of the discussion we've had on the subject.  You act like it's a plot against the majority just because we dislike or disagree with a particular personality.  It is because we have questions - questions that go unanswered.  Like it or not, telling me how much of a minority we are in has absolutely no effect on me.  Furthermore, asserting that you are correct because of a newspaper article has even less of an effect on me. 

Look at the first two parts of the report as a precursor of what is to come. Have they ever cited any other credible possibilities or made mention of tests that concluded that anything other than man is responsible?  Nope.

You have said much more than you know.  The forgone conclusion in the "Summary" was that mankind was at fault - do you really think they will offer up any further evidence that may call that into question?  Of course not.  Even though they pin the certainty at 90%, do you really think they'll ever name the item that may account for the 10% uncertainty?  Certainly not.  Much of the report is designed to stay away from any other possibilities, no matter how small they may be.  This report is unlike any other peer-reviewed journal in that way (and many others), and serves only to make it look even more conspicuous to those of us who keep wondering, "Where's the science?"

Once all 4 sections are in print, I'll come back and we can look at the lack of exculpatory data together.  Until that point, it's a little meaningless to continue being misquoted, misunderstood and derided simply because you dislike my position.  Who knew that being in the minority makes someone less - less everything?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on May 04, 2007, 08:40:00 am
Arctic melt worse than predictions
POSTED: 10:51 p.m. EDT, May 2, 2007

(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/story.arctic2.jpg)

(CNN) -- Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate far quicker than predicted by climate change computer models and could disappear completely before the middle of the century, scientists have warned.

The study, published in the latest edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that the actual rate at which summer sea ice had shrunk per decade during the past 50 years was more than three times faster than an average of 18 of the most highly regarded climate simulations.

Retreating Arctic ice is considered a key indicator of the pace of global warming by environmentalists, and one that could have devastating knock-on repercussions for the wider climate, including warmer oceans and rising sea levels.

Declining ice levels also poses a threat to Arctic wildlife including polar bears, walruses and ringed seals.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which releases the third of three reports into the causes, consequences and mitigation of global warming in Thailand this week, the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by the latter part of the 21st century.

But the research, conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), demonstrates that the 18 models on which the IPCC has based its current recommendations could already be out of date -- and that the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC's worst case scenario.

"This suggests that current model projections may in fact provide a conservative estimate of future Arctic change, and that the summer Arctic sea ice may disappear considerably earlier than IPCC projections," said NSIDC's Julienne Stroeve who led the study.

Climate change models of Arctic sea ice cover in September, the month when ice is usually at its minimum, suggest an average loss of 2.5 percent of ice cover per decade from 1953 to 2003. The worst case simulated by an individual model predicted a decade-on-decade reduction of 5.4 percent.

Yet when scientists studied observable data for the same period, including shipping logs, aerial photos and satellite images, they discovered the actual figure for ice loss from 1953 until 2006 to be 7.8 percent.

Furthermore, the rate of deterioration seemed to be accelerating, topping nine percent per decade since 1979.

The discrepancy between computer modelling and reality is most likely due to the fact that simulations have failed to fully take into account the impact of increased levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, the researchers believe.

Models have typically attributed half of the loss of ice to greenhouse gases and half to natural variations in the climate cycle. But now, many believe the first factor could be playing a significantly greater role.

Earlier this month NSICD scientists reported that winter sea ice cover in the Arctic was just 14.7 million square kilometers (5.7m square miles) -- slightly better than the all-time low 14.5m square kilometers (5.6m square miles) in 2006 -- but well short of the 15.7m average for 1979-2000.

The Arctic is especially prone to global warming because of the dangers of the so-called "feedback loop" caused by melting ice.

While ice reflects around 80 percent of the sun's heat, having a cooling effect, blue sea water can absorb up to 95 percent of solar radiation, warming up the sea and accelerating the melting process further.

"While the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing," said co-author Marika Holland of NCAR.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 05, 2007, 03:05:05 pm
Quote
I'm here to learn and educate

Well, you just put your finger on your biggest problem, Merlin.  First, in order to educate people, you have to know more about the subject you are lecturing them on than they do.

Alright - I have that part done without any contest; next point.

Your field of study is physics, it isn't climatology. In other words, this is not an area of your expertise, dear.

My expertise is theoretical and analytical processes.  I happen to be in the field of physics.

I actually remember the first time you and I debated on global warming, about eight months ago, at the other forum.  There, like here, you made the assertion that there were legions of scientists who didn't believe in it, but were too afraid to speak out about it (actually, a pretty transparent point since there is no proof).

You need to re-read.  That's not what I said, therefore it is not my assertion.  Try again, dear.

I told you about the Science Magazine study, wherein, something like over 928 abstracts were studied.  In them, not one took issue with the idea that human beings were causing global warming.  So you produced a selection that you claimed did, apparently not thinking that any of us would bother reading any of them.

I have explained this to you at least 5 times now.  In that you refuse to acknowledge what I said literally, and instead choose to believe what you THOUGHT I was trying to say, you are no better than Profeus.  No matter how many times you incorrectly dissect my intentions, you cannot cast doubt on my actions - they are written down, in the public domain, and have not changed since they were typed.  Why don't you go copy and paste the entire argument for the crowd to read?  That would certainly settle the dispute...  Clearly showing that I have done no such thing that you assert.

Turns out that not only didn't any of them take issue with GW, some of them actually were written by some of the main proponents of the Global Warming theory, guys like Michael Mann, who created the "Hockey Stick."  When I called you on that, you fled the discussion and we didn't see you again for months. 


As I said - You refuse to acknowledge what I ACTUALLY SAID, and continue maligning me based upon what you thought I was going to say.  Now you are too deep in it to just admit that you misunderstood.  I guess "My Bad" isn't in your vocabulary.  That's unfortunate; it's often a welcome addition when dealing with evolving science (as I am well aware).  I left the discussion for only one reason:  The mutal admiration society that had developed made it impossible to interject fact into the debate.  And being attacked for being correct gets really old - specifically when you wind up retreading the same nonsense - day in & day out.   You, and those like you, are a dime-a-dozen on any of the college campuses I visit.  Facts have no bearing upon your decision making process and you don't care if there is proof to support the assertions.  We refer to people like you as "Big Picture People".  "Don't bother Big Picture People with details, it only confuses their ability to believe what they choose to."  I realize that sounds like I'm being intentionally spiteful, but I'm really not - It simply "Is what it Is".

You're not an expert at global warming, Merlin. You're certainly not in a position to lecture anyone here on it, and if you were honest about it, you would admit that the prognostications for what will happen again will be getting worse, not better.

I am an expert on theoretical modelling, analytical statistical analysis, chemistry, physics, physical modelling, algorithmic computer simulation and history; each of which are fundamental to the discussion.  I also participate in 2 university forums on the subject and have contributed to the two prevailing theoretical models of hydrodynamic influence on meterological interruption within the atmosphere.  I dare say that, not only am I an expert in the field of research, I am also in a position to influence the research behind the final products.  You shouldn't make assumptions...

As for things getting worse - not better:  That's sort of off the topic.  Keep in mind that I have never disputed that any of GW is not happening.  Only that the understanding of why is unproven.  Attack my intentions however you wish, but I'll bet money that my record of environmentalism and planetary stewardship is unmatched by those of you who would paint me as a: SUV driving, toxic waste dumping neo-con.  Remember Allison, my words are in the public domain - and they have been consistently in support of environmentalism as a whole, with a focus on planetary stewardship. Remember the farting in a warm car analogy?  ;D



All-in-all, aren't you and your friends a little tired of doing nothing about what you hold so much hope in?  Seriously now, you spend time papering each other over with cuts & pastes from the internet, but I don't see you discussing the most important topic (if you believe that Albert is right).  What to do!  Why don't you and the others here join in on the creation of a new X-Prizesque competition for green (carbon-free) tech?  Form a team and go for it.  I'm a member of our university's team (who is supporting three other confirmed contestants) in an inter-scholastic competition for fuel-cell research, clean atomic power generation and transmission of power through low (or no) loss lines.  Lobby your politicians to adopt a "Manhattan Project mindset" in the search for fossil-fuel elimination.  Start a grass-roots-movement for it.  So far, it sounds like there's a lot of talk on the subject, but little action. 

I see myself as a catalyst for change.  Love me or hate me - I get results; whether I inspire people to action or guilt them into it.  I don't care how they come, as long as they do.  Maybe you should think of me as an advocate for 'green' laboring to mobilize the supporters to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!  It doesn't matter if I think man is to blame for global climate change anymore.  Enough people in the world do, but they think driving a Prius and hoping their government will do something about it is enough.  Theses same people chew through wood and paper products like a beaver, leave their (albeit flourescent) lights on 24 hours a day, water their lawn religiously, purchase tons of alkaline batteries (cause they are cheaper), fail to fix leaky faucets, consume bottled water by the gross ton, eat fast (or prepared) food, purchase (instead of rent) DVDs, burn CDs and DVDs, use aerosols, and recycle only what (and when it) is convenient.

You see, Allison, I'm not just railing against the misunderstanding of GCC's cause - I'm trying to get people to really think globally and act locally.  I want people to think that the problem is manageable and that they can effect it with their individual actions.  You do it your way, by creating this massive monster that most people are intimidated by, and the population polarizes.  I'd like to bring the discussion back to the "fart in a warm car".  I would have the public ignore the massive monster and focus on its minions and foot-soldiers, pollution, toxicity, consumption and deforestation.  All easily managable; individually, as long as the spector of doom isn't looming over them while they are separating their papers from their plastics at the recycle bin.  History tells us that mankind reacts predictively when exposed to psychological stresses.  They, go overboard trying to change it, ignore it, or adapt slowly with it and follow the changes.  This last one is called evolution and requires that most of the life dies out with the changes (I vote against this method on purely selfish grounds).  Predominently, history tells us that we react (collectively) in the worst way - We ignore it until it's too late, and evolution saves a wee bit of us to proliferate again later. 

Manage our expectations, measure our task and monitor our progress - that is my motto for every trial and simulation I have the pleasure of adminstering.  I have a proven record of success because of it.  Ever been asked, "How do you eat an elephant?" 

One bite at a time.... 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 05, 2007, 03:13:45 pm
As it happens, I don't consider Merl to be superior to myself, I actually find it a bit comical how insecure he is, not to mention how seriously he takes himself. I don't intend anything personal, it is simply great fun to needle a person with those types of personality flaws.  :)

That is a perfect description of yourself Profeus; insecure with a flawed personality - I couldn't have said it better myself.  Clearly you were meaning to apply that in this way, since you are the person who was talking to yourself in a forum thread...  The whole idea of me being superior to you are your words, not mine and it definitely lends itself to explaining your insecurity issues.  That's alright though, young elf, the rest of your nonsensical fairy tale spoke volumes of your willingness to "spin a yarn" as well.  Don't take it personally though, sometimes it's just great fun to point out the obvious bits to demoralize someone who is morally bankrupt and intellectually stunted. 

Take it away proteus -->  Let the swearing and obscenity begin! 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on May 05, 2007, 05:44:17 pm
As it happens, I don't consider Merl to be superior to myself, I actually find it a bit comical how insecure he is, not to mention how seriously he takes himself. I don't intend anything personal, it is simply great fun to needle a person with those types of personality flaws.  :)

That is a perfect description of yourself Profeus; insecure with a flawed personality - I couldn't have said it better myself.  Clearly you were meaning to apply that in this way, since you are the person who was talking to yourself in a forum thread...  The whole idea of me being superior to you are your words, not mine and it definitely lends itself to explaining your insecurity issues.  That's alright though, young elf, the rest of your nonsensical fairy tale spoke volumes of your willingness to "spin a yarn" as well.  Don't take it personally though, sometimes it's just great fun to point out the obvious bits to demoralize someone who is morally bankrupt and intellectually stunted. 

Take it away proteus -->  Let the swearing and obscenity begin! 

Hello Merl,

Apparently, your reading comprehension has diminished by leagues since the last time we talked.  The quote you cited from me was in response to your good pal Majeston, who said:

Quote
It's a common tactic of an inadaquate inferior to always attempt to try to destroy that and whom he fears or that which is superior to him.

A part of response 164 on page 11.

As for "spinning a yarn"  to what do you refer specifically?  Anyone who knows you from Atlantis Rising knows that you are so insecure in your debating skills that you will stoop to any levels to try and win an argument, eh, "Shep?"  ;)

We must keep things in perspective here, it is just an internet forum, hardly life or death. 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Majeston on May 05, 2007, 06:51:20 pm
Proteus,

really.......  what is with you?   There have been over 10,000 posts here for you to comment on or

develop in some positive way and this crap is what you wish to  pursue?

Really friend,  you must wake up.  I think it was Wayne Dyer who said something like when you change the things you look at

the things you look at change.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on May 05, 2007, 07:33:50 pm
Abs,

As always, you are entirely delusional.  Only a biased person like yourself would begrudge me the chance to respond to something directed clearly at me. 

While you suggest I wake up, I suggest you grow up and stop acting the part of Merlin's crony.  He doesn't need you, he has both Meta and "Shep" to hail out should he get in more trouble.  :)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 06, 2007, 12:42:33 pm
As for "spinning a yarn"  to what do you refer specifically?  Anyone who knows you from Atlantis Rising knows that you are so insecure in your debating skills that you will stoop to any levels to try and win an argument, eh, "Shep?"  ;)

It really doesn't matter how many times you say it Proteus - It won't make it any more correct.  You aren't aware of much of the information and you are just "winging it" - thinking you know the whole story.  Well, here's the part you didn't know:  It was through the assistance of the Webmaster at AR.com that we figured out that it was a "squatter" who was posing as Shep.  The IP address that is shown in the forum is only part of the picture, what didn't show was the route and port.  The Webmaster was able to capture those for me and our IT dept. quickly figured out the situation from there.  We still aren't certain who it was exactly, but we know they jumped in on an unsecure wireless connection.  Anyway - say what you want, you'll probably ignore this information too.  It seems like you just want to be argumentative anyway.

We must keep things in perspective here, it is just an internet forum, hardly life or death. 

Good advice - you should take it to heart and apply it to your own posts first.  I haven't encountered anyone in this forum that can hold a candle to your childish acts yet.  Once you act like an adult, our problem will be fixed.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 06, 2007, 12:52:33 pm
Abs,

As always, you are entirely delusional.  Only a biased person like yourself would begrudge me the chance to respond to something directed clearly at me. 

While you suggest I wake up, I suggest you grow up and stop acting the part of Merlin's crony.  He doesn't need you, he has both Meta and "Shep" to hail out should he get in more trouble.  :)


Just like I said before...  Childish.  You should pay attention more.  Majeston and I do not agree more than 50% of the time...  Hardly a "crony".  I also haven't seen Shep or Metatron come to my rescue (as you say) for the past 190+ posts.  You are starting to sound (and act) like Steven Pyatt, a.k.a. Murduke, Felice, Bel-Marduk, Peter Zuku.  Are you going to start saying that Zaphod and Absonite are actually me too???  ;D  You are entertaining - I'll grant you that.

You need to take a valium and try reading without replying for awhile.  Take it from someone who does it alot, it helps you get a perspective on people's intentions, styles, and thoughts/feelings.  If you did that more, you would realize the error of your ways.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on May 06, 2007, 04:46:52 pm
Quote
You need to take a valium and try reading without replying for awhile.  Take it from someone who does it alot, it helps you get a perspective on people's intentions, styles, and thoughts/feelings.  If you did that more, you would realize the error of your ways.

So, you admit you have to take valium before posting here?  I didn't realize that posting for you was that stressful, Merl. I suppose that we should spread the word that we'll have to be more gentle with you in the future.

Quote
Good advice - you should take it to heart and apply it to your own posts first.  I haven't encountered anyone in this forum that can hold a candle to your childish acts yet.  Once you act like an adult, our problem will be fixed.

Oh, I don't know about that, Merl, your antics far outshine mine.  What do you call someone that finally responds to a month old, dormant post, than cajoles the person for responding to it?  (Not to mention how many times you are forced to call in your "reinforcements" each time you fail to make your case, which is often).

Childish little person. Point is, if you don't want a fight, don't go around picking one.

I get the feeling you do want to fight with someone right now, though, and, as you know, I'm ready to fight anytime, anywhere. 

Now then, tell me, since I'm here, what else do you want to fight about?  :)




Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 06, 2007, 06:45:59 pm
You make my point very clearly.  I need say no more on the issue - thanks!


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 06, 2007, 10:13:25 pm
Jesus H Frickin Christ is this gonna start all over again..What is so goddamn difficult with letting people have their say and just accepting it as their view of things without getting into an personal attack rampage.

This was pathetic over a year ago, and unlike wine it hasn't gotten any better with age.

Another thread gone down the shitter.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, this is a comment on the deterioration of the topic, not the individuals.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Proteus on May 06, 2007, 10:14:36 pm
Merl, if the point is that you are so insecure that you will sink to any depths to win an argument, I am sure that point is well proven to us all.  No doubt Abs,  Meta, or, better yet, one of your imaginary cohorts shall soon be called in for "backup." Quite pathetic.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on May 07, 2007, 12:26:13 am
It's really a shame how many people here can't seem to debate without either engaging in personal attacks or trying to pump up their assumed credentials, seemingly at the expense of their "opponent."

First, take the personal attacks someplace else.

Second, unless someone is secretly a climatologist, there are no "experts" here.

There is only the latest research, and we are all quite capable of finding it,  reading it and making our own educated judgments.  Stick to the facts, not personal opinions. You are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.

Right now, the facts are, as follows:

The world is warming up, and scientists are 90% certain that human beings are responsible.  I would really like to move beyond that point to discussing practical solutions to the problem, however, I am aware that some people still don't want to accept responsibility, so by all means, keep going.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 07, 2007, 04:20:18 am

First, take the personal attacks someplace else.


Unfortunately they haven't completed the stages yet. The history shows that next we will be regaled with descriptive genitalia insults, followed by more accusations of split personality syndrome and the whine "I didn't start this, so-and-so did, and I just have to defend myself" with an increase in vehemence.

This particular playground has turned into a litter box and the only hope left is that someone with maturity will come along with the scooper and clean it out.

Tread carefully, the next step will sure land in something squishy.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on May 07, 2007, 11:17:31 am
Zaphod, let's not get hasty.  I think that people have acted pretty mature in this forum, as opposed to AR.  I do see a lot of posturing going around, which is actually bad enough.

I await eagerly the brave person that wants to bring us back on topic, into a discussion of the facts concerning global warming and it's solutions.

Allison, Brandon or Bee maybe..?


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 07, 2007, 09:34:26 pm
You're right Jason, I'll smooth out my hackles and see how it plays out. Maybe.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 10, 2007, 08:10:49 am
It's really a shame how many people here can't seem to debate without either engaging in personal attacks or trying to pump up their assumed credentials, seemingly at the expense of their "opponent."

Assume what you wish.

First, take the personal attacks someplace else.

This is a staple defense for those who have nothing to offer other than attacks.  This forum is no different than the thousands of others that do not verify credentials.  Mine are available for the moderators to inspect if they choose (As I have done at Physorg, AA.org, Phys Review, Wiki and TalkOrigins). 

Second, unless someone is secretly a climatologist, there are no "experts" here.

Incorrect.  Climatologists make up only 30% of the current field of researchers working on the problem.  The remaining field is fashioned from the rest of the scientific ranks (i.e. theorists, physical modellers (physicists), geochemists, geologists, chemists, theorists, statisticians, analysts (of many sorts), oceanographers, astrophysicists, etc., etc.)

There is only the latest research, and we are all quite capable of finding it,  reading it and making our own educated judgments.  Stick to the facts, not personal opinions. You are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.

The "santitized for public consumption" media soundbites, public discloseures and press releases are available to the public - not the actual facts, research and data sets used to formulate the {current} theory.  In that light, how can anyone find fault with varying opinions?  Seems rather narrow-minded to assume that everyone must run off the cliff just because "most" of the lemmings are doing so.

Right now, the facts are, as follows:

The world is warming up, and scientists are 90% certain that human beings are responsible.  I would really like to move beyond that point to discussing practical solutions to the problem, however, I am aware that some people still don't want to accept responsibility, so by all means, keep going.

Gosh - I think I said the very same thing on May 5th.  Although, I do not need to stipulate acceptance of the theory to move to the next phase - hypothesizing solution.  Beyond that, it really isn't a matter of accepting responsibility though - at least not for me.  I'll grant you that there are a number of governments out there that really do not want to do anything about the pollution, but that does not extend to their citizens (including myself). 


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 10, 2007, 08:11:49 am
Merl, if the point is that you are so insecure that you will sink to any depths to win an argument, I am sure that point is well proven to us all.  No doubt Abs,  Meta, or, better yet, one of your imaginary cohorts shall soon be called in for "backup." Quite pathetic.

 ::)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 10, 2007, 08:21:21 am
Unfortunately they haven't completed the stages yet. The history shows that next we will be regaled with descriptive genitalia insults, followed by more accusations of split personality syndrome and the whine "I didn't start this, so-and-so did, and I just have to defend myself" with an increase in vehemence.

This particular playground has turned into a litter box and the only hope left is that someone with maturity will come along with the scooper and clean it out.

Tread carefully, the next step will sure land in something squishy.

Not always Zaph - Sometimes you just give up and move along.  Whether you think it follows a pattern or not, the facts are themselves - self-evident.  Consider the circumstances without discounting the significance of truth (just because it fits a pattern you pre-determined):  The people who begin these types of assaults are always completely devoid of any relevent subject matter....  Take a look back and see for yourself - there is no topical discussion offered - only insult.  Probe around the forum and see if a pattern has been established and judge for yourself.  Extending beyond that, you - of all people, should understand the desire to keep the facts straight and not take crap lying down.

For my part, I'm done with it (as my previous post should clearly indicate).  Let's also take note that I have been trying to inspire people to discuss the paramount point of it all: WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PROBLEM while being heckled from the cheap seats.  I contend that I have done rather well at staying on topic while having grenades lobbed over the wall at me.  ;D


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 10, 2007, 08:29:01 am
Here is a list that has been compiled by stop Global Warming (dot) com.  It should be commen sense to any "environmentalists", however, some of it seems to be counter-intuitive.  It should be worth a page of discussion if anyone actually cares.  Enjoy.

Take Action!

There are many things you can do in your daily life that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antarctica. Here is a list of things that you can do to make a difference.

There are many things you can do today to reduce your own adding to on this problem!

Tropical Tree Growth Slowed
Other big changes are being monitored in the tropics, too. Data on tree growth, tropical air temperatures and CO2 readings collected over 16 years indicate that a warming climate may cause the tropical forests to give off more carbon dioxide than they take up. This would upset the common belief that tropical forests are always a counterbalance to carbon, taking huge amounts out of the atmosphere. The study, by Deborah and David Clark of the La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, and Charles Keeling and Stephen Piper of the Scripps Institution, reports that rainforest trees grow much more slowly in warmer nighttime temperatures, which is a hallmark of climate change in the tropics.
Tropical Tree Charles Keeling

Landscaping Your Home for Energy Efficiency
In Winter, by maximizing solar heating while deflecting winds away from your home; and
in Summer by maximizing shading while funneling breezes toward your home. [Source]

Buy a Hybrid Car
The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid.

Buy a Fuel Efficient Car
Getting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference. Save thousands of lbs. of carbon dioxide and a lot of money per year.

Carpool When You Can
Own a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel. Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Inflate Your Tires
Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.

Change Your Air Filter
Check your car's air filter monthly. Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.

Reduce Garbage
Buy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.
Composting helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of trips trucks must make to the landfill as well as the amount of methane released by our landfills.

Use Recycled Paper
Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.

Buy Minimally Packaged Goods
Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.

Unplug Un-used Electronics
Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Plant a Tree
Trees provide a microclimate and sustained moisture for you. Trees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.


Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
Replace 3 frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 per year.

Fill the Dishwasher
Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Adjust Your Thermostat
Move your heater thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in the summer. Save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $98 per year.

Check Your Waterheater
Keep your water heater thermostat no higher than 120EF. Save 550 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $30 per year.

Change the AC Filter
Clean or replace dirty air conditioner filters as recommended. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Take Shorter Showers
Showers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $99 per year.

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead
Using less water in the shower means less energy to heat the water. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150.

Buy Products Locally
Buy locally and reduce the amount of energy required to drive your products to your store.

Buy Energy Certificates
Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution by buying wind certificates and green tags.

Insulate Your Water Heater
Keep your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Replace Old Appliances
Inefficient appliances waste energy. Save hundreds of lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Weatherize Your Home
Caulk and weather strip your doorways and windows. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $274 per year.

Use a Push Mower
Use your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide and x $ per year.

Put on a Sweater
Instead of turning up the heat in your home, wear more clothes Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $250 per year.

Insulate Your Home
Make sure your walls and ceilings are insulated. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $245 per year.

Air Dry Your Clothes
Line-dry your clothes in the spring and summer instead of using the dryer. Save 700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $75 per year.

Switch to a Tankless Water Heater
Your water will be heated as you use it rather than keeping a tank of hot water. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $390 per year.

Switch to Double Pane Windows
Double pane windows keep more heat inside your home so you use less energy. Save 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $436 per year.

Buy Organic Food
The chemicals used in modern agriculture pollute the water supply, and require energy to produce.

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market
Using your own cloth bag instead of plastic or paper bags reduces waste and requires no additional energy.



Source: StopGlobalWarming.org

Take Action!

There are many simple things you can do in your daily life that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antarctica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.

Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: Replace 3 frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 per year.

Inflate Your Tires: Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated. Check them monthly. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.

Change Your Air Filter: Check your car's air filter monthly. Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.

Fill the Dishwasher: Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Use Recycled Paper: Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.

Adjust Your Thermostat: Move your heater thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in the summer. Save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $98 per year.

Check Your Water Heater: Keep your water heater thermostat no higher than 120EF. Save 550 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $30 per year.

Change the AC Filter: Clean or replace dirty air conditioner filters as recommended. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Take Shorter Showers: Showers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $99 per year.

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead: Using less water in the shower means less energy to heat the water. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150.

Buy Products Locally: Buy locally and reduce the amount of energy required to drive your products to your store.

Buy Energy Certificates: Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution by buying wind certificates and green tags.

Buy Minimally Packaged Goods: Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.

Buy a Hybrid Car: The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of CO2 and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid. (Note: E85 fuel, derived from corn, is available in most US states, but in ZERO New England states. See LiveGreenGoYellow.com for more info.)

Buy a Fuel Efficient Car: Getting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference. Save thousands of lbs. of CO2 and a lot of money per year.

Carpool When You Can: Own a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel. Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Reduce Garbage: Buy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass. Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.

Plant a Tree: Trees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.

Insulate Your Water Heater: Keep your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.

Replace Old Appliances: Inefficient appliances waste energy. Save hundreds of lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Weatherize Your Home: Caulk and weather strip your doorways and windows. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $274 per year.

Use a Push Mower: Use your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide and x $ per year.

Unplug Un-Used Electronics: Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $256 per year.

Put on a Sweater: Instead of turning up the heat in your home, wear more clothes Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $250 per year.

Insulate Your Home: Make sure your walls and ceilings are insulated. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $245 per year.

Air Dry Your Clothes: Line-dry your clothes in the spring and summer instead of using the dryer. Save 700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $75 per year.

Switch to a Tankless Water Heater: Your water will be heated as you use it rather than keeping a tank of hot water. Save x lbs. of carbon dioxide and $390 per year.

Switch to Double Pane Windows: Double pane windows keep more heat inside your home so you use less energy. Save 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $436 per year.

Buy Organic Food: The chemicals used in modern agriculture pollute the water supply, and require energy to produce.

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market: Using your own cloth bag instead of plastic or paper bags reduces waste and requires no additional energy.

Use the Canvas/Vinyl Bags Sold at the Market: At Hannaford, each bag costs $5.50; you get a $.05 credit each time you use them and they hold 3 plastic bags worth of groceries. It’s environmentally friendly and it’s easier to get all the groceries into the house!

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147 (http://www.globalwarming.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147)
www.stopglobalwarming.org (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org)


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on May 10, 2007, 01:47:19 pm
It's really a shame how many people here can't seem to debate without either engaging in personal attacks or trying to pump up their assumed credentials, seemingly at the expense of their "opponent."

Assume what you wish.

First, take the personal attacks someplace else.

This is a staple defense for those who have nothing to offer other than attacks.  This forum is no different than the thousands of others that do not verify credentials.  Mine are available for the moderators to inspect if they choose (As I have done at Physorg, AA.org, Phys Review, Wiki and TalkOrigins). 

Second, unless someone is secretly a climatologist, there are no "experts" here.

Incorrect.  Climatologists make up only 30% of the current field of researchers working on the problem.  The remaining field is fashioned from the rest of the scientific ranks (i.e. theorists, physical modellers (physicists), geochemists, geologists, chemists, theorists, statisticians, analysts (of many sorts), oceanographers, astrophysicists, etc., etc.)

There is only the latest research, and we are all quite capable of finding it,  reading it and making our own educated judgments.  Stick to the facts, not personal opinions. You are entitled to your opinions, just not your own set of facts.

The "santitized for public consumption" media soundbites, public discloseures and press releases are available to the public - not the actual facts, research and data sets used to formulate the {current} theory.  In that light, how can anyone find fault with varying opinions?  Seems rather narrow-minded to assume that everyone must run off the cliff just because "most" of the lemmings are doing so.

Right now, the facts are, as follows:

The world is warming up, and scientists are 90% certain that human beings are responsible.  I would really like to move beyond that point to discussing practical solutions to the problem, however, I am aware that some people still don't want to accept responsibility, so by all means, keep going.

Gosh - I think I said the very same thing on May 5th.  Although, I do not need to stipulate acceptance of the theory to move to the next phase - hypothesizing solution.  Beyond that, it really isn't a matter of accepting responsibility though - at least not for me.  I'll grant you that there are a number of governments out there that really do not want to do anything about the pollution, but that does not extend to their citizens (including myself). 

Merlin, you, too, are welcome to characterize things anyway that you wish, but there are no experts here, not me, and certainly not you. You are not in not any position to deliver lectures to any of us on this material. There is only the material, and we are all welcome to read it. The scientific material that the press bases it's report on is easy to find, too, you are not the only one with access to it.

I suggest, from this point on that we stick to the facts and stay away from posturing.  If your whole position (and Metatron's, too, apparently) is that you know climatology better than the rest of us, and, are, therefore in a better position to lecture us on it, then continuing any part of this discussion is pointless. 


Quote
Take a look back and see for yourself - there is no topical discussion offered - only insult.


I haven't seen many insults offered in this forum.  And the only insults offered in this thread have actually been delivered from Metatron (towards me), and yourself and Proteus.  As I said, it would be appreciated if that type of behavior was continued elsewhere.  Thank you.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 10, 2007, 07:53:13 pm
I know where you're comin from Merl, I was referring to the tirade we were subjected to on the other forum. This subject is now 14 pages long, and I have yet to see enough individual, self-possessed, original thought to fill even one page. It's all cut and paste of someone elses analysis. When someone jumps in to either refute some or all the information posted, they get lambasted by the originator of the post as if they, themself, were the author of the article. It's absolutely amazing.

Yes, I do have a little inkling of trying to keep facts just that, FACTS, and there are times when "if they come at you with a knife, you come back with a gun" "if they beat one of yours up, you send one of theirs to the morgue" (I love that movie), but to take that information to make a slanderous personal attack on the participants is completely uncalled for.

I'm rambling and this is not on topic, sorry, had a bad couple of weeks.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 10, 2007, 08:23:54 pm
Landscaping Your Home for Energy Efficiency - Did it

Buy a Hybrid Car - can't do this, not big enough yet for what I gotta haul

Carpool When You Can - Just about always do

Inflate Your Tires - always

Change Your Air Filter - change it every three months whether it needs it or not.

Reduce Garbage - Not home long enough to generate too much, and 90% of that is recycled

Use Recycled Paper - when I can find it in a form that I require

Unplug Un-used Electronics - yep, do that

Plant a Tree - I plant one yearly, my property is just about a forest.


Use Compact Fluorescent Bulbs - It's the only ones I have, with the exception of a couple of night lights and the ceiling fans.

Fill the Dishwasher - don't own one, not enough dishes to wash for that.

Adjust Your Thermostat - set at 65 all winter and off come March.

Check Your Waterheater - sorry mine's set at 140, I like my showers hot.

Change the AC Filter - don't have an air conditioner, don't like them

Take Shorter Showers - mine last about 7 mins, is that short enough?

Install a Low-Flow Showerhead - Nope, I like a good pounding for my 7 mins.

Buy Products Locally - every time, my job make me travel too much to go any distance for daily stuff.

Buy Energy Certificates - never heard of these

Insulate Your Water Heater - yep, it has its nice soft blanket

Replace Old Appliances - oops, I say, if it ain't broke, keep using it.

Put on a Sweater - have to, winters here can be very taxing.

Insulate Your Home - tight and snug here

Air Dry Your Clothes - only on the nice days,


Switch to a Tankless Water Heater - not yet, that's a cost that will have to wait.

Switch to Double Pane Windows - double pane, argon gas filled, ultraviolet coating, got em.

Buy Organic Food - too pricey

Bring Cloth Bags to the Market - I just use a cardboard box that is kept in my car


Well, am I in the ball park at least?  ;)



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 10, 2007, 08:40:20 pm
........side bar.........

Glad to see ya hanging out here Meta. Keep it real  ;D


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on May 10, 2007, 09:35:19 pm
I know where you're comin from Merl, I was referring to the tirade we were subjected to on the other forum. This subject is now 14 pages long, and I have yet to see enough individual, self-possessed, original thought to fill even one page. It's all cut and paste of someone elses analysis. When someone jumps in to either refute some or all the information posted, they get lambasted by the originator of the post as if they, themself, were the author of the article. It's absolutely amazing.

Yes, I do have a little inkling of trying to keep facts just that, FACTS, and there are times when "if they come at you with a knife, you come back with a gun" "if they beat one of yours up, you send one of theirs to the morgue" (I love that movie), but to take that information to make a slanderous personal attack on the participants is completely uncalled for.

I'm rambling and this is not on topic, sorry, had a bad couple of weeks.

You're entitled to your opinion, too, Zaphod, but, from my point of view, all I have seen you do in this thread is complain about it. If you think the thread should be something more substantial, feel free to introduce what your version of a "good post" is.

As for cutting and pasting other people's material, I don't know what your gripe with that is.  Merlin has cut and pasted items here, too. I hope your gripe isn't only relegated to those who take the opposite point of view to his.  And as for anyone feeling obligated to introducing an "original thought" here, that one has me baffled as well. Scientific facts are scientific facts.  Are we supposed to feel obligated to come up with our own version of the whys and ways of global warming in order to participate here, in your eyes? If so, that, to me, is what would be absolutely amazing.  There really isn't much debate at all in the scientific community that global warming is perpetuated by man anymore, that's a debate from ten years ago.  Some people will never be convinced, but that's okay, some people will never be convinced of evolution either. 

Not having all the answers about global warming should not be confused with having none of the answers.  Inconsistencies found in a theory do not, in themselves, form a counter-theory.

Finally, all things considered, I'd like to reiterate that the debate taking place here has been civil for the most part, without any of the juvenile behavior you seem to suggest is taking place.  If it doesn't quite measure up to your quality of conversation, my advice would be to not read it.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: zaphod on May 10, 2007, 11:24:43 pm
Hey there Jason,

I think I may not have made myself exactly clear (it happens from time to time). Let me try again.

I haven't put my two cents worth into this thread for one very good reason, I don't know the FACTS of the causes or fixative measures of "global warming". Personally, from what I have read from a multitude of sources and, no, I am not going to list them, I feel that this is all just a natural cyclical event. Yes, mankind MAY have something to do with with it, but only to the extent of PERHAPS causing an alteration in the parameters in which it would have naturally ocurred anyway. I could be completely wrong, but I won't discredit either side of the issue just because it doesn't mesh with my view.

So, how can we fix it? I don't have the slightest damn idea. Why don't we just completely remove the human race from the face of the earth to another planet and compare the results when, in the next few thousand years, it happens again. Good idea?? NO of course it isn't. Niether is putting the complete blame on the populus.

My remarks were'nt really meant to be complaining about this thread as a whole, my reason for buttin my nose in it was due to two things: 2 weeks of living in hell, and the introduction of venomously laden remarks that were neither appropriate nor necessary because it had all been said over a year ago in the other forum. I probably should have just shot my computer and gone to bed, but I was in a foul mood and not completely rational.

On to your next point.

My idea of a good post is one that presents a particular side of an issue using the contributors own thoughts, ideas and experimentation. Naturally, those thoughts and ideas have to have an originating source, making previously researched material by others a necessity. But, to recite only those sources that agree with same is not only just regurgitation, it does an injustice to the individual doing it. The whole "what if" is eradicated and replaced with "it only is". Talk about stagnation! Another aspect of a good post to me is one that is not laden with personal attacks. Yeah, I know that sometimes emotions run on the high side of incredulity, and saying something like "how dense can you possibly be!" or "shut the f*** up, you're wrong" is not the kind of attacks I'm talking about. I think you know the type and I don't need to go into it.

As for c & p, I don't have a major hangup on the usage of it, but lets put it within reason, why c & p page after page, a link to the material with a short synopsis of what the poster want to impart is great (this harkens back to original thought). It doesn't make a lick of difference who does it either.

No, you are obviously not OBLIGATED to do anything in my eyes, what I was trying to get across was that if a poster has some research that supliments their thoughts, wouldn't it be more interesting to hear "why" the poster thinks that particular material is correct instead of just sticking it in and saying "here's proof! deal with that!" To my view, all they have done is shown why the original author of the material thinks that way. While the subject may be enhanced with those additions, I don't really see how it furthers the discussion on one side or the other. It's like saying "I believe this to be true, not because I have researched this or that and made the following conclusions, but because this guy did, and he says so". Well, the author of the material is not participating in the debate, the poster is. Wouldn't it make sense for the poster to present their own reasons as to the whys and wherefores? Maybe I'm being too critical.

quote: Inconsistencies found in a theory do not, in themselves, form a counter-theory. unquote

But they could. Those same inconsistencies don't necessarily negate the original theory either.

Like I said earlier, I was referring only to the crap that was started on the last page or two, I agree with you that up to that point it was civil, and I was enjoying reading this topic. I can assure you, that my "quality of conversation" may surprise you.

It's gettin on to bedtime, goodnight.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Caleb on May 12, 2007, 06:45:27 am
On a side note, I am just baffled as to why so many people who are admittedly not experts on this subject are automatically resistant to the idea that human beings are causing global warming.

Is it mankind's natural prediliction to escape the blame or is it that just too many people have been getting their science from people like Rush Limbaugh (who, are, incidentally, parroting a lot of misninformation)?

The fossil fuel industry is the most greedy, pollution-laden industry on the planet.  Common sense alone should tell you that they bear the responsibility for a lot of this, and they are the ones with the most to lose should people beging to change their ways.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on May 14, 2007, 10:44:58 am
Climate study: Eastern U.S. 'going to get a lot hotter'

POSTED: 4:13 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2007

Story Highlights

• Computer model predicts summer temperatures in the eastern U.S. will rise
• Study: In 2080 the eastern U.S. is in for daily summer highs in the low to mid 90s
• Study gets mixed reviews from other climate scientists
• Climatologist criticizes the study



(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/05/11/hot.future.ap/story.hot.summer.gi.jpg)

By 2080, east coast residents are in for daily summer highs regularly in the low to mid 90s, a new NASA study found.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Unless we take some strong action to curtail carbon dioxide emissions, it's going to get a lot hotter," said Lynn, now a scientist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "It's going to be a lot more dangerous for people who are not in the best of health."

The study got mixed reviews from other climate scientists, in part because the eastern United States has recently been wetter and cooler than forecast.

Instead of daily summer highs in the 1990s that averaged in the low to mid 80s Fahrenheit, the eastern United States is in for daily summer highs regularly in the low to mid 90s, the study found. The study only looked at the eastern United States because that was the focus of the funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lynn said.

And that's just the eastern United States as a whole. For individual cities, the future looks even hotter.

In the 2080s, the average summer high will probably be 102 degrees in Jacksonville, 100 degrees in Memphis, 96 degrees in Atlanta, and 91 degrees in Chicago and Washington, according to the study published in the April edition of the peer-reviewed journal Climate and posted on the NASA Web site Thursday.

But every now and then a summer will be drier than normal and that means even hotter days, Lynn said. So when Lynn's computer models spit out simulated results for July 2085 the forecast temperatures sizzled past uncomfortable into painful. The study showed a map where the average high in the southeast neared 115 and pushed 100 in the northeast. Even Canada flirted with the low to mid 90s.

Many politicians and climate skeptics have criticized computer models as erring on the side of predicting temperatures that are too hot and outcomes that are too apocalyptic with global warming. But Druyan said the problem is most computer models, especially when compared to their predictions of past observations, underestimate how bad global warming is. That's because they see too many rainy days, which tends to cool temperatures off, he said.

There is an established link between rainy and cooler weather and hot and drier weather, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Rainy days means more clouds blocking the sun and more solar heat used to evaporate water, Druyan said.

"I'm sorry for the bad news," Druyan said. "It gets worse everywhere."

Trenberth said the link between dryness and heat works, but he is a little troubled by the computer modeling done by Lynn and Druyan and points out that recently the eastern United States has been wetter and cooler than expected.

A top U.S. climate modeler, Jerry Mahlman, criticized the study as not matching models up correctly and "just sort of whistling in the dark a little bit."

But Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, editor of the journal Climate but not of this study, praised the paper, saying "it makes perfect sense."

He said it shows yet another "positive feedback" in global warming, where one aspect of climate change makes something else worse and it works like a loop.

"The more we start to understand of the science, the more positive feedbacks we start to find," Weaver said.

Weaver said looking at the map of a hotter eastern United States he can think of one thing: "I like living in Canada."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/11/hot.future.ap/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: 19Merlin69 on May 14, 2007, 08:00:44 pm
It bothers me that Zaphod is taking crap just because she is showing signs of rational thought.  I think it would be easier if I were to just stay in the physics categories.  Toodles.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Jason on May 15, 2007, 02:08:56 am
I didn't know that Zaphod was a "she."

Anyway, I don't see Zaphod as "taking crap" in any shape or form.  Zaph made a few points, to which I responded, civilly. I really have a few issues with what some people seem to consider "rational thought."  The conversation with Zaphod dealt with his/her opinions on the way that the thread was going, we didn't get into the pros and cons of human beings causing global warming, so Zaph's opinons weren't even being discussed, nor was he or she taking any crap about them.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Wanderer on May 16, 2007, 12:56:13 pm
The topic has become a touchstone for all sorts of input from various individuals around the world it seems.  In the 1970s it was predicted that by all studies we were definitely headed for another worldwide glacial era.  We know the earth has gone through many upheavals and climate changes quite severe throughout its history with no input from humans.  The only reason people are adjatated about all the hoopla is simply because we are here.  If humankind had not arisen on this planet the changes would occur nonetheless as they always have.  It's only because we have a vested interest in survival that we revel in this foreboding.

It is quite likely that a space object will collide with the planet before it becomes hot in 2080 yet there is no global alarm and less than a dozen individuals scan the heavens seeking earthbound trajectory objects.  It simply is not a cause celeb yet would have far more serious consequences.

Perhaps there is some racial imprint sparking this alarm due to past catastrophies in the human record that "feels right" to many people who jump on the warming bandwagon.  The truth is that there is no consences on the current debate any more than there was as to what the expected rainfall was going to be by Great Plains farmers in 1947.

It's quite easy to accept and inch of substance and quite another to accept a mile of innuendo.  Until very recently, historicly, we didn't even have a global network of technically modern instruments to record weather-related events.  Global "weather stations" had mercury bulb thermometers and rain gauges and were manned by lonely individuals stuck in far flung outposts.  What was the lowest temperature in Siberia in 1919?  What was the highest in the Gobi in 1310?  How many hurricanes occurred of the eastern North American coast in 26 BC?  Exactly how much rainfall was there in the Amazon area 260,120 years ago?  What was the cause and reason for the demise of the 500-year mini ice age in Europe that ended with the Rennaissance?

Each generation with their accumulated technology thinks they are THE hottest thing going. That's true for today or 1899, 1620 and so on.  Then the next generation comes along and buries much of the previous human misconcepcions that seemed so valid they couldn't be false.  After all, science speculated such so they must be true!  Scientists once agreed that traveling in a railroad coach at 30 MPH would result in all air being sucked out causing a vacuum and the death of riders.  More recently scientists theorized that the 1st nuclear explosion might incinerate the entire world's atmosphere killing everyone!

And regardless of whether the warming concept is fact or supposition just who is going to do what to completely modify every nation on the planet's way of living?  The United Nations has little influence on world governing affairs for the most part, so how is anyone to expect a yet to exist global governing entity to make inroads in unagreed upon measures to reduce warming with no prioritization universally agreed upon?

Do we all move close to work so we drive less.  Do we devise catalyic attachments for both ends of bovines that belch and fart objectionable gasses?  Do we stop purchasing $650 million in Christmas decorations annually from China who pollutes greviously in their and other manufacture?  Just who is going to influence them to stop using coal for fuel?  Do we put India on notice that they have far too many human beings exhaling noxious gasses? Do we allow diseased and starving people's lives in underdeveloped nations to be extinguished for some fuzyy but lofty goal? Do we cap of the world's volcanoes which have wrought more atmospheric pollution than probably any other source in historic or prehistoric times. 

Who is to have the power to decide what the priorities are and how to impliment and enforce them?  This is where it begins to smell like 3 day old fish.  It goes back to money and power as it always has.  There is money to be made and power to be built by the whole scenario.  Moreover, how much is the average citizen expected to bear in wallet?

Each generation has stepped forth eager and motivated, ready to take on the inventive challenges of human development with an eye to the past and some trebidation of the unknown future.  But with this in mind we are now being conditioned to fear the future as though we are positively in for a bleak and devestating Mad Max existence based on a bunch of squints running climatic scenarios on Windows yet.

In the 1950s and 60 we were conditioned to fear the BOMB and the inevitable nuclear conflagration that was bound to unfold.  Now we are giving creedance to every founded or unfounded theory projecting 75 years ahead reagrding temperature fluctuations.

Where ever you are your local meteroligists fail to accurately predict the high and low temperature within 5 degrees for 10 days running with all of todays technology and you are in good conscience attempting to make me believe that the can predict what is surely going to occur at the end of this century on a global basis.


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Brandon on May 17, 2007, 01:29:09 pm
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/top.antarctic.jpg)

Study: Southern Ocean saturated with CO2

The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, scientists reported Thursday.

Story Highlights• Southern Ocean around Antarctica loaded with carbon dioxide
• Human activity is the main culprit, according to researchers
• Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon
• Research indicates it has been saturated with CO2 since the 1980s
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday.

Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.

The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.

"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."

The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming.

The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.

This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere said.

Increased winds over the last half-century are to blame for the change, Le Quere said. These winds blend the carbon dioxide throughout the Southern Ocean, mixing the naturally occurring carbon that usually stays deep down with the human-caused carbon.

When natural carbon is brought up to the surface by the winds, it is harder for the Southern Ocean to accommodate more human-generated carbon, which comes from factories, coal-fired power plants and petroleum-powered motor vehicle exhaust.

The winds themselves are caused by two separate human factors.

First, the human-spawned ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Ocean has created large changes in temperature throughout the atmosphere, Le Quere said.

Second, the uneven nature of global warming has produced higher temperatures in the northern parts of the world than in the south, which has also made the winds accelerate in the Southern Ocean.

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.

"The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern," Rapley said.

Another sign of warming in the Antarctic was reported Tuesday by NASA, which found vast areas of snow melted on the southern continent in 2005 in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface. (Full story)

Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html


Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on June 01, 2007, 01:28:25 am
Bush urges 15 nations to set global emissions goal
POSTED: 12:30 p.m. EDT, May 31, 2007

Story Highlights
• President calls for meeting of top emitters of greenhouse gases
• Global warming to be addressed at summit in Germany next week
• Critic says U.S. has "do-nothing" policy on global warming

 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases.

Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries. After setting a goal, the nations would be free to develop their own strategies to meet the target.

The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.

The United States has refused to ratify the landmark 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from that first round of cuts. Bush rejected the Kyoto approach, as well as the latest German proposal for what happens after 2012.

"The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said. "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

Environmental groups were quick to criticize Bush's plan.
Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder called the proposal "a complete charade. It is an attempt to make the Bush administration look like it takes global warming seriously without actually doing anything to curb emissions."

National Environmental Trust president Philip Clapp agreed.
"This is a transparent effort to divert attention from the president's refusal to accept any emissions reductions proposals at next week's G-8 summit," Clapp said. "After sitting out talks on global warming for years, the Bush administration doesn't have very much credibility with other governments on the issue. "

And Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration has a "do-nothing" policy on global warming despite U.S. allies' best efforts to spur U.S. reductions.

Along with his call for a global emissions goal, Bush urged other nations to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies.

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called "2-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius -- the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit -- before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said, that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Instead, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global emissions goal. Each nation then would have to decide on how to achieve the goal, White House officials said.

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," the president said.

"So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gases, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

"Each country would establish midterm management targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs," he said. "In the course of the next 18 months, our nations will bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation, and alternative fuels and transportation."

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, rejected charges that the U.S. was dragging its feet in the fight against climate change.

"This is actually accelerating it," he said. "If we wanted to put things off further, you'd have annual meetings at the U.N. for the next five years. If you want to accelerate it, we do a lot of groundwork in between the U.N. meetings so we can bring the work product to the U.N. meetings."

The U.S. last year actually experienced a drop in emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas most blamed for global warming. The 1.3 percent decline from 2005, the first drop in 11 years, was due to a mild winter followed by a cool summer, along with other factors ranging from greater industrial efficiency to increased capacity of nuclear power plants.

Carbon dioxide is produced from burning fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are used widely to produce electricity to heat homes in winter and run air conditioners in summer.

While Bush announced his new proposal, the administration registered its opposition to a number of approaches to combat global warming. Specifically, the White House said it does not support a global carbon-trading program allowing countries to buy and sell carbon credits to meet limits on carbon dioxide levels. The White House also expressed opposition to energy efficiency targets advocated by the EU, arguing that a standard applicable in one country does not fit another.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/31/bush.climate.ap/index.html



Title: Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Post by: Allison on June 01, 2007, 01:32:45 am
What a weasel, he urges action "by the end of next year on climate change..!"

Hello! 

That's when the cretin gets out of office!  This miserable White House tries to escape responsibility for doing anything, they exist solely to line the pockets of the rich coporations which they are beholden!