Gore, His Movie and What a "Climate Research" Expert has to say about global warming

[rushmc 23]

More debunking of the general "All/Most scientists agree" statements

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

From the article:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

Simply untrue. See attached.

"In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

True. The greenhouse effect from all that CO2 is what reversed the "snowball earth" we had for tens of thousands of years. The fact that volcanic CO2 emissions reversed what otherwise would have been a permanent deep freeze is one of the strongest arguments that CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.

"The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Of course. In this case, an entire ice shelf broke off. Naturally scientists didn't have much in the way of warning, so there's no video of the event.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

True. And newer studies show the same warming trend. If you don't believe evil scientists, just ask the residents of Barrow or Shishmaref, Alaska, who may soon have to move because their coast is no longer protected by ice most of the year.

That's why the deniers are bound to fail in the end. Not because people listen to scientists instead of politicans and activists, but because they believe what they see when they look out their windows.

"Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean. . ."

This is precisely what you'd expect to happen as the planet warms. Circulation patterns change; ocean currents shift. Some places get warmer, some places get cooler. Some places see more rain, some see less. Overall, the planet gets warmer, but local variations can be _much_ higher.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

From the article:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

Simply untrue. See attached.

"In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

True. The greenhouse effect from all that CO2 is what reversed the "snowball earth" we had for tens of thousands of years. The fact that volcanic CO2 emissions reversed what otherwise would have been a permanent deep freeze is one of the strongest arguments that CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.

"The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Of course. In this case, an entire ice shelf broke off. Naturally scientists didn't have much in the way of warning, so there's no video of the event.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

True. And newer studies show the same warming trend. If you don't believe evil scientists, just ask the residents of Barrow or Shishmaref, Alaska, who may soon have to move because their coast is no longer protected by ice most of the year.

That's why the deniers are bound to fail in the end. Not because people listen to scientists instead of politicans and activists, but because they believe what they see when they look out their windows.

"Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean. . ."

This is precisely what you'd expect to happen as the planet warms. Circulation patterns change; ocean currents shift. Some places get warmer, some places get cooler. Some places see more rain, some see less. Overall, the planet gets warmer, but local variations can be _much_ higher.

You may not agree with him Bill, but I do.

Most GW models and theorys are flawed at best and molded and manipulated at worst.

Compelling arguments, well stated and explained.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>Most GW models and theorys are flawed at best and molded and
>manipulated at worst.

Except it's happening. Like I said, you may be able to snow people with silly science, but you're not going to be able to convince Alaskans that their glaciers aren't melting, or their permafrost isn't going away, or the ice cap is disappearing. They can see it out their windows.

>You may not agree with him Bill, but I do.

I don't think you really do. You have framed all your posts with respect to how much you disagree with things, but not what you agree with. I have the feeling if someone said "global warming is caused by a lack of pirates!" you'd agree with him. "See? It might be pirates after all! Take that, global warming crowd!"

But let's try to remedy that; perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying. Let's see what you DO agree with:

Do you think that human beings, through burning fossil fuels, have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by approximately 50%?

Do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Do you think that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can reasonably be expected to increase average temperatures?

Do you think that the planet has been getting significantly warmer over the past 200 years?

Do you think that average temperatures have anything to do with the weather patterns around the world?

Do you think that a warmer average planetary temperature might cause more ice to melt worldwide?

[Zipp0 1]

God makes the planet get warmer or colder, don't you know that?

The righties and the Muslims have something in common. The Muslims always follow statements about the future with "Insha'Allah" or "If it is God's will."

So stop it with the science already.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[rushmc 23]

But let's try to remedy that; perhaps I am misunderstanding what you're saying. Let's see what you DO agree with:

Do you think that human beings, through burning fossil fuels, have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by approximately 50%?

Quote

I am not convinced. CO2 may be increasing (depending on the data you look at) but I think that natural causes may be more to blame than man

Do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

I will agree it is a gas but in any event I have not looked into the specific reactions to the increase in this gas. Florocarbons were supposed to destroy ozone too but now that is being hotly debated. But, this doen't really make anydifference anymore. (unles Dupont sponsors another study that comes out saying the new gases make you hair fall out and get it banned to creat more profit from the new gas they have developed and pattened. Sorry, I ramble

Do you think that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can reasonably be expected to increase average temperatures?

Quote

No, as stated in the article I posted those gasses have been found to be in much higher concentrations in the past. At levels 450 times what they are today. And as I have agreed to before the temps as mesured are increasing. What is causing that is where you and I part ways

Do you think that the planet has been getting significantly warmer over the past 200 years?

Do you think that average temperatures have anything to do with the weather patterns around the world?

For 200 years? I don't know but I believe increases have been shown for the last few decades.

As for the weather pattens. Temp has to have an effect on patterns. I do not believe that man is causing these patterns. 30, 90 and maybe even 150 year pattern variations exist. Most of what is happening is natural IMO

Do you think that a warmer average planetary temperature might cause more ice to melt worldwide?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

God makes the planet get warmer or colder, don't you know that?

The righties and the Muslims have something in common. The Muslims always follow statements about the future with "Insha'Allah" or "If it is God's will."

So stop it with the science already.

Very constructive

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Casurf1978 0]

Let's leave politics aside. For the first time in human history we have the power to significantly alter our environment. We can wipe out hundreds and even thousands of acres of rainforest in a matter of days or weeks. Think about how many tons of exhaust gases cars in a major metropolitan city like LA, NYC, Chicago can pump out into the environment in a single day. Now think about that on a global scale. Look at how mining has evolved over the last century. Taken all these things and more into account, don't you think it's reasonable to sit back and see what possible effects this might have on a global scale. Gore's movie might be a little over the top, but don't just say it's BS and denounce him as a left wing, tree hugging, owl loving, greenie. Let's look at the facts and try to understand what is going on with our environment.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

God makes the planet get warmer or colder, don't you know that?

The righties and the Muslims have something in common. The Muslims always follow statements about the future with "Insha'Allah" or "If it is God's will."

So stop it with the science already.

Very constructive

About as constuctive as you conceding that CO2 is a gas.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,119]

> CO2 may be increasing (depending on the data you look at . . .)

There is no data out there (none, zero, zip, nada) that shows CO2 concentrations remaining steady. That's really simple science. You could do a CO2 experiment at home to show it's increasing year by year (and many have done just that.)

>but I think that natural causes may be more to blame than man . . .

Well, we can do the math. We burn about X billion tons of coal a year and Y billion barrels of oil a year. We cut down/burn Z acres of forest a year. All that should result in N billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. And lo and behold, the CO2 concentration increases every year by that amount. That's pretty simple math.

>No, as stated in the article I posted those gasses have been found
>to be in much higher concentrations in the past. At levels 450 times >what they are today.

Right. And that caused a runaway greenhouse effect that turned a ball of ice (the earth during massive glaciation) into a hothouse. It's a good thing it did, because the explosion of life that resulted allowed us to take the next steps in evolution. Once all that life proliferated, plants began using CO2 again and the CO2 levels returned to a more reasonable level.

So I agree with you on that point - but it's one of the stronger bits of proof that CO2 _is_ a strong greenhouse gas.

>For 200 years? I don't know but I believe increases have been shown
> for the last few decades.

OK, we agree there.

>Temp has to have an effect on patterns.

We agree there too.

>30, 90 and maybe even 150 year pattern variations exist.

Do you have a hypothesis on why we haven't seen them before, then?

>Logically yes, but that is not the case today. Scientists in those
>regions are disputing the ice is melting. While the edges are
>pulling back (as that can be seen) the center is getting thicker
> because of record cold winters lately. Again, I believe this to be part
> of a natural cycle . . .

Hmm. You think the planet is warming overall, and that it's part of a natural cycle - but that ice is NOT melting overall? That seems inconsistent.

[rushmc 23]

From the article

>Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

more from the article..

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

and this

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."


This GW theroy is not agreed to


and my favorite

Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.


This what I have been saying!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

God makes the planet get warmer or colder, don't you know that?

The righties and the Muslims have something in common. The Muslims always follow statements about the future with "Insha'Allah" or "If it is God's will."

So stop it with the science already.

Very constructive

About as constuctive as you conceding that CO2 is a gas.

two for two

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

You post stuff, I post rebuttals to it. Then you post the same stuff again, as if you never read my reply to it. Ah well. Par for the course here I suppose.

Your ideas on climate change are, interestingly, 180 off from most dissenters. No one disputes that CO2 levels are rising, or that we put it there, or that it's a greenhouse gas. No one. There is some dispute about what effect that warming will have, and how much warming we will see - which is where most deniers concentrate their efforts.

So keep posting those articles - but in the future, you may want to read them before using them as proof of your position. Because more often than not, they rebut the very point you are trying to make.

[rushmc 23]

>they rebut the very point you are trying to make<

they did not here did they.

And for me you did not rebut the info I posted.
You tried to work around it but that failed too.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>they did not here did they.

They did; heck, one of them TALKED about the increase in CO2 levels in that very article, and he admits that it causes warming. But if I say that you will just post them all over again. Don't bother; they won't say anything different the third time.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>they rebut the very point you are trying to make<

they did not here did they.

And for me you did not rebut the info I posted.
You tried to work around it but that failed too.

Watching the bickering in SC warms my cockles.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Logically yes, but that is not the case today. Scientists in those regions are disputing the ice is melting. While the edges are pulling back (as that can be seen) the center is getting thicker because of record cold winters lately. Again, I believe this to be part of a natural cycle

I understand the antarctic ice cap is getting thicker in the middle and that is due to an increase in precipitation which you would expect to find as a result of global warming so it could be an indication that GW is happening.

Whatever happens with our weather it will always be part of the natural cycle, the only debate really is are we encouraging it to happen faster than it would have otherwise and are we able to adapt fast enough to the changes?

There are lots of if's and buts involved with the GW theory but if you piece all the bits together you start to see a picture emerging, it's a bit like doing a jigsaw - you're not sure what the final picture will look like but the more pieces that are put in place the more certain you become (or the better guesses you can make). Unfortunately with this particular jigsaw I think there will always be a few pieces missing!!

Anyway what would happen if GW didn't occur? The population is expanding at an unsustainable rate anyway so maybe it's a good thing that some of us are killed off as a result. Perhaps GW is natural selection at work.

[rushmc 23]

Keep them to yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

>they rebut the very point you are trying to make<

they did not here did they.

And for me you did not rebut the info I posted.
You tried to work around it but that failed too.

Watching the bickering in SC warms my cockles.

hearing of your warmed cockles makes me want to go rub one out.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

uhhh....sweet?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Royd 0]

Quote

"In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

True. The greenhouse effect from all that CO2 is what reversed the "snowball earth" we had for tens of thousands of years. The fact that volcanic CO2 emissions reversed what otherwise would have been a permanent deep freeze is one of the strongest arguments that CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.

Thank God. There would be no Fl. On the other hand, glaciers in the northern part of the country might be a bad idea.

What, exactly, as a whole , is the environmental community doing in real terms to turn this horrible situation around, besides screaming and pointing fingers?
Why don't they start a campaign to get everyone who believes the hype, to only ride bicycles everywhere they go, or would that be just too much to ask, to get a handle on the situation?

IMO, if you live within 10 to15 miles of your workplace, there is no reason why this can't be done.
If this happened in LA alone, look how clean the air would be, and the traffic would be greatly reduced.
Obese people would get thin, heart disease would practically be eliminated, the cost of health and auto insurance would go down.
I could go on and on.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What, exactly, as a whole , is the environmental community doing in real terms to turn this horrible situation around, besides screaming and pointing fingers?

oh, there's a whole industry making tons of money on this. and there's research grants, and bumper stickers, and vandalizing SUVs and Hummers, and firey debate in little social circles, and acting smug, and chanting, and picketing, and driving all the way across the country to lobby and getting your picture on TV and scapegoating, and more and more and more, and don't forget - screaming and pointing fingers

Can't someone else do it? (simpson's quote alert)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Royd 0]

Quote

oh, there's a whole industry making tons of money on this. and there's research grants, and bumper stickers, and vandalizing SUVs and Hummers, and firey debate in little social circles, and acting smug, and chanting, and picketing, and driving all the way across the country to lobby and getting your picture on TV and scapegoating, and more and more and more, and don't forget - screaming and pointing fingers

You and I are on the same page.
We could eliminate tons of hot air if those who demand solutions, would talk less and work more.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You and I are on the same page.

Oh no, not at all. I wish I could cash in on it. But whenever I try to act all outraged during the sales pitch I just start giggling.

edit: It would be quicker money if I just started my own religion. Big Buck$

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,119]

>is the environmental community doing in real terms to turn this
>horrible situation around?

Well, it's not horrible yet - but we do have a chance today to mitigate a potentially big problem in the future.

At a world level, people are pushing international agreements (like Kyoto) that can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At the national level, environmental organizations are pushing for:

-Reduction in CO2 emissions via incentive and regulation, as is happening in California now.

-Increased CAFE levels, which will reduce gas prices and help reduce CO2 emissions.

-Increased use of alternate fuels, like ethanol, biodiesel and methane.

-Increased use of alternative electrical generation strategies like geothermal, large scale wind and hydro.

-Increased use of alternate distributed energy sources like solar, wind and microhydro.

-Increased use of nuclear power. This one is controversial, since many environmental organizations are opposed to it. But several - notably EFN, NFK and James Lovelock - support it as a way to reduce greenhouse gases.

Note that these are mostly US organizations, which makes sense since we're the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Personally:

I generate all my own power from solar, and essentially "donate" the excess to the power grid. I generate about 15kwhr/day extra, which is equivalent to about a gallon of gasoline a day.

I have two hybrids, and I run them on E50, which is a 50/50 mix of gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol is a CO2-neutral fuel, since the plants needed to make it take the CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

I usually bike to work. I have a regular commuter bike and an electric one for when I'm lazy.

I've set up Skydive San Diego with a solar/natural gas power system that runs the entire DZ, along with the air conditioners. It's about 40% solar now.

We recycle our greywater. (One problem with using crop-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel is water for irrigation; we have to use less water if those fuels get popular.)