deleted thread al gore

[Alan Wheeler]

One was the gulf stream turning off,

The powering of the Gulf stream is influenced more by the rotation of the Earth than the actual water temperature. The fact that the stream is warm in some area's is purely to do with where the water has come from imediately before hand. The stream is also cold in other area's. NZ's Eastern side tends to be colder than it should be, because the stream around us comes from the Antartic regions and brings colder waters along the East coast. The Western side is warmer because the Tasman has a much warmer stream in it. It is amazing the difference it makes to the land.

Although the icecaps will have some affect on the sea level, those that are crying that the world will drown are once again, being alarmist. Just take a look at a good quality Globe with land relief on it's surface and see the bigger picture. Even the Himalayas are not that big when you view the "bigger picture". The ice shelfs world wide are big, but not as big as you think. In fact, if you really think about it, there is very little ice cap left on the earths surface at all. Certainly a very different view in the more "modern earth" than it was in the ice age. Ice age = One hell of a lot of ice.

The third was the loss of the amazon to since it is a big weather engine

It is not a weather engien as such. But it is very true that it has a big influence of the earths weather and health. 40% of the worlds oxygen is created in the Amazon. At any given time, 6 billion tons of water are held in clouds over that rain forest, waiting to pour down.
But interestingly, another 40% of the worlds oxygen is created in another Forest. It is the Forest that circles the high lattitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and is under snow for the most of the year. When it comes to spring/summer and all thaws out, it has a tremendouse influence of the worlds atmosphere.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

It is not a weather engien as such. But it is very true that it has a big influence of the earths weather and health. 40% of the worlds oxygen is created in the Amazon. At any given time, 6 billion tons of water are held in clouds over that rain forest, waiting to pour down.
But interestingly, another 40% of the worlds oxygen is created in another Forest. It is the Forest that circles the high lattitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and is under snow for the most of the year. When it comes to spring/summer and all thaws out, it has a tremendouse influence of the worlds atmosphere.

Hmmm...that would mean that only 20% of the world's oxygen comes from the remaining forests and oceans...

NASA claims 50% of the oxygen comes from phytoplankton
EO Newsroom: New Images - Nines Years of Ocean Chlorophyll

[camaraderie]

Alan...You said...NZ has no Uranium, so it would have to be imported.

The suggestion has been made that NZ has an almost unlimited supply of methane! (g)

[Alan Wheeler]

Hmmm...that would mean that only 20% of the world's oxygen comes from the remaining forests and oceans...

Now I am glad you brought that up. Because that has always made me wonder as well. I ahve certainly not made up those figures, they come from a good source. BUT!!! does that mean they are "media hype" once again?, inaccurate reporting? or has one of the three sources got the figures wrong. And hence lies the very seat of the issue with Global warming. Facts and figures easily thrown around by the ones we as Citizens take as Trustworthy, only for the ones that have the time on their hands to piece two and two together and find out that it doesn't seem to add up just quite right.

Camaraderie, yep we may have lots of Methane, but you just can't get the cows to stand still when you plumb hoses up to their rear ends :-)

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Camaraderie, yep we may have lots of Methane, but you just can't get the cows to stand still when you plumb hoses up to their rear ends :-)

On that theme, why can't we tap into all the methane produced by all the bulls**t coming out of Parliament? Cheap power source and plenty of it.

Each country already has a rich source and, at last, an actual good reason for the existence of politicians. 2 birds with one stone. Works for me.

Anyone know what methane gives you when burn it? Meaning, is burning politicians by-products (maybe the odd one of them even) carbon good or carbon bad.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

And hence lies the very seat of the issue with Global warming. Facts and figures easily thrown around by the ones we as Citizens take as Trustworthy, only for the ones that have the time on their hands to piece two and two together and find out that it doesn't seem to add up just quite right.
:-)

Yeah, if they can't agree on oxygen sources, how can they possibly get all the bounday conditions and forcings right...much less make hundreds of different types of code and algorithms (finite difference, finite element, etc.) work seamlessly together. I know for a fact that most computational fluid dynamics codes are only as good as your BC data.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Trim50

Yeah, if they can't agree on oxygen sources, how can they possibly get all the bounday conditions and forcings right...much less make hundreds of different types of code and algorithms (finite difference, finite element, etc.) work seamlessly together. I know for a fact that most computational fluid dynamics codes are only as good as your BC data.

Yup...we don't know exactly how the system works in the first place. Second if we did know it would be an enormous model..beyond putting it all into equations. Third, if we did have this enormous model then there is no computer, even with distributed computing, with enough computational power to grind the data anywhere close to real time or faster.

We don't even understand how the colder lower ocean currents work. Without that data, we have no idea on how heat is being distributed around the planet.

There is a NASA climate model but it is nowhere near comprehensive and is a crude estimate at best.

So to say this or that is going to happen as a result of this or that is just guesswork.

I'm not say we should not cut back on our excesses, we should, it's just that when someone says they know something with certainty, like Gore claims, you can be certain they are blowing smoke out their arse.

[cooper]

....but you know the saying "where theres smoke theres fire"......

[northerncat]

as a skeptic i would say yes there is smoke i can see there is smoke but this doesnt necessarily prove there is fire, when im welding ill often use an old towel to stop slag falling on stuff i dont wat it too and these willl smoke very well without a fire after all it could be smoke from a chemical reaction no fire involved hehehe,
sean

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by David M

There is a NASA climate model but it is nowhere near comprehensive and is a crude estimate at best.

Yes, but they are able to produce really pretty pictures that look great on Power Point presentations put together for the IPCC.

I've also heard them claim that it doesn't matter if the model is not exact if you run it enough times and generate a probability distribution...I chuckle

[Alan Wheeler]

if you run it enough times and generate a probability distribution.

Or said another way, "if we run it enough times, we will eventually get the answer we want"

[David M]

Originally Posted by Trim50

Yes, but they are able to produce really pretty pictures that look great on Power Point presentations put together for the IPCC.

I've also heard them claim that it doesn't matter if the model is not exact if you run it enough times and generate a probability distribution...I chuckle

Funny...still if the model is not accurate, it's garbage in! Even a non-computer geek like myself understands this!

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Or said another way, "if we run it enough times, we will eventually get the answer we want"

And, if you show it to our children, it's called Indoctrination. Again, teaching facts w/o the facts.