deleted thread al gore

[Trim50]

Minor details? It is the only REAL detail.

The first important thing to understand is that the Sun does not generate infrared (IR) energy in the IR spectrum absorbed by carbon dioxide. We know this because the sun is too hot to produce low frequency radiation. The high frequency radiation from the sun passes through carbon dioxide without any first order absorption (meaning some low frequency IR can be produced on the way through the atmosphere). As a result of being heated by the Sun’s high frequency radiation, low frequency IR is emitted by the surface of the Earth.










Carbon dioxide has three absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Based on published work [1 & 2], it has been shown that there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation from the surface of the earth in the principal carbon dioxide absorption bands. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will only lower the altitude at which it is completely absorbed.

1) Thomas, G.E. and Stamnes, K Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 441.
2) Peixoto, J. P., and A. H. Oort, Physics of Climate, 520 pp., Am. Inst. Phys, New York, 1992.

The heated and highly debated scientific theories center on fractions of a percent of a degree Kelvin with respect to mechanics of heating and cooling in the upper atmosphere and whether or not CO2 contributions are bound as they are in the lower atmosphere i.e., is there a logarithmic relation or do we have potential for run away warming without additional flux. I think common scientific sense, even general common sense, would suggest the former and not the latter. We can continue into the scientific underbelly if you are interested...but be warned, climatologists have been known to include arguments as esoteric as quantum mechanics. When a scientist, especially a climatologist, throws the quantum card on the table, you know for sure he (or she) is all in.

From the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group (the guys that share the Nobel Prize with Al Gore)
"Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors".

In other words, we know what we want to find. We haven’t found it yet. However, we know it is somewhere in the error margins of our measurements. That statement alone should disqualify them for any additional funding...much less a Nobel Peace Prize!

[Intentional Drifter]

Originally Posted by Trim50

ID & Liverstone,

So, it doesn't bother you that the heart of the technical debate on GW is flawed...

Actually, Trim, no it doesn't. Because such technical debates are always flawed, at least to some degree. The better question is: how much confidence do we require in the data before we make a change? If you demand a great deal, then we also run a progressively increasing risk that, if the hypothesis regarding GW is correct, that we are damaging the planet beyond repair. Those are very serious consequences, indeed. When the alternative is to for us to behave in ways that would be good for us, regardless (weaning ourselves from oil that will eventually be exhausted, anyway; cleaning up our practices that pollute, etc.), it only makes sense to go down that path.

Really, to me, it is much like what is often advocated for our boats: Do regular maintenance, keep in clean, and we will have better running, more reliable, safer boats. Don't do these things and we will eventually have a very unpleasant and expensive experience.

ID

[Trim50]

ID,

May I suggest that you spend a couple of minutes to read a paper by one of the scientists that actually performed research on the ice cores and has dedicated most of his life to field study of the climate...and not sitting in a computer lab tweaking millions of lines of code to get the answer his funding needs.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf

[alaskadog]

This thread obviously is of much interest to many on this board. There have been many good points made by those who believe that mankind is responsible for the recently observed rise in temperatures worldwide or almost worldwide. And there have been many good points raised by those who believe that man, while he may contribute to the phenomenon of recently observed global warming, is not a significant contributor. My personal belief, considering what I have read or heard, leads me to believe (at the present time at least) is that man is not the straw that is breaking the camel's back. As for Albert Gore. Well, he is not a scientist. But he has a pet environmental cause and this is the cause he has currently chosen to champion. I do not doubt his sincerity. I only question his motives. He was/is a politician and the son of a politician. and by defintion, he is not cut from the same cloth as Mother Teresa. I would hope his motives are driven by altruistic purposes. How many altristic politicians can dance on the head of a pin? I think, not near as many as angels. Oh and BTW, for Livingstone who made the comment that Gore "gave up a career in politics-----,etc". He did not give up a career. He lost an election.

[livingstone]

Trim 50: You've actually decided to screw up my name because you don't like what I wrote? You sir, are truly a jackass.

But beyond that, your first paragraph: my message is that the filmmaker's intent appears to be to raise awareness of a major problem. Maybe you haven't heard of it, or aren't aware. Whether there are inaccuracies in data (I'm sure there are, most documentaries offer skewed and imperfect pictures), to try to use that to say that there is no value, validity, or relevance to the film would be erroneous and idiotic.

The bottom line is this: we **** in our nests. Now it smells like **** in here. People are talking about it. Is this okay with you? Can we not get into the partisan carping and just try to problem solve a bit? Is that so wrong?

Sheesh.

"Liverstone." Your kids must be proud. Proud they have a role model for their own childish behavior.

[Trim50]

Livingstone...I apologize. It was a typo resulting from me living in Livermore and typing the word Livermore so many times. I'm sure if I intended to screw-up your name, I could have done a much better job of it. Nonetheless, I'm probably still a jackass ;-)

[senormechanico]

Trim,
Figure 7 in that pdf you posted says it all.
The sun's output is increasing.
Other planets where NO SUV's exist are also warming.

Case closed imho.

Steve B.

[livingstone]

Okay, bro.

You're forgiven, so no biggie. You're no jackass, because you were big enough to take credit even in the face of my jackassery. Sorry. You kept a clear head.

I had somebody razzin' me once using that moniker and it struck a chord. I apologize also.

Anyway. I guess I hope people won't discount a problem that I think is real, and will help solve it, because I for one, worry a bit. We're all sailin' buddies afterall. Let's bail this mutha!

[Trim50]

Hey no worries! I got a good laugh out of it...at first I was trying to figure what the hell you wre talking about.

Keep sail'n!

[mikereed100]

Intentional Drifter has expressed my own thoughts far better than I could have. I would only add that the consensus among the scientific community for the past 10 years has been that global warming exists and that the human contribution, while perhaps not the major factor, is substantial enough to have had a significant impact. Even evolution remains a theory, yet most people consider the evidence overwhelming enough to accept.
If there were only a small chance that our activities would tip the climatic scales past the point of no return I would, given the consequences, consider it worthwile to make the necesary changes, no matter how uncomfortable, to reverse that trend.
I would much prefer to be a dissappointed pessimist than a dissappointed optimist.

Mike

[Trim50]

Well let's discuss this tipping point idea for minute...what do you think, or what have you been led to believe will happen when this tipping point arrives?

[Sandero]

I am not a scientist, but my sense is that the earth's biosphere is a rather complex system. Weather is one sub system and seems to be expressing some sort of energy. The atmosphere is where weather lives and this serves as an insulating blanket I would think. Obviously there are energy inputs and so forth... and the solar energy which is constantly providing energy to the system. But we know that some events can have enormous impact on the climate, such as a large meteor or a huge volcano.

I believe there is a term "albido" or something which refers to how much energy the planet can absorb or reflect based. Deserts and forests being light and dark are part of the formula of the albido.

We are able to change this through massive deforestation and urbanization, paving the green with concrete. I would think that civilization has changed the albido somewhat.

I would also think that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know how much this effects the massive climate system etc. But it seems to me that complex systems with many inputs can change with even a small alteration to one or two imputs. These can be runaway feed forward type events in theory. We know that the earth has gone throug periods of warming and cooling, ice ages and so forth even climate change from a smallish meteor impact when you consider the mass it has and the mass of the atmosphere and the system it is able to change.

I find it illogical to believe that our "terra forming" is not have an inpact on the climate. We seem to have done a number of the fish in it. And we know that if the plankton die off at the bottom of the food chain, we, at the top will suffer.

Look at how devastating a few zebra muscles have been to our waters. This was essentially a human caused interaction and a small one... a few ships flushing out their tanks and look what that wrought.

The climate will change. That's what the record indicates. We're now 6 billion people. How can we have no impact on the biosystem? It defies logic.

Scientists seem to be trying understand the trees and not able to explain the forest. We look at sub systems, like the Gulf Stream and even that still has many mysteries and is only a small part of the climate puzzle.

I doubt whether we will ever to be able to model our weather and our climate. But I sense we are having an effect on it and we could try to limit our impact by changing our behavior.... and limiting our numbers. We seem to be using the wood in the boat in the stove to keep us warm. We need to adapt a sustainable relationship with mama terra. That seems self evident. Doesn't it?

jef
sv shiva

[Trim50]

Here is my simple prediction....oil prices will continue to rise until it makes economic sense to us all to invest in an alternate means of powering our cars, and until we accept the fact that nuclear power IS safe enough.

Funny thing is, the same Luddites that protest against oil & global warming are the same Luddites that protest against nuclear power. Even more moronic is the idea that driving a Japanese hybrid and solar panels will solve the world's energy needs.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by defjef

I would also think that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know how much this effects the massive climate system etc. But it seems to me that complex systems with many inputs can change with even a small alteration to one or two imputs. These can be runaway feed forward type events in theory. We know that the earth has gone throug periods of warming and cooling, ice ages and so forth even climate change from a smallish meteor impact when you consider the mass it has and the mass of the atmosphere and the system it is able to change.

Here we go again
The scientist SAY the ice cores show that co2 follows GW'ing NOT preceeds it.

We’re all on this earth by change or by creation, depending on ones beliefs. And whether G W is real or a blip we’re all going to have to accept it. Taking care of the environment is everyone’s responsibility even if it doesn’t cause global -- whatever.

But for one man to fly/drive all over the world in a highly polluting machine and claim the sky is falling due to our fathers mistakes, needs to pull the log out of his own eye before pulling the stick out of ours.

That makes him a hypocrite if ever there was one. And hypocrites have a hard time keeping and gaining followers, as shown here. Loyalty or ignorance is the only thing that keeps a hypocrite supported. So if this man Al were to set an example rather then abuse his authority he might get more support, right or wrong.

Look at Gandhi, and the progress he made. He lived on the streets and was well admired all because he lived by his passion, not as a hypocrite.

Al is using his money and influence to try and sway the people, just like a typical politician. And it’s no wonder why he receives so much resistance. I sure don’t trust him!

Now if G W is real? What can we do about it? From what I’ve read by the scientist this could get worse and last 2-3 centuries. And if that’s the case we have other concerns, like preparing for the big heat wave or whatever G W is suppose to be doing to the weather. It’s still raining here in Seattle, no change so far.

Which brings up another pet peeve. If one lives in a climate that is known for extreme weather conditions, then why do they build houses like they are in San Diego? Florida for example; everyone should be living in domes with pull down shutters. Enough rant!

I pretty much have to believe what I have witnessed, and if I were in a jury I’d have to say that there’s not enough evidence to convict man for the climate changes. If it were to happen suddenly after highly pollutant activities, like setting off an A-bomb, then I might lean towards the man caused theory. So, Maybe this is the result of WWII and it’s just starting to catch up. But, I doubt it! Too slow of a change!

Over the years I’ve heard that every eleven years, or so, that the earth goes through a sun spot cycle. So, what ever happen to that theory??? It seems every generation has a new theory and it always comes down to the sky is falling and we’re all doomed. And, it all seems to come down to $$$$$, as well.

Just like at work, they don’t want me rebuilding anything anymore because it’s cheaper to just buy new. But I ask what about recycling; conserving energy and all that other PC crap. And they just cock their head and say “it’s not my call”, “ I just do what I’m told”.
It’s political BS and that’s exactly what Al is handing out, as far as I can see!

[senormechanico]

In the early days of automobiles, Luddites used to think that if you drove over 10 mph your head would explode!