deleted thread al gore

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by defjef

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.

The following is from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:

albedo (al be' do) Pronunciation Key

The fraction of the total light striking a surface that gets reflected from that surface. An object that has a high albedo (near 1) is very bright; an object that has a low albedo (near 0) is dark. The Earth's albedo is about 0.37. The Moon's is about 0.12.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary, Copyright 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

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.

"From 1832 to 2004, the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from 284 ppmv to 377 ppmv, or about 33%, with most of the change occurring since 1970."

The above is from the Wikipedia page on Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere:

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know Trim is convinced that atmospheric carbon dioxide is irrelevant, but I would encourage those interested to read the Wikepedia entry on CO2 in the atmosphere.

TaoJones

[Trim50]

Tao...please...Wikepedia!? Look at the references cited (IPCC) and then look at the references cited in the paper below.

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

Please read it and then lets talk.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Trim50

Tao...please...Wikepedia!? Look at the references cited (IPCC) and then look at the references cited in the paper below.

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

Please read it and then lets talk.

I will do that, Trim, when time allows.

For now, I suppose I could have responded, "Trim . . . please . . . Zbigniew Jaworowski!? The author of The Ice Age Is Coming as well as your citation CO2, The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time, both published in 21st Century Science and Technology magazine, a non-refereed publication of Lyndon LaRouche!!??"

Here is that publication's statement of purpose:

"21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm."

However, I will refrain from doing so.

It seems to me that you (or at least your source, Jaworowski) favor global cooling over global warming. C'est la vie . . .

For me, that calls to mind the wonderful Robert Frost poem, Fire and Ice:

Fire And Ice

by Robert Frost
(from Harper's Magazine, December, 1920)

Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

~ ~ ~

Have a great weekend, everyone!

TaoJones

[Alan Wheeler]

The first important thing to understand is that the Sun does not generate infrared (IR) energy in the IR spectrum absorbed by carbon dioxide.

Ummm, that's not correct. Infra Red is heat. If the sun did not output InfraRed energy, it would just be a bright ball of light and we would certainly not be debating Global warming. It would be -279 deg outside.

[David M]

So we are supposed to change our behavior because something might happen that would cause dire consequences?

This reminds me of ancient civilizations who used to sacrifice their virgins to the gods because they believed that if they did not then there might be dire consequences. They come to believe that the sacrifices cause something not to happen.

So should we sacrifice our ways of life so that something does not happen when that something is based on speculation?

Does it not make more sense to base behavioral changes on fact than on speculation?

This is what we are being asked to do by these people...change our behavior based on speculation. Most people in here are not buying it.

Also, to clear up a common misconception being spread around by a certain political segment...terrestrial plant life does not create most of the Earths oxygen...phytoplankton does.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Ummm, that's not correct. Infra Red is heat. If the sun did not output InfraRed energy, it would just be a bright ball of light and we would certainly not be debating Global warming. It would be -279 deg outside.

Alan,

Infrared is a spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The Sun emits Infrared at the opposite end of that spectrum than that which is absorbed by carbon dioxide.

[Trim50]

Tao,

Yeah, I don't agree with many of the concepts 21st Century Science & Technology stand for and unfortunately they republished Jaworowski's paper which I have an original copy of that is too large to upload. It was not published by 21st Century Science.

Nonetheless, you can't possibly dispute Jaworowski's credentials for his hands-on knowledge of the subject. He does have numerous refereed papers and is highly regarded in the field. I would love to place him and Gavin Schmidt in a room to debate Global Warming…I would put money on Jaworowski tongue lashing Gavin.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The author of four books and 300 scientific papers, he has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo

Even so, give it a read and tell me what you think from a technical point of view...not a political one.

[GordMay]

Zbigniew Jaworowski claims that the consensus regarding increased CO2 is based on a biased interpretation of the evidence, and purports to offer evidence to the contrary.
Jaworowski makes several specific assertions that the methodology used in atmospheric measurements from ice cores is flawed.
Each and every one of these assertions is mistaken.
Goto: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy ~ Jim Easter
Some are Boojums » Blog Archive » The Golden Horseshoe Award: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy

***

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 ~ Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski (March 19, 2004)
Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C

[cooper]

quote " So we are supposed to change our behavior because something might happen that would cause dire consequences? "-------Well.....yes. Its called being pro active. There is so many "mights" out there that we deal with every day. I DO wear a seat belt, use sunscreen, and keep my boat in reasonable condition. I do this because there is a "possibility"....not a "probability" that somthing may happen. And if that somthing does occur.......shouting "those damm smarty pants where right" aint going to fix the problem. Then theres the business about whether to wear a condom or not........somthing about "too late he cried".......

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by David M

So we are supposed to change our behavior because something might happen that would cause dire consequences?

The CONSERVATIVE thing to do is to preserve the climate we have, and understand, the climate we can grow food & live in (unless you do not mind yourself or your descendants perishing).
After all, just as the climate is always changing, species are always going extinct.

As Thomas Kuhn observed, “scientific truth is what scientific consensus says it is”. Many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of god.
But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain.
And this is a central problem of persuading people to act on scientific evidence. Science can never quite say “we know for sure”. But if, for instance, one is calculating the path of a cannonball, physics is what one to relies on if one wants to know when to duck. And perhaps some new & unexpected thing will happen and the cannonball will miss. But one does not stake one’s life on that!

[waterworldly]

HEY Trim50:
Regarding your article from 21st Century Science Tech in reponse to TaoJones, please do your homework regarding who writes this stuff, as that organization is run by the Lyndon Larouse people. Who is Lyndon Larouse you ask? Well, here's part of the story:
LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. His defense attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche organizations.[5] LaRouche and his defenders claim the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials, numerous others, and a mass media brainwashing campaign. Yet this is what he himself is noted for doing!

If you are going to quote articles, it is important to know who writes them and to look beyond what is presented to what the real motivation may be.
Like it or not, things are changing. In our curent society, we put too much emphisis on putting blame, I think to avoid actually confronting the problems. I can still remember in the 50's when your could basically walk on the water of Lake Erie due to the pollution, and the air quality in the Northeast was thick with bad things. When they started to address the issue in the sixties, everyone was called a "wacko envionmentalist". But eventually, the reality of the situation trumped the press of the industries that didn't want to put up the expense of cleaning up their act. Nothing like a bunch of rich old men in smokey rooms selling off the envionment that your children and grandchildren will inherit. Hence, Superfunds were created to correct the problems as they became evident, money from everyone's pocket to pick up the trash left by a few. Nice pass off.
I am not a radical, I am a realist. Putting my head in the sand doesn't work. I live in Florida, and I have always been quite prepared for hurricanes, but others poo poo'ed my efforts, until of course, we have a hurricane, then they usually cry "help me, help me" and go over the edge stockpiling more supplies then they could ever use, effectively depriving others from having enough. After the storm these same people sit on their asses lamenting that no one will help them.
All of this is why I am picking up and sailing off. I have basically "had it" with the attitude I see, and with this problem looming larger (it's there dude), the last place I want to be is shackeled to any place permenently, especially with a pampered and ill informed population. WOW! That felt really good!

[Moonchaser2304]

BUT!! Where do we all agree?

Regardless of all the theories, opinions, and debate over who, or what, is responsible for GW, and whether we can, or should, attempt to change the course of GW, can we also address an area where we can all agree?

Can I ask a question that should have a factual answer? (because what I see on TV is amazing to me) I have seen multiple news stories on TV showing the size of the North pole ice cap, and how JUST THIS SUMMER ice is melting faster than the typical annual summer melt. I saw one story saying that after THIS WINTER there will be NEW areas of open water where ice will not return next winter and thus offshore oil platforms can now be installed, "fueling" a debate over which country has drilling "rights".

I saw another TV story showing the size of polar ice how it shrinks and re-freezes every year, but THIS YEAR how the area of summer melt is HUGE, causing heat to be absorbed by the water (where it would have been bounced back into the atmosphere by the ice). The story claimed that THIS ALONE will cause changes in the ocean currents within one year...not centuries, not decades, NEXT YEAR.

This current, immediate ice melt is fascinating to me, not from a GW sense, and not from a "what is causing it?" sense, just from a "Dudes, it's happening, NOW right in front of our eyes, in our lifetime" sense.

Do any of you share this fascination with rapid polar ice melt?
If does anyone feel the TV stories are a "communist plot" or dis-information planted by Gore?

Is it true? There are a lot of very scientific people reading this forum (I'm not one!!) so I'd be interested in your thoughts on what is being reported as FACT of rapid polar ice melt.

NOTE TO READERS...please don't personally attack me or my text for begin based on TV which I realize can be media hype...please comment on the question I raised...is the north pole ice cap going through rapid melt?

[Intentional Drifter]

OK, Trim, I read the Zbigniew Jaworowski article. Like I said earlier, I certainly don't have the technical expertise to comment on the methodology, findings, etc. Simply not my field. I do have an observation, though, and this is something that troubles me a great deal about much of the so-called expert discussions about this issue. Many of the discussants (Jaworowski is but one example, but this article is a good one):

They write like they have an opinion in search of the data to support it.

This is not dissimilar to much of the style I see in various articles and postings on this subject, even in this rather obscure thread in a yachter's forum:

Am I (in your eyes) a Luddite? Because I would like the generations that come after us to enjoy our beautiful world and not be plagued by the side effects of our technological advances? I would have no problem with increased use of nuclear power if the waste management and safety (remember Chernobyl?) problems could be solved with a reasonable degree of confidence. (What is a "reasonable degree of confidence" when it comes to nuclear wastes that will remain dangerous for thousands of years? Isn't the half-life of plutonium 239 something like 24,000 years? Even if the annualized risk of release is 1 in 10,000, then that projects to at least two release events before the Pu is decayed to uranium 235, which is no slight risk, itself.)

Perhaps it is overly simplistic of people to try and make decisions in our personal buying habits (hybrid cars, solar panels, smaller houses) that at least seem more responsible than Escalades and 8000 sq ft McMansions, but is that indicative of being a moron? (Which, by the way, is an obsolete term for a person with a moderate degree of mental retardation.) Or, is it rather some attempt within our personal spheres of influence to try and bring some balance?

The insulting, arrogant, pedantic tone of so many of the articles and postings (and, notice, I'm not picking on one side or the other here -- there's plenty of it on both sides) is a real turn-off, at least for me. If someone is going to try and show me that my thinking on something is in error, then that sort of tone is not an effective way to do so. Instead, it tends to result in defensiveness and polarization and that gets us nowhere.

As for Al Gore, it is easy to suspect him of ulterior motives and, maybe, they exist. I don't know. I have seen the movie and watched his presentation to the TED. (By the way, TED: Ideas worth spreading in case you haven't run across it, is a truly excellent place to see many presentations by some remarkable people on a variety of topics, scientific and otherwise, representing a variety of viewpoints.) Maybe he is wrong on some things, but I don't see him treating people with disrespect.

ID

[Intentional Drifter]

Brief PS. One of my favorite TED presentations is E.O. Wilson on biodiversity.

TED | Talks | E.O. Wilson: TED Prize wish: Help build the Encyclopedia of Life (video)

Plus, you get to hear some classic Billie Holliday.

ID

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by waterworldly

HEY Trim50:
Regarding your article from 21st Century Science Tech in reponse to TaoJones, please do your homework regarding who writes this stuff, as that organization is run by the Lyndon Larouse people. Who is Lyndon Larouse you ask? Well, here's part of the story:

Waterworldly...they didn't write it, they simply reprinted it.