deleted thread al gore

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by 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):

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.)

With respect to Jaworowski, the fact that one of the key scientists that performed and lead efforts to get ice cores claims that the ice core tell you nothing about past temperatures and carbon dioxide levels...to me, punches holes in the entire GW theory. On the other side of the argument is a guy that sits at NASA in a computer lab playing with code all day.

I'll listen to the guy that has decades of field experience way before the guy on the computer...but maybe that is just me based on my experience.

I think you might find recent work with Gen III nuclear technology interesting...if nothing else insightful.

DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy

Also, I know the real story behind Chernobyl told to me by an individual who wrote the final report to the UN. Chernobyl could have only happened in Russia.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by 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

Gord,

Before you go cut & paste, please take the time to research who the person IS that is making the claims. Dig deep to see what their motivation is for trying to debunk the first hand claims of someone with extensively reputable credentials and unequalled knowledge of the subject. In doing this you will begin to see a clearer picture of the argument at hand and why it is so hotly contested as if it were religion.

Who is Jim Easter, what is the purpose of his blog and if you were to place both individuals in a room together to discuss the subject, who do you think would be most convincing? The answer to me is clear.

Cheers,

Ken

Anybody...even BOZO, can start a blog!

[Nauticatarcher]

There's another rule you should remember when it comes to maintenance
"if its not broken, dont Fix it!"

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[/quote]

[GordMay]

The blogger to whom I linked, provided numerous citations of original sources.
He also provides a copy of this reply to Jaworowski, by Hans Oeschger*
Ancient Atmosphere
It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI, this paper deserves little attention. But unfortunately, he has succeded in publishing similar articles in journaIs and thus has induced considerable confusion regarding the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric compositions by the analysis of air occluded in polar ice of known age. We hope that this reply will help to clarify the issue. JAWOROWSKI is correct in one point. The glacier studies of ice cores are fundamental for one of the most important issues of the century and are of great importance for succeeding centuries.
I have been personally involved in the development of this field since its inception. In the early stages I was involved directly in experiments; later the experimental and analysis work was conducted by my collaborators and students. ii in this article I speak of “we”, I refer to the ice core team at the University of Bern. In the following I first give a short overview of the history of ice core research.
Although we knew since the nineteen fifties that human activities might change the climate of the Earth, it was not until the mid seventies we realised that mankind was faced with a serious problem. Using a new model for the exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean, we were able to consistently describe the uptake excess of CO2 by the ocean, as well as the distribution in the ocean of 14C produced by cosmic radiation, and 14C stemming from nuclear weapon tests. We became convinced that, for the expected future anthropogenic CO2 emission, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would rise in a predictable manner. (In fact, using the estimated actual fossil CO2 emissions as input, the CO2 increase of the past 20 years corresponds to within 10% of the predictions based on such models.) At that rime an urgent question concerned the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentration and the early history of the CO2 increase, but also the question of whether the atmospheric CO2 concentration of the preindustrial time was stable or whether there were also natural variations in CO2 concentration.
The US-CO2 programme was planned at an ERDA meeting in Miami in the late seventies. At that time we proposed a reconstruction of the CO2 history by measuring the gases trapped in polar ice. This idea was met with a great deal of scepticism and we were aware that the changes for success were limited because of a wide spectrum of problems, including those which JAWOROWSKI describes in his paper. On the other hand, we were aware of the urgency of the greenhouse problem and concerned that the science community would fail to conduct the most relevant studies aimed at the assessment of the rising greenhouse effect.
The project to reconstruct the history of the greenhouse gases was conducted; it was, and is, very successful - much above expectation. The CO2 concentrations measured on the SIPLE core, Antarctica, serve as a measure of that success. They illustrate (JAWOROWSKI, Fig. 5 a, p. 168) the history of atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 18th century. Another important result was the observation of low CO2 concentrations of the gases extracted from ice-age ice. The low glacial CO2 concentrations have been confirmed in ice cores with different physical and chemical properties both from Greenland and Antarctica and independently from 13C measurements on carbonate of foraminifera shells in ocean cores and, yet again, more recently in moss samples.
Now to the paper of JAWOROWSKI: For years he emphasizes only the difficulties of these studies, formulates the underlying assumptions which sometimes are only partly fulfilled and criticizes the work performed hitherto in an unscrupulous manner. He does this without any appreciation for the development of expertise in this field over several decades. Thus he extrapolates from contamination problems in improvised pioneering experiments in the late sixties to more recent (1992) similar experiments on the Greenland ice cap for which special equipment was developed. Some of his statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view, e.g. the statement that CO2 at 70 m depth in the ice begins to change into solid clathrates. Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. But JAWOROWSKI maintains that the age of the ice and that of the occluded gases are the same and shifts the CO2 increase revealed from studies of the SIPLE core (Fig. 5 a) - which in the uppermost part overlaps convincingly with the atmospheric measurements by ca. 100 years back in time (assuming identical ages for the ice and the gases in the ice). Fig. 5 b speaks for itself; why should there be such a drastic increase of CO2 and of CH4 (Fig. 5 a) in the middle of the 19th century?
The teams of researchers involved in ice core studies have a high standing within the scientific community. The early increases of the greenhouse gases are used to initiative the models simulating climatic change and help to understand the source and sink problem related to the greenhouse gas increases of the last 150 years. The low glacial greenhouse concentrations are an essential boundary condition for climate modelling experiments of the Earth during a glacial period. The papers by JAWOROWSKI, and the one by HEYKE quoted in this paper, are not taken seriously by the science community. The problem with these publications is that a broader circle of persons interested in the Global Change issue will receive the impression that the assessment of the problem is partly based on doubtful information, that there are serious weaknesses in experimental procedures, that the whole Global Change problem does not need to be taken so seriously and that there is no urgency regarding the control of CO2 emission. The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.
The study of the history of Earth system parameters is an on-going process; an increasing number of laboratories have become involved and interact with each other. As it is the case in any field of science, the state of art is continuously critically assessed and attempts are made to improve the quality of the research. Ice-core information is fundamental for the assessment of one of the most urgent problems of our time. Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.


Hans Oeschger, Ph. D. Professor of Physics
Physical Institute
University of Bern
Chl-3012 Bern, Switzerland

[Trim50]

Yeah, it is too bad we can't ask Professor Hans Oeschger any questions about his rebuttle since he died 9 years ago! But, I'm sure he was at the top of his game right up to the end.

In addition, Hans was the Lead Author of the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...the same guys that said:
"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".

[blove8]

Al's comedy routine, prior to his release of 'An Inconvenient Truth'...

TED | Talks | Al Gore: 15 ways to avert a climate crisis (video)
Filmed: February 2006
Length: 16 min

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by Nauticatarcher

There's another rule you should remember when it comes to maintenance
"if its not broken, dont Fix it!"

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

I'm certainly not advocating a do nothing approach as I surely believe that burning billions of gallons of jet fuel and spewing it into the atmosphere at high altitude can't possibly be good. I don't know what the solution is for air travel, however there IS a solution to power and ground transportation...it is nuclear. In the process of producing electricity, next generation Gen III & IV type plants are able to produce hydrogen as a by-product in a cost effective manner.

I personally have worked many years developing power trains for fuel cell vehicles....they work.

My argument is against the UN concept of employing carbon credits and producing a false economy to be governed by the UN. The Earth will warm and cool with or without our efforts. What we can't afford to do is waste a precious resource like petroleum on generation of electricity and fuel to drive 2 ton vehicles to and from our offices everyday.

[44'cruisingcat]

This seems to have turned into a debate about whether or not climate change is real etc.. I think the topic was originally about Al Gore wining the Nobel prize.

IMHO, if there was no-one more deserving of the Nobel prize in the last year, than Al Gore, that is a very sad thing indeed.

[Trim50]

The problem is, there are 1000's of people, scientists and policy makers more deserving. You are right...it is sad. The Nobel prize once meant great things.

[David M]

Originally Posted by 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".......

Being proactive is when you know something could happen. We don't know that. We are speculating that it is man caused.

Of course when you get in a car you know that an accident could happen...you are not speculating, you know it could.

This is exactly my point...we are still guessing that it is man caused.

Here is something interesting...does anyone know about the Little Ice Age between the 14th and the 19th century? We don't hear anything about is from those who are promoting the idea of man caused global warming.

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

If Europe can pretty much freeze over before by completely natural causes then how can the global warming people now be so certain now that global warming is caused by humans?

Bottom line...we are still guessing it is human caused. If it is not human caused then there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

[blove8]

Originally Posted by David M

If it is not human caused then there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

Apparently that's not what the 'Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base' researchers had to say about it back in the early 90s.

Here are a few quotes:

"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered."

"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."

"The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms."

"Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun."

"Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."

"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

[Alan Wheeler]

This is exactly my point...we are still guessing that it is man caused.

It would be foolish to say that man has not contributed to warming and especially pollution. After all, we are still spewing huge volumes of all sorts of crap into the air, water and land.

Trim 50, Interestingly, Air New Zealand is currently in the process of trialing biofuel in a jet. They are going to run just one engine of a four engine jet (presume a 747) and see how efficient and safely it runs. The view is if it works, to convert the fleet over to Biofuel. It will not stop pollution in the upper atmosphere, but they hope it will greatly reduce the harmful products released by them up there.

[Capct]

Pollution and global warming are two vastly different things.
The book is still out on temperature and what causes rises and drops
That is what we are debating

YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming

This might explain it better for you

[Intentional Drifter]

I won't argue with you about whether there are people more deserving of the Nobel. Without trying very hard (using my own criteria), I can think of more than 5. But, I don't have a vote on the matter, so that's that.

As I've read this whole discussion, I've found myself continuing to think back about a book I read last year, Jared Diamond's Collapse. Collapse: How Societies Choose to ... - Google Book Search

I wonder if there were perhaps similar discussions that happened among the Maya, Greenland Vikings, and Easter Islanders, when they started to become aware that things were changing. The outcomes of their collective decisions are evident. Will we be wiser than they? Will it happen in time?

Or, turning for a moment from science to art, since it so often sums it all up so much better, will Jackson Browne turn out to right?

Some of them were angry
At the way the earth was abused
By the men who learned how to forge her beauty into power
And they struggled to protect her from them
Only to be confused
By the magnitude of her fury in the final hour
And when the sand was gone and the time arrived
In the naked dawn only a few survived
And in attempts to understand a thing so simple and so huge
Believed that they were meant to live after the deluge

-- From "Before the Deluge", 1974

ID

[cooper]

I think its fair to put the issue this way----Do you 1. Not believe that humans contribute to climate change in any way.
------------------------------------------------2. Believe that humans have a small contrbution to climate change------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Believe that humans have a medium contribution to climate chane.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. Believe that humans have a large contribution to climate change.
If you anwsered 2,3, or 4 then I refer you back to my previous post about being pro active. If you anwsered 1. then I guess you are going to have to accept that you are going to be lonely. The "permenent" (ie has run continuously since records started) creek on my block has dried up completely. For the first time the locals are having to use rain water for drinking...bugger it hasnt rained. This is not a scientific assesment of global warming, just another little piece.....of course it is just a cycle....in another million years a sentinent life form will evolve on earth and ....wipe itself out. And just because I am in a particulaly crapy mood here is the last half of the lyrics by Roger Waters of "Amused to Death"
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why am I so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We ohhed and aahed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Grouped around the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
No tears to cry no feelings left
This species has amused itself to death