Obama Disses Another Ally

[waldo]

Gore is the leader of the Alarmist movement.

lmfao

now there's a "movement"... who knew! Again, the only people who continually fixate on Gore are diehard deniers who perpetually seek out the 'low hanging fruit' of cutesy pictures, to believe they're actually contributing... in this case you should be proud of that photoshop effort; one that came about in relation to Gore selling his share of Current TV. Again, Gore has no particular relevance today... other than you showcasing your inability to actually talk to the related science, is there a particular reason you keep going back to the 'Gore well'?

They worship this guy.

:lol: tell me you were pressed for time and all you could come up with was Gore kissing his wife (former wife)!

 

[EagleSmack]

He's the Alarmist god. He brought the Alarmists religion to its minions.

Buy your carbon credits for next year?

 

[BaalsTears]

Al Gore is the epitome of environmentalist values. Take the money and run.

 

[waldo]

He's the Alarmist god. He brought the Alarmists religion to its minions.

Buy your carbon credits for next year?

I understand the guy had some involvement in a movie; not quite sure why deniers have elevated him to such a demonizing level. He played a part, he got some incredible mainstream coverage... and then he, effectively, went away. Then again, when one can't actually invest the time to read/research on related science... when one can't wrestle himself away from the denialsphere, it's just sooooooo easy to just keep on, keepin on with "Al Gore... is bad/fat".

 

[EagleSmack]

Getcha carbon credits heyah!

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I understand the guy had some involvement in a movie; not quite sure why deniers have elevated him to such a demonizing level. He played a part, he got some incredible mainstream coverage... and then he, effectively, went away. Then again, when one can't actually invest the time to read/research on related science... when one can't wrestle himself away from the denialsphere, it's just sooooooo easy to just keep on, keepin on with "Al Gore... is bad/fat".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth_(book)

A part. I guess that is an inconvenient truth for you. LOL

 

[whitedog]

The one thing I don't get is this rise in sea level. I suppose the run off if the arctic melted along with Green land (the parts that have never melted that are truly on land could have an impact, but the ice floating on the sea, if it melted, it shouldn't have any impact, its weight is already in the water. It was like that big chunk of ice that fell into the sea last summer, my kid told me he heard that it was going to raise the sea level as it melted, I said, well it must have already. Displacement of the burg should have raised the sea level, not the 10% that floats above the water line. Nonetheless, it isn't proof that warming isn't happening. And there is a logic that the place will warm up with the production of carbon and methane. Both gases are good insulators, preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Venus is a good example of the effect of high carbon and methane concentration.

And it seems a little silly that Colpy jumps on Gore to refute scientific theory. Like you are really clutching at straws. Colph, perhaps you can do another one of your scientific studies to enlighten everyone. I know I can't refute the logic brought forward regarding these gaseous insulators, but whether we are actually putting enough into the atmosphere to bring about the dire predictions, I can't say. But one thing is for sure, the hypocrisy of a few celebrities is hardly scientific proof to refute the theories of science.

 

[Colpy]

The one thing I don't get is this rise in sea level. I suppose the run off if the arctic melted along with Green land (the parts that have never melted that are truly on land could have an impact, but the ice floating on the sea, if it melted, it shouldn't have any impact, its weight is already in the water. It was like that big chunk of ice that fell into the sea last summer, my kid told me he heard that it was going to raise the sea level as it melted, I said, well it must have already. Displacement of the burg should have raised the sea level, not the 10% that floats above the water line. Nonetheless, it isn't proof that warming isn't happening. And there is a logic that the place will warm up with the production of carbon and methane. Both gases are good insulators, preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Venus is a good example of the effect of high carbon and methane concentration.

And it seems a little silly that Colpy jumps on Gore to refute scientific theory. Like you are really clutching at straws. Colph, perhaps you can do another one of your scientific studies to enlighten everyone. I know I can't refute the logic brought forward regarding these gaseous insulators, but whether we are actually putting enough into the atmosphere to bring about the dire predictions, I can't say. But one thing is for sure, the hypocrisy of a few celebrities is hardly scientific proof to refute the theories of science.

Kiss my ***, moron.

 

[EagleSmack]

Kiss my ***, moron.

C'mon Colph!

 

[whitedog]

Kiss my ***, moron.

Kiss your ***? Now be honest, if I did, would you really respect me in the morning?

 

[Colpy]

Kiss your ***? Now be honest, if I did, would you really respect me in the morning?

Probably not.

 

[waldo]

A part. I guess that is an inconvenient truth for you. LOL

huh! No, like I said... Gore played a part... his "communicator part". Given the profile mainstream media gave they guy, he became a kind of iconic go-to for critical targeting by the usual denier suspects. No thinking layperson should give Gore any more significance than that related to how his film was portrayed through media channels... certainly, few scientists or scientific organizations/institutions have ever bothered to give the guy any passing mention..... so, why would you?

The one thing I don't get is this rise in sea level.

relates to: thermal expansion due to warming ocean waters... and melting land ice (glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets)

But one thing is for sure, the hypocrisy of a few celebrities is hardly scientific proof to refute the theories of science.

bingo!

 

[captain morgan]

And it seems a little silly that Colpy jumps on Gore to refute scientific theory..... But one thing is for sure, the hypocrisy of a few celebrities is hardly scientific proof to refute the theories of science.

Why not jump on Gore or any of the other celebrity greentards?

Gore forwarded all his info as irrefutable fact, not a suggestion or an embellishment on some seeds of truth, but fact. The DiCaprio's and Young's of the world are no different, they promote their position as based on scientific fact.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Per capita is meaningless except for political gamesmanship. What matters to the planet is the amount of pollution put out by a specific nation. After all that is what will effect worldwide pollution levels.

CO2 of dourse is NOT a pollutant,

China is by far the worst offender, and that fool BHO has let them get away free until 2016(?) & only then will they have to TRY to do the best they can! He has committed the U.S.A to reducing emissions immed. The fact that U.S emissions have dropped more in the past few years than any othe industrialized country is lost on this halfwit.

Luckily this monumental failure of a President has only 2 years left & any treaty signed with a foreign power has to be confirmed by congress. That is not going to happen.

Confession:-
like so many Canadian middle class whites I was overjoyed at the election of a black President. I was SO wrong. Condoleeza Rice, or Colin Powelo would have been great choices. Obama has made sure that no black President will be elected for a long time.

 

[darkbeaver]

Per capita is meaningless except for political gamesmanship. What matters to the planet is the amount of pollution put out by a specific nation. After all that is what will effect worldwide pollution levels.

CO2 of dourse is NOT a pollutant,

China is by far the worst offender, and that fool BHO has let them get away free until 2016(?) & only then will they have to TRY to do the best they can! He has committed the U.S.A to reducing emissions immed. The fact that U.S emissions have dropped more in the past few years than any othe industrialized country is lost on this halfwit.

Luckily this monumental failure of a President has only 2 years left & any treaty signed with a foreign power has to be confirmed by congress. That is not going to happen.

Confession:-
like so many Canadian middle class whites I was overjoyed at the election of a black President. I was SO wrong. Condoleeza Rice, or Colin Powelo would have been great choices. Obama has made sure that no black President will be elected for a long time.

Your alternate choices are of the same calibre, you'd still have been dissapointed. I object to your characterization of all blacks being the same.

 

[waldo]

Per capita is meaningless except for political gamesmanship. What matters to the planet is the amount of pollution put out by a specific nation. After all that is what will effect worldwide pollution levels.

per capita is an uncomfortable metric for high-emitting countries with relatively low population levels.

CO2 of dourse is NOT a pollutant,

no - CO2 is a pollutant. See U.S. Supreme Court ruling and related U.S. EPA Endangerment and Cause & Contribute finding rulings, in kind. See Environment Canada classification placement of CO2 within the "Toxic Substances" category of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 --- Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances

China is by far the worst offender, and that fool BHO has let them get away free until 2016(?) & only then will they have to TRY to do the best they can! He has committed the U.S.A to reducing emissions immed. The fact that U.S emissions have dropped more in the past few years than any othe industrialized country is lost on this halfwit.

historically, the U.S. remains the world's largest emitter of CO2 accumulated within today's atmosphere... even at China's current accelerated rate of emissions, prior analysis suggests it will not pass the U.S. level of accumulated atmospheric CO2 until 2028 - 2030. Of course, this analysis pre-dates the recently announced U.S.-China agreement to reduce emissions.

again, you are incorrect in your assessment and understanding of the agreement... I'll keep posting the following every time misinformation comes forward:

ya see... China can't keep on, as many claim, "doing nuthin" (aka Business-As-Usual (BAU)), and reach the peak pledge level (cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons.)... notwithstanding as a part of the U.S.-China deal, China has pledged to increase the share of energy consumed from non-emissions sources like renewables, nuclear energy and hydro-electricity to 20 percent by 2030

​

in reality, on it's current trajectory, it is the U.S. pledge that will require the U.S. to do, relatively speaking, NOT MUCH MORE than maintain it's current BAU interests... to date, U.S. emissions are already 10–15% below 2005 levels (which aligns with the prior 2009 pledge Obama made to reach a 17% reduction by 2020... the same pledge Harper made but refused to even address). To date, U.S. emissions are falling by about 1.5% per year... for the U.S. to reach the pledged target of 26–28% emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2025, the U.S. will only be required to continue its current ongoing rate of yearly emission reductions.

 

[EagleSmack]

Look out!

The Great Oxygenation Event: The Earth’s first mass extinction.

The Great Oxygen Catastrophe!

historically, the U.S. remains the world's largest emitter of CO2 accumulated within today's atmosphere... even at China's current accelerated rate of emissions, prior analysis suggests it will not pass the U.S. level of accumulated atmospheric CO2 until 2028 - 2030. Of course, this analysis pre-dates the recently announced U.S.-China agreement to reduce emissions.

Typical alarmists... making excuses for China.

Such weaklings.

 

[waldo]

Typical alarmists... making excuses for China.

Such weaklings.

what makes me one of your declared "alarmists"? Specifically... do you have the 'gyrene balls' to actually converse on the subject?

detailings facts about the historical accumulation of atmospheric CO2, in particular a comparison between the U.S. and China... is not, as you say, "making excuses for China".

​

 

[Tonington]

The one thing I don't get is this rise in sea level. I suppose the run off if the arctic melted along with Green land (the parts that have never melted that are truly on land could have an impact, but the ice floating on the sea, if it melted, it shouldn't have any impact, its weight is already in the water. It was like that big chunk of ice that fell into the sea last summer, my kid told me he heard that it was going to raise the sea level as it melted, I said, well it must have already. Displacement of the burg should have raised the sea level, not the 10% that floats above the water line. Nonetheless, it isn't proof that warming isn't happening. And there is a logic that the place will warm up with the production of carbon and methane. Both gases are good insulators, preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Venus is a good example of the effect of high carbon and methane concentration.

The majority of the rise in sea level isn't from melting ice, it's due to the heat going into the ocean. The water expands as it warms, thermal expansion.

As for the floating ice? If you run through the math, floating ice does contribute more volume when it melts, though it's very small. As the sea water cools and freezes, a lot of the salt is pushed out. It's called brine rejection. With floating sea ice, the weight of water displaced is the same as the weight of the ice, but the fact that the ice is more freshwater means that a given weight of freshwater will take up more space than salt water. As the ice melts, it now takes up more space than the displaced salt water did.

So freshwater that has a density of about 1000 kg/ cubic meter, compared to sea water with a density of about 1025 kg/cubic meter (depends how salty it is). 1025 kg of freshwater would be more than one cubic meter. So melt 1025 kg of ice in the ocean, and you get a small amount of sea level rise.

 

[EagleSmack]

what makes me one of your declared "alarmists"? Specifically... do you have the 'gyrene balls' to actually converse on the subject?

You're an alarmists. Plain and simple. What is there to discuss? Does the term offend you?

detailings facts about the historical accumulation of atmospheric CO2, in particular a comparison between the U.S. and China... is not, as you say, "making excuses for China".

Just keep making those excuses for China.