so you're ignoring the fact that the earth is warming and it might be our fault in order to concentrate on a politician lying?
it seems like ignoring your house being on fire because the fawcet is dripping
AlBore's Inconvenient Lies
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
so you're ignoring the fact that the earth is warming and it might be our fault in order to concentrate on a politician lying?
it seems like ignoring your house being on fire because the fawcet is dripping
Huh???
No, I'm asking why it is that no one from the pro AGW crowd will acknowledge the lie.
That lie, being a big piece of the pro AGW's center piece, leaves a sinking feeling in my stomach.
And btw, I am not ignoring GW, I'm questioning the science, the motives and the glaring avoidance of the pro AGW crowd in addressing all pollution. If the motives of the whole group, were to address mans degredation of the planet, then all pollution would be incorporated into a larger plan, not just one that attacked and would stimey the centerpin of the wests economy.
If they are willing to lie to sell you the story, I want to know why, just as I would want to know if a scientist that preaches the opposite is truly an oil industry shill.
I want to hear the answers, but know one will acknowledge the questions.
They're all to happy to dismiss me as ignorant and uneducated, as it would seem you just did.
I don't care about their motives. I just want them to work on doing something about it, if it's possible
Where have you been Bear?
There has been a steady rise in CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. ( circa 300 years ago ) Along with that increase in CO2 levels, there has been a corresponding rise in global temperatures. The thinking is, that the rise in CO2 causes a rise in global temperature. We are not talking about prehistoric times here.
GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones).
The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990�s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.)
The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.
But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 � 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).
Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.
James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 � 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 � 1927).
The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.
More information on the greenhouse effect.
Given this background, we next need to ask:
How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities?
Svante Arrhenius (Courtesy: www.nobel.se)
First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.
The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the �pre-industrial� value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a �transient�, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.
Graph showing rise of CO2, from measurements in ice cores (Siple, Antarctica) and measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Keeling curve) since James Watt, inventor of the steam engine. (Pre-1990 data in: B. Moore & D. Schimel, 1992. Trace Gases and the Biosphere. UCAR, Boulder CO)
In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.
Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from �little� to �much� to �most�, with the latter answer being the more credible one.
One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.
Another way of stating the situation is this:
There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.
The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.
Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO2 , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO2 forcing data from CO2 history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO2 doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)
Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.
We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk. [/FONT]
There has been a steady rise in CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. ( circa 300 years ago ) Along with that increase in CO2 levels, there has been a corresponding rise in global temperatures. The thinking is, that the rise in CO2 causes a rise in global temperature. We are not talking about prehistoric times here.
GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1856 to 2001. Data from Jones et al., 1998; and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (www.cru.uea.ac.uk; compilation by Phil Jones).
The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990�s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.)
The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.
But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 � 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).
Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.
James Tyndall (Courtesy: NASA)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas � it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 � 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 � 1927).
The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.
More information on the greenhouse effect.
Given this background, we next need to ask:
How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities?
Svante Arrhenius (Courtesy: www.nobel.se)
First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.
The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the �pre-industrial� value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a �transient�, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.
Graph showing rise of CO2, from measurements in ice cores (Siple, Antarctica) and measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Keeling curve) since James Watt, inventor of the steam engine. (Pre-1990 data in: B. Moore & D. Schimel, 1992. Trace Gases and the Biosphere. UCAR, Boulder CO)
In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.
Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from �little� to �much� to �most�, with the latter answer being the more credible one.
One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.
Another way of stating the situation is this:
There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.
The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.
Graph showing that the observed temperature rise can easily result from the observed rise of CO2 , based on simple numerical experiment. (Smoothed temperature data in Jones et al., 1998; CO2 forcing data from CO2 history, and calculated expected rise in temperature assuming 2 degree Celsius rise for CO2 doubling; sunspot abundance from J.Lean, NASA)
Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.
We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk. [/FONT]
This is an interesting debate. I'm glad Al Gore invented the internet so I could enjoy it.
I am all for cleaning the environment and reducing ANY type of air pollution. I long for the day when the world is free of fossil fuels and there are no emmissions to speak of. I drive a 4 cylinder and loathe when I pull into a gas station to fill it up. We also have a mini-van that stays parked unless we are going out as a family. When I used to work in the city I used to commute with 4 to 5 other guys EVERYDAY or take the train.
But GW IS a political issue now and the GW All-Star Team is rife with hypocrits that say one thing and do the other. They tell us to curb our energy use and do nothing to curb their own.
If you wanted a hero to champion the cause of GW Al Gore was the last person you should have flocked too. He is a Hollywood elitist. Look at the gift they gave all of the big movie stars at the Oscars. A free Carbon Credit Pass for the year. Basically they said
"Live your life style without guilt... fly to your houses all over the world... take limos here and there...fire up your gas powered lanterns that circle your mansions... drive your multiple SUVs and Hummers... you the wealthy have been given free reign to pollute and consume energy as you please while telling the unwashed masses to cut back and conserve."
How many movie stars commuted to the Oscars or used public transportation. Your cause has been hijacked by the worse most hypocritical lot known and THAT is at least one reason why people are in opposition. Others simply don't believe the hype and think it is just that...hype.
Al Gore consumes far more energy than probably every one here on CC combined.
THAT is what boils me.
But GW IS a political issue now and the GW All-Star Team is rife with hypocrits that say one thing and do the other. They tell us to curb our energy use and do nothing to curb their own.
If you wanted a hero to champion the cause of GW Al Gore was the last person you should have flocked too. He is a Hollywood elitist. Look at the gift they gave all of the big movie stars at the Oscars. A free Carbon Credit Pass for the year. Basically they said
"Live your life style without guilt... fly to your houses all over the world... take limos here and there...fire up your gas powered lanterns that circle your mansions... drive your multiple SUVs and Hummers... you the wealthy have been given free reign to pollute and consume energy as you please while telling the unwashed masses to cut back and conserve."
How many movie stars commuted to the Oscars or used public transportation. Your cause has been hijacked by the worse most hypocritical lot known and THAT is at least one reason why people are in opposition. Others simply don't believe the hype and think it is just that...hype.
Al Gore consumes far more energy than probably every one here on CC combined.
THAT is what boils me.
EagleSmack
Special privlege for the wealthy, and very special privilege for the very wealthy has been the way of things in both our countries for at least a hundred years.
Al Gore made an excellent movie that explained very well, in simple language, what we are doing to the world by burning fossil fuels. The message that Al Gore's movie sent was right on the money. It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Gore doesn't do a better job at practicing what he preaches, because some will think his extravagant energy use somehow changes the message the movie sent. It doesn't.
I was concerned with global warming long before Al Gore's movie and whatever Al Gore does in his private life is not relevant to the fact of global warming and our abuse of fossil fuels. Saying global warming is a political issue does nothing but muddy the waters. I firmly believe that we have the technology to moderate global warming but I also feel we had better get at it sometime soon
I would like to read "Gore's" reply as well, to the article, so that we could have an opportunity to give
a balanced reply to a balanced article.
a balanced reply to a balanced article.
You made a key observation... Al Gores movie. By it being Al Gore's movie in turns into a political issue regardless of where you stood on the issue. Al Gore is clearly a hypocit and will not do anything to curb his own useage so that in and of itself calls the credibility of the movie into question. It gives the appearance of it being nothing but hype because the man behind the movie is not too concerned even though he tells everyone else to be very concerned.
In my opinion pollution at every level whether it be smog, toxic waste into the ground and waterways, even common litter on the street should be cleaned up as much as possible.
BUT I refuse to be cowered into fear of an impending doomsday while the Horsemen of the Apocalypse are all cruising about in vehicles that consume mass quantities of fuel... more than I will ever use. In order for them to seem credible they must set the example and so far they have been shot full of holes and exposed as the hypocrits that they are.
They must lead by example and they have not.
basically the message is a good one, the messenger is an asshole.
So, what shall we do? sit about and bitch about the messenger, or take heed?
So, what shall we do? sit about and bitch about the messenger, or take heed?
But that was the premice of Gores graph, that CO2 led climate change. Is that not the "thinking"?
If so, then why was the fact that CO2 increases have always followed temp increases misrepresented?
That is a huge misrepresentation. If you saw that kind of lie in the antiAGW camp, you would focus in on it as well, would you not?
Seeing as that is the model for the present situation, then is the model wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by #juan
Where have you been Bear?
There has been a steady rise in CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. ( circa 300 years ago ) Along with that increase in CO2 levels, there has been a corresponding rise in global temperatures. The thinking is, that the rise in CO2 causes a rise in global temperature. We are not talking about prehistoric times here.
The IPCC Have told us that an increase in global CO2 levels causes global temperatures to rise.
MIT has examined Gore's movie and approved Gore's presentation.
It seems you are manufacturing nits to pick.
Pick this nit juan, this would be why I will view the IPCC reports with much skepticism.
btw, thanx for answering my questions.
Yes juan the IPCC gets the very best in the feilds of research it needs to further its own agenda.
How's the Koolaid?
btw, thanx for answering my questions.
Financial Post said:
Yes juan the IPCC gets the very best in the feilds of research it needs to further its own agenda.
How's the Koolaid?
I'll bite Bear. Professor Reiter is an expert in Mosquitoes and related diseases. The article you brought up says he was selected to the Health Chapter. Climate affects more than just mosquitoes as disease vectors, not to mention the variety of environmental diseases and microbial infections. Also the article does not even mention who the other two experts were, so there is no way for us to determine the relevance of their selection. They might as well not have even mentioned them save for the propoganda style relaying of information.
Edit: They identify them only as Physicians, quite a strange selection for the Health chapter
Edit: They identify them only as Physicians, quite a strange selection for the Health chapter
Of course!!!
Why didn'y I think of that?
It's incomplete, the guy is obviously not the leading scientist in that field, as the rest of the world sees him that way, it's two other guys(unknown), so this is just propoganda. Of course it is, how could I miss that?
It's incomplete, but hey, at least it's not a lie!
The point is the IPCC picks and chooses who they will allow to contribute, very strangely. Leaves me asking more questions.
You think this is the first lil nit I picked off the IPCC's selective choosing?
I just noticed your edit, the reason he was suggested for the position was because of the IPCC's inferrence that there will be a serious problem with insect borne, infectous disease. Seeing as he IS the worlds leading authority on it, for nearly 5 decades, I'ld say he'ld be our man.
Gimme a minute, I'm trying to find out who got the posts.
Last edited: