Gore on the Hill

#27
#27
Holy Hell Gavol agrees with me now I've had OE and Gavol agree on something if I can get mg that would be the trifecta of the apocolypse.

If you post enough, you're bound to get something right every once in awhile.
 
#30
#30
sure, I was copy editor for my high school yearbook.

who's hiding? I tend to stay away from the large pools of saliva that lay about any time Al Gore is in the news.
 
#31
#31
They could've just pulled some of the science from the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle and formulated some good questions/points.

Power Line: The Great Global Warming Swindle

I realize that a lot of the people who are buying into the global warming theory as a man made, and man correctable, problem are not old enough to remember that up until the 1980s many of these same hippy dippy junk scientists were telling us that we would all freeze to death in a new ice age. A lot of the people who really push the environmental agenda are unrepenatant communists whose goal is to have us give up the means by which we are able to live independent lives, thereby forcing us into a state of government dependency so we can be dictated to on every possible subject.

For those who don't want to watch the video, I'll just tell you that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
 
#32
#32
VH...I posted a comment about the point you raise about CO2 emissions trailing temperature increases in the original thread where this movie was posted.

I watched the movie and it actually had me confused for a while until I stopped and thought more about it all. I found that there were two kinds of quotes from researchers

1) General comments that were then applied to wider applications by the narrator
2) Specific comments that presented evidence that appeared to question global warming from man-made causes

I found that most of the comments that were of type 2 were about this point your raise ... CO2 concentrations trailed temperature increases in the atmosphere. Therefore, they suggested that history tells us that we have no reason to supect CO2 drives temperature...in fact, it appears that temperature drives CO2 concentration. However, this argument doesn't really fly with me. In the past, there was no increasing source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Emissions were at a rate that was esentially equal to the earth's ability to absorb it. There was no mechanism for CO2 to increase artificially on a large scale. The fact that temperature drives CO2 emissions is a well-known fact (and even though I knew it I missed this point at first) and it is this very historical evidence that makes climatologists fear a warming planet - this positive feedback mechanism. The scientists can account for a fraction of the temperature rise that occurred historically from examining orbital and solar patterns. However, as the earth starts warming, that big ol' CO2 storage pool known as the ocean cannot hold as much anymore by solubility rules, so it starts releasing CO2...that is why the long lag is present..it takes a long time for the ocean to warm up compared to land or the atmosphere. This CO2 release can then warm the earth beyond what the original radiative forcing woud suggest. The CO2 concentrations reduce as the solar radiative forcing drops off (from orbital forcing) and temperatures fall...also I think that on this time scale their are chemical means for CO2 removal..but I'm not positive about that one.
 
#33
#33
However, this argument doesn't really fly with me. In the past, there was no increasing source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Emissions were at a rate that was esentially equal to the earth's ability to absorb it. There was no mechanism for CO2 to increase artificially on a large scale.
Ever heard of a volcano? or a massive forrest fire? The point is that global warming is still an unproven theory, which is being supported by people with political and economic agendas.
 
#34
#34
Global warming is actually a proven theory. It has happened in world history. I think what your point is that the way it is explained by say Gore is NOT proven.
 
#38
#38
Ever heard of a volcano? or a massive forrest fire? The point is that global warming is still an unproven theory, which is being supported by people with political and economic agendas.

You are right. When Penatuba (sp?) erupted, there is historical evidence of atmospheric and climate change. I'm not so sure about forest fires.

I will try to re-state my point to include this point. It is much more unlikely that CO2 increases were a result of volcanoes or forrest fires following temperature increases. Volcanoes aren't going to respond to fluctuations on the order of 10 degrees farhenheit in land temperature. Forrest fires are not going to lead to hundreds of years of increasing CO2 concentrations. When using the ocean as a CO2 source, the math works out very well and can explain the large (and always present) time lag as well as the rate of change.

Actually the biggest problem with volcanoes is that they emit much more aerosol than CO2 (I believe). If I am not mistaken, volcanoes have had a net cooling effect in history because of their large aerosol release..which as a fact...leads to cooling (they reflect incoming sunlight, increasing the earth's albedo). It was this same aerosol effect that was responsible for much of the "ice age" scare of the late 70s ... as aeorosol emissions (like sulfur from coal-fired plants) spiraled up out of control.
 
#40
#40
not on the global climate, just on the lungs and hearts of innocent bystanders.

Ahhh yes. The ones dragged at gunpoint into the restaurants and forced to eat and breathe the unhealthy stuff.

I'm sure the tax hikes will include protection from all of the poor people exposed to this.
 
#41
#41
Ahhh yes. The ones dragged at gunpoint into the restaurants and forced to eat and breathe the unhealthy stuff.
I'm sure the tax hikes will include protection from all of the poor people exposed to this.
I'd just assume they tax them up to about $10 a pack and make it illegal to smoke outside your own, hermetically sealed home.
 
#42
#42
If you can't smoke in your nicely contained and environmentally controlled business I see bans on smoking in your house as well.
 
#45
#45
What I think is that the list of facts that one could bat Gore down with are similar to the discrepancies that were previously posted (maybe by Vader??) which had a lot more to do with Gore overstating himself than problems with the science. Should I take it to mean that when you all were saying that the Republicans should have gotten Gore that you meant it to be on these issues? Because I am not sure there are facts that discredit the science.
 
#46
#46
You are right. When Penatuba (sp?) erupted, there is historical evidence of atmospheric and climate change. I'm not so sure about forest fires.

I will try to re-state my point to include this point. It is much more unlikely that CO2 increases were a result of volcanoes or forrest fires following temperature increases. Volcanoes aren't going to respond to fluctuations on the order of 10 degrees farhenheit in land temperature. Forrest fires are not going to lead to hundreds of years of increasing CO2 concentrations. When using the ocean as a CO2 source, the math works out very well and can explain the large (and always present) time lag as well as the rate of change.

Actually the biggest problem with volcanoes is that they emit much more aerosol than CO2 (I believe). If I am not mistaken, volcanoes have had a net cooling effect in history because of their large aerosol release..which as a fact...leads to cooling (they reflect incoming sunlight, increasing the earth's albedo). It was this same aerosol effect that was responsible for much of the "ice age" scare of the late 70s ... as aeorosol emissions (like sulfur from coal-fired plants) spiraled up out of control.

There you go, we need to figure out how to jumpstart a couple dozen volcanoes worldwide and we can reverse global warming!:salute:
 
#47
#47
There you go, we need to figure out how to jumpstart a couple dozen volcanoes worldwide and we can reverse global warming!:salute:

only temporarily ... but I suppose so. Volcanoes do inject the aersols sufficiently high that they don't rain out right away as do sulfur emissions from coal plants etc. I'm not sure that is a world I want to live in though :p
 
#48
#48
So I am one of the four?

I guess that would be a compliment.

ch6_pat_11_4&


Kinda reminds you of the nine kings in Lord of the Rings.
 

VN Store



Back
Top