[abtech]

Just about everything that Gore is stating is built on the incorrect assumption that all of these phenomona are in positive feedback.

This just isn't true, in fact there isn't any empirical proof that ANY of the variables are now in or ever have been operating in positive feedback.

[Baketech]

SoB, 929E..... While I'm certainly not smart enough to take sides in this debate...I would challenge you guys to do enough research to understand how climate gurus determine pre-history temps. Pssst...it's not by extrapolation...

Again, not taking sides...just a polite challenge to do yourself a favor and read up on how they do this, it's actually quite fascinating...

Edit:
As far as the Gore "crockumentary" goes...I finally watched it, and have some opinions, but no time to write them down just now... :/

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Baketech

SoB, 929E..... While I'm certainly not smart enough to take sides in this debate...I would challenge you guys to do enough research to understand how climate gurus determine pre-history temps. Pssst...it's not by extrapolation...

Again, not taking sides...just a polite challenge to do yourself a favor and read up on how they do this, it's actually quite fascinating...

Edit:
As far as the Gore "crockumentary" goes...I finally watched it, and have some opinions, but no time to write them down just now... :/

My reference to extrapolation was that they are extrapolating using dodgy data and models into the future. Past data is usually determined by such things as tree rings (which have a 0.0001 degree Kelvin accuracy), ice layers in glaciers and other empirical data. Again if they are predicting (notice not recording) temperatures for 500AD using tree rings how many trees did they sample? Feel free to extrapolate that example (grouping me with an art major )

[Baketech]

Thanks for the clarification...it wasn't that apparent from reading posts 177-180...

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Thanks for the clarification...it wasn't that apparent from reading posts 177-180...

Me not be clear

Side note: I had a girl friend in college that was in a Calculus class with me, one time she was 100% unprepared for a test and we sat together so I procrastinated on turning mine in since she 'might' have been able to see it and do OK she failed it even though I got a 100% because she could not follow my work

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by deez

The burning of fossil fuels has nothing to do with it, it's just the Earf's natural changes

You know you're right!!! The Earth has NEVER had a climactic change or shift, until us evil humans started burning fossil fuels.

All hail the mighty Gore and his DVD o' truth.

[ND4SPD]

I've read most of this thread and I didn't see anyone bring up the issue of the Earth's rotation speed slowing down.

[abtech]

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

I've read most of this thread and I didn't see anyone bring up the issue of the Earth's rotation speed slowing down.

I'll have to research that one. Decreasing rotational speed on an orbiting object is usually the first sign of orbit decay which spells impact with the nucleus sooner or later. What percentage of slowing are we talking about? .0001 percent or something significant?

[ND4SPD]

Originally Posted by abtech

I'll have to research that one. Decreasing rotational speed on an orbiting object is usually the first sign of orbit decay which spells impact with the nucleus sooner or later. What percentage of slowing are we talking about? .0001 percent or something significant?

It was a very small percentage, but it is happening. I can't remember where I read about it, otherwise I would have posted the source.

[phobiaphobe]

Someone once told me it is frightening how much topsoil we are losing each year; but I told that story around a campfire and noone got scared.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by abtech

I'll have to research that one. Decreasing rotational speed on an orbiting object is usually the first sign of orbit decay which spells impact with the nucleus sooner or later. What percentage of slowing are we talking about? .0001 percent or something significant?

The earthquake that caused so much death in asia (with the flooding) change the earths rotation in addition to the normal change. Also there is a change in alignment of the magnetic poles going on leading to speculation that they may invert (as they have before, so it is not due to the influence of Gore's magnetic personality)

[HRC NICK 11]

Climate change info from the past comes from core samples from under the ocean they compair the dead micro organisms in the sediment and by compairing the amount that like warm water to the amount that like cold water in a give time frame they can get a pretty good idea of the temp at that time.

Look up the mini ice age and see how many people died from a small average temperature change (it got colder)that happened in our past. Think bubonic plague, and starvation when grain crops would rot in the fields

One of the most productive times in our past was also one of the warmest in our short history on this planet. Ofcouse this time frame did piss off the French because some of the best wine that could be had at the time came from England, a place not normally able to grow good wine grapes. French officals actually ban the import of the Engish wine cause it was causing economical problems in the area. This time was known as the Renaissance.

[Proto]

Originally Posted by HRC NICK 11

................ Of couse this time frame did piss off the French because some of the best wine that could be had at the time came from England, a place not normally able to grow good wine grapes. French officals actually ban the import of the Engish wine cause it was causing economical problems in the area. This time was known as the Renaissance.

Quite a few vinyards opening up in southern England now, and yes, the French are still being less than helpful when it comes to marketing what is generally considered to be very good wine (of its type).

BTW, bumper crop on my two vines this year. I'm planning on having a go at making wine lnext year, just for a giggle.

Also pretty sure that during periods of the middle ages England was warm enough to suffer from malaria (the "Ague" I think as it was popularly know)

[seamus]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Someone once told me it is frightening how much topsoil we are losing each year; but I told that story around a campfire and noone got scared.

You have to make a DVD about it and go on Oprah before anyone will believe you.

When you were telling the story, did you hold a flashlight under your chin? That would have helped the fear factor.

edit: Now that I think about it, that's about all Gore hasn't done yet.

[abtech]

Originally Posted by seamus

You have to make a DVD about it and go on Oprah before anyone will believe you.

When you were telling the story, did you hold a flashlight under your chin? That would have helped the fear factor.

edit: Now that I think about it, that's about all Gore hasn't done yet.

Although he attains that look even without the flashlight . . .

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by seamus

You have to make a DVD about it and go on Oprah before anyone will believe you.

When you were telling the story, did you hold a flashlight under your chin? That would have helped the fear factor.

edit: Now that I think about it, that's about all Gore hasn't done yet.

You forgot invent the internet

[steingar]

Unfortunately for all of us, global warming is certainly not junk science, and if recent results are to be believed, the consequences that were thought to be 50 years off are happening now.

It will not kill off all life on earth, although it may destroy our brand of civilization and kill off billions who depend on monsoons. If it gets bad enough to melt the poles, the frozen methane hydrates there will likely raise the temps to the point where 95% of all species die. Paleological evidence suggests this happened once, I think between the eocene and paleogene.

The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will equilibrate with the oceans, it has to. I've read some pretty reputable stuff suggesting that within ten years there will be enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to lower ocean pH (carbon dioxide mades carbonic acid when it dissolves in water) sufficient to kill anything with a shell. That includes corals and most plankton. This happened once before too in the paleontological record, and evidence suggests that it took a half billion years to equilibrate to neutral pH.

The really sad thing is that it is in our interests to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as much of that fixed carbon comes from petrolium distillates that start life in volatile regions of the world. The way to do this is technology, which is the thing at which the US is the best in the world. Our nation, with our government firmly involved, could easily lead the way in derivation of renewable energy resources and the high energy physics needed for break ahead fusion. Instead, our policies have been directed toward govermental engineering in oil producing nations.

That is not to say that there is no development of alternative energy reources, of course there is. I do not see any leadership in this or substantial investments by the NSF or the DOE, which have been largely stripped of their research portfolios. Again, this is unfortunate, since the originator of inexpensive environmental technologies will be able to supply the world with them, thus reducing our persistent trade deficit.

Unfortunately, we are human beings, and rarely deal with a problem until it has its teeth sunk firmly in our collective ass. I fear by the time sufficient people are convinced of the reality of climatic change, the damage will be irreversible and the changes will take their course. I just hope I don't live to see it.

[luvtolean]

Global warming, as attributed directly to burning fossil fuels, is not junk science. You're right. Though it is correct as a colloquialism.

As it has not even moved out of the theory stage. And as a theory, it is a pretty lousy one, totally full of holes, so to speak. There are no experiments done that can directly prove global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

As abtech said, no "positive feedback".

[onevcs]

Originally Posted by steingar

Unfortunately, we are human beings, and rarely deal with a problem until it has its teeth sunk firmly in our collective ass. I fear by the time sufficient people are convinced of the reality of climatic change, the damage will be irreversible and the changes will take their course. I just hope I don't live to see it.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by steingar

Our nation, with our government firmly involved, could easily lead the way in derivation of renewable energy resources and the high energy physics needed for break ahead fusion.

Easily?

If that's an easy problem, what's a hard one...