Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Al Gore's global warming film

A friend of mine, who has been researching climate change since the 1960's just chaired a talk given after a London showing of a film on global warming made by ex US deputy, Al Gore.


"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

Whilst I am actually one of the people who does beleive that global warming is our fault, I depend on electricty for work. I just console myself with the thought that I don't use much on the scale of things.

One thing everyone does seem to agree on now, is that the climate is changing. We just differ as to the cause, now the effect is real.

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Al Gore, But the film is called " An Inconvenient Truth"

G'day Andist,

Great film. Very well presented although occasionally I thought the personal touches such as rushing his sun to hospital or the music that accompanied his painful memories of his now dead sister were somewhat inappropriate.

Pity almost all the science used is easily challenged. Some of what he quotes is dead wrong.

Tornadoes. A decrease since 1950 of F3s or above. An increase on very small ones because of doppler radar. That's technology not climate.

Hurricanes. Now this one has a number of experts in hurricanes really pissed off. Firstly, it is only a record because once again technology allowed us to name hurricanes that were small, way out to see and would not have been observed at all in 1950. Then you have the "inconvenient" fact that the temperature in the hurricane area for the water was actually a little cooler than normal. Other factors go into to making the frequency of hurricanes, not just temperature. And I've seen several scientists nominate at least a dozen years that have had more hurricanes. Worse, the US had a nice lull in hurricanes in a while and now it isn't. During that lull, idiots built in hurricane areas so the cost is now exponentially higher. Cost has nothing to do with intensity of hurricanes.

The south Atlantic "hurricane". It was the first recorded. It was because of unusually cold water and cold air. It was what is sometimes called a "cold hurricane". What does that have to do with global warming?

And do four dead polar bears really prove global warming?

The film is entertaining but it is meant to educate and a great many people are now using its "science" as proof of global warming, so it is a terrible piece of propoganda because of that. It even quotes the very much discredited Mann et al Hockey Stick as gospel and Mr Lonnie Thompson's work on Tropical glaciers where he managed to get six widely differing results from six ice cores and averaged them coming to the conclusion that suited him even that the average really was the opposite of four of his six cores.

I believe there are three members of this site that regularly participate that have concerns about whether global warming is a fact. One of them is me and I do not agree with your statement at all. Using Ms Oreskes' arguments, that means that 33% of those on this forum disagree with your statement.


Regards


Richard

G'day all,

I missed some points about glaciers and some other things that Al Gore uses extensively but then I thought, I'm overwhelming this debate because I am sick and thus am not editing. I mean I must be turning people off because Mr Morgan has not posted once and I rather like having someone that really hates what I write comment. It gives perspective.

So I'm responding to anything and in great detail simply because I can type fast. So I'm going to stop or at least limit my posts to a much smaller level. My apologies to all for this monopoly.


Regards


Richard

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tuned.htm

Worldwide wildfires annually emit 72.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2, very conservatively equivalent to burning 8.27 trillion gallons of gasoline or 337 times 2005's total recovered petroluem.

Cut back your energy use 10% and save the world for the more deserving.

It has been pointed out to you a few times that the areas cleared by forest fires become CO2 sinks in later years. So, given some sort of steady-state, the forest fires are not a net-contributor to the CO2 load, when time-averaged.

I must have missed your answer to this, could you repost it?

A couple of friends of the university, one of whom is a subject-matter expert, just saw the film together about two weeks ago.

All agreed.
It is brilliant.
All agreed.
It will fall on deaf ears.
Greenland is melting and you argue about it.
The artic icecap is melting and you argue about it.
Antarctica is melting and you argue about it.
Glaciers just about everywhere are melting and you argue about it.

Apparently there is no will to actually do something until there is pain and blood.
I can't wait to read the victim statements after this crime.

Uncle,

Cut back on your maths and save the world for the less cynical.

I'll post this once again as you seem to have paid it no attention.

"Fire can countermand certain greenhouse effects, and may, in the future, be a thermostat for global climate. If free-burning fires release greenhouse gases, they also deposit elemental carbon as a residue. The biota recapture the gases, while the carbon persists, in partial compensation for the exhumation of ancient hydrocarbons burned as fossil fuels. Proper burning in forest and shrubland can improve long-term productivity and net carbon storage. Aerosols and sulphur emissions reflect incident radiation, thus enhancing cooling. Fire effluents often serve as nuclei for clouds, further altering the radiation balance."

So you can do all the maths you want regarding what wildfires put into the atmosphere, but they have zero impact over a period and actually become much more effective at reclaiming CO2. In fact, the only way they contribute to atmospheric CO2 is if humans move in and claim the cleared land for other uses.

And before you say that the rise in wildfires since the 1980s will put more CO2 into the atmosphere in the short term, then you need to look at the cause. Wildfires are increasing due to the rise in temperature:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060707-9999-7m7fire.html

So it's just another positive feedback loop resulting from our impact on the environment.

Whatever way you cut it, we have a hand in it.

Blacknad.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html

Everybody knows heat rises. It's in books, too - science books! The Northern Hemisphere, being to the north and above the Southern Hemisphere, therefore gets all the anthropogenic Global Warming.

The preceding paragraph is crap.

Uncle Al wrote:
"The preceding paragraph is crap."

Then why did you write it? ;-)

Global warming is not anthropogenic. The Carbon Tax on Everything is crap as the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C car was crap and the H*Y*D*R*O*G*E*N car will be crap. Why is 380 ppm of weak IR absorber CO2 a bugaboo when 30,000 ppm of strong IR absorber H2O is not worthy of mention?

Science 313(5791) 1243 (2006) "A Road Map to US Decarbonization."

Replacement of 70% of fossil fuel energy by alternative energy would take 30 years and cost $200 billion/year extra. For the slow of skull that is a $6 trillion tab for being politically correct and empirically stupid.

You've responded but you don't adress the issue of burned out forests being carbon sinks in later years.

Does this mean you will stop using your incorrect argument?

Plant forests like crazy, build wood frame houses like mad, then replant the forests. Everybody lives fat and happy. HA HA HA - like that will ever happen. Live in mud huts, long for priests' promises, and suffer priests' threats. Bushist America . Now we're talking!

One can hardly contain anticipation for (R) ex-Senator Mark Foley being appointed a Roman Catholic Bishop. He's got the AP (Adult Pederast) credits! (D) Barney Frank must be terribly confused by both process and product.

"Where I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those more mature people who should know the difference and know better." ? Mark Foley, former co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. War on Cancer, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on AIDS, War on Terrorism, war in Iraq... Enviro-whinerism, State-mandated charity, fiat safety devices, nutrient of the week, parts-per-billion toxicities, pollution control, pharma by prescription only, endangered species, SAVE OUR CHILDREN!... THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.

OK, we have devolved to the "Uncle Al" throws chaff in the air stage. When a thread about global warming is sidetracked into a thread about one of Uncle Al's other facinations (pederasts), it is time to call it quits.

J. Arthur God posted 2006-09-30 17:49:

"It has been pointed out to you a few times that the areas cleared by forest fires become CO2 sinks in later years. So, given some sort of steady-state, the forest fires are not a net-contributor to the CO2 load, when time-averaged."

Blacknad added the words zero impact in his Oct 2 post. He also has a quote that contains, "... in partial compensation for the exhumation of ancient hydrocarbons burned as fossil fuels."

Are you saying that over time the forest will grow to its exact same size using up the exact amount of carbon it spewed when the fire was raging? And taking in to account Blacknad's quote, it seems like the net effect will eventually be a reduction in the amount of carbon in the air. I missed where you pointed this before, so did you explain the steady-state elsewhere?

Thinking about it, the amount of carbon fuel has been building up in Canadian and American (and possibly other countries) forests at least since the 1930's due to better fire fighting techniques and increased efforts to protect the population that is expanding into the woodlands. Forest fires burn much of that excess fuel off -- which is why the fires are so large now a days -- so it will take decades for that to build up again. Why would the burned carbon compensate for exhumed oil, but decaying wood does not.

Other thoughts I have heard about with respect to forests, is that trees remove water from the water table and transpire it into the air. In South Africa, where they had planted plenty of trees to combat deforestation, they are now ripping some of the trees up to stop the drain on the water supply. Now population increase could have also caused a strain on the water supply, but then again perhaps the reforestation should have been done more slowly allowing the area to reach at least partial equilibrium before adding more trees.

http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

So, here's Sam's Movie Review of the link provided (somewhat magically) again by snowbird.
*_*

One of the items that hit me on that Canadian film (AGW)(unikron link), was the big graph going back 500 million years, showing many divergent relationships (no relation) between CO2 and Temperature.

That record goes back to before Oxygen levels stabilized in our atmosphere, the continents were in vastly different positions, biological influences on the atmosphere were vastly different (just off the top of my head). But what about the past 10-20-40 million years? Guess I shoulda looked first; but how is that correlation? That would strike me as more meaningful period to examine, because the living order was fairly well established, grasses evolved, India hit Asia to give us monsoons, and the Alps and Andes, as well as present oceans, developed.

As for CO2 following Temperature increases:
As the positive feedback mechanisms kick in.....
Heck, there's probably big jumps in methane following temperature rises also.

Don't you think that as the planet warms (and warmer oceans hold less CO2, btw) and the large geological/ biological deposits get released, there will be jumps in CO2 (following temp. rise)?

Oh yea, I also remember that Indian guy who talked about cyclones and (I think) the Canadian Ice Storm.
All he was saying was that nobody can directly link a specific weather event to GW, and he added that another Ice Storm could happen again if the conditions were right. Now that's profound.
About the cyclones, he says, for “reasons we don't quite understand,” there are more cyclones in years with cooler air (so it couldn't be GW making cyclones). What about the delta T (temperature differential between ocean and air). Warmer oceans mean more storms, but only if the delta T is still there (cooler air).

I think the film talked about adapting also. Take a look at how other animals have adapted to rapid climate change. It's those precipitous cliffs and jumps over the past several million years (and 35 thousand years) related to glaciations that scare me.

And talking about scary stuff, I've seen a correlation between the LENGTH of a sunspot cycle and temperature that is closer than the CO2 correlation over the past 120 years.
I certainly agree that the sun is a very big player. I did not appreciate the woman who chirpily told us what “exciting news” it was that even our galaxy influences our climate (ala Mike Kremer's post on the Physics forum).

Well, those where some thought's on the film. Overall the soothing gentle tones of the AGW's and the strident shoutings of the PGW's (anti/proGW) gave it the look of a slick propoganda film, similar in style to Incovenient Truth (IT).

Certainly a good conversation starter, but lots of disjointed points and not very conclusive (much like IT). I'd watch it again, because there's lots of points I can't recall now.

~~SA

Samwik--Since I was probably the "woman" who expressed excitement at the thought of the celestial influences reaching this insignificant planet I would like to ask what is wrong with excitement. I would have thought that excitement is precisely what scientists seek. Einstein seemed to be someone who would have experienced excitement, and did you see the photos of Stephen Hawking as his twisted body experienced weightlessness for the first time? That expression on his face was beyond excitement. I am not a scientist, but I find new ideas and the discoveries of science profoundly exciting. I am sorry that you seem to have lost the ability to wonder and enjoy.

Incidentally those of you who wondered what I was on about when I said that many women took on ambiguous names for publication of our ideas- read samwik's post and note the implied inferiority in "chirpy woman". Try substituting "man". Doesn't quite work does it?

Hiya Ellis.

Please quote me correctly.

I did NOT say 'chirpy woman,' as you imply.

If it'd been a man in the film, I would've said '...this guy who chirpily told us what "exciting news" it was....'

Reading back over that....
Truthfully, I probably would've said ...guy who happily (or blithely, maybe) told us... (unless he'd had a high voice).

And my point was that i didn't appreciate that (truely) 'exciting news' (actually quoting from the film!) being used to counter the PGW side, with no details whatever. It was just to drive home the idea that GW is beyond our control. Short of saying it is God's will, I think the galaxy is about as 'out of our hands' as you can get.

I don't deny it's true either! Still, watch the film, and see if you don't agree that in that context, it was a bit of a diversion (in keeping with the "overall soothing gentle tones").
I could point to similar instances in IT also, I feel sure.

I'm not perfect, but I've tried. I choose "Feminist Family Therapy" for my presentation in the graduate level Family Therapy class that I took back about 12-15 years ago. And I got an "A."

Hey, I'm an audio oriented person.
I didn't say, "Oh yea, I also remember that Indian guy who talked about cyclones...." because he looked Indian, but because he sounded that way. I felt this was a pretty informal 'movie review,' and i was just trying to provide some signposts for anyone who wanted to know what I was talking about.

For all I know he could have been British or Bengali, or....

I only watched that film once (though I replayed a couple of parts -probably that lady- to get the quote) and maybe I embellished a bit in my memory;

but I did not say "chirpy woman."

It's like with our kids. We don't say you're a 'bad kid,' we say you're 'acting badly right now.'

So....

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

~Samwik

p.s.

Ellis, thank you for relating that about Stephen Hawking. I did not know that; and I can't think of anything else that brings tears of happiness to my eyes quite as easily (at least for another individual). That is amazing! I guess he must've been up in the 'vomit comet,' eh?

~~Later....

Ok here is a different perspective, there can be no doubt that co2 levels and temperature rising has little coalition, but this is an end time prophecy in the Bible.

Luke 21:25
"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth,
nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

This is before the end of time. Global warming cannot be proven, but it is a fact that people are looking at the climate with great perplexity. Even people that don't believe in the myth of co2 generated warming.