[aldente]

In the Orange County Register the author talkes about our 'carbon footprint'. Haven't found it yet. Seems like a cool movie though.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[miraculix]

We sould stop obsessing about CO2.

Here a useful link to debunk this irratic correlation-causality misconception on greenhouse gases.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[dissident]

Citing a lame denialist website doesn't refute the work of climate scientists. Of course you can choose to believe that there is a vast conspiracy by scientists to mislead the public, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

For starters, the direct effect of CO2 on tropospheric temperatures is small. The real problem is the additional water vapour that can be supported by the atmosphere due to the slight direct CO2 warming. In the upper tropososphere water concentration increases by over 80% (the total water mass in the atmosphere increases by about 20%). Water vapour is a very efficient trap for infrared radiation and so we have a feedback that contributes to warming of the troposphere and the oceans. Global average sea surface temperatures increase by about 2 degrees Celsius (except in the Arctic where the loss of the ice cap translates into a large change).

This small temperature change in SSTs translates into a not so small increase in convective available potential energy. As a result more water is pumped into the atmosphere by convection from the seas, which re-inforces the original CO2 effect. Denialists have come up with numerous theories to try to wiggle out of this feedback. One of these claims is that there would be an "infared iris" effect which would offset the warming of the troposphere by having clouds radiate more into space. However, no evidence for such a convenient offset mechanism has been found. In fact there is evidence for pollution inducing cooling by distributing cloud water over a much greater number of condensation nuclei, leading to smaller average droplet size and increasing cloud albedo. This dimming effect has been hiding a significant fraction of the global warming but will go away as China and India clean up their industry just like the EU and North America. The absence of a significant increase in cloud albedo without the presence of pollution shoots down another denialist claim.

The importance of the upper troposphere humidifcation cannot be overstated. This is exactly the region where water vapour is most effective as a heat trap. Low and mid level clouds result in a net loss of heat out of these levels of the troposphere through infrared re-radiation.

[miraculix]

Let us not get lost in technical details here.

Can't we agree on some basic things (?), such as:

-the only constant in climate is change

-we are well below average temperatures since the end of the last major ice age

-there have been sharp rises in global temperatures w/in the last 2000 years, surpassing anything we are witnessing right now
(e.g. between 750 AD and 1000 increase by >2°C)

-all climate models are just that - models. None of these models can account for the myriad of factors governing our climate. Nobody knows anything to a reliable degree of certainty

So please do not discredit anybody that derives at different coclusions as you, because of alternative ASSUMPTIONS a denialist

Our climate is changing of course, but that is to be expected.
To expect some sort of equilibrium would be a foolish assumption.

Temperaure measurements can not be used for anything. The inherent margin of error alone prohibits to draw any meaningful conclusions. Garbage in garbage out. It is as simple as that.

There are much better indicators for global climate change.
For instance bio-indicators, such as plant and insect species distribution. Lower organism are much more sensitive to environmental stresses and changes.

From what I gather, and that sort of research is still more anecdotal then systematic, there are indications of a warming trend.

So all that can be stated is that there has been some warming on a global scale. Where all of this is going however is not known.

There are too many mechanisms in place that we do not understand. One possible feedback could actually a dramatic cooling. We can not discount that.

[JustinFrankl]

Science 24 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5705, p. 2167
DOI: 10.1126/science.306.5705.2167a
NetWatch
Frustrated by Web sites claiming to debunk global warming, several scientists this month launched their own blog on the evidence that humans are heating up the planet. Realclimate.org is hosted by a public relations firm called Environmental Media Services, but nine academic and government scientists write the content, says co-organizer Gavin Schmidt of NASA (speaking in a personal capacity). They hope to counter industry-supported sites such as www.CO2science.org and www.junkscience.com, where so-called experts "have a habit of seriously misquoting, distorting, and outright manipulating data," says Schmidt.

junkscience and co2science are not "alternative view" websites. They are mis- and dis-information campaigns funded by greedy, fat, ignorant bastards in industry with vested interests in the status quo.

We aren't obsessing nearly enough about CO2.

[miraculix]

oh brother......

I never said that restraining CO2 emissions is a bad thing.

I never said there was no global warming.

... but the theory presented in linking CO2 to the current warming trend is as shaky or solid as that what is presented by the link I cited above.

As many scientists that promote the CO2 HYPOTHESIS are countered by an equal number of scientists against it.

A fine read makes Nobel prize winner Kay Mullin's book "Walking naked in the mindfield" - not very scientific but very entertaining.

Once you peel off all the layers of the underlying "science" as it relates to our climate you find that it is a house of cards, built on assumptions that are footed on assumptions resting on more assumptions.

Have we yet managed to be able to forecast the weather accurately more then 2 or 3 days out?

Nothing is cast in stone.

Yes, I will concede that CO2 might a good suspect, but please do not turn this into gospel.

[aldente]

Miraculix fits right in with the propaganda machine there called the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Click on 'view the ads' and note the background music. In the second clip they say 'why do they want to scare us'?

These clips will broadcast in 15 cities of the US by the end of this month, just before 'An Inconvenient Truth' is about to be released.

I wonder who payed for them.

[UIUCstudent01]

I wonder who payed for them.

It surely can't be any oil and gas companies, they're struggling as it is!!!

/sarcasm

[gg3]

Miraculix, you may as well forget it. You've just identified yourself with a flat-earth position and thereby destroyed any hope of credibility you might have had around here.

Nothing you have to say is going to be taken seriously after that.

Modest suggestion: ditch that userID and come back here under a different name so no one knows it's you.

[basil_hayden]

On the contrary gg3

Miraculix has lost no credibility with anyone that has an open mind.

Of course, dissident, albente and Justin have.

The complex buffered system we call climate currently defies a full explanation of cause and effect, positive and negative feedbacks, for example global warming versus global dimming.

As long as the jury is out, why pull the switch, gg3?

[ECM]

Global Warming and Global Dimming are not mutually exclusive. You can have both in effect at the same time. If global dimming is having a stronger effect it can cause temperatures to drop.

Global Dimming = Less light and heat energy reaching the surface

Global Warming = Greater retention of heat energy

If the base number for Global Warming and Global Dimming = 1, with numbers greater than 1 for global warming meaning more energy retained and numbers less than 1 for Global Dimming meaning less light and heat energy getting to the surface,
then the base formula GW * GD = 1

If the GD effect is 95% and the GW effect is 103% then

.95 * 1.03 = 97.85% of normal

Therefore you can have both in effect and still have colder temperatures than normal. This is already understood by climatologists and conforms to existing theory.

[basil_hayden]

Thanks for helping to prove my point, ECM.

[aldente]

So we have a clear front here as I understand it and the denial of climate change is being shuffed in the middle of the ring sort of like a 'tool' as the British call a clueless person. Well, then we are back to the point that I evaluated in the past when certain self declared and proactive elements in society under the impression that they are in charge feel the urge to ignite the bomb as the remedy of last resort (just in case that the Burners were right and the inflamation of all available hydrocarbons on this planet indeed should cause it to get out of equilibrium). eternal winter

[ECM]

Thanks for helping to prove my point, ECM.

And what point might that be? You seem to think that because we don't have a full grasp of climate variables that we haven't a reasonably accurate idea of what is happening and why.

CO2 doesn't have to have a major direct effect on warming if it is acting as a catalyst for something that does.

[miraculix]

@gg3 et albente

what is all that intolerance?

I am talking about competing scientific ideas - and one corner stone of good science is to allow dissenting voices to be heard

and I reiterate - I do see climate change and yes there might be a link to human activities and it is propably not a bad thing to curb CO2 emmissions

I am just not convinced that current models represent proof beyond reasonable doubt

I wonder where I lost any credibility in saying that??

If you only want to listen to what you already think you know - fine with me. I was hoping for a factual point - counter - point response to my link.

Thus far, all I have heard from you two is ridicule, but no science.

You are as fair and balanced as "the Factor".....

Maybe you guys would strike as more credible yourselves if you'd ditch your messaic approach!

[JustinFrankl]

Hey, Miraculix, if you don't buy into global climate change being a disaster in the making, great. The science is not provable in your eyes "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the scientific community is not completely unified in their stance on global climate change. You imply that this means we have gross margins of error and that it's pretty much business as usual. Go live your life thusly and good luck with that.

In the meantime, those people who read the writing on the wall differently than you do, are going to live their lives the way they see fit.

[XOVERX]

For those who perceive Peak Oil to be a threat to civilization, Global Warming/Global Dimming is a threat orders of magnitude greater than the threat that Peak Oil is to civilization.

Really, to educate yourself on GW/GD, it only takes an evening of googling and reading. About the same amount of time it takes to figure out Peak Oil. The science is all right there, easily accessible to anyone who wants to learn it.

And if you won't want to do the reading -- if you want to totally ignore the reality of GW/GD -- you'll love the "Carbon Dioxide is Life" commercials. Yea, let me put you in a room with a little too much carbon dioxide and we'll see how much life you've got.

And if you're just too lazy to read, then here's a nice little NOVA video that OilyMon linked to in another thread. It will give you a little heads up on the science.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ion%3Along

For the denyers of GW/GD, just remember several things: First, even the Bush Administration has had to come around to admit the reality of GW/GD. They're not doing anything about it, true, but at least they grudingly admit the reality of GW/GD.

Second, everybody agrees the Earth is heating up -- no one's arguing otherwise, not even ExxonMobil. The only argument is over whether the global warming is "ok."

So when you feel the urge to run back to daddy -- when you feel the urge to run back to daddy "no GW websites" (maintained with the money of ExxonMobil), that's fine, do so. Reinforce your belief system with that fuzzy notion that "carbon dioxide is life."

But when those ExxonMobil websites fail to mention the objectively proven existence of Global Dimming, come back and explain to the rest of us how that universally recognized Global Warming can occur simultaneously alongside Global Dimming. Come back and explain to us how "Global Dimming is life". Come back and explain to us how more carbon dioxide is good for us all.

Because many of us are all on pins and needles waiting for ExxonMobil's most recent explanation of GW/GD. Their new commercials are just so wonderfully produced so I have no doubt their new pseudo-science on GW/GD will be just as slick.

There is a comon denominator between PO and GW/GD. Follow the oil, folks, just follow the oil.

[rwwff]

Second, everybody agrees the Earth is heating up -- no one's arguing otherwise, not even ExxonMobil. The only argument is over whether the global warming is "ok."

Actually, I think there are three arguments.
1. Is global warming OK?
2. Does the cost of remidiation exceed the cost of adaptation?
3. Does economic and political reality permit the magnitude of remidiation asked for?

My OPINIONS:
1. No. 2. Yes. 3. No.

There are lots of things in this world that are both, not ok, and not avoidable. Its the way reality works some of the time.

The real question we should be discussing is, ok, the world's going back to 22C, all the ice is gonna melt, and its likely to occur over the next couple of centuries. What policy adjustments should we make in order to remidiate the effects of this change in climate? On human time scales, we have lots of time. In the US simple things, capping down insurance payments for structures within one mile of the coast and making the flood insurance program fully supported via premiums, perhaps add the provision that the settlement money for repeat claims includes the transfer of the land to federal or state ownership. If land in BLM becomes suitable for sustained agriculture, then auction it, then use the funds to purchase properties which are not sustainable.

[Lore]

Well I got done reading the book last week and had a chance to see the documentary this past weekend. The bottom line is Al Gore makes a lawyerly case for Global Warming. He has been busy preaching the word; by his own estimate some 1,000 presentations worldwide in the last few years. It shows in what has to be one of the slickest and biggest Power Point slide demonstrations ever produced.

He has thoughtfully built the case for GW by exposing evidence that concludes the absolute correlation between CO2 and our warming climate. Drawing down on some 650,000 years of warming and cooling cycles he dramatically tops off the acute rise in CO2 levels with a ride to the top of slide in an elevator lift that shows where we will be at in the next 50 years. If you've not seen the movie, you can see the trailer of some rather startling time lapse slides that show the oceans rising and capturing much of the land that over 100,000,000 people worldwide currently occupy. All the assertions are made in a direct voice, far from sinister, but effective enough, like a stern parent advising his teenage daughter or son.

The movie was interspersed with some flash backs of Gore's life, there to add the foundation for why he of all people is committed to getting out this message. He purposely avoided any commentary that would seem completely political in bias. Although there were a few quick attacks on the current administrations handling of agreements such as Kyoto and their effort to down play the threat of GW through censorship.

Most every argument is incased in a set of data and facts that he allows the audience to make their own conclusions with. He finishes with a call for activism and change, believing that there is still cause for hope in curtailing the outcome. Overall I give the package of movie and book a high five for the very fact of at least bringing the issue to the vanguard.

[Revi]

We saw the movie on Friday night. We had a kind of Peak Oil circus outside the movie. We had a solar car, alternative energy installers, a person in a polar bear suit, some Greens, and a bunch of college kids from Environment Maine. All in all it was really fun. The movie was an event. The media covered it and I met people the next two days that had travelled from across the state to see it. Al Gore was good. Not as wooden as he was on the campaign trail. I think that this is his passion, and he loosens up when speaking about global warming.

The solution to peak oil and to GW are the same. Use less fossil fuels. What's the matter with that? He's being crucified in the media, and why? Could it be that this Inconvenient Truth makes people feel guilty? "Why am I not doing anything? It's too inconvenient to do anything about it. I don't have time. I'm too busy and too important to cut my fossil fuel use."

It made the local newspaper editor uncomfortable enough that she had to make some snidely remarks about our solar car. I think that most people would prefer that the whole problem just went away. That's the same reaction we get when we talk about Peak Oil. The last thing people want to hear is the truth. Especially an Inconvenient Truth.