Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

[wlagarde]

Here's an interesting commentary on the issue of Global Warming in reference to Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
The questions that Dr Spencer poses may deserve answers.

Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done. As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me: I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie).
And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.

Yet, you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted.... I have a number of such articles in my office!). You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer- generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice?
Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? Is it because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view? Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy. I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming.
I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Sincerely,
Your "Good Friend,
Dr. Roy W. Spencer "

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.
Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

[jeffnsa]

great post, i always like to see both sides of the story and then draw my own conclusions.

[Sk8r]

Dr. Spencer's credentials are certainly respectable, but I submit there are gross oversimplifications on both sides, since both are vying for the loyalty of Joe Sixpack, and Joe doesn't do technicalities on certain matters that get really complex. On the polar bear matter, what I have heard is that they have a significant increase in drowned polar bears. And Inuit villages are finding their hunting curtailed and the winter cold significantly shorter.

In very fact, we once thought as a matter of scientific theory that all big geologic events moved slowly: the long battle over the Missoula Floods [aka Spokane Floods] are a case in point, where geologists didn't want to hear the evidence of catastrophic, land-altering flood. [Say 'flood' anywhere near an early-20th-century geologist and he'd groan and expect another Noah-seeker.] But the floods were real, about 12,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age gave up, and ice dams gave way in Missoula MT and in the Hudson Valley, I think the other one was,---or maybe the St. Lawrence--- loosing an immense wash of fresh water into the oceans, and incidentally setting up life as we know it. Coral reefs date from about then, as oceans became pretty much what we know now.

Now we have identified at least one hypothetical trigger that could cause a global freeze or meltdown---and here's the kicker---cause it to happen with astonishing speed, according to some number crunchers. This trigger is disruption of the thermohaline conveyor, the turnover of warm/cold water up at the edge of the Arctic. It operates due to rising and sinking of salt water as it is warmed and then cooled, and it loops clear around the world, taking centuries to complete its journey. When disrupted, however, the effect is well nigh instant, according to theory. It stops. The current doesn't move. Warm water gets warmer where it is, and cooler water doesn't replace it. As the warm surface currents, warmer than the latitude average, no longer pass England and our West Coast, that's going to do a very rapid cooldown. Past interruptions of the Conveyor seem to be temporally related to ice ages: this is still under discussion. One concern is that the melting glaciers and ice packs ARE currently impacting the Conveyor by flooding fresh water in and changing the specific gravity in that area, and we don't know how sensitive the putative trigger is, or at what point it gets tripped. Math helps, but only experience will solve the debate, and we up here in the north get to wear parkas if our warm current stops. London saw the result of a little disturbance in the conveyor, which produced the Little Ice Age---which is why we Yanks have all these mental images of snowy winter London. We colonized here and left there still in the tail end of that period.

What many people find confusing is how global WARMING can lead both to ice in one place and heat and drought and desertification in another. This is because the planet as a whole has a 'heat budget', and what is triggered to happen in one area, eg, a cold snap in England, means that England is colder, by reason of its warm current not arriving, but it may also mean hot spell somewhere else as ITS ocean doesn't get the cool part of the current...sort of like a large building in which the thermostat has gone bonkers, and one room is baking while another is freezing cold in air conditioning, even while the average of the two temperatures is within tolerance. You talk about a few degrees of difference in the GLOBAL temp, but when it impacts locally, it's much more than a few degrees here, because something else is going on elsewhere, neither event comfortable for the locals.

SOme interesting buzzwords to look up: thermohaline conveyor; hadley cell; Missoula Floods; Columbia Basin---geologic history; Little Ice Age, Vineland settlements, etc.

[wlagarde]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html

[wlagarde]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Sk8r]

Interesting and well-taken.
I'll tell you what worries me in the whole debate:
A. granted there may be a trigger the sensitivity of which we don't know...[see my post above]...that can bring on violent climate change inside a decade...
B..and granted we've been pushing the environment hard by our alterations, particularly in the area of fossil fuels...
C...I have every confidence that eventually we can figure out how to adjust to the naturally changing cycles of the planet---which is the prevalent view: that there ARE natural cycles---but I am worried that, if the trigger, once pulled, gives us that short a time, virtually instant in geologic terms, we may not be able to adjust quickly enough.

IE, I'd never dispute natural cycles; but I sure don't want to hurry one into action. We've got a lot more study to do before we really get a handle on how this works. Could we kick-start the Conveyor by using solar heat? Could we get enough solar heat under those circumstances? Should we try, or just let the planet correct itself? These are all big questions, with a lot of impact, this being the only planet we've currently got.
Try this question: IF we get the clear evidence of a Conveyor shutdown that we may have hastened, should we act to try to remediate?
There's the chance it's just a tic in the graph. There's a chance it isn't. Humankind has records of prehistoric conditions and weather built up in the ice sheets, when we read the ice cores---but even they only go back to the last glaciation, and we are losing that record as the ice melts at the north pole and big chunks of Antarctica break off---
It's certainly one of the most interesting events going, with a lot of scientific questions that shouldn't get shoved aside in the rush to political position.

[Genral72]

I honestly believe that at this current moment "Global Warming" is a "political" problem. It could become a problem in the future and should be prevented, however there are more important, immediate problems such as deforestation. Why does global waming get all the hype? Simply because hurricane sounds better than deforestation.

What I honestly don't understand is why don't we use Nuclear power? It clean its cost effective and safe. Sure there were some explosions but planes crash as well yet they are incredibly safer than automobiles. Also we should be conserving energy in any way we can. However as we have seen Al Gore doesn't set an example. Buying carbon offsets(actually he didn't buy them they were essentially an employee benefit) is great but go beyond that Gore.

Genral72

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9465566#post9465566 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Genral72
What I honestly don't understand is why don't we use Nuclear power? It clean its cost effective and safe. Sure there were some explosions but planes crash as well yet they are incredibly safer than automobiles.

Genral72

Yep, the doom and gloom global warming advocates won't even discuss nuclear energy. This is very odd since it has proven to be safer than fossils fuels (compare all nuclear incidents to all the damage from oil/coal). If GW is truely such an immediate danger caused by man, then why is a current technology that can have a huge reduction in our use of fossil fuels left off the table?

[scottras]

First up I should say that I am completely against nuclear energy with my current knowledge of it. But just a few question to fill the gaps I have:

Why is it so clean? I understand there are no greenhouse gases (apart from water vapour), but there is still highly dangerous waste.

What is being done about the nuclear waste?

That being said, it is very expensive thing to do and maybe that holds a lot of people back. Also there is the question of enrichment leading to nuc weapons.

Personally I feel there are many alternatives to fossil fuels, but not one best method. Maybe nuclear power is one of them, but it certainly is not the best solution.

Just my thoughts.

[Ninong]

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on global warming are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists just as his views on evolution are not shared by the vast majority of biologists. According to Dr. Spencer, "classical evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith." Dr. Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design."

[Ninong]

Interesting reading: The 18-page summary of the 2007 IPCC report on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on climate change are in the minority. His views are not shared by the American Association of Meterologists or the World Meterological Association. Dr. Spencer does not dispute the fact of global warming but rather he argues that the causes are unknown. The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities. Dr. Spencer's argument is that it is impossible to separate the effects of human activity from natural causes. His position is not shared by the vast majority of climatologists but it does make him a frequent guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Dr. Spencer has written articles on a wide variety of scientific topics and his views are consistently at odds with the majority of scientists. Besides climatology, his views on cosmology are at odds with the majority of cosmologists. As a proponent of "intelligent design," Dr. Spencer rejects the big-bang theory.

In spite of the dozens of transitional fossils that have been discovered, Dr. Spencer makes the claim that "the fossil record is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional fossils." Like most creation-I.D. proponents, Dr. Spencer rejects the scientific evidence for macroevolution. He argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution and that evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith; which is why he argues that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools. His argument is absurd on it face. He is arguing that both evolution and "intelligent design" are faith-based and therefore both should be taught in schools. If that were true, then neither should be taught, at least not as science.

I wonder if Dr. Spencer's "beliefs" somehow influence his scientific conclusions?

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9474718#post9474718 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Dr. Roy Spencer's views on global warming are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists just as his views on evolution are not shared by the vast majority of biologists. According to Dr. Spencer, "classical evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith." Dr. Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design."

This is an editorial comment and does not address his points.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9475530#post9475530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
This is an editorial comment and does not address his points.
I believe I addressed his points by linking to the 2007 IPCC report summary. You should read it. It's quite interesting.

Not being a climatologist myself, I don't feel qualified to dispute each of his points individually but it is quite easy to find the arguments put forth by actual climate scientists that do exactly that.

For starters, the information on the mass of the world's glaciers today compared to their mass 20 or 50 years ago is readily available online. Dr. Spencer's review of An Inconvenient Truth seems to dismiss this argument with some flippant comment about snow falling and glaciers flowing.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9475391#post9475391 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Interesting reading: The 18-page summary of the 2007 IPCC report on climate change (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on climate change are in the minority. His views are not shared by the American Association of Meterologists or the World Meterological Association. Dr. Spencer does not dispute the fact of global warming but rather he argues that the causes are unknown. The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities. Dr. Spencer's argument is that it is impossible to separate the effects of human activity from natural causes. His position is not shared by the vast majority of climatologists but it does make him a frequent guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Dr. Spencer has written articles on a wide variety of scientific topics and his views are consistently at odds with the majority of scientists. Besides climatology, his views on cosmology are at odds with the majority of cosmologists. As a proponent of "intelligent design," Dr. Spencer rejects the big-bang theory.

In spite of the dozens of transitional fossils that have been discovered, Dr. Spencer makes the claim that "the fossil record is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional fossils." Like most creation-I.D. proponents, Dr. Spencer rejects the scientific evidence for macroevolution. He argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution and that evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith; which is why he argues that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools. His argument is absurd on it face. He is arguing that both evolution and "intelligent design" are faith-based and therefore both should be taught in schools. If that were true, then neither should be taught, at least not as science.

I wonder if Dr. Spencer's "beliefs" somehow influence his scientific conclusions?

The link is broken - Please provide a working link.

While I beleive evolution to be true based on the scientific evidence available, the fossil record is not relevent to this discussion.

"The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities"...I beleive this statement should be revised to say "The report I linked above summarizes some of the correlates that are attributed to human activities

...again these are editorial comments and do not address the points or answer the questions Dr. Spencer raises.

and finally, you try to make it appear that you are not biased by "your own beleifs" when infact you are. correlates

[Ninong]

The link is a working link. It just happens to not be working at the moment. You can find it on the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website: www.ipcc.ch That link is not working right now either but it was working a few minutes ago. Maybe Switzerland is under attack? (P.S. -- The link is now working. :D)

Let me point out that you opened this thread with a review of Al Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, by a noted critic of Global Warming who is a frequent guest on right-wing political talk shows.

When the link to IPCC comes back up, please check out what they have to say. You may find it impressive.

I'm not about to get into a "discussion" of whether global warming is caused by human activities because in my mind there is no doubt that it is and any such "discussion" is likely to become political in nature.

I needn't remind you that discussion of politics is not allowed in this forum so it may not be possible to continue a "review" and "criticique" of that review of a film by a former Vice President of the United States known for his advocacy of environmental issues without it turning political.

I'm sorry, but this is as far as I'm going in this discussion. I think I have made my point that Dr. Spencer's views are not in the mainstream and do not represent the scientific consensus on global warming or other issues upon which he has seen fit to publish.

:D

[RichardS]

Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9476343#post9476343 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

Richard,

I don't believe I discussed nuclear energy at all in any of my posts above. I was merely trying to make the point that the author of the review of Al Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, is known to have views that are outside the mainstream of the scientific community on a variety of topics.

I don't intend to get into a discussion of global warming at all because I believe the internet is full of resources that are available to anyone interested in researching the topic. I just want to point out that when someone opens a thread with "Questions for Al Gore by Dr. Roy Spencer," it behoves us to consider Dr. Spencer's background.

Dr. Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study with John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. When their miscalculations (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere.

Dr. Spencer has ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which Congressional Quarterly has described as "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming as a threat." Beyond his criticism of global warming theory, Dr. Spencer has also taken up another cause that places him well outside the scientific mainstream -- his view that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

There are several critical reviews of An Inconvenient Truth that have been published lately and a check of the authors will reveal an interesting association. To say that they are not in the mainstream is an understatement.

P.S. -- The Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute will pay scientists (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm) to write articles critical of the findings of the IPCC. They will also pay all travel expenses and accomodations, plus a handsome speaker's fee, to anyone willing to give a talk critical of global warming.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9476343#post9476343 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

Obviously Fossil Fuel power has caused much more environmental problems than Nuclear, of that there is litle doubt. But do we need to switch to a power source that we will have problems with in the future? I do not belive that nuclear is one of the best options, there are alternatives that are cheaper, safer and cleaner.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9476480#post9476480 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Obviously Fossil Fuel power has caused much more environmental problems than Nuclear, of that there is litle doubt. But do we need to switch to a power source that we will have problems with in the future? I do not belive that nuclear is one of the best options, there are alternatives that are cheaper, safer and cleaner.

...and what would those alternatives be?

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9464165#post9464165 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In that article it mentions the recently released international study that predicts that sea level will rise by seven to 23 inches by the end of this century. The article fails to make clear that that estimate is based on the volumetric increase in the ocean's waters due to rising temperature alone. It does NOT factor in melting glaciers and polar ice caps, nor does it factor in accelerated temperature increases due to the reduction in reflected sunlight from diminishing ice and snow cover.

In fact, estimates that include all of the possible factors affecting the rise in sea level predict a minimum rise of 3 to 5 feet by the year 2100 with the possibility of a much larger increase.

It is obvious that the N.Y. Times science editor either didn't read the report or didn't understand it. More likely he relied on the criticism of the "experts" he cited. Experts such as Richard Lindzen of MIT who recently appeared on Glenn Beck's TV show and agreed with Beck's false claim that in the last century "temperatures here in America" are "pretty much flat," responding: "Well, yes, as far as we can tell."

Another "expert" cited in the NY Times article is Bjorn Lomborg, the author of a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. In January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that were "poorly researched and...rife with careless mistakes."

The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Lomborg's findings and methodology "fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis."

Roy Spencer is another expert cited by the Times article. I have discussed him previously in this thread.

Benny J. Peiser, "a social anthropologist in Britain," is cited as "having challenged the claim of scientific consensus" but Peiser is on record in an October 2002 letter acknowledging that he does not "doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

I imagine it's rather difficult to write an article attempting to report the "other side" of the global warming issue without resorting to dubious sources. That's because there are so few credible scientists left who question global warming or the obvious conclusion that human activities represent a major contributing force behind this change.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9475856#post9475856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
...I'm sorry, but this is as far as I'm going in this discussion...:D

Since your going to continue on, please address the 8 points raised in the initial post please. The link is now working now and it does not address these.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9478808#post9478808 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Since your going to continue on, please address the 8 points raised in the initial post please. The link is now working now and it does not address these.

You posted a review of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. I haven't seen it.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9457011#post9457011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done. As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me: I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming?Nobody thinks that these phenomena are only because of GW, even after watching the movie. You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie).
And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.I don't think Gore would argue with this.

Yet, you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
The first argument isn't really an argument, as he makes the claim that Gore was trying to dupe people into believing GW created hurricanes, tornadoes, etc, which won't be believed by anyone. However, the severity of hurricanes has increased the last 40 years, but not necessarily the number of hurricanes. Whether or not it's a purely natural increase in severity, I don't know.
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted.... I have a number of such articles in my office!)I believe Gore made the claim that there weren't any articles that REFUTED anthropogenic GW, there's a big difference. There are plenty of articles that attribute some warming to natural causes, as there should be, but nobody has evidence that humans aren't impacting the climate.. You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?
He doesn't sound like much of a scientist to me, not with an argument like this.
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
I'll steer clear of this one.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. CO2 isn't seen as a GW trigger, it's seen as part of a feedback loop, hence the lag in CO2 and temp increases. This view actually fits in quite well with other natural causes of GW (which there are, no doubt), such as solar variation.It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of yearsWhy not?. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Again, why not? This one really confuses me. Why would the impact of CO2 change just because humans are putting it into the atmosphere? Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
He's making a lot of assumptions here that I simply don't understand.
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?
I see his point on this one, but at the same time, health care doesn't equal pollution. The only part I remember about this was when Gore showed that car emission standards in China are higher than here. Asia in general, really. That's why they're beating the pants off of Ford and other US car makers. The future of industry is green, and the US better realize this before we get left in the dust in other sectors.
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer- generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice?
Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? We knew there were giant squid in the ocean because they would wash up on shorelines too , but the first video of them alive was just recently captured. Did he doubt the existence of giant squid before the video was shot? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
The 30's were almost as warm, but short term variations in one part of the world don't mean much either way.
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
Maybe if we all did it TOGETHER, like we were supposed to, the other countries wouldn't be as pressured to cheat in order to stay competitive with the US. But, again, look at the damage that was done to Japan's auto industry. Oh, wait, it was actually good for them. Not to mention all of the other benefits that come with reduced emissions.
8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source.Nuclear power already is an energy source. New nuclear tech is pretty safe, but can you imagine all of the waste generated by all the plants needed to replace fossil fuels? That's not even feasible. We should invest more in fusion, not fission. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? I don't think Gore would object to technological advancement, but why is he trying to link nuclear power and tech advancement together? It's not the same thing. Is it because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view? Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.Why would he agree to reduce CO2 if it wasn't a problem?
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy. I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming.
I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.Why would he call it a "moral issue" if he didn't believe humans were responsible? Something is awry.

Sincerely,
Your "Good Friend,
Dr. Roy W. Spencer "

Everything in pretty colors is mine. Overall, the article is a weak "argument". Spencer's credentials are good, but his professional connections, which have been brought up, are suspect. Also, with risk of resorting to ad hominem, his rejection of evolution further illustrates his apparent tendency to reject science, and partially explains his stance on GW.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9478346#post9478346 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
...and what would those alternatives be?

Sorry I thought everyone new what alternative energy source are.
Hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, tidal and the best, fusion. There are plenty more that are out there as well. Some of these are very old technologies and some are fairly new. They all have pros and cons. They all need more research spent on them.

[RichardS]

Ninong - sorry my previous comment was in response to scottras.

In that article it mentions the recently released international study that predicts that sea level will rise by seven to 23 inches by the end of this century. The article fails to make clear that that estimate is based on the volumetric increase in the ocean's waters due to rising temperature alone. It does NOT factor in melting glaciers and polar ice caps, nor does it factor in accelerated temperature increases due to the reduction in reflected sunlight from diminishing ice and snow cover.

In fact, estimates that include all of the possible factors affecting the rise in sea level predict a minimum rise of 3 to 5 feet by the year 2100 with the possibility of a much larger increase.



This is the type of prediction that I would think would have GW proponents screaming to switch towards nuclear energy asap. Only 93 years before all this happens? Now that isn't a very long time. Certainly not long enough to develop technology that doesn't exist (like fusion) and switch the world over to it. I'm sorry, I just don't see Los Angeles or New York being powered by windmills and solar panels. If you make cars 50% more efficient but the population increases 50% over the next 50 years well you really haven't reduced anything.

I'm not debating global warming. Honestly I'm not sure what to believe about it. The thing that doesn't make sense is to say that we have 93 years until the earth goes down the drain so let's not use an alternative energy source we already have instead let's take our time and see if we can invent something else.

If a guy is hanging off a cliff by his fingertips you don't say "Hey man, I could throw this rope I have around you and pull you up but you might get a rope burn so just hang on while I go invent some anti-gravity boots for you".

It doesn't make sense to me and makes me wonder if there isn't an agenda behind the GW camp other than the "science". So for now I'll just hope that the ability of science to predict the climate a hundred years from now is no more accurate than the ability of science to predict a really active hurricane season like last year or tto even tell me what the weather is going to be like in 2 weeks.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9480314#post9480314 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
This is the type of prediction that I would think would have GW proponents screaming to switch towards nuclear energy asap. Only 93 years before all this happens? Now that isn't a very long time. Certainly not long enough to develop technology that doesn't exist (like fusion) and switch the world over to it. I'm sorry, I just don't see Los Angeles or New York being powered by windmills and solar panels. If you make cars 50% more efficient but the population increases 50% over the next 50 years well you really haven't reduced anything.

You might be right. It might be better to build a bunch of power plants and hope nothing bad happens until another source of energy is found. I guess I'd rather have a nuclear waste disposal problem that might be solvable rather than a global ecological disaster that we can't reverse.

[wayne in norway]

Only in America .......

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9480282#post9480282 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Sorry I thought everyone new what alternative energy source are.
Hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, tidal and the best, fusion. There are plenty more that are out there as well. Some of these are very old technologies and some are fairly new. They all have pros and cons. They all need more research spent on them.

Fusion is not a viable alternative. As for the other "alternatives", it is not possible to even close to meeting the worlds needs. Therefore I believe at best they can be called supplemental sources.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9480018#post9480018 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Everything in pretty colors is mine. Overall, the article is a weak "argument". Spencer's credentials are good, but his professional connections, which have been brought up, are suspect. Also, with risk of resorting to ad hominem, his rejection of evolution further illustrates his apparent tendency to reject science, and partially explains his stance on GW.

Oh Hippie, you convinced me. I suggest we all form a lobby to place pressure on congress to introduce legislation to make reefkeeping illegal since it contributes the problem (if you wish we can throw in illeglaizing SUVs too). Interested?

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9481359#post9481359 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Oh Hippie, you convinced me. I suggest we all form a lobby to place pressure on congress to introduce legislation to make reefkeeping illegal since it contributes the problem (if you wish we can throw in illeglaizing SUVs too). Interested?
Ahhh, here we go again. You never debate me, at best you just resort to sarcasm. I'm waiting for you to resort to petty personal attacks (as if you know me) like you always do.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9483146#post9483146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Ahhh, here we go again. You never debate me, at best you just resort to sarcasm. I'm waiting for you to resort to petty personal attacks (as if you know me) like you always do.

HippieSmell - My comment was made simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone elses money BUT their own.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9484716#post9484716 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
HippieSmell - My comment was made simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone elses money BUT their own.
Again, let me be clear since this is a difficult concept for you to grasp: you don't know me or what I do, so stop saying that I want to impose my beliefs on everyone but myself. Besides, they're not "beliefs", it's called science. Do you impose health care on your patients?

Besides, how is supporting alternative energy, reduced fossil fuel reliance, carbon limits, etc, hypocritical? Do you think there will be some sort of clause that exempts the "green crowd" if these policies are implemented? Give me a break.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9485204#post9485204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Again, let me be clear since this is a difficult concept for you to grasp: you don't know me or what I do, so stop saying that I want to impose my beliefs on everyone but myself. Besides, they're not "beliefs", it's called science. Do you impose health care on your patients?

Besides, how is supporting alternative energy, reduced fossil fuel reliance, carbon limits, etc, hypocritical? Do you think there will be some sort of clause that exempts the "green crowd" if these policies are implemented? Give me a break.

No, they would like to implement those things that are congruent with their agenda and lifestyle regardless of how it effects others. Now if we start talking about illegalizing reefkeeping...that wouldn't be OK because they like keeping reefs, i.e. it is OK to emit CO2 if reefkeeping is involved but if it is SUVs or their healthcare or their etc it's not OK - Give me a break.

Since this is difficult for you to grasp I will reiterate it: Tthe green crowd is willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their own lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9485648#post9485648 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
No, they would like to implement those things that are congruent with their agenda and lifestyle regardless of how it effects others. Now if we start talking about illegalizing reefkeeping...that wouldn't be OK because they like keeping reefs, i.e. it is OK to emit CO2 if reefkeeping is involved but if it is SUVs or their healthcare or their etc it's not OK - Give me a break.

Since this is difficult for you to grasp I will reiterate it: Tthe green crowd is willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their own lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Everyone knows that the green crowd are the WORST polluters. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for that, not just blind prejudice. And I'm sure that if there was a clean energy source being used, the "greens" wouldn't use it just out of principle. I'm mean, they're all hypocrites, right? The policies that "greens" want implemented will impact them just as much as people like you, so it's not hypocritical. You think that the greens just want to make your life difficult? There is a reason for the way we feel, so it's not simply a lifestyle choice or unfounded agenda.

But, I have a reef, so I guess what I say doesn't mean anything:rolleye1: . I hope you never eat saturated fats, drink, smoke, etc. I mean, how could you without being a hypocrite? Get real.

[scottras]

Come on guys, cut the politics out or the thread will be locked just like all the others on climate change.

Re alternative power source, I absolutely agree, all thos power source I mentioned will not power a city nor will they make a large dent in the need for fossil fuels, at least straight away. But they can do in time. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to power source with less environmental impact. I am sure nuclear may be a part of that, but it is too expensive and not clean enough to be the silver bullet. I cant see many developing countries being able to affor nuc power, and even the cost to completely convert to nuc would bankrupt most nations.

Alternative power sources have the advantage of being flexible to the local conditions. If we started adding supplemental power to the grid now then we are reducing the dependency on fossil fuels already.

Greater efficiency will also be reached when there is a demand for it.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9485204#post9485204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
...Do you impose health care on your patients?

No, I don't. However, the democrats ARE attempting to do this.

[HippieSmell]

Why do you always try to divide this argument up into political categories? Is it so you can convince yourself that it's ok to blow off issues that you don't have an argument for? Those comments will get this thread closed, BTW.

The point I was trying to make with the health care comment is that if science determines that a drug is harmful to people but still useful for certain ailments, what do you do? Do you believe that you should give the drug to a patient, or do you do something else? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm just trying to point out the fact that you use your BRAIN, and use the available evidence to make a decision. The same thing can be said for CO2. It has been scientifically shown that too much CO2 is bad for the planet's ecology. But, fossil fuels give us many benefits. What do you do? I choose to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because I believe the science shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, as a whole. It isn't an issue that can be reduced to the simple arguments you give such as "it's just a bunch of liberal hypocrites that want to make our lives miserable".

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9487899#post9487899 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Why do you always try to divide this argument up into political categories? Is it so you can convince yourself that it's ok to blow off issues that you don't have an argument for? Those comments will get this thread closed, BTW.

The point I was trying to make with the health care comment is that if science determines that a drug is harmful to people but still useful for certain ailments, what do you do? Do you believe that you should give the drug to a patient, or do you do something else? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm just trying to point out the fact that you use your BRAIN, and use the available evidence to make a decision. The same thing can be said for CO2. It has been scientifically shown that too much CO2 is bad for the planet's ecology. But, fossil fuels give us many benefits. What do you do? I choose to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because I believe the science shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, as a whole. It isn't an issue that can be reduced to the simple arguments you give such as "it's just a bunch of liberal hypocrites that want to make our lives miserable".

Hippie - No who's resorting to personal attacks here? I simply have come to a different conclusion. Science has NOT proven CO2 CAUSES GW. It has simply established a CORRELATION.

Remember, the number one adverse event for almost any drug is headache. Is this because all of these drugs CAUSE headaches? - NO. While SOME drugs do cause headaches others do not. For the drugs that do not cause HAs why is HA listed as an AE? The reason is because HA are common and by chance happened to occur concurrently with administration of these drugs. This does not imply causality. Of course we've been here before and I think it is a moot point to discuss this with you further.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9488087#post9488087 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
Hippie - No who's resorting to personal attacks here? I simply have come to a different conclusion. Science has NOT proven CO2 CAUSES GW. It has simply established a CORRELATION.

You're right, we have been here before, and nothing changes. You still believe that climate science needs to be "proven", while we both know that isn't possible and doesn't imply the conclusions are wrong. Your entire field is chock full of scenarios like this, so I find it hard to believe you don't understand it, you just have preconceptions that you refuse to acknowledge. I suggest you read sources covering GW that you don't normally read or agree with. I do it all the time, that's why your arguments frustrate me so much.

[Ninong]

This Winter Was the Warmest on Record Worldwide

WASHINGTON - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17632043/?GT1=9145), the U.S. government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.

The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

As for this winter, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

You can read the rest here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17632043/?GT1=9145).

[Ninong]

02/02/2007 -- New American Meteorological Society Statement on Climate Change: Climate is Changing; Humans Play a Role

Despite uncertainties, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, according to a new information statement on climate change adopted by the American Meteorological Society on 1 February 2007.

You can read their full report here (http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html).

P.S. -- The reason I searched the AMS website is because Dr. Roy Spencer, the author of the review of An Inconvenient Truth that is the topic of this thread, is a member of the AMS and the recipient in 1996 of an AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

Dr. Spencer's views on climate change are contrary to the official position statement of the American Meteorological Society. Dr. Spencer is skeptical of the predominant scientific view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming) that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

[Ninong]

How does Dr. Roy Spencer explain his minority views on climate change and evolution, two subjects he has written on extensively?

Dr. Spencer, realizing that his views on evolution and climate change are not shared by the majority of his colleagues in the scientific community, has offered up an unusual faith-based explanation for why he is right and the majority is wrong. In fact, a belief that scientists are influenced by faith is a central theme in Dr. Spencer's writings.

For a scientist, he displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the scientific method as evidenced by his quoted comments in the opening post of this thread: "How can we trust scientists' predictions now?" All truth in science is provisional and subject to revision and change as new information becomes available. You might call it an evolutionary process, which is probably why Dr. Spencer has difficulty grasping the concept.

Dr. Spencer published Let Them Confess Their Faith on 6 February 2004 in which he made the following statement:

"It wasn't long after I became a research scientist that I learned that scientists aren't the unbiased, impartial seekers of truth I always thought they were. Scientists have their own agendas, philosophies, pre-conceived notions, and pet theories. These views end up influencing their science. Nowhere does this have a greater impact on the science than in global warming theory."

We have already discussed Dr. Spencer's faith-based rejection of evolution and, since evolution is not the topic of this thread, I see no reason to explore that topic further except to note that it reveals something about his approach to science in general. Dr. Spencer's defense of his contrarian scientific positions seems to rely on his belief that faith plays an integral part in science and his belief that those who do not share his views are biased and not impartial seekers of the truth.

[Ninong]

As I stated previously, I haven't seen Al Gore's film and I haven't read his book, but I did read the New York Times article that the topic starter linked early in this thread. It is based on misinformation and misleading comparisons provided by the discredited experts the Times' science editor interviewed for his story.

Detailed excerpts of Al Gore's book are available online. For one thing, the article falsely suggested that Gore was endorsing the view of some researchers that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes. In his book Gore said: "There is no scientific consensus linking the absolute number of hurricanes to global warming."

The Times article also set up a false comparison by stating that the IPCC report, which "estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches," was in contrast to Gore's claim, "citing no particular time frame" that seas would rise "up to 20 feet." But the article was comparing apples and oranges. In the book, Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea."

In an earlier post I pointed out that the 23-inch increase in sea levels in the IPCC report is based on volumetric increase in sea level based on increased water temperature alone but I failed to point out why they chose to go with an estimate based on a single criterion. It was because the report had to be endorsed by hundreds of scientists representing many different national governmental agencies and there was insufficient support from some of those governments for publishing the higher estimates that would have included all variables. They may do that in a future report if they can get sufficient political consensus to allow them to report their findings.

P.S. -- It is interesting to note that conservative headline writer, Matt Drudge, had an item on his blog before the Times article was published alerting his readers that "a hit piece against Al Gore's film" was about to appear in the Times. He added a link to the article after it had been published.

The paper that gave us Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, now gives us political "hit pieces" based on misinformation from discredited scientists.

[Ninong]

Rush Limbaugh interviewed Dr. Roy Spencer on 28 February 2007:

Dr. Spencer: The trouble is scientists are human, too, and there's this groupthink amongst climate scientists that global warming has created careers. It brings in money.

Rush: That's the key.

Rush: We know there's been warming and cooling as natural cycles of the Earth. The presumptuousness and the arrogance of people today who think that we, human beings, in the twenty-first century are destroying the planet is something that offends my sensibilities. The vanity that these people have to think we have that kind of power over this massively complex creation is one of the things that I just instinctively use to disbelieve them.

Dr. Spencer: Yeah, I can understand that.

That was towards the end of the conversation after Dr. Spencer had explained his views on climate change.

[Ninong]

The following is the text of a letter sent by Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M, a climate scientist who has been critical of climate models in the past.

Dear Prof. Schroeder:

The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.

From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.

If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.

Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.

Cordially,

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar
Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar

P.S. -- Both Prof. Schroeder and Prof. North declined AEI's invitation to participate.

[Cronus]

Al Gore in the whole issue of Global Warming is a joke and certainly not impartial...in fact, he stands to gain quite handsomely financially from man made CO2 being a GW driver.
If he is so concerned about the effect of man made CO2 then why did his mansion in Tennessee use 20 times more electricity than the average American home (nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours)
He raves on about 'carbon credits' and being 'carbon neutral' which is fine for a man who 'buys' his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.,” and for a small fee will invest your money in “high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns.” Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. So, who is the chairman and founding partner of this company? Al Gore, he could even fund the cost of purchasing his credits with the money he receives from his relationship with Occidental Petroleum...which is handy. The only thing green about Gore is the money he's currently lining his pockets with.
As for the IPCC, they are a politically motivated and biased body that sponsors and funds scientists to come up with the 'right' facts about GW, they have in the past omitted critical parts of their report from the public because they do not sit in line with the whole 'man is killing the planet' hypothesis and although many scientists, some being leaders in their field have stepped down from the IPCC because they do not agree with the reports being made available and being passed off as their work the IPCC continues to list them in reference to their reports...one scientist even took the IPCC to court to force them to remove his name from their report.
For my part i do believe GW is happening and i also believe that we are having A impact but at the moment i cannot agree the we are the sole drivers of GW with our CO2 output and there are far to many factors involved to say it is cast iron either way, i also agree that we should looking a greener methods of production/transport etc but not on the premise that if we don't we will cause catastrophic damage to the planet in ten years.
There is another subject that i would like to see if anyone can confirm who has any relevant knowledge in chemistry or marine biology...one of the major linchpins of the GW debate for man made GW is the fact that the oceans are becoming more acidic and thus no longer playing a major role in the natural uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere as it's becoming saturated, now to my mind if the oceans are indeed becoming measurably more acidic then this has a domino effect of the entire eco system of the ocean...we seem to have a lot of climatologists and oceanologists etc jumping up and down about climate change but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?

[Ninong]

but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?
I guess you missed it. The pH of the ocean has dropped from 8.3 to 8.2 over the past century. Most climate models show it dropping to ~7.9 by the end of this century. The Australian Institute of Marine Science predicts that it could drop as low as 7.7 by the end of this century.


From AIMS (http://www.aims.gov.au/index.html):

Coral reefs and climate change 2007
(AIMS briefing/position paper)

February 2007

The Great Barrier Reef

"A Reef such a one as I now speak of is a thing scarcely known in Europe or indeed any where but in these seas: it is a wall of Coral rock rising almost perpendicularly out of the unfathomable ocean."

Joseph Banks - August,1770

"We had wheat sheaves, mushrooms, stags horns, cabbage leaves, and a variety of other forms, glowing under water with vivid tints of every shade betwixt green, purple, brown, and white; equalling in beauty and excelling in grandeur the most favourite parterre of the curious florist."

Matthew Flinders - October, 1802

"In among the branches of the corals, like birds among trees, floated many beautiful fish, radiant with metallic greens or crimsons, or fantastically banded with black and yellow stripes."

J. Beete Jukes 1842-46

The scale, biodiversity and beauty of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) continue to astound us hundreds of years after these first written observations. Extending for over 2,000 km along the northeast coast of Australia, the GBR covers 35 million hectares – an area larger than England. Listed as a World Heritage Area (WHA) in 1981, in recognition of its outstanding natural values, the GBRWHA is the largest marine protected area in the world. The GBR is the best-managed and protected coral reef ecosystem in the world. The impact of climate change on coral reefs is receiving ongoing national and international media attention. Consequences for Australia’s coral reefs could be severe despite our significant efforts in protection and management, if key issues are not addressed urgently. The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) maintains the following position on climate change and coral reefs:

What is known

Global climate is changing rapidly due to human activities and will result in continued rising temperatures both on land and in the sea.

Climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect has significant consequences for coral reefs. There is a direct link between unusually warm seawater temperature and bleaching of reef-building corals around the world.

Changing ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 may also have serious implications for coral reefs and other marine calcifying organisms and is likely to alter the makeup of marine ecosystems and weaken coral reef structures.

Increased mass bleaching events on the GBR and elsewhere since the mid-1970s are linked to global warming.

Well-protected and well-managed reefs are more resilient to stresses but are not protected from the global-scale effects of rising water temperatures and changing ocean chemistry.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has warmed ~0.4oC since the 19th century (global warming ~0.7oC) and has experienced 2 major coral bleaching events (1998 and 2002).

During the 1998 coral bleaching event 42% of shallow water corals reefs on the GBR bleached and an estimated 2% died that year.

In 2002, the largest event on record, an even greater proportion of the Reef bleached (55%) and an estimated 5% died.

Coral bleaching was again observed in the 2006 summer, particularly in the southern GBR, where local water temperatures reached ~1-2oC above the seasonal average.

Healthy reefs (more ecologically intact and less exploited) recover better from bleaching than highly stressed reefs.

AIMS research is monitoring & modelling ocean climate changes, assessing impacts of climate change for coral reef organisms, identifying potential adaptation mechanisms, and identifying characteristics and locations which may provide refuge for marine species in a rapidly changing world.

The Consequences

The pace of warming is of major concern as it gives organisms little time to respond or adapt to the changed climate conditions. The GBR could be 1-3oC warmer by the end of this century and, as it warms, conditions conducive to bleaching could occur annually within ~20-30 years.

There is a limit to what can be done locally to protect natural ecosystems such as the GBR. Global leadership is required to commit leading world economies to drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. There is only a small window of time for action before changes are irreversible.

Suggestions that rising sea levels and increasing temperatures will be good for coral reefs and even allow the GBR to expand southwards are unlikely as there is a lack of suitable substrate for coral reefs south of the current GBR and also the rapidity with which such changes would have to occur – tens of years compared with the 100s-1000s of years required for intact ecosystems to migrate.

The impacts of bleaching on coral reefs are expected to affect large numbers of other reef organisms given that coral provides the habitat and food for tens of thousands of other organisms.

The Science in Detail

Human Induced Climate Change Will Alter Life on Coral Reefs

The health of coral reefs in many parts of the world is declining due to a variety of direct, local human pressures (such as overfishing and land-based activities affecting water quality; see Wilkinson 2004). Coral reefs are now subject to an additional global-scale threat to their long-term wellbeing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The two most important consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect for coral reefs are warming of the oceans and changes in ocean chemistry.

Rising sea temperatures increase the frequency of mass coral bleaching events. Corals live only 1-2oC below their upper thermal limit and sustained periods of water temperatures above this threshold during the summer stress the coral and their symbiotic algae (the essential partner for reef-building corals) which are expelled when the coral is stressed. The host coral may die, partially die, or recover, though coral growth and reproduction can be affected in surviving corals. Approximately 16% of the world’s reefs were seriously damaged during the 1998 bleaching event – probably the warmest year experienced by modern corals. Based on the recovery of some affected reefs, it is clear that healthy (more resilient) coral reefs recover better than reefs degraded by other human pressures.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the best managed and protected reef in the world (because of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Representative Areas Program, zoning and permitting systems, the July 2004 declaration of 33% No-Take Areas and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan), yet major bleaching occurred in 1998 and 2002 as a consequence of the relatively modest warming of GBR waters (~0.4oC) since the end of the 19th century.

Current projections suggest that average tropical ocean temperatures could warm 1-3oC by the end of this century. There is general scientific consensus that global warming and consequent coral bleaching are a significant threat to the maintenance of coral reef communities as they presently exist and that healthy coral reefs (more ecologically intact and less exploited) will be more resilient than those degraded by other human pressures. There is some evidence emerging that corals may be able to adapt to climate change by altering their symbiotic algae to more thermally tolerant partners, though this may be at the expense of growth rates. This capability may, however, only occur in a few species and not be sufficiently rapid to keep pace with temperature rises. Current research at AIMS focuses on these possible adaptive changes in corals and their effects on coral growth.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas) is changing the chemistry of the oceans. About 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activities since the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed by the oceans. This changes the chemistry of the oceans, which become more acidic (lower pH; global ocean pH has already dropped by 0.1 and could be 0.4-0.5 lower by the end of this century) thus altering the concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate ions. Many marine organisms (corals, calcareous algae, shells, benthic and planktonic organisms such as foramanifera and coccolithophores) use calcium and carbonate ions from seawater to secrete calcium carbonate skeletons.

Changing the ocean chemistry essentially shifts the geochemical equation by which these organisms "calcify". The implication of continued change in ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 is that these organisms will not calcify as well as they did in pre-industrial times and thus produce weaker skeletons and grow more slowly. For coral reefs, weaker structures would reduce their resilience to the natural forces of erosion and slower growth will set back the rate of recovery after bleaching and other disturbances. Also, changing ocean chemistry will alter the ocean depths at which dissolution of calcium carbonate skeletons of different mineralogies occurs. Modelling and experimental studies (e.g. Biosphere 2 mesocosm) have demonstrated that increased CO2 reduces coral calcification rates (Kelypas et al., 2006).

Calcification rate also depends on water temperature. AIMS has provided evidence (Lough & Barnes 2000) that several long-lived massive Porites corals on the GBR had increased their calcification rate towards the end of the 20th century (up to ~1980 when cores were collected) which matched the observed rise in GBR water temperatures (AIMS is currently examining more recent coral growth rates from short coral cores). This finding generated some controversy, as it did not match the model or experimental findings. The conclusion from this work was that, at least initially, some corals might respond more to rising water temperatures than to changes in ocean chemistry. More recently scientists from UNSW, CSIRO and AIMS (McNeil et al., 2004) published model results suggesting that the warming effect on coral calcification (in one coral species) outweighs changes in ocean chemistry and that coral calcification will increase with global warming. Kleypas et al. (2005) refuted these controversial findings and concluded that they were "based on assumptions that exclude important factors and therefore need to be viewed with caution." These studies focused, however, on the most heat resistant type of coral and did not consider the overall effects on reef calcification rates of the widespread death of the majority of corals that are less heat resistant.

How much ocean warming reefs can withstand will, however, be limited by the point at which temperature thresholds for coral bleaching are regularly exceeded. The general scientific consensus is that changing ocean chemistry due to rising CO2 has serious implications for coral reefs and other calcifying marine organisms of the open ocean. These changes could well alter the makeup of marine ecosystems, alter food webs and weaken coral reef structures. Clearly, there is much more we need to learn about the effects of rising CO2 and marine calcification. The importance of this problem and its impacts on marine ecosystems is recognized in a recent report of the British Royal Society (2005) and the outcomes from an international workshop held in Florida in 2005 (Kleypas et al., 2006; Janice Lough from AIMS was an invited participant in the workshop and a contributing author).

Other impacts of climate change on coral reefs and associated coastal ecosystems will result from changes in air temperatures (2005 was the warmest year on record in Australia), rainfall and river flow, the occurrence and intensity of tropical cyclones, ocean circulation patterns and sea-level rise. Taken together, such climate change impacts threaten the biodiversity of marine ecosystems. In June 2005, the Department of Environment and Heritage supported a workshop National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan, Research and Information Gaps Workshop: Synthesis and Summaries for Four Key Objectives (Janice Lough, AIMS was a co-facilitator with Jo Johnson, GBRMPA of the Climate change and marine, estuarine and coastal ecosystems theme). The GBRMPA is co-ordinating preparation of a book GBR Ecological Vulnerability Assessment which will consider climate change impacts on all aspects of the GBR, not just coral reefs (Several AIMS scientists are chapter lead authors: Janice Lough – climate change scenarios; David Mckinnon – plankton; Nicole Webster- microorganisms, Katharina Fabricius – reefs; and other AIMS staff will be contributing authors).

The Scientific Advice

Coral reefs of the world are under threat from both local and global-scale stresses. The enhanced greenhouse effect (through bleaching and ocean chemistry changes) is likely to alter the community structure of reefs, including the world’s best-managed reefs of Australia. The impacts of bleaching on coral reefs are expected to affect large numbers of other reef organisms, given that coral provides the habitat and food for tens of thousands of other organisms. There is a clear scientific consensus that reducing and reversing local human pressures on coral reefs has to be accompanied by drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to limit the amount of global warming if coral reefs are to survive. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for improved monitoring of the GBR as well as more research into the impacts and response of coral reefs to climate change and climate variability. The impacts of climate change and climate variability is a high priority research area for AIMS.

The Future

Even with rapid global implementation of strategies to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, we are committed to significant rapid climate change and possibly accelerated sea level rise. The urgent scientific challenge is to understand how these rapid environmental changes will affect tropical marine ecosystems such as the GBR and, in particular, how reef communities will respond and/or adapt to the changing physical environment. Climate change and global warming pose significant challenges (in a number of ways) to the GBR – a vast and beautiful ecosystem that we do not, and will probably never, fully understand.

Current understanding suggests that the GBR will not disappear but its appearance and community structure will change from the coral-dominated reef described years ago by Banks, Flinders and Jukes and that we know today. If temperatures rise to a level that is unsustainable for corals, the limestone base structure of the reef will persist. Given the massive size of the GBR, at least a few corals are likely to survive in sheltered locations. Under such a worst-case scenario, however, the ecological goods and services provided by the GBR (including commercial values associated with tourism and fisheries) will dramatically alter as coral communities dwindle and reefs of the GBR shift from being dominated by corals to reefs dominated by algae and filter feeders.

AIMS Research

Ongoing scientific research at AIMS directly addresses key issues associated with the regional impacts of global warming and climate variability. Scientists from AIMS are approaching the issue of climate change using technologies ranging from genetic analysis to monitoring of whole ecosystems. AIMS scientists are:

monitoring detailed changes in weather, climate and circulation on the GBR.

looking back into the past using centuries-old coral cores to detect recent environmental trends and track the growth responses of corals to changing environments.

studying the potential for reef corals to adapt to climate change by focusing on the key relationship between corals and the single-celled algae living within their tissues. Prior research suggests that this relationship is critical in predicting a coral’s ability to withstand varying environmental conditions.

leading the implementation of the GBR Ocean Observing System – a integrated state of the art observing system for the whole of the Great Barrier Reef.

Additional Reading

Kleypas, JA, RW Buddemeier, M Eakin, JP Gattuso, J Guinotte, O Hoegh-Guldberg, R Iglesias-Preito, PL Jokiel, C Langdon, W Skirving & AE Strong (2005). Comment on "Coral reef calcification and climate change: the effect of ocean warming". Geophys Res Lett. 32, L08601

Kleypas JA, RA Feely, VJ Fabry, C Langdon, CL Sabine, & LL Robbins (eds) (2006). Impacts of Increasing Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and other Marine Calcifiers. Report from international Workshop on the Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers, 18-20 April 2005, St Petersburg, Florida sponsored by NSF/NOAA/USGS.

Lough, JM & DJ Barnes (2000). Environmental controls on growth of the massive coral Porites. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 245: 225-243.

Lough J, R Berkelmans, M van Oppen, S Wooldridge & C Steinberg (2006) The Great Barrier Reef and Climate Change. Bulletin Australian Meteorological & Oceanographic Society 19: 53.58.

McNeil BI, RJ Matear & DJ Barnes (2004) Coral reef calcification and climate change: the effect of ocean warming. Geophys Res Lett 31, L22309

The Royal Society (2005). Ocean Acidification due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Policy Document 12/05, London UK, (www.royalsoc.ac.uk), 60pp

Wilkinson, C (2004). Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. GCRMN, ICRI, AIMS

[virginiadiver69]

The cut and paste feature is a beautiful thing isn't it?

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9499249#post9499249 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
The cut and paste feature is a beautiful thing isn't it?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post?

I identified the post as the official position paper recently released by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and I provided a link to their site. As a convenience to readers and to insure that it will be available in the future, I copied the entire paper into this thread. I have found that linking to outside sources can be problematic as time goes by because the links often don't work after a few months.

:D

[Qcks]

Considering how the links kept coming up inactive before.... yes. Simply put, Based off of scientific evidence, Global Warming isn't a myth it's a fact. Further, the debate of whether it's man made or naturally occuring seems like a moot point to me anyway; even if it's a naturally occuring proccess, it may not necessarily be a beneficial one for humanity to endure.

Quick note though....
it might be helpful, Ninong, if you used the quote tags.

The problem is it's a political issue, by nature.

Giving up reliance on Hydro carbons as an energy source requires a change in our economic structuring (it should be noted that the change isn't necessarily a negative one), as well as an exchange of power between the various powers that be.

Something to consider, speculatively of course:

Even if Petroleum is suddenly abandoned for other forms of cleaner energy it won't kill the petroleum industry. The US is thoroughly dependent upon plastic (today, the most effective solar panels require special plastic polymers). Further, the only obstacle to plastic becoming more widely used as a building material is the overall cost of it. If it became cheaper it might be able to push wood off the market as the favored structural building material.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9498075#post9498075 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
...but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?
It's not just Australian marine biologists who are jumping up and down. The British have been jumping up and down for years:

The Royal Society (2005). Ocean Acidification due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Policy Document 12/05, London UK, (www.royalsoc.ac.uk), 60pp

Even Prince Charles is jumping up and down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4380658.stm) over climate change, but, alas, his critics dismiss his concerns by pointing out the amount of energy he consumes by living in such large homes.

[Cronus]

Global climate is changing rapidly due to human activities and will result in continued rising temperatures both on land and in the sea.
Sorry but this has still not been proven conclusively, there are far to many variables for someone to make that assumption..regardless of 'climate models'.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has warmed ~0.4oC since the 19th century
Is there a valid temperature record showing this, i would hate to think this is an assumption.

The GBR could be 1-3oC warmer by the end of this century
I don't like the word 'Could' when used in doomsday predictions...it implies guess work and lack of facts....either it will or it won't.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas)
The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor which constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gases and only 3.62% attributed to CO2 man made and natural.

Like i said, i don't doubt GW is happening, i just doubt the consensus that man kind is wholly responsible...climate models can be made to show anything you want..especially when there's money on the table and the man made global warming theory is a multi-billion pound/dollar industry

As for the whole point about the coral reef bleaching's in 1988 and 2002 these were caused by ENSO events and are entirely natural and in no way attributed to climate change...they do however give a perspective of what CAN happen should the oceans water change temperature rapidly.

Seeing as you are also impressed by other peoples opinion on subjects when those people carry significant weight in their field....

People ask "is it clear that human activity is directly responsible for climate change?" The context for answering this question must be another question: to what extent can the climate change all by itself?

The answer to the alternative question is: "a very great deal." Modern human beings appeared some time after about 50,000 years ago, and even then, anthropologists tell us that their numbers were very small until about 4000 years ago. Nonetheless, taking a cautious view, one might only examine climate change prior to 100,000 years ago.

Inferences about climate change before instruments and written records is the province primarily of geologists and geochemists. Their message is a very clear one: Earth has undergone enormous variations in climate state with changes taking place over times ranging from decades to millennia and longer.

Among the most extreme changes are the glacial-interglacial cycles in which, with the continents in their modern configuration dating back several million years, enormous ice caps waxed and waned over the Northern Hemisphere. Thus the UK, as well as all of western Europe, was under several kilometres of ice for thousands of years, interspersed with long intervals of a more benign climate such as that we have today.

These switches have taken place at intervals of between about 80,000 and 120,000 years for the last million years. Prior to that time, they appear to have occurred intermittently at about 40,000 year intervals. Even more dramatic changes took place in the deep past. It has been argued that during the Neogene period (about 24 to 1.8 million years ago), that the entire Earth froze over. Alternatively, over most of Earth's history, there were apparently no glaciers at all.

The glaciations are only the most dramatic of the inferred natural variability of the system.

Another problem concerns the counter-intuitive (for most people) behaviour of the consequences of random fluctuations in systems that have any kind of memory. As an example, consider the situation considered long ago by K. Hasselmann. The ocean is to be regarded as simply a completely passive reservoir of water with an initial temperature, T0. As such, its only physics we care about is its ability to store heat for very long periods (out to thousands of years in some instances).

Now we heat and cool the ocean over some small region using the atmosphere. To determine whether the ocean is to be heated and cooled on any given day, we simply flip a coin: if it's heads, we heat the ocean. If it's tails, we cool it by a like amount. Because we assume we have a true coin, the long-time average temperature of the ocean is the starting temperature, T0. Hasselmann pointed out, however, that the actual time history of temperature in this model ocean is very different from being near T0! Almost all the time, it is rather far from T0; in fact, the probability of its being T0 tends rapidly towards zero.

Most of the time, the ocean is either warm or cold compared to T0 and tends to stay that way for extended periods (we cannot predict whether it will be warm or cold, or the time interval over which it will stay warm or cold, but we can confidently predict the statistics of its departures from T0.

A consequence of this type of behaviour (and which a reader can easily check by having a small computer do the coin-tossing many times) is that systems with a memory of the past history of forcing can have very strange, unintuitive, behaviour that violates "common sense." The behaviour here can be understood by noting that if one tosses a true coin 2 million times, the probability of exactly 1 million heads and 1 million tails is very small. Instead, one expects a finite surplus of one or the other corresponding to excess heating or cooling.

So now we come to the modern climate problem. We know that it is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention. We also know that it has elements with very long memory times (the ocean, the ice caps, and some land processes including the biota). There is the possibility of solar fluctuations about which we know very little. The instrumental record only goes back about 300 years (being very generous) and global coverage is only really available following World War II. In many cases, we have no direct evidence for the spatial structures of natural variations and so find it almost impossible to compare observed changes with those known not influenced by human activities.

Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2)

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.


Written by Professor Wunsch. Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a listed contributer to the IPCC reports.

[Ninong]

Cronus,

Everything you quoted from my post is from the official position paper of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a well respected authority on marine science and an official agency of the Australian government.

Their positions are backed by their own decades of extensive scientific research. I can't think of any governmental agency that would be more credible when it comes to issues involving coral reef ecology.

[Cronus]

I appreciate that, i'm just stating that those bleaching events you mentioned were the cause of natural events and nothing to do with GW...and ENSO events are recognized and well documented....apart from the bit about water vapor which is a scientific fact the other stuff is just me making comment on their 'facts'.
For every one claim for man made GW their is a counter claim against it and until recently it's all been one way (and still is with gross disproportionate media reports and the like) with anybody questioning it basically called a heretic.

[Ninong]

Cronus,

The bottom line for Dr. Carl Wunsch is the very last sentence in the quotation you posted:

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

Dr. Wunsch is pointing out the complexities in predicting climate change. These complexities are very well known. The natural cycles, including the extremely long astronomical cycles, are not new to science.

Recently Dr. Wunsch appeared in a film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on your Channel 4. Dr. Wunsch is not too pleased with how that turned out as can be seen by this piece in the Guardian on 11 March 2007 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html):

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9499991#post9499991 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor which constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gases and only 3.62% attributed to CO2 man made and natural.

And what does this mean? What is the most important factor in determining how much water vapor is in the atmosphere? Ponder that for a while, and think about the points where state changes happen for both water and CO2. Then tell me if that 3.62% is insignificant.

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9500313#post9500313 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
And what does this mean? What is the most important factor in determining how much water vapor is in the atmosphere? Ponder that for a while, and think about the points where state changes happen for both water and CO2. Then tell me if that 3.62% is insignificant.

I never said it was insignificant...i was merely stating a fact. approx 1% out of the 3.62% is attributed to man made CO2

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9500276#post9500276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Cronus,

The bottom line for Dr. Carl Wunsch is the very last sentence in the quotation you posted:

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

Dr. Wunsch is pointing out the complexities in predicting climate change. These complexities are very well known. The natural cycles, including the extremely long astronomical cycles, are not new to science.

Recently Dr. Wunsch appeared in a film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on your Channel 4. Dr. Wunsch is not too pleased with how that turned out as can be seen by this piece in the Guardian on 11 March 2007 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html):

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

You are correct and i have nothing against movement to a greener society as i stated already, just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins...that very same paragraph..

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

And for the record i thought the The Great Global Warming Swindle was a poor piece of film.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9500439#post9500439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
You are correct and i have nothing against movement to a greener society as i stated already, just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins...that very same paragraph..


Since we're all making sentences bold :)
"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. "Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

[Cronus]

Don't really see your point in highlighting the same text as Ninong that i've already replied to.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9500439#post9500439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins
That comment made me believe that you missed the point, so I thought I would highlight it again. Too many people don't understand what science really is; they think that if it isn't black and white it isn't true, or that it shouldn't be believed. The lack of concrete conclusions is prevalent in many fields, not just climatology.

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9485876#post9485876 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Re alternative power source, I absolutely agree, all thos power source I mentioned will not power a city nor will they make a large dent in the need for fossil fuels, at least straight away. But they can do in time. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to power source with less environmental impact.

Well that is a bit of a problem then isn't it? According to absolute science of global warming ,which only a fool would doubt, we don't have much time? Remember at best we only have 93 years until we are under water, or as little as a decade or two depending on which GW science you listen to.

So the absolute science of global warming has made a prediction and has proposed a solution that just doesn't match the prediction. Can you see how that might make someone question how valid that prediction is?

If you truely believed that disaster was imminent wouldn't you be proposing radical things like switch to nuclear immediately, build giant CO2 scrubbers, reduce the population by any means necessary, whatever it takes. Instead of only proposing "feel good" green solutions that you've already said are not good enough.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9504115#post9504115 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
Well that is a bit of a problem then isn't it? According to absolute science of global warming ,which only a fool would doubt, we don't have much time? Remember at best we only have 93 years until we are under water, or as little as a decade or two depending on which GW science you listen to.

So the absolute science of global warming has made a prediction and has proposed a solution that just doesn't match the prediction. Can you see how that might make someone question how valid that prediction is?

If you truely believed that disaster was imminent wouldn't you be proposing radical things like switch to nuclear immediately, build giant CO2 scrubbers, reduce the population by any means necessary, whatever it takes. Instead of only proposing "feel good" green solutions that you've already said are not good enough.

Now now lets not get petty. Just take a breath and relax. The only person I have seen so far that calls science of global warming absolute is your good self. As far as I know global warming is not even a science. That would be climatology and a mix of a few others that research the climate and attempt to predict its future.

No one is suggesting we flick a switch to "green" energy sources. That would be impossible. And switching to nuclear immediately is also impossible. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to alternative energy sources. This will give time for industry to catch up and produce more efficient ways of harnessing these energy sources.

This has already started to happen with solar energy, but demand is needed to truly get things going.

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9501901#post9501901 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
That comment made me believe that you missed the point, so I thought I would highlight it again. Too many people don't understand what science really is; they think that if it isn't black and white it isn't true, or that it shouldn't be believed. The lack of concrete conclusions is prevalent in many fields, not just climatology.


And you are missing my point....we have politician's and environmentalists stating that there is irrefutable proof that we are causing global warming when NON of the facts can state that 100%...to stand there and say 'IT DEFINITELY IS' happening and saying 'IT COULD BE HAPPENING' are two completely different opinions.

[billsreef]

Forget the politicians and armchair environmentalists for minute, consider the climatologists instead. They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend, they are saying our increasing contributions of greenhouse gases are excaberating a natural trend. In other words our contribution to greenhouses gases is making natural trends happen faster and will likely make peak of the natural trend higher than would naturally occur without our ever increasing contribution of greenhouse gases.

[RichardS]

Now now lets not get petty. Just take a breath and relax. The only person I have seen so far that calls science of global warming absolute is your good self. As far as I know global warming is not even a science. That would be climatology and a mix of a few others that research the climate and attempt to predict its future.

No one is suggesting we flick a switch to "green" energy sources. That would be impossible. And switching to nuclear immediately is also impossible. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to alternative energy sources. This will give time for industry to catch up and produce more efficient ways of harnessing these energy sources.

This has already started to happen with solar energy, but demand is needed to truly get things going.

Okay I think I understand now. Global disaster is right around the corner because of us. So we should all get solar panels and windmills and then the global disaster will still occur but we can all feel good about ourselves for trying. That makes perfect sense now that I think about it more.

Basically, we're all screwed and the world is going to end. Lucky for me, I heard that from a preacher on the radio 30 years ago. Since I've had time to get used to that idea, I'm very relaxed.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9504742#post9504742 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
And you are missing my point....we have politician's and environmentalists stating that there is irrefutable proof that we are causing global warming when NON of the facts can state that 100%...to stand there and say 'IT DEFINITELY IS' happening and saying 'IT COULD BE HAPPENING' are two completely different opinions.
Yeah, I know, and it's unfortunate that some people say those things because it harms the credibility of the entire issue. However, whether or not the possibility of human induced GW is 95% or 100% is a moot point. The same things need to be done in order help the problem. I'm not willing to rely on that 5% chance that GW is entirely natural.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9505546#post9505546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend,

Unfortunately that is EXACTLY what "they" are saying. Even worse, it is the selfish Americans with their big cars and houses that are creating the problem with accusations such as "we are only 12% of the worlds population but contribute 70% of "greenhouse gases"".
This is just another bogus issue in the long line of attempts to knock world power countries down to size. To many Americans feel guilty for the prosperity that we have EARNED and enjoy so they like to sit around and navel gaze about how we need to change our way of life. Believe me, when this one blows over there will be another "end of the world" prediction to take it's place.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9506481#post9506481 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Unfortunately that is EXACTLY what "they" are saying. Even worse, it is the selfish Americans with their big cars and houses that are creating the problem with accusations such as "we are only 12% of the worlds population but contribute 70% of "greenhouse gases"".
This is just another bogus issue in the long line of attempts to knock world power countries down to size. To many Americans feel guilty for the prosperity that we have EARNED and enjoy so they like to sit around and navel gaze about how we need to change our way of life. Believe me, when this one blows over there will be another "end of the world" prediction to take it's place.

Bill's quote make more sense when you don't take it out of context. I'm sorry that you feel this is all a scam to bring down the US. It must be hard to hear that we aren't the perfect guiding light for humanity.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9505546#post9505546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend, they are saying our increasing contributions of greenhouse gases are excaberating a natural trend.

[virginiadiver69]

You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like, but can you actually dispute what I have to say?
Did I say I thought we were a "perfect guiding light for humanity"? I don't see how I could be under such an assumption with people like you so gleefully cheering that we are not.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507292#post9507292 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like, but can you actually dispute what I have to say?
Did I say I thought we were a "perfect guiding light for humanity"? I don't see how I could be under such an assumption with people like you so gleefully cheering that we are not.
Sure I can dispute what you say, it's easy. Why do you think this is all about "knocking world powers down to size"? The proponents of GW are industrialized countries. You don't hear about Zimbabwe trying to reduce emissions. Why would industrialized countries want to shoot themselves in the foot for no reason? They don't. It's just that they see the writing on the wall and realize that their way of life is unsustainable. You seem to feel that we "earned" our way of life, so we don't have to change it. The problem is that we're also going to "earn" our demise. Adapt or perish. Earth is going to earn the Galactic Darwin Award if we're not careful.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9506216#post9506216 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
Okay I think I understand now.

Well obviously not and I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you. So, I will not try anymore.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507292#post9507292 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like...

<i><br>Here at Reef Central, we believe that dialogs between participants should be conducted in a friendly and helpful manner. If you disagree with a posting, please express yourself in a way that is conducive to further constructive dialog. Conversely, when you post on any given subject, you must be willing to accept constructive criticism without posting a hostile or inflammatory response. Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated. Please let’s work to insure that Reef Central remains a friendly and flame free site where everyone, especially newcomers, can feel free to post questions without fear of being unfairly criticized. Thank you for your cooperation.</i>

[virginiadiver69]

I am assuming you are directing this toward hippie, the person who made the "sniveling and sarcastic comments".

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507390#post9507390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
The proponents of GW are industrialized countries.

The proponents of this farce are world bodies such as the UN and scientist who know where their bread is buttered at.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507390#post9507390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You don't hear about Zimbabwe trying to reduce emissions.

No, you don't. Along with Asia or Western Europe. This goes back to my earlier point that we (Americans) have this massive guilt trip for being as successful as we are. People of Africa or Western Europe have much more REAL and immediate problems to deal with. They don't have the time to talk themselves into the idea that we mere mortals have any influence on Mother Nature.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507390#post9507390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Sure I can dispute what you say, it's easy.

Then please do. Are you denying the fact that it is the U.S. that is commonly held up to blame for this "crises" While other "poor" countries are given a free pass ?

[scottras]

I should just like to point out that many countries in western Europe are worried about climate change and are now creating policies to deal with it. I think you have to stop thinking of this as an us vs them debate.

[roader247]

Great post

[virginiadiver69]

This IS an us vs. them debate.
I am curious scottras, how you run V8 Super-cars and Champ cars on solar power ?

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508029#post9508029 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
This IS an us vs. them debate.
I am curious scottras, how you run V8 Super-cars and Champ cars on solar power ?

Ok, just how is it an us vs them debate?

Well not too good. F1 cars don't run all that well on it either and as far
as sports go that would have to be the worst polluter. But I do hold out a little hope for it as motor racing is where a lot of technical innovation on motor vehicles comes from. The fact that I like motor sport and I am an environmentalist is a source of guilt for me, but everyone needs a little guilt. I try and reduce the guilt by doing what I can for the environment.

Motor car companies and race organisers are slowly wakeing up to the fact that they cannot continue on their current path.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508303#post9508303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Ok, just how is it an us vs them debate?



If it was not an us vs. them there would be no debate would there? We could all just hold hands, sway back and forth :dance: and sing kumbaya. :love2:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508303#post9508303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras

The fact that I like motor sport and I am an environmentalist is a source of guilt for me, but everyone needs a little guilt.


:lol: I agree totally! Refer to my earlier posts. That's all this comes down to. People who live in prosperous countries like ours have to much time on our hands. We end up trying to think of ways that we matter. In our infinite arrogance it usually turns into a mission of "saving" something. In the end we just screw it up even more.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508303#post9508303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
I try and reduce the guilt by doing what I can for the environment.


And this is where your argument loses ALL credibility.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you, but again this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
I think if this were a REAL issue the people squawking the loudest (hippiesmell and reefers in general) would put their own prescription into action. Instead we burn untold amounts of energy for what, a tank full of fish?

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507864#post9507864 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Then please do. Are you denying the fact that it is the U.S. that is commonly held up to blame for this "crises" While other "poor" countries are given a free pass ?
I'm not denying that the US is often treated as the figure head for human induced climate change, and for good reason, but it's not only the US getting the blame. And what do you mean "poor" countries? There should be no quotation marks around the word poor. They ARE poor. When 2% of the world's population owns 90% of the world's wealth, it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508615#post9508615 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
We end up trying to think of ways that we matter. In our infinite arrogance it usually turns into a mission of "saving" something.

this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.

You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.

[scottras]

If it was not an us vs. them there would be no debate would there? We could all just hold hands, sway back and forth :dance: and sing kumbaya. :love2:


Well kumbaya is one of the only things I truly hate, but i digress.
What worries me is that you feel so defensive about the subject. You are starting to act like exxon.


:lol: I agree totally! Refer to my earlier posts. That's all this comes down to. People who live in prosperous countries like ours have to much time on our hands. We end up trying to think of ways that we matter. In our infinite arrogance it usually turns into a mission of "saving" something. In the end we just screw it up even more.

Sounds like you don't like it when people try and do some good. Calling them arrogant doesnt make you look any better. There are plenty of people doing their bit for our future.


And this is where your argument loses ALL credibility.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you, but again this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
I think if this were a REAL issue the people squawking the loudest (hippiesmell and reefers in general) would put their own prescription into action. Instead we burn untold amounts of energy for what, a tank full of fish?

Nice. I guess its nice and comfy watching other people do the work to try and save your way of life. Do you always have a go at charities?

I don't burn untolds amount of energy for a tank full of fish. The quantity is very measurable and I am trying to reduce it with every evolution of the tank. In fact on the weekend I managed to reduce my constant energy consumption by 20W. My goal (a long way off atm) is to be carbon neutral or even negative. Hopefully within 10 years.

[Cronus]

The only problem with carbon neutral homes is that things like solar power, wind harnessing, thermal heating etc is that this technology is not cheap by any body's standards and they are inefficient to boot and bio fuels will add to the CO2 problem not reduce it. Only a small proportion of people would be able to afford these types of power alternatives and the idea of carbon credits being used to offset carbon footprints (like Al Gore uses) is laughable. The most viable form of energy thats also efficient is Nuclear power until such time that fusion becomes a reality.

Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!

A new catalyst that can split carbon dioxide gas could allow us to use carbon from the atmosphere as a fuel source in a similar way to plants.

"Breaking open the very stable bonds in CO2 is one of the biggest challenges in synthetic chemistry," says Frederic Goettmann, a chemist at the Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interfaces in Potsdam, Germany. "But plants have been doing it for millions of years."

Plants use the energy of sunlight to cleave the relatively stable chemical bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in a carbon dioxide molecule. In photosynthesis, the CO2 molecule is initially bonded to nitrogen atoms, making reactive compounds called carbamates. These less stable compounds can then be broken down, allowing the carbon to be used in the synthesis of other plant products, such as sugars and proteins.

In an attempt to emulate this natural process, Goettmann and colleagues Arne Thomas and Markus Antonietti developed their own nitrogen-based catalyst that can produce carbamates. The graphite-like compound is made from flat layers of carbon and nitrogen atoms arranged in hexagons.

The team heated a mixture of CO2 and benzene with the catalyst to a temperature of 150 ºC, at about three times atmospheric pressure. In a first step, the catalyst enabled the CO2 to form a reactive carbamate, like that made in plants.
Oxygen grab

The catalyst's next useful step was to enable the benzene molecules to grab the oxygen atom from the CO2 in the carbamate, producing phenol and a reactive carbon monoxide (CO) species.

"Carbon monoxide can be used to build new carbon-carbon bonds," explains Goettmann. "We have taken the first step towards using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a source for chemical synthesis."

Future refinements could allow chemists to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels as sources for making chemicals. Liquid fuel could also be made from CO split from CO2, says Goettmann. "It was common in Second World War Germany and in South Africa in the 1980s to make fuel from CO derived from coal," he adds.

The researchers are now trying to bring their method even closer to photosynthesis. "The benzene reaction currently supplies the energy that splits the CO2," Goettmann says, "but in plants it is light." The new catalyst absorbs ultraviolet radiation, so the team is experimenting to see if light can provide the energy instead.
Recycled carbon

Joe Wood, a chemical engineer at Birmingham University in the UK, is also researching ways of fixing CO2. "There's growing interest in using it as a recycled input into the chemical industry," he says.

The Max Planck technique has only been demonstrated on a small scale and it has a low yield of 20%, he points out. "But it looks quite promising," he adds. "The catalyst can be made cheaply and it works at a relatively low temperature."

The products of the technique are well suited to making drugs or herbicides, says Wood, "so hopefully they can improve the efficiency and scale it up."

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11390-catalyst-could-help-turn-cosub2sub-into-fuel.html

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus

Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!


Carbon monoxide, benzene, herbicides! Yikes that doesn't sound very green. Plus it doesn't punish the evil oil companies so it isn't a good idea just like carbon scrubber technology isn't.

The only option is a gradual shift to earth friendly alternative energy sources :rolleyes: .

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507864#post9507864 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
They don't have the time to talk themselves into the idea that we mere mortals have any influence on Mother Nature.

To think we humans don't have an influence on Mother Nature is very short sighted. I've seen coastlines altered by man, entire fish populations reduced to the point of commercial extinction by overfishing, Garbage floating on the ocean far offshore and the sick and dead animals that ate that garbage, formerly pristine creeks closed to shell fishing due to human run off pollutants, I can go far offshore (well out of sight of land) and look towards the US Coast and pick out the major cities by their yellow smog of pollutants high in the air over them, and the list goes on. These are things I've witnessed for myself, not from listening to some else but actually seen with my own eyes. That is quite an impact on nature by man, and the list doesn't stop there. Rather difficult to look out at all that and think we don't have a real and tangible impact on Mother Nature.

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
bio fuels will add to the CO2 problem not reduce it.

Just an interesting point on bio diesel. It seems phytoplankton is popular choice to grow for the oil content to use in fuel production. Where it gets interesting is that some of the folks working with this are looking at (some prototypes have been done with sucess) using the CO2 emissions from power plants as a CO2 source to grow thicker algae cultures.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!

I don't know how practical that solution you posted is, so I can't comment directly on that. But, even if it was practical, or if some other technology could be used, how are we going to implement them? It's called, *gasp*, carbon caps and regulation. But that's out of the question right? We have to wait until the corporations spend millions (or billions) out of the kindness of their own hearts. I urge all of you to read about sulfur dioxide trading and see how well that worked, then tell me why there is so much opposition to doing the same thing for CO2. You can make fun of Gore all you want for his carbon trading, but it's a great system if only there was a little more support for it.

[BreadmanMike]

Sad.... I thought this was RC not the yahoo message boards.



:rolleye1:

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9515052#post9515052 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
Sad.... I thought this was RC not the yahoo message boards.



:rolleye1:
If you get the "Guiliani '08" out of your signature, your complaint might have more credibility. :rolleye1:

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I'm not denying that the US is often treated as the figure head for human induced climate change, and for good reason,

This is why I don't trust anything that comes out of your bong hole! You and your ilk love to blame America for all of the worlds ills and global warming is just another handle for you to grab onto. If the inventor of the Internet didn't fabricate this it would be something else.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
And what do you mean "poor" countries? There should be no quotation marks around the word poor. They ARE poor.

I meant exactly what you think I meant. Is this why you would want to let them not abide by the Kyoto treaty?


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
When 2% of the world's population owns 90% of the world's wealth, it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.

An individual or a country can not OWN wealth, it's earned. The fact that you have been duped into thinking we OWN the wealth implies that you also believe we prevent others from having it. Like money is a finite resource or something.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.

It is these "poor" developing countries that are some of the worst offenders of Co2 emissions.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510439#post9510439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.

Here you go again with you sniveling sarcasm instead of actulay dealing with my comment. As far as needing some healing goes...After I made that post I had a nice dinner, a night cap and then a peaceful nights sleep. My conscience is cleeeen my boy. I, unlike you don't feel the need to be some kind of self proclaimed eco warrior with a god complex. YOU are the one with the ego problem. freud would have a field day with you.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9513593#post9513593 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
To think we humans don't have an influence on Mother Nature is very short sighted. I've seen coastlines altered by man, entire fish populations reduced to the point of commercial extinction by overfishing, Garbage floating on the ocean far offshore and the sick and dead animals that ate that garbage, formerly pristine creeks closed to shell fishing due to human run off pollutants, I can go far offshore (well out of sight of land) and look towards the US Coast and pick out the major cities by their yellow smog of pollutants high in the air over them, and the list goes on. These are things I've witnessed for myself, not from listening to some else but actually seen with my own eyes. That is quite an impact on nature by man, and the list doesn't stop there. Rather difficult to look out at all that and think we don't have a real and tangible impact on Mother Nature.

I don't deny that we make a mess but when I say influence I am addressing this notion that we can change the global climate, nock the earth of it's axis or swoop in and save the earth from sudden demise. This is the height of arrogance. This is were the modern environmentalist movement has crossed the line into a religion.

[billsreef]

[flamealert]

Yes virginiadiver69, that is aimed at you.

[virginiadiver69]

Can you be more specific? I have done nothing but state my opinion like everyone else.

[BreadmanMike]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510439#post9510439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.

You should hug Bushes instead. :lol:

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9517451#post9517451 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
You should hug Bushes instead. :lol:
Lol, touche.

[HippieSmell]

.

[Ninong]

Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee today. He stood by his view that the Bush Administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

Dr. Hansen took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer (a political appointee) listen in on his interviews with reporters and with the administration's refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency.

Full L.A. Times article here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-climate20mar20,1,1206407.story?coll=la-headlin&ctrack=1&cset=true).

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516013#post9516013 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
This is why I don't trust anything that comes out of your bong hole! You and your ilk love to blame America for all of the worlds ills and global warming is just another handle for you to grab onto. If the inventor of the Internet didn't fabricate this it would be something else.

I meant exactly what you think I meant. Is this why you would want to let them not abide by the Kyoto treaty?

An individual or a country can not OWN wealth, it's earned. The fact that you have been duped into thinking we OWN the wealth implies that you also believe we prevent others from having it. Like money is a finite resource or something.

It is these "poor" developing countries that are some of the worst offenders of Co2 emissions.
Do you even know how much CO2 per capita the US produces? As I said, there is a REASON why the US is the poster child. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png)
China and India are considered developing, but they are major contributors and should be held to higher standards than the other developing countries at this time. Poor countries are such small contributors, they are NOT some of the worst offenders as you claim. And my comment about 2% of the population owning 90% of the wealth was to point out the fact that the developed countries caused this problem, and we have the responsibility to fix it. Or do you think the undeveloped countries built all the factories and bought all the cars?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516132#post9516132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Here you go again with you sniveling sarcasm instead of actulay dealing with my comment. As far as needing some healing goes...After I made that post I had a nice dinner, a night cap and then a peaceful nights sleep. My conscience is cleeeen my boy. I, unlike you don't feel the need to be some kind of self proclaimed eco warrior with a god complex. YOU are the one with the ego problem. freud would have a field day with you.
Lol, settle down. There was only a small amount of sarcasm in that post. Anybody who feels that helping the poor or adopting homeless dogs is the result of a personality fault must be at least a little sad inside. And I don't have a god complex, I just don't think humans are as weak as you think we are.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516201#post9516201 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I don't deny that we make a mess but when I say influence I am addressing this notion that we can change the global climate,
Just another in a looooooooooong list of things that were once deemed impossible.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9519687#post9519687 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee today. He stood by his view that the Bush Administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

Dr. Hansen took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer (a political appointee) listen in on his interviews with reporters and with the administration's refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency.

Full L.A. Times article here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-climate20mar20,1,1206407.story?coll=la-headlin&ctrack=1&cset=true).
I remember this, thanks for posting it. This is an excellent article showing how far some people will go to hide an issue that is supposedly "fake".

[yrema]

tagging along

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9513640#post9513640 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I urge all of you to read about sulfur dioxide trading and see how well that worked, then tell me why there is so much opposition to doing the same thing for CO2. You can make fun of Gore all you want for his carbon trading, but it's a great system if only there was a little more support for it.


Carbon trading seems to be more about economics and making vast amounts of money than saving the planet...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/emission_tradin.html

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

Once you've had a sift through that then you can tell me if you still think it's a great system in it's present format.
Gore would be considered a conman in any other walk of life but because he parades himself as a climate warrior he's held up on a pedestal of greatness.

[Rossini]

[i


And this is where your argument loses ALL credibility.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you, but again this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
I think if this were a REAL issue the people squawking the loudest (hippiesmell and reefers in general) would put their own prescription into action. Instead we burn untold amounts of energy for what, a tank full of fish? [/B]

You really need to open your ears and turn your brain on,and you will realise what people are trying to get across.

You can have 1000 reef tanks running and it would be fine. IF the power was generated in a non polluting way. DO YOU GET IT YET? :bum:

[Sk8r]

I was quite shocked when I ran the cnet hybrid cars buying guide calculator and discovered how much carbon [something like 5 lbs] my Subaru Forester is injecting into the air annually, above what a hybrid would. I also took the 'carbon footprint' test and discovered that despite driving over 4000 miles a year and running a lot of tech equipment, I have a very minimal carbon footprint---the 'average' was over a hundred pounds a year, which if you multiply by all of us, is a whole lot.
This isn't the only episode human civilization has had with climate change and pollution. The natural drying since the last ice age has widened the Sahara: in Roman times it was possible to walk in the shade from Gibraltar to the Nile Delta: now of course it's desert. So the planet has lost that broad greenbelt that kept the Med's air cleaner---while much of Europe's north was forested; that was cut down by charcoalers in the middle ages, etc, and put into the atmosphere. Or hewn off the Scottish isles by shipwrights; the massive timbers of Scandanavia are only seen now in historic houses: they're gone. So Europe was pretty well deforested over a 500 year span, and a lot of that was burned even before we began excavating the Carboniferous Era forests [coal seams, oil shales] to start burning those---we'd run out of the green-growing sort. So the next 500 years were pretty dirty, and the footprint of a Londoner in the 1880's was pretty sooty.

We've gotten better in that regard: as late as the 1960's, London air would blacken your nostrils and your handkerchiefs, and it hurt the lungs on some days. I was there, and remember having to be careful touching anything white if I hadn't washed my hands. Now they're replanting the lost forests of the Hebrides and trying to reforest some areas in Europe, but in the meanwhile, worldwide demand for materials and increased population in formerly sparsely inhabited areas has entrepreneurs deforesting the Pacific isles and the much larger Amazon at an even faster rate, so it's still a net loss. It's not just the loss of species: [Lord knows what species, beside the last European aurochs, we annihilated in the European forests]---it's the loss of green-space that does the O/C02 cycle, and helps take the carbon out into more biomass. Pound for pound, we're doing way better in some areas, and thankfully we're cleaning up some of the real Cold War era messes like some of the mining towns in Poland---but the net trend is still toward bigger and bigger emissions [burning not only this century's forests, but the forests of millions of years of pre-human times, all at once] and toward less and less greenbelt, be it part of the post Iceage drying or the action of man. It's a bad intersection of our habits with the natural cycle of ice ages and dry-outs. We're collectively not quite as bad as the dino-killing meteor strike---hard to compete with a global firestorm--- but we could do better.

[Cronus]

I would agree with you there, far from man made CO2 being the primary problem i would argue that mans short sightedness in cutting down vast regions of forest and removing the planets natural ability to process the CO2 in the atmosphere as a bigger issue.
We have people left right and center complaining about man made CO2 driven climate change and yet we are still cutting down masses of rain forest thats only going to increase the problem and then you have idiots with their carbon offsets that plant 'a tree or two' to justify their 2000mile private jet trip.
From my understanding all timber sourced from Europe has to come from sustainable tree farms now and i believe that tree coverage is increasing year on year, in Britain our forests have grown from 5% to 12% and is still rising.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9519953#post9519953 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I remember this, thanks for posting it. This is an excellent article showing how far some people will go to hide an issue that is supposedly "fake".

Remember George Deutsch, the 24-yr-old Bush appointee at NASA who said that it was his job "to make the president look good" and that part of that was censoring Dr. James E. Hansen, NASA's superstar expert on global warming. The guy who refused to allow N.P.R. to interview Dr. Hansen because they were "the most liberal" media outlet in the country, according to a fellow NASA employee who was present at the meeting. The 24-yr-old journalism graduate who decreed that all of Dr. Hansen's public speeches would have to be cleared in advance though his office. The guy who ordered that all requests by the media to interview Dr. Hansen would now require his advance approval.

That guy!

The one who worked on George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. The one whose resume claims that he graduated from Texas A&M in 2003 with a degree in journalism.

Why should a 24-yr-old kid with a degree in journalism get to decide what is acceptable speech by one of NASA's leading scientists? Is he an astronomer? Is he a chemist? Is he a physicist? No, he's just a "journalist."

Oops!

Turns out he's not even that. A blogger discovered that he didn't graduate from Texas A&M after all. In fact, he has no degree in journalism or anything else for that matter. Well, maybe he has a degree in cronyism?

Don't you have to pass a background investigation to go to work for NASA? Wouldn't they check your resume as part of that investigation? I guess not. Maybe they don't do background investigations on political appointees? Or maybe they're just not very good at running background investigations? Maybe they should just ask the liberal bloggers to help them check out prospective Bush appointees in the future. The guy who uncovered this little deception happens to be a biochemist who graduated from Texas A&M recently. Nothing like checking with your old alma mater to find out the status of an alumnus.

P.S. -- I forgot to mention that the 24-yr-old Bush appointee "resigned" from NASA the same day his lie about graduating from Texas A&M was exposed by that blogger.

[Ninong]

I forgot to post the original comments that Dr. Hansen made a year ago about the Bush Administration's censorship tactics:

From the SF Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2006: (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/11/MNGSOH6PNL1.DTL)

New York -- James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming.

Hansen, speaking on a panel about science and the environment to a packed audience at the New School university, said that while he hopes his own agency will soon adopt a more open policy, NOAA insists on having "a minder" monitor its scientists when they discuss findings with journalists.

"It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," said Hansen, prompting a round of applause. He added that while NOAA officials said they maintain the policy for their scientists' "protection, if you buy that one please see me at the break, because there's a bridge down the street I'd like to sell you."

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9520398#post9520398 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by yrema
tagging along
[subscribe]

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9521659#post9521659 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Remember George Deutsch, the 24-yr-old Bush appointee at NASA who said that it was his job "to make the president look good" and that part of that was censoring Dr. James E. Hansen, NASA's superstar expert on global warming.
Yup. There have been many appointees that have turned out to be completely unqualified, but since you're in Louisiana I'm sure that's painfully obvious. Horse racing anyone?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9521690#post9521690 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Hansen, speaking on a panel about science and the environment to a packed audience at the New School university, said that while he hopes his own agency will soon adopt a more open policy, NOAA insists on having "a minder" monitor its scientists when they discuss findings with journalists.

A "minder"? Creepy. Sounds like 1984.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9520856#post9520856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Carbon trading seems to be more about economics and making vast amounts of money than saving the planet...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm

http://green.itweek.co.uk/2007/02/emission_tradin.html

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

Once you've had a sift through that then you can tell me if you still think it's a great system in it's present format.
Gore would be considered a conman in any other walk of life but because he parades himself as a climate warrior he's held up on a pedestal of greatness.
In its present format, it's not that great. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I wanted carbon offsets to work like sulfur dioxide offsets, which they don't, as mentioned in two of your articles:

"The problems with the European Trading Scheme are well documented with the collapse in the price of a tonne of carbon dating back to May last year when it emerged that most countries in the scheme had set their carbon caps far too high, resulting in fewer firms than expected having to buy credits and causing the price of a tonne of carbon to plummet from over €30 to less than €10."

"Done carefully, offsets can have a positive effect and raise ecological awareness."

"In the absence of a mandatory national cap, some Americans have begun taking action on their own, but without widely recognized standards as to what constitutes a valid offset."
As you can see, the government has to create carbon limits (uh-oh, the "g" word) for this to work. If you're trying to make this program look bad by showing that a few companies made questionable business deals, my comment is, "what else is new in business?".

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9522941#post9522941 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Yup. There have been many appointees that have turned out to be completely unqualified, but since you're in Louisiana I'm sure that's painfully obvious. Horse racing anyone?
I think you mean Arabian Horse breeding.


A "minder"? Creepy. Sounds like 1984.
Sounds like Scientology, too.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9521072#post9521072 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
You really need to open your ears and turn your brain on,and you will realise what people are trying to get across.

You can have 1000 reef tanks running and it would be fine. IF the power was generated in a non polluting way. DO YOU GET IT YET? :bum:

NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks. Do YOU or any others follow that example assuming there is one? Or do you run your MH 12 hrs. a day, use a chiller because your water is too hot BECAUSE of the MH and waste 4 gals of water for every 5 gals of water filtered through your ro/di unit?

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510747#post9510747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
I guess its nice and comfy watching other people do the work to try and save your way of life.

WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510747#post9510747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Do you always have a go at charities?



I have no problem with charities and I don't remember saying I did. I DO have a problem with guilt being the motivator.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510747#post9510747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras

I don't burn untolds amount of energy for a tank full of fish. The quantity is very measurable and I am trying to reduce it with every evolution of the tank. In fact on the weekend I managed to reduce my constant energy consumption by 20W. My goal (a long way off atm) is to be carbon neutral or even negative. Hopefully within 10 years.

Hopefully within 10 yrs huh? Too bad that's when the world is due to end.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9525387#post9525387 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks.
Uh, if your electricity comes from a wind farm or solar panels, your tank will be powered by wind farms and solar panels. Lol, shocking, I know.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9525497#post9525497 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

That's because this is the internet, and we don't have webcams. You can't see any of us doing anything. Thank god.

[scottras]

WHAT WORK! All I see is people pontificating on what SHOULD be done but not actualy doing it themselves.

I think you need to have a look around a bit more. There are plenty of people trying their hardest to do their best for the planet and its inhabitants. Then of course there are people who do nothing or even worse the people that try to stop good being done.

I have no problem with charities and I don't remember saying I did. I DO have a problem with guilt being the motivator.

So you just have a problem with charity? Sorry for the mistake.
I have no problem with whatever motivates people to help one another.

Hopefully within 10 yrs huh? Too bad that's when the world is due to end.

Due to who's predictions? I have never seen anything that says the world will end in ten years. Thats the trouble with misinformation, you never know who starts it for what reason.

I know you feel that most environmentalists are arrogant, but I think the real problem is the doubter’s ignorance.

[Cronus]

Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9525387#post9525387 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
NO! Give me an example of a non-polluting way. I am not aware of solar or wind powered reef tanks. Do YOU or any others follow that example assuming there is one? Or do you run your MH 12 hrs. a day, use a chiller because your water is too hot BECAUSE of the MH and waste 4 gals of water for every 5 gals of water filtered through your ro/di unit?


hahaha you're not the sharpest nail in the box are you....

Are you not aware of electricty generated from wind power?

By the way all my electricty comes from Wind farms its a deal set up with my electricty supplier N Power.

A whole lot more needs to be done to get more wind farms,tidal etc etc. In fact a revolution in energy production needs to happen. Thats what us tree huggers and people with half a brain or more want.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9530698#post9530698 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
Ahhhh. Another "Friends of Science" gem. I'm sure the paper is as unbiased as it is brilliant.

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9531449#post9531449 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Ahhhh. Another "Friends of Science" gem. I'm sure the paper is as unbiased as it is brilliant.

Haha...another example of a pro GW fanatic dismissing data out of hand....exactly what you accuse AGW fanatics of doing.

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9531305#post9531305 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
hahaha you're not the sharpest nail in the box are you....


[chimp]


Come on folks, the personal barbs need to stay out of these discussions.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9531555#post9531555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Haha...another example of a pro GW fanatic dismissing data out of hand....exactly what you accuse AGW fanatics of doing.
I skimmed it, and it was exactly what I thought it would be. There wasn't anything in there that I haven't seen many, many times before. The arguments weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now. It's still the same old think tank fodder, worth about as much as the paper it was printed on.

[Cronus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9532008#post9532008 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I skimmed it, and it was exactly what I thought it would be. There wasn't anything in there that I haven't seen many, many times before. The arguments weren't viable then, and they aren't viable now. It's still the same old think tank fodder, worth about as much as the paper it was printed on.

Ignorance is bliss, peer reviewed papers are hardly 'think tank fodder' and are far more viable than you care to give credit for.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9532178#post9532178 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Ignorance is bliss, peer reviewed papers are hardly 'think tank fodder' and are far more viable than you care to give credit for.
There's nothing wrong with the papers they are discussing, as you're correct, they are peer reviewed. It's the annotations I have an issue with. It's the spin and the doubt that is cast on REAL science that is the problem. It's classic think tank fodder.

[HippieSmell]

I'll make a deal with you. If you feel there is something in there that is particularly compelling, let us know, and I'll discuss it using my blissful ignorance.

[Mogrash]

Please define 'REAL science'.

Thanks in advance.

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9533702#post9533702 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mogrash
Please define 'REAL science'.

Thanks in advance.
You're a scientist, why don't you tell us?

Anyway, it's not an easily answered question, depending on how deep you want to go. But, I will point out the difference between the peer reviewed science that the IPCC relies on, what I'll call "real" science, and what think tanks do. Real science is where you have a hypothesis, design a way to test the hypothesis, collect data, and interpret the data. Then other scientists review it to hopefully find mistakes. Think tanks (GW think tanks, anyway) don't do this. At best they take real science and twist it or tell half truths; at worst they simply say things that aren't true. Think tanks never do original research, and the article posted is the same thing. They have actual peer reviewed articles that they "discuss" to fit a preconceived end. Now, if they funded legitimate research and allowed it to be peer reviewed and it showed AGW to be false, then I would be interested. That hasn't happened yet. Think tanks trick people into thinking that it is "real" science, because PhD's have their name on it and sometimes they cite sources. Often times the citation is of another "scientific study" that turns out to be another think tank. It's a big merry-go-round of junk.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9528760#post9528760 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras


Due to who's predictions? I have never seen anything that says the world will end in ten years. Thats the trouble with misinformation, you never know who starts it for what reason.



Willy Lowman said so, "within as little as 10 years"
http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nyu


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9528760#post9528760 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras


So you just have a problem with charity?


I said I DON'T have any problem with charity, as long as it's done for the right reasons. Giving out of guilt, fear or duty is not charity.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9528760#post9528760 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras

I have no problem with whatever motivates people to help one another.


That's a real shame you feel that way. I think guilt is actually a very selfish motivator. If you give a bum change because it helps aswage your guilt who are you really trying to help? That bum has just become a tool to make yourself feel better. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510747#post9510747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
In fact on the weekend I managed to reduce my constant energy consumption by 20W.

I have a group of four 75W bulbs over the wet bar in my den. One has been burned out for about two weeks now and I have not replaced it yet. If I let it be and don't replace it will that make me an environmentalist? I mean...that's 75W right there!
Where can I buy carbon credits?

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9528047#post9528047 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Uh, if your electricity comes from a wind farm or solar panels, your tank will be powered by wind farms and solar panels. Lol, shocking, I know.



Does YOURS ?

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9531305#post9531305 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini

By the way all my electricty comes from Wind farms its a deal set up with my electricty supplier N Power.



If that is the truth than you are a stand out. You are the ONLY one I have come across that actually walks the walk. We could probably have wind farms here but our elected heroes don't like to have there view of Nantucket Bay obscured(ted kennedy).

Oh, almost forgot to ask, how is the energy created by the wind farms stored? Batteries? Generators?

[virginiadiver69]

Ninong, what form of "green energy" do you use to power your reef?
scottras, I would ask you but your on the "10 year plan"

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9534486#post9534486 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Willy Lowman said so, "within as little as 10 years"
http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nyu


I said I DON'T have any problem with charity, as long as it's done for the right reasons. Giving out of guilt, fear or duty is not charity.


That's a real shame you feel that way. I think guilt is actually a very selfish motivator. If you give a bum change because it helps aswage your guilt who are you really trying to help? That bum has just become a tool to make yourself feel better. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Interesting article, thank you for that. I have read about the positive feedback loops regarding the methane in the tundra, however I had not heard about them thawing any time soon. I may have to upgrade my plan a bit. We have state and federal elections happening soon so hopefully I can make a difference there.

Well actually it is. Your definition of charity does not match any that I have seen. Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.

I do feel that way. While it may not be the best form of charity, it still helps. ie, if you give a homeless person money because you feel guilty, it may not be the best reason to give. However that does not change the fact that he/she can use that money to eat or drink. Sorry but if I was starving on the street, I wouldn't care why someone gave me money if it meant I could have something to eat.

Also calling a homeless person a "bum" is degrading.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9534631#post9534631 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I have a group of four 75W bulbs over the wet bar in my den. One has been burned out for about two weeks now and I have not replaced it yet. If I let it be and don't replace it will that make me an environmentalist? I mean...that's 75W right there!
Where can I buy carbon credits?

Well that depends: if you have not changed it because you are lazy, then you are not an environmentalist. If you have not changed it because you feel that using 300W to light a bar might be excessive, then maybe there is hope for you yet.

I have used energy efficient bulbs wherever I can. I try to make all things in the house more efficient. We have only owned it for around 6 months so it takes a while. If I save 20W from my reef tank it is because i have already done the most obvious things to save energy without compromising the health of the inhabitants. 20W might not sound like much, but if I have already saved hunfred of watts elswhere then it may sound a little better.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9534734#post9534734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69


Oh, almost forgot to ask, how is the energy created by the wind farms stored? Batteries? Generators?

It is usually sent straight into the grid, so that less power is created from the main power station. At least that is the case here.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535157#post9535157 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Well that depends: if you have not changed it because you are lazy, then you are not an environmentalist. If you have not changed it because you feel that using 300W to light a bar might be excessive, then maybe there is hope for you yet.



I thought motivation did not matter. Your oppinion when it comes to charity is it's the OUTCOME that is important. Do you you think the earth cares weather it was out of lazyness?
WOW! The hypocracy is getting deep!

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535157#post9535157 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
If you have not changed it because you feel that using 300W to light a bar might be excessive, then maybe there is hope for you yet.



How much wattage do you use to light your fish tank?

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9534734#post9534734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Oh, almost forgot to ask, how is the energy created by the wind farms stored? Batteries? Generators?


This was addressed to Rossini, not you. He said he is 100% dependent on wind supplied energy. The scenario you describe sounds a little dubious.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9521800#post9521800 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
If you have thoughts or opinions, chime right in. However, if it is to subscribe only, it is more polite to do it the other way, so people like me come running back to the thread for information won't be disappointed with two "tagging" posts in a row. <BR>


I must agree on this one yrema, These people are busy saving the world. They can't be bothered.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535157#post9535157 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
I have used energy efficient bulbs wherever I can. I try to make all things in the house more efficient. We have only owned it for around 6 months so it takes a while.

How long does it take to buy efficient bulbs? You say you used energy efficient bulbs "wherever you can", Does this mean there are places were you can not? Or is that on your 10 yr plan also?

[BreadmanMike]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535305#post9535305 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
How much wattage do you use to light your fish tank?

Al Gore lights it for him with magic candles. :D

Anyone crying about global warming that has a reef tank; defines the word hypocrite. :bum:

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535281#post9535281 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I thought motivation did not matter. Your oppinion when it comes to charity is it's the OUTCOME that is important. Do you you think the earth cares weather it was out of lazyness?
WOW! The hypocracy is getting deep!

I think you have to cool down a little. Maybe you might take the time to read your posts too, I think that might help. You asked:

I have a group of four 75W bulbs over the wet bar in my den. One has been burned out for about two weeks now and I have not replaced it yet. If I let it be and don't replace it will that make me an environmentalist?

I thought you were asking if by your actions you were an environmentalist. Is that what you were asking? or were you asking if by not replacing the 75w bulb you were helping the environment. Two very different questions. I answered the first.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535305#post9535305 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
How much wattage do you use to light your fish tank?

300W. Does that help?

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535340#post9535340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
This was addressed to Rossini, not you. He said he is 100% dependent on wind supplied energy. The scenario you describe sounds a little dubious.

My apologies, I thought you were asking a general question. The scenario I described is not dubious. It is even the plan I have for my house.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535441#post9535441 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
How long does it take to buy efficient bulbs? You say you used energy efficient bulbs "wherever you can", Does this mean there are places were you can not? Or is that on your 10 yr plan also?

All done mate where possible the first week. In fact we received most of the globes free from our power company. "Where we can" refers to some lights that energy efficient globes do not fit into. I hope to replace these soon. You can make fun of my plan all you want to. But at least I have a plan. At least I am trying to do some good. If I had my way I would get there within a year, however my finances do not stretch that far yet.

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9535494#post9535494 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
Al Gore lights it for him with magic candles. :D

Anyone crying about global warming that has a reef tank; defines the word hypocrite. :bum:

Not quite. But I can if you like.

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Hope that helps. Maybe some day you might have something useful to say.

[wlagarde]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9484716#post9484716 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wlagarde
HippieSmell - My comment was made simply to highlight the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.

And I again reiterate - Ahhhhhh the hypocrisy of the green crowd. They are willing to impose their beliefs on everyone BUT themselves unless it fits with their lifestyle. This is congruent with the way the democratic politicians are generous with everyone else's money BUT their own.

[billsreef]

I think this thread has more than run it's course.