Explain this dinosaur....Al Gore.

[Bluefront]

Or anybody else who believes in man-induced global warming. Link. What we have here is a plant-eating dinosaur that lived in a location that has been frozen solid since way before man even existed. So what happened, Al? You can't blame that climate change on mankind.....so why are you blaming man for the current change taking place?

Maybe you could blame dinosaur scat.....

[Tzupy]

Actually, that's not difficult to explain: in the past Antarctica wasn't located at the South Pole, so it's climate was much warmer than today.
But it's also true that Earth's climate has been much warmer than today in the past - when many dinosaurs lived.
It also was much richer in oxigen, which allowed animals to become gigantic and there were even 1m dragonflies.

To clarify my position on global warming, I believe it's only in a small proportion man-made.
AFAIK the scientific records show that increases in carbon dioxide levels follow a global warming, and are not really causing it.
We are only making it a bit (or more?) worse with our own carbon dioxide emissions.
This is the real 'inconvenient truth' about global warming, but since it's hard to sell to the public, no one will get a Nobel prize for it.

I'm in favor of the reduction of energy waste, which does happen with those large and inefficient American cars.
Not because of global warming, but because of the insane rise of fuel prices - this is going to plunge the global economy into recession.

[andyb]

Tzupy has a point, I read somewhere that poles move, and occasionaly a lot in a relativley small timescale, some people claim proof that the earth has actually rotated through 90 or more degrees from where it is right now. I had a bit of a nose around the web regarding this subject and found nothing concrete, but again, I found nothing to prove that the Earth's Poles have always been roughly where they are.

This could explain why the Dinosaur remains were found in the Antarctic.

It also was much richer in oxigen, which allowed animals to become gigantic and there were even 1m dragonflies.

It is possible that it was a contributing factor but it was not the reason, there are dozens of reasons why dinosaurs were as large as they were and they are all linked, more oxygen might also be a linked reason. On the same basis, humans have been growing taller for hundreds of years, do we have more oxygen now than we did in the 1200's.!?!?

I also dont believe that human-kind is as much to blame for global warming as Al-Gore and others would have us believe, but we are doing some damage, and we need to do less or ideally no damage.

What about the forests? In theory humans could push loads more CO2 into the atmosphere and not cause any damage if we mitigated it by planting trees...... we are not. I personally believe that deforestation and tree-burning is causing twice as much damage to our planet than burning fosil fuels.


Andy

[sanse]

Or anybody else who believes in man-induced global warming.
...
Maybe you could blame dinosaur scat.....

problem is that you can get a degree on this and base a career on it. that's the reason we have a co2-problem. for all these (greenpeace and the like) people to be able to pay their mortgages the co2-hype has to be kept alive.

[floffe]

Ah yes, 190 million years ago. When Antarctica was one continent together with India, Australia, Africa and South America.

As for the poles moving, that mostly affects the magnetic poles and not the rotational ones. Continental drift plays a lot larger part, at least.

[NeilBlanchard]

(Click for link to Wikipedia)


It's called continental drift, or plate tectonics -- there used to be just one continent; sometimes called Pangea or Pangæa.



You can call me Al...

[peerke]

Problem of these discussions is that there are always people trying to steer the discussion to specific examples that can not immediately be explained by the "global warming by humans" theory. I don't think these examples are relevant for the bigger picture. I think no individual behaviour can be held accountable for global warming but I do think that humans as a species are behaving more and more like cockroaches ravishing on the earth's resources and in doing so spewing out unwanted waste products (in solid, liquid or gas form). I don't think it's relevant whether that causes global warming or not.
Individuals should do their absolute best to reduce their impact on the earth as much as possible by making intelligent choices regarding their behaviour and consumption. What is an absolute certainty is that using examples that do not immediately support the global warming theory as an excuse for not having to think about your own behaviour won't bring anything useful for the environment or progress for society.

As for people making a living on the debate about global warming; I don't think this is different from any other form of marketing. You can get a degree in marketing but you won't produce anything (well, maybe CO2...) and still get paid a lot.

[beoba]

Tzupy has a point, I read somewhere that poles move, and occasionaly a lot in a relativley small timescale, some people claim proof that the earth has actually rotated through 90 or more degrees from where it is right now. I had a bit of a nose around the web regarding this subject and found nothing concrete, but again, I found nothing to prove that the Earth's Poles have always been roughly where they are.

The magnetic poles do move, they even switch directions (where magnetic north is at physical south and vice versa), since the magnetic poles are dependant on currents of magma and those tend to change over time. The rotational poles probably shift a little as well, but not by nearly as much, as it would take a lot of energy to make the entire planet change its rotation (imagine forcibly turning a spinning top).

[Bluefront]

The "record of the rocks" has yet to be completely explained, but knowledge in this area has been advancing rapidly.

"A study of George VI Ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently 'healthy' ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years. The retreat coincided with a shift in ocean currents that occurred after a long period of warmth".

That's a more recent example of a ice shelf melting.....I doubt cave-man camp-fires had anything to do with it. Face it....global climate change has been going on forever. Man's contribution....hardly measurable. Sorry Al....

[Blue_Sky]

Bluefront,
You are correct in that polar ice volume has seen some significant shifts in the last couple hundred million years. The climate and CO2 levels have varied wildly as well. You are very correct in saying that global climate change has been going on forever, because it is likely that there has never been a time (think broadly) where atmospheric composition and temperature (and therefore ice volumes) has not been changing

On the other hand, we know what historical CO2 levels are, and have a good idea of what global average temperatures are. We know that certain molecules behave in a certain way that they cause a net energy gain in the atmosphere. I won't name names, just know that it is accepted that certain molecules can and do act this way.

What we also know is that humans are contributing a large quantity of CO2 to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. If you burn something, you release CO2, there is no other way about it.

Now, based on our historical figures for atmospheric CO2, we know that we are raising them to levels that have never been seen before, ever. Now is this a cause to worry?

Well, it has been shown that the global average temperature is increasing. This causes that ice you mentioned to melt. This is the effect of the controversial "global warming" phenomenon. Why should you care if it gets a couple of degrees warmer?

Well, the short answer is that we are going to kill off all life on Earth, very eventually. Where I live, in Canada, we get about 4 weeks of ~40C (104F) weather, mainly due to very high humidity. The hotter it gets, the more likelihood of people being aversely affected by the heat (read: people will die).

Now, how do we figure out why the global average temperature is increasing? That is the million dollar question that has so many people employed.
We have a very good picture of how many of the Earth's processes affect the atmosphere, so those factors are well known. We know how the human race is affecting the composition of the atmosphere, and that CO2 most likely traps heat in the atmosphere.
So, all indications are that CO2 and a host of other molecules.

You are welcome to believe that there is a factor that millions of man hours of work by very intelligent people have missed, but it it kind of difficult to ignore the fact that the world is heating up and that it is proportional to (remember, I'm not saying caused by) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Oh, and for the record of the rocks, it is well understood. You could give me a cross section of the ground from somewhere and what the layers are composed of, and I could tell you what happened in what order. We're talking streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, how fast the water was moving and how deep it was, any volcanic or earthquake activity, and so on. Give a geologist that cross section and a couple of samples, and they could tell you how long things happened for and when.

[Bluefront]

Man's contribution to CO2 is minute.....compared to the effects of natural forest fires, volcanoes, under-water volcanic action, etc. I've heard figures around <2%.

You are free to do whatever you can to reduce your CO2 production....won't hurt anything, except all the economies that produce CO2 as a result of their actions, and might suffer.

But if you think you can affect global climate change by any measurable amount, no matter what you do.....join Al Gore and write a book, and maybe make some money. And watch the climate change anyway....

[Blue_Sky]

Man's atmospheric CO2 contribution is actually pretty large compared to natural sources.

Carbon exists in a cycle, it is released through numerous other cycles, including those that you mentioned. It is then metabolized by trees and zooplankton, and locked up again. This cycle keeps the atmospheric CO2 levels relatively stable. Every one in a while (geological time) some event (ie. major volcanic eruption) causes this number to shift. This is why the historical numbers we have show many highs and lows.

Humans have placed three different loads on the system. First we have reduced the number of trees on the planet, we have reduced the amount of zooplankton (this one is really complicated) and we have introduced a large quantity of originally sequestered carbon into the atmostphere.

What we see (the atmospheric CO2 level) is just the remainder of what the cycle could not accommodate.

Mathematically, if it all started at x tonnes of carbon to atmostphere and x out per year, we have changed it to y tonnes in and z tonnes out, where y is larger than x and z is smaller than x.
This cumulates in the clear upward trend in atmospheric CO2 values since the start of the industrial revolution.

[andyb]

andyb wrote:
Tzupy has a point, I read somewhere that poles move, and occasionaly a lot in a relativley small timescale, some people claim proof that the earth has actually rotated through 90 or more degrees from where it is right now. I had a bit of a nose around the web regarding this subject and found nothing concrete, but again, I found nothing to prove that the Earth's Poles have always been roughly where they are.


The magnetic poles do move, they even switch directions (where magnetic north is at physical south and vice versa), since the magnetic poles are dependant on currents of magma and those tend to change over time. The rotational poles probably shift a little as well, but not by nearly as much, as it would take a lot of energy to make the entire planet change its rotation (imagine forcibly turning a spinning top).

I got my arse and elbow confused there. Thanks for the info, I will have to re-read all of that at some point.

we have introduced a large quantity of originally sequestered carbon into the atmostphere.

I would like to marketroid that statement.

"We are currently re-introducing CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that the Earth has never seen before, the Earth took hundreds of thousands of years to bury that potential energy, and we can release it all in just a few thousand years to the benefit of all mankind."

----

Strictly speaking all "fosil fuels" are not a one-off, they continue to be created as we speak, but they take far longer to create than they do to burn. But if you sit back and think about it, there was a period in time when "coal" and "oil" were in their infancy when the earth must have been going through "Global Cooling"TM

Essentially what humankind is doing is breaking the rules, we humans can ruin the natrual cycle, and bring on "global warming" or is it "global cooling", I always get confused on this one earlier than nature would if we did not interfere.

But essentially "The Earth"TM wont have changed much in a thousand years, all that would have happened is that we would have brought the next "Hot Age" on earlier, and the next "Ice Age" would be sooner as well. etc etc etc.

I am not saying we should interfere with the planet we live on (abuse) and I am all for using energy efficient lightbulbs and driving electric cars, but the million Dollar question still has not been answered.

"How much are we damaging our planet".

I dont belive "Al-Gore" and his cronies, do any other scientific groups have the balls to disagree or has the huge political momentum of "Global Warming" swept everyone off of their feet.

As a side issue, a friend of mine mentioned the other day that the "Chinese" market for dairy produce has exploded, this means more cows, cows fart, farts have a large proportion of "methane", if you think that CO2 will destry earth.... think again.... Methane will destroy it first.


Andy

PS: A Couple of gassy websites, and the obvious google link.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=
http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html
http://www.heptune.com/farts.html

For those of you who like "South Park" read the last link, I am having a good laugh at that one Phucking great.

[jaganath]

how hard is this to understand? the radiant heat flux from the sun is more or less constant (hence why it is called the solar constant), the rate at which the Earth radiates heat to space is reduced by additional greenhouse gases, therefore the temperature of the Earth will rise. a 2C rise doesn't sound like much, but there is a vast amount of methane (as andy pointed out, a very potent GG) locked up in tundra and methane clathrates, which once released could lead to a runaway warming effect. incidentally, recent astrophysical research has shown that a similar event lies far in the distant geological past of Venus; anyone fancy breathing sulfuric acid and a temperature in the shade of almost 500 deg. C>? no, thought not.

[Trip]

Al Gore invented the Internet, so I think he can handle a little global warming. I'm not worried

(just joking around )

[jaganath]

since a certain person will inevitably cite this article, I will pre-emptively cite it:

http://www.physorg.com/news116996704.html

given the people involved (Singer, Christie) who are well-known anti-AGW rent-a-sceptics, the dissenters get the podium, while everyone knows they're on tendentious ground, in terms of the science. the cosmic ray link is tenuous at best.

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462

the schtick about the satellite and balloon data is also a red herring:

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... ge/dn11660

note it's the usual suspects- Christy, Singer - who are involved.

[Bluefront]

There's no argument from anyone that global climate changes could put an end to life as we know it. But the Al Gore bunch wants to blame man for the recent changes, attempting to scare people into behavior modification.....modification that supposedly would reverse climate change.

Sort of like spitting in the ocean.....sure the volume of liquid in the ocean would change, but not to any significant amount. I tend to think Al Gore's motives in this area are more than simply altruistic. Probably money in his pocket is the real motive.

[Bluefront]

Here's one of the effects of Al Gore's thinking. You buy into it like this particular judge, and you put another nail in the coffin of the US auto industry. For sure everyone wants clean air, but at what cost? Ride a bicycle to work, cut your front lawn with a scissors, turn off your air-conditioner, stop eating hamburgers (cows fart you know)......there are people who want these types of changes, like Al Gore.

[Trip]

Recently I was reading of some proposed changes that would seek to curb carbon emissions in the first world while not in the rest of the world. Such seems unfair to me...

If we really want to fight global warming, America should impose either a pollution tax on goods from polluting states or on those made with poor enviro standards, or else it should refuse the goods entirely.

It's just a wealth transfer to impose higher standards on America which already can't compete with dirt cheap labour. What these guys really want to do is encourage investment in the third world.

[andyb]

You buy into it like this particular judge, and you put another nail in the coffin of the US auto industry.

The US car industry has been making some of the crapiest cars on the planet for some time, another nail in the coffin is not an issue when they put themselves inside the coffin and let Japanese, and European car manufacturers nail them inside. The fact that they make heavy cars with heavy engines that produce little power. They are inefficient, and thus waste energy and cause a lot of polution. This is the same problem as 4x4 vehicles (I like to call them Transit vans), inefficiency.

Recently I was reading of some proposed changes that would seek to curb carbon emissions in the first world while not in the rest of the world. Such seems unfair to me...

If we really want to fight global warming, America should impose either a pollution tax on goods from polluting states or on those made with poor enviro standards, or else it should refuse the goods entirely.

It's just a wealth transfer to impose higher standards on America which already can't compete with dirt cheap labour. What these guys really want to do is encourage investment in the third world.

Well that could be an answer, but the idea is to lead the way, and then blame other countries in the future, and if we did that, we wouldnt see much in the way of goods from the US of A.


Andy

[mexell]

@Bluefront:
About the 2% figure you posted: That's correct. But (with a very big B) it is referring to the total CO2 balance, meaning all carbon dioxide that's produced and used. So in fact, in total we are releasing 2% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is "used up". And this is tremendous. Have you ever looked at the absolute numbers?

We are releasing the additional CO2 almost entirely into atmosphere. But the CO2 storage volume of the atmosphere is very, very low compared to the biosphere or the ocean.

The EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) measured a CO2 concentration of always under 290ppm during the last 750.000 years. During the ice ages, it was about 180ppm. 2002, it was at 375ppm, now it is at an average of 381ppm. And it is developing exponentially since the beginning of industrialisation.

It is true that we do not know the full extent of what is to come, meaning that we don't know fully the quantity of the consequences. But what we know for sure is that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (mark the difference to the term global warming, please).

I don't want to experiment with my children's planet and their future. Let's not find out which catastrophes would come if we raise the CO2 concentrations over the threshold.

We don't know where the threshold is, though. And there are different definitions of which consequences are bearable and which not. That is the real problem which has to be discussed. Climate change, induced by all of us in the rich parts of this world, is a problem we have to face.

[jbw]

I tend to think Al Gore's motives in this area are more than simply altruistic. Probably money in his pocket is the real motive.

You can argue that a) natural cycles have led to global warming and b) Al Gore's proposals won't fix the problem at any rate, but please don't argue that Gore is doing all of this to make money. For Christ's sake man, there are better ways for politicians to make money than taking up a dubious and impossible crusade. Give him some credit for being quixotic, not capitalistic.

[Bluefront]

Global Warming Snowjob.......funny. This link just appeared at the top of this thread.



Would you buy a used car from this guy?

[sanse]

You buy into it like this particular judge, and you put another nail in the coffin of the US auto industry.

The US car industry has been making some of the crapiest cars on the planet for some time, another nail in the coffin is not an issue when they put themselves inside the coffin and let Japanese, and European car manufacturers nail them inside. The fact that they make heavy cars with heavy engines that produce little power. They are inefficient, and thus waste energy and cause a lot of polution. This is the same problem as 4x4 vehicles (I like to call them Transit vans), inefficiency.

in fact american cars are the cleanest since decades. they are not crappy cars, but high-tech computerized vehicles. the high emission-standards for usa-cars of 15 years ago only since a few years are followed in europe. countries with extreme high car-taxes like norway and danmark have in fact the dirtiest cars in the world on the road.

the opinion ventilated above by andyb is well-known, but soooo incorrect.

the usa already had a clean air act (early seventies), when 2-stroke cars were still widely available in europe. europe was and is soooo behind on this compared to the us car-industry.

for the rest: bluefront is right. al gore is doing his co2-crusade only for his own personal aims (getting president? making a LOT of money with publications and lectures on this?), not for our well being or for that of the earth. man-made co2-emissions are neglectible compared to nature-made.

if al gore really was concerned about co2-emissions he would not fly/travel so much and not own the house in the usa with the highest energy-bills.

al gore is a hypocrit.

[mexell]

What? Using half-trucks with 6 litre engines is using clean cars? They may be non-polluting, but please differentiate between

1. Pollution

and

2. Climate change

These two things have almost nothing to do with each other. The SOx emissions of your car, or particle emissions, or whatever besides CO2 are irrelevant for climate change. Face that.

Of course, pollution is a bad thing, and we also have deal with it. But you don't face climate change either if you promote oversized cars with oversized engines with the fuel efficiency of 1980. (Come on, HEMI-V8s are like dinosaurs).

My new Ford Focus Hatchback consumes ~5 litres/100 km, has 115hp, is virtually non-polluting (that's the reason why I get a green badge from the city of Berlin so that I still can drive into the city). And this Ford is not an American car, but it is a German car (developed & produced in Cologne)

Sorry, sanse, thats complete BS you are posting. The energy efficiency of these over-powered cars is just ridiculous. And, Denmark and Norway don't have the dirtiest cars in the world. Please step off your first-world point of view and go anywhere outside Europe or northern America. There you can see dirty cars. And don't forget that the high taxes in DK and NO prevent the people there from buying a new car every few years. That's also a step against pollution and emission - it just doesn't happen in front of your face.

And, I don't want to judge about Al Gore. I don't know this guy, but what we can't honour high enough is the fact that he produces awareness. His private electricity bill is another thing, which was talked about before. I'm not into it, but wasn't the conclusion that he's running his campaign from his home office? If I may cite you:

not own the house in the usa with the highest energy-bills

countries with extreme high car-taxes like norway and danmark have in fact the dirtiest cars in the world on the road.

Do you know that? No? At least one of these arguments is BS (which I know personally). Then don't make absolute statements. If you've got a point worth discussing, then don't throw in statements you can't prove. You are neglecting your entire position with this style of discussion.

[Bluefront]

mexell....when you promote outright lies and half-truths in order to promote "awareness", you are doing no favors to anyone, and you face a backlash when your lies are discovered. That's Al Gore.

I have been in the American automotive industry for a long time, and I've seen what happened every time a US car maker tried to sell a small car....a few were sold, and the rest sat on the lots. The way it is right now.....the big cars and SUVs are sitting on the lots, and the smaller cars are selling.

Don't place the blame on the US car industry....for all these years they made cars that would sell, which is good business. With higher gas prices, US car makers will be making/selling smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles...very shortly. You want a big USA-made car? Get it now....tomorrow it will be gone.

And many people do apparently connect air pollution and global climate change, including that stupid judge in a previous post....I blame the "Al Gore types".

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello Carl,

How does blaming the messenger solve anything? He shared the Nobel prize with at least 2,000 scientists. The science is not wrong on this -- even if it is, what is the harm in trying to reduce our astronomical use of carbon? Why are we stealing it from our children, and saddling them with the "possible" problems (along with the debt to finance the war for oil)?

If Al Gore is wrong -- so what then? If Al Gore is right, then we are in some very deep yogurt.

[jaganath]

My new Ford Focus Hatchback consumes ~5 litres/100 km, has 115hp, is virtually non-polluting (that's the reason why I get a green badge from the city of Berlin so that I still can drive into the city

I'm guessing this is one of the new Focus eCOnetic models?

[nicke2323]

Now that moderators have noticed this thread - please lock it up and throw away the key!!

Please don't let these uninformed loudmouths pollute these otherwise wonderful forums with their misguided nonsense!

To the posters in this thread: here is an excellent summary of current global warming science. This link was posted above, but can use some more PR. It is short, surfer-friendly (click the links that interest you), well-written in layman's English, and scientifically correct with links back to the actual research. Several of points raised in this thread are directly addressed.

New Scientist: 26 climate myths debunked

Read it, learn something and STFU.

[Bluefront]

So "the sky is falling".....Neil? Disrupt your life, the economy, overturn everything that you have grown to depend on, to enjoy.....all because some crack-pot ideas have become the "in" thing today. Right....nothing wrong there at all.