I think you are mixing your terms. 6% is the relative percentage of total carbon emissions of man vs. nature. This is a metaphor, so give some slack. But imagine you have a scale. Imagine the scale is more or less balanced with 100 lbs on each side. Perhaps there is some stochastic resonance that makes it wobble or the fan in the corner of the room blows on it now and then to make it wobble, but more or less blanced. Now add about 2 lbs. to one side every year. (Nature can take up about 60% of the man made carbon as an overflow of natural carbon emissions). Pretty soon one side is very much heavier than the other. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased about 20% in the past 50 years. see graph I think someone in the anti global warming strategy camp somewhere decided to make this an issue about Al Gore after his little movie (which I haven't seen). For discussing whether global warming is anthropogenic or not, Al Gore is totally irrelevant and only serves as a Red Herring to distract from the science. I'm not accusing you of trying to alter the terms of discussion, but every discussion I have had about the environment in the past year has turned into an anti-Al Gore rant. The environment existed before Al Gore, just as the internet did. Don't get caught up in this talking point. The existence or lack of existance of anthropogenic global warning has nothing to do with Al Gore, no mater how much you dislike him. This is not an accurate figure (the agreed figure is .7 deg Celsius, and nobody with any credibility blames specific weather event on climate change. Instead, the frequency and average intensity of climate events will change at some point, but it is far from clear where that is. Above is the solar irradiance temprature graph which I already presented as evidence. It was made by the Max Planck institute and is available on its website. The same Max Planck institute that is dirrected by this Dr Sami Solanki, the primary individual in the article. The graph shows a warming of the sun, but as a nominal fraction of total irradiance as I already said. And Dr. Solanki goes on to agree with me: This issue of cosmic rays on the ozone layer and cloud cover has been the subject of study. This idea was first introduced by Drs. Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991, the two Danes who manipulated evidence as indicated in the EOS article. Other people believed it was a legitimate path of inquiry, and so studies were done. It turns out there is no relationship. Read the EOS article again to find references. click here to see a graph indicating the lack of a relationship between Galactic Cosmic Rays (from the sun) and global tempratures. The author does rightly mention the LIA, as I already have. I have never said that solar variablilty can not affect the climate, just that it is not doing it for this present period of warming.
Ottomaton, 1) You really should see the movie. 2) Al Gore is a politician not a PhD scientist. 3) The reason many are all talking more about global warming and we are starting to address it is because of Al Gore, whether his details are exact or not. Isn't that a good thing?
I have a thick enough skin that you can pick on me much worse than this if you want. I certainly would like to believe that I can receive what I give, though that may be a conceit. In one sense I agree, but if the messenger poisons the message for a good part of the population... For instance, if Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did a documentary on some subject that you are not particularly familiar with; can you not see how it might prejudice you on the subject? I agree that it is great that the subject is out there, but apparently he is a very polarizing figure for some of the people he needs to convince and the subject often turns to a debate about whether Al Gore is a good man or a crook, based on my limited experimental testing. Ultimately down the line, when no body alive remembers Al Gore, the history books and general perception will say nice things about his role in the subject, the way people talk about Teddy Roosevelt every time the discussion becomes about what a great thing the National Park system is no matter if you agree with his politics or not. I wasn't trying to state my opinion about Al Gore. I like him just fine. I was just saying that I realize some people dislike him but that it is possible to dislike Al Gore and be concerned about the environment.
This has nothing to do with thick skin. I really mean peace to you, though I may often disagree with your positions. Let me say that you are obviously a very smart and well read guy. Of course since Al is a Democrat he is very polarizing for some folks. Would it be better if America's most beloved scientist had the ability to generate the interest that the scientific amateur Gore has? Yes. A critic of a book or, the author's role in a debate concering the topic of the book, has more credibility if he has read the book. See the movie. It only takes 2 hrs. It has brillant graphics and is better than any college lecture I have heard-- at least in style. It won an Oscar after all, and it wasn't just because they are all liberals in Hollywood.
For the love of God........ Global warming isn't caused by humans or combustion engines, or anything else humans have contributed. The earth's climate shifts; doesn't stay constant. Al Gore can take his theory and shove it. End of thread.
Agreed. I intend to watch it in the near future, and I will do my best to me less agressive. FWIW, I do respect your positions and intentions more than it probably seems. Every time we've tangled, everything seems to be more angry and agressive when I review it later than it sounded in my mind when it was being written.
interestin, I thought they ethanol is a huge success in Brazil. I knew there was a controversy about the fuel being used to produce ethanol, but not that it was harmful to cities which already have high pollution
They use sugar based ethanol there which is much more energy efficient than the corn produced nonsense we produce. In fact, its been well documented about how energy inefficient corn ethanol is. (The Bush admin's highly touted energy bill actually prohibited sugar based ethanol as a favor to protect the agriculture industry here) Although we are also producing other forms of biofuel that have more energy potential but Brazil is lightyears ahead of us in terms of technology on ethanol and updating their infrastructure to make use of the ethanol economy there.
Whatever, Rollins band... We believe you. BTW, where is MacBeth these days? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxrd_jZJxkg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxrd_jZJxkg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
No it didn't. There are two ethanol plants in South Louisiana now that use sugarcane as feed, and more are planned. Corn is being used much more heavily for two reasons: Existing subsidies mean that that it is a cheaper process mostly due to feed, and as a country, we have much more farmland suitable to growing corn than growing sugarcane.
A very smart and well thought of contribution to this thread. Since scientist are not even sure if Global warming is increased by humans, but i'm sure you are an expert since you claim that it is not caused by Humans. Nobody knows if human increase global warming, but it is good to keep an open mind, something that is apperantly not your strong point last point it is not Al Gore's theory. He just agrees with thhe theory.
We got a whole lot more corn growers than sugar cane and they've got a powerful lobby. Its no accident that the most widely used sweetener in the US is high fructose corn syrup.
i wasnt trying to come off picking on al gore. i dont like him and i never voted for him or clinton, but my feelings on global warming are not clouded by any hatred of the man. im not hung up on him or anything, as you seem to allude. i only made one little comment about the guy and how one of his solutions to global warming is a "carbon tax". i didnt mean to single him out either (he is the most prominent though) - he is one of many who is calling for carbon taxes and the like. i was merely pointing out that the politicians answer for global warming is to hit us up w/ a carbon tax - he and many others have called for it, have they not? i dont know how me stating one little fact about gore makes it an "anti-al gore rant". you seem a little overly defensive of the dude. honestly, more so than global warming, i am concerned w/ what we are doing to our oceans, rivers and lakes - all the fish are filled w/ mercury. and i dont even like swimming in the ocean anymore. i am concerned about the effects of genetically modified crops. i am concerned about all the bees dying off. there are real environmental problems out there that need to be addressed.
The downs on the bottom chart are ice ages, the ups are warming periods. Over the course of 400,000 years the shift has not been so dramatic... and temps closely track the CO2 levels.
there was alot of stuff last week talking about how scientists/researchers think it is cell phones and towers. bees have a built in homing device which tells them where the hive is and the theory is that cell phones are effecting their navigation systems - the workers get lost from the hive and the hive dies. bee populations have decreased by 60-70% in america and western europe. the other theory i had been hearing was that the genetically modified crops are killing them. i read an einstein quote that said we will only have 4 years if the bees ever die off.
^ There's many theories regarding bee deaths but one of the ones I've heard is that changing temperatures are contributing to more bee parasites.
Ummm...question. Who was there to track the temps or CO2 levels 4,000 years ago? My main point in all this is that there are a lot of things we don't know (climate shifts, etc). Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is "CO2 readings...so easy a caveman can do it."
