Global warming becomes even harder to deny...

I wonder what George Bush thinks or is he still in denial?

How realistic is this scenerio?

1. Continuing release of CO2 continues to raise the average temparature of the globe.

2. As a result, the salinity of the arctic ocean drops, since the ice is melting and the there is increased flow from Siberian rivers.

3. The gulf stream stops flowing

4. With the gulf stream no longer suppling the deep ocean with cold/dense water, the hotter surface temparatures reach deeper, and the deep ocean shrinks.

5. Once the the ocean temparature reaches 18 C at 300-2000 feet, it triggers the release of methane from the continental shelves.

6. The methane accelerates global warming, pushing us into another thermal maximum event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoce...hermal_Maximum

Much of the talk on global warming is fabricated by those who hate capitalism and want to destroy our economy.

Why are you such a f*cking liar! It's not very Christian of you.

You're apparently forgetting that the most economically successful state in the country has emissions and fuel economy laws a good two times higher than federal mandates.

Hey Moe! Why would anyone believe someone who says he's leaving, and makes a big deal about it, and then comes back under a different handle?


Another link about the same report : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/?GT1=8211

Of course Moe is so blatant about his conservative viewpoint I still kind of wonder if he's real.

How "Al Goreish" of you. Thanks for posting it. In "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore explains this part (what you just posted) with pretty pictures.

I encourage everyone to go watch this movie. I've seen it 3 times with different people I invited. I plan on inviting as many as I can too.

I'm a bit of a n00b on this topic so don't shoot me, but I was under the impression that the gulf stream actually provides warmth, not coldness.

It moves warmth and coldness around, it doesn't add energy where there was none before or anything.

The flow starts out in the arctic, where water freezes, leaving denser saltier water which sinks. The cold water runs south along the bottom of the ocean, and later warm water comes back north along the surface.


I haven't seen it yet. "Al Goreish" - compliment or insult?

Actually, if we are in the process of recreating the Eocene, then more power to us. I doubt that we could stop the global warming trend, we should spend more time figuring out how to enter the eocene directly without a thermal maximum type extinction event. Maybe we could start harvesting and burning the methane? because CO2 is a lot less dangerous that mass releases of methane...

Sorry, I thought it was clear it was a compliment. Go watch the movie. You'll enjoy all the information/data which you seem to be familiar with.

Much of the talk denying global warming is fabricated by those who hate climatic stability and want to destroy our civilisation.

Your right! pay no attention to those glaciers that have melted,pay no attention to the gulf stream temps or rising sea levels,pay no attention to the worst hurricane season on record,pay no attention to the billions of tons of crud we poor into the atmosphere and pay no attention that not for a tropical storm coming by where I live we wouldnt have had a drop of rain in 3 months. Your right its just a bunch of Liberals making stuff up. Bad Liberals.

Seems its the way Republicans deal with everything, just Spin & Lie do it enough people will think its gospel.

Good one!

Putting aside the obvious biast of CNN's article for a second, let's look at this quote. It all comes down to what I've been saying here for several months now.

We don't have confidence in temp data before 1600

We didn't have truly accurate temp readings before the middle of the 20th century (1/10th of a degree or better)

The Earth experiences warming and cooling cycles lasting hundreds if not thousands of years. Most recent examples are quoted above.

The article and report draw several conclusions that cannot be drawn with any certainty. If CO2 is responsible for warming, then how do we explain that warm period that lasted for nearly 400 years beginning in the year 1000? Answer: We can't. It happened on its own. Man made CO2 levels and "warming" may very well just be a coincidence. Given what we know about warming and cooling cycles, there is more evidence for it being a conincidence than not.

But as usual, most here on AI will dismiss these criticisms as seg did preemptively in his opening post. But SDW! IT's the National Academy of Sciences!!! will be the response. Never mind that it's a private organzation making sweeping claims with data that is essentially unknowable.

So you are saying it is like the church? 8)

It is essentially unknowable, therefore, we will assume what is most conducive to lack of regulation. Good one.

Why do you think I oppose regulation?

Let's assume I answer "yes" to that. This brings to mind some questions.

Does anyone question the church?

Are such inquirers mocked, or embraced by the liberal left?


Seems to me that global warming proponents, environmentalists and liberals in general are perfectly willing to question assertions that don't fit their worldview, but those that do? Well, those theories are accepted as fact.

I don't think you're qualified to make such a statement. The people who study this as their livelihood think the opposite. To them, the evidence is strong enough to favor global warming. Even if they are wrong about the conclusions, the evidence is on their side. Obviously, there is evidence and theories against global warming, but I don't think theres more against than for.

You know, there is so much nonsense in what you post defending what every day becomes more indefensible that it's a waste of time to even address your lame excuses.

How ironic that you posted a thread entitled Gorebot when it's pretty clear that you're a big time apology propagandist. A REPUBLIBOT.

Fortunately,reliable folks are monitoring this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvVppXSTWM

Does that woman take herself seriously?

This is a good graph of the data. It shows that this larger study (right) confirmed the findings of the earlier study (left).

In the future, such graphs should be addressed the same way supposed screenshots from future OS X versions are. That is, we need an "IT'S FAKE!!" camp and a "CONFIRMED!!" camp, and we need lots of ridiculous reasons of why it must be true or can't be true, like pixel 4901 is off or the wrong color.

I'll start: the anti-aliasing of the "High confidence" is inconsistent between the left and right sides.

no need to actually look at the evidence in order to dismiss it. if it favors global warming, it was clearly fabricated by the vast left wing conspiracy, which is trying to force communism on us in order to destroy the economy. the only question left is, how many babies did these scientists eat before making up the graph?

Is it possible to get the data that was used to construct these graphs? Surely is it published somehere.

Write the authors of the study.

Those must be the same scientists who want to legalize gay marriage. Kill them!!!! (in christian sort of way!)

Still nobody has addressed my question, why not pretend global warming is definite and switch to alternative energies when, global warming or no global warming, we'll reduce oil dependence and increase the electricity available on the grid? You conservatives are just looking for an excuse not to.

Because it would cost money in terms of research and infrastructure, and it would force many people to rethink.

People don't like to think, and even less, they like to rethink.

Unless it's really forced upon them. Which is gonna happen somewhere between the US adopting proper units and the UK adopting proper English.

Here's the actual study.

Unlike your dubious sources.

If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable - even if you manage to reduce CO2 on a per-country basis, that just reduced the prices of carbon based fuels, and other countries burn more. Trying to convince the Republicans and trying to reduce emissions are both a waste of time.

We should spend our time and energy trying to predict the changes that will occur, and figure out our survival plans. The battle over conservation is mental masterbation.

It is, it is. And maybe, maybe not. If the alternatives are better and cleaner than carbon based fuels, and at the right price, people will adopt them. Change starts from within. As technology evolves, it will be a personal choice to rely on the electricity grid $$ or be independent from it 0$ for example.

It will be about a super fast electric car like Ian Wright's $100,000 (for now)Wrightspeed X1 that does 0-60 in 3 seconds and beats almost any exotic car that burns fossil fuel and is uber expensive....and slower and "dirtier" cars. In fact only the Bugatti Veyron with its $1,200,000 price is faster than the Wrightspeed.

You guys are thinking old school. At the pace technology appears to be moving, we will have very cool energy saving or even independent alternatives. It won't have to be the early adopters, hippies or the "treehuggers" embracing those alternatives. We will ALL have options.

Let me give you a recent example that's not really about energy alternatives completely, but about the change of people perception of things.

I'm a huge motocross fan. For a couple decades, most mx bikes had 2 stroke engines....a mixture of oil and gasoline. In 1997 Yamaha became the first major manufacturer to experiment with 4 stroke high performance engines. Doug Henry was the ONLY rider racing a four stroke bike.

Two stroke and four stroke bikes make distinct sounds so it was always easy to spot or hear Doug approaching at the races. It was a novelty. Something that would "never catch on". He was the underdog riding the funny sounding bike so everybody cheered him and his Yamaha YZF400 when he came by at the tracks.

In 1998...just a year later....Doug Henry won the 250cc motocross championship on...you guessed it...a 4 stroke bike. Fast forward to 2006. This year, every major manufacturer sells both two stroke and four stroke bikes. However, if you manage to go to a National Motocross race this year, you'll notice something very "strange". Not a single top 40 rider on what used to be the 125cc. or 250cc championships races two stroke bikes.

Let me repeat that. Not ONE top professional rider rides two stroke bikes anymore. In 5 years, 4 stroke motocross bikes went from novelties, to mainstream. That, thanks to new environmental laws that prefer the cleaner running 4 stroke engines.

We don't have unlimited reserves of fossil fuels so the price of them is not going to come down drastically. The days of $1.70/gallon are over. (I'm in California)

Thinking that convincing the Reps. and trying to reduce emmisions is a waste of time is defeatist. We will all be able to vote twice to make these changes happen faster. Politically and with our wallets.

I for one intend to make a LOT of money working to bring those choices to the marketplace. But that's another story.

Your electric cars are fueled by coal based power plants. Nuclear is only an option if we use breeder reactors, since we will run out of uranium otherwise, but we can't trust most of the world with breeder reactors (due to nuclear weapons). 85% of our power generation capacity produces CO2, and we have to quintuple that capacity in the next 40 years as the 3rd world westernises. Hydroelectric is close to being maxed out. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power are pipe dreams, not able to scale enough to make a difference.

Hope for fusion, plan for coal.

how true
what about the medieval warming period?? all the stuff they talk about fails to explain why the mwp and why the little ice age started, why it stopped....they keep rehashing the same hash man. chicken littles.

We have to stop using oil now anyways, with Peak Oil and all.

What if they are right and global warming is really happening due to human activity? If we act now, we can help make the problem less; if we do nothing, then the cost of cleanup later will more than off-set any immediate impact on our economy, and might even be too late to correct the wrongs.

If they are wrong, so what, it might cost a little in the short term to change our ways, but we will be the better for it. When we are discussing survival, I for one hope we don't selfishly choose the wrong path.

There is plenty of money to be made in a "green" fashion; it's just that big business is too lame to act responsibly and wishes to complain about tthe cost of transferring over and government is controlled by big business (how many politicians are businessmen? how many are blue-collar workers? Cheney, for example, was chairman of which company? Bush owned what company?). Then they create the image of fear that attempts to act responsibly are a threat to our way of life, blahh blah blah. What they mean is it is a minor threat to THEIR wallets in the short term, and therefore is a crime against humanity. The sad thing is how many common folk actually fall for the story.

Right now they are for the most part...but what if your house was energy independent? Did you consider that? Then "my" superfast and efficient electric car would just be another appliance.
I suggest you do more research. And I can't verify or challenge your figures right now. There's other technologies besides the ones you mentioned. I am drinking out of a cup made out of corn right now and you couldn't tell the difference between a plastic one and this one.

As inneficient as solar is right now, it's getting better and it will become more efficient. Like any technology. Like all those technologies you mentioned. New cheaper/materials are being developed all the time. How do you define a pipe dream by the way? All those technologies are available right now inefficient or not...at a higher price for now....and if you know they will never be able to "scale enough to make a difference"...well...send me tomorrow's lotto numbers if you don't mind.

What I hope for is for humans to make a responsible choice and do their part as individuals and not become defeatists. That's what I hope. But hey, most inventors heard how their inventions/experiments were nothing but "pipe dreams" and how they would never work. History is full of examples....of how the naysayers and defeatists were wrong.

Who would've thought 100 years ago that today we'd be communicating over these "internets"....wirelessly from our couches in our living rooms via portable laptop computers in front of our 42" LCD screens while watching overseas newschannels in real time?