"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Is that what happens when you let Al Gore pick the line up?

(We don't have a sick smilie...)

Unfortunately, this is the line-up you pick when you want as many people as possible to watch.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

There is a better graph in the Wikipedia entry for global warming.

Nice graph... sooo... what do the nay-sayers say about it? Has this picture been manipulated by the enviro-nuts to make it seem like there's a relationship? Obviously there must be something missing here... this makes it look like CO2 and Global Warming are... related. Blasphemy.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Nice graph... sooo... what do the nay-sayers say about it? Has this picture been manipulated by the enviro-nuts to make it seem like there's a relationship? Obviously there must be something missing here... this makes it look like CO2 and Global Warming are... related. Blasphemy.

Its a coincidences. The earth has had conincidences happen in cycles, and we're just in a period of coincidences now. Did you know that scientists in the 70's thought the ammount of coincidences was declining? Everyone knows coincidences are caused by solar flares anyways

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Its a coincidences. The earth has had conincidences happen in cycles, and we're just in a period of coincidences now. Did you know that scientists in the 70's thought the ammount of coincidences was declining? Everyone knows coincidences are caused by solar flares anyways

The graph is obviously fake. I mean look at it! I know that it's fake because I just don't believe what it says. It's fake, the data are fake, global warming is fake, the link between warming and greenhouse gases is fake. It's all fake!

It's obviously a conspiracy by global corporations and international socialists to make us believe in global warming. Those sickos!

[Jake]

Do you have a better copy of that graph? I can't see either axis.

[photon]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The problem now is the whole world seems to have this attitude. China says they aren't going to worry about it until the US does, because the US created the problem in the first place. Canada says, why us? We're just tiny and it won't matter. We'll do it when the US/China does it. I'm sure if the US started the ball rolling people would follow, but I really don't see that happening. Someone has to be first. Sure we can't make much of an impact if just Canada does it, but if you get 10 countries with similar C02 output to Canada on board all the sudden you are getting somewhere. Eventually, the last countries to hold out will be pressured into following.

I don't think that we should do nothing, but I also don't want to see the other extreme (where the environment is leveraged for political gain and we cripple our economy or something just so party can gain power or something). I don't think that the choice is one of the other either; the government should be fostering green tech companies, become a leader in the world from the point of view of leading the people to make green choices and leading in developing new green technologies.. then we still make our impact, stand to gain significantly if we happen to land on a technology which countries like China use, and protect against weaking ourselves in the world economy.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Nice graph... sooo... what do the nay-sayers say about it? Has this picture been manipulated by the enviro-nuts to make it seem like there's a relationship? Obviously there must be something missing here... this makes it look like CO2 and Global Warming are... related. Blasphemy.

"nay-sayers"? Nice.

The graph is also nice, but raises a few questions:

(1) What is the time scale on the graph? If the time between now and 40-50 years from now is so short, why did they stop plotting the temperature line?

(2) It's hard to see, since the picture of the graph is taken from the side, is the temperature line offset or are they both happening at the same time? If offset, by how long?

(3) Has there been proof that CO2 directly causes Temperature or are they both responses to something else? Is there a third thing which causes CO2 and temperature? (for math types: c = x^2 +100 (to shift it up) and t = x^2)

(4) Around the time of the 3rd label on the bottom from the left, the temperature drops significantly but the CO2 level is still high for a period of time. Why?

To simply look at the graph doesn't tell much, other than there is some kind of a relationship but no statement can be made about what kind of relationship.

Playing devil's advocate: What if there is a third stimuli which directly causes both of these on a 1-1 relationship. This would provide a baseline which then can be added to - say the extra human generation of CO2 to boost the levels on the gas. Have scientists been able to rule this kind of thing out (with more than just a "you're an idiot how dare you question it" type philosophy)?

[Jake]

I agree, I don't see why it is so ridiculous to question that graph. You can't even see the axis labels or scale.

However everytime you question something like that, you are just furthering the 'denial machine'.

Saying that CO2 is the lone factor effecting temperature is ridiculous. What about sunspots (which show a strong relationship), internal heat, the CO2 cycle, other emissions, temperature cycles (most of the last 600 million years was actually warmer than today) and the heat retention characteristics of all of the green house gases?

How do you know whether its changes in CO2 levels effecting the temperature or changes in temperature effecting CO2 levels? Maybe its a mix of both.

Also, is it foolish to question where the data came from? Most long term temperature records were taken were taken in urban area, which are hotter.

Before becoming so opinionated on this topic, you should be consider these questions.

Proving global warming is not as simple as finding a relationship between two variables. The reason nobody has been able to do it is because there are so many factors that must be considered.

[Bill Bumface]

Nope... no correlation here...

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Playing devil's advocate: What if there is a third stimuli which directly causes both of these on a 1-1 relationship. This would provide a baseline which then can be added to - say the extra human generation of CO2 to boost the levels on the gas. Have scientists been able to rule this kind of thing out (with more than just a "you're an idiot how dare you question it" type philosophy)?

Originally Posted by Jake

Saying that CO2 is the lone factor effecting temperature is ridiculous. What about sunspots (which show a strong relationship), internal heat, the CO2 cycle, other emissions, temperature cycles (most of the last 600 million years was actually warmer than today) and the heat retention characteristics of all of the green house gases?

How do you know whether its changes in CO2 levels effecting the temperature or changes in temperature effecting CO2 levels? Maybe its a mix of both.

Of course, things like this are always possible. Its also possible that overweight people don't get overweight because they eat too much, but there is some third factor that causes both increased food intake and weight gain. Its not likely though, because we know food is metabolized into fats. Just as we know for sure we emit carbon dioxide in very large amounts, and we know carbon dioxide reflects sun rays back to the earth. Sure it might be something else, but not likely. Really not likely.

Also, is it foolish to question where the data came from? Most long term temperature records were taken were taken in urban area, which are hotter.

Yes, it is foolish. These are from ice cores in the Arctic/Antarctic. Not to many bustling cities in those areas.

Proving global warming is not as simple as finding a relationship between two variables. The reason nobody has been able to do it is because there are so many factors that must be considered.

Hundreds of scientists have already found this relationship. Look at the graph, its really not hard. (And yes, they've gone more in depth than looking at squiggly lines that look similar, its just that ANYONE can see that relationship for themselves quite easily. Its not complicated).

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

The graph clearly shows one is related to the other. And I'm up for playing Devil's Advocate also. Are CO2 levels the cause of temperature increase, or is the temperature increase the cause CO2 levels? Discuss!

Edit: Upon further examination of the graph, there appears to be spikes in the CO2 levels approxmately every 100,000 years and as it stands right now, the current spike doesn't appear out of place. Also, is it just me, or is there in fact a slight lag between the temperature change and CO2 levels?

Edit 2: nm. I see the location of the current CO2 level heh. Has anyone ever performed an experiment involving CO2 and surface temperature? Again I would think other polllutants like sulphur and chlorine ions levels making total sense in global warming. But to me, CO2 comes off as being so harmless, being such a stable substance and all.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Unfortunately, this is the line-up you pick when you want as many people as possible to watch.

Yeah, I know, but my smart quotes and arguments were buried...

Brutal lineup

[Vulcan]

Man, I can't wade through this whole thread but the argument reminds me of the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Do people who don't smoke get lung cancer, sure, but if you want to increase your chances of being healthy, don't smoke and in this case don't pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Hundreds of scientists have already found this relationship. Look at the graph, its really not hard. (And yes, they've gone more in depth than looking at squiggly lines that look similar, its just that ANYONE can see that relationship for themselves quite easily. Its not complicated).

I'm going to need more proof than just that graph. In numerous places, the temperature goes up long before the CO2 level does, and in numerous other places, the temperature goes down long before the CO2 level does.

In my mind, there is no way (from the graph) that it can be automatically and completely determined that CO2 causes temperature. Are they related? Sure look to be, but that doesn't mean it's a causal relationship.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Man, I can't wade through this whole thread but the argument reminds me of the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Do people who don't smoke get lung cancer, sure, but if you want to increase your chances of being healthy, don't smoke and in this case don't pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

I don't think very many people are saying "pollute to your heart's content" if any at all. Most I've seen fully admit that pollution needs to change, but not at any cost.

Debating the graphs is something totally and completely different.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Nope... no correlation here...

1. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation

2. If anything this graph (on its own) leads me to believe that CO2 is a result of temperature. Look at the time between 650 and 625 KYA note that the red line (temperature) spikes first and is followed by the blue line (CO2). Also observe at about 15 KYA where the orange (temp.) line spikes significantly before the blue (CO2) line.

~bug

[Cowperson]

Hottest January on planet Earth in recorded human history (about 1880).

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/sci....ap/index.html

Apparently this is good news for shephards in Nepal . . . . but that's in a different story.

Cowperson

[calculoso]

- Record fueled by waning El Nino, warming world, according to scientists

Can we blame El Nino on CO2 too?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

- Record fueled by waning El Nino, warming world, according to scientists

Can we blame El Nino on CO2 too?

Possibly. The oceans play a HUGE role in CO2.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I'm going to need more proof than just that graph. In numerous places, the temperature goes up long before the CO2 level does, and in numerous other places, the temperature goes down long before the CO2 level does.

In my mind, there is no way (from the graph) that it can be automatically and completely determined that CO2 causes temperature. Are they related? Sure look to be, but that doesn't mean it's a causal relationship.

Thats why I said that they've done more than just look at this graph This is just further evidence that there is a temperature/CO2 relationship. Lab experiments and various observations indicate its CO2 being the cause and temperature increase being the effect.