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

[Jake]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Possibly. The oceans play a HUGE role in CO2.

As I mentioned earlier there have been no studies on the oceans role with CO2 in global warming. I don't think we should react to something that may not even be happening, until we know for sure. It would be like taking tylenol every day because you might be sick, but in reality it is doing more harm than good.

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

Alot of the graphs that global warming activists use are not. I have no idea where your graph came from.

Taking a measurements from just one spot on the Earth does not indicate the global temperature average. In fact global warming will actually make some parts of the world cooler (mainly europe) due to ocean currents. I'd say it is foolish to use them as your main source of evidence.

Another thing about those graphs that I hate is how they don't start from zero on the CO2 axis. It makes the flutuations look alot more dramatic than they really are.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

As I mentioned earlier there have been no studies on the oceans role with CO2 in global warming.

Oh, really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr(-1) is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

Originally Posted by Jake

I don't think we should react to something that may not even be happening, until we know for sure. It would be like taking tylenol every day because you might be sick, but in reality it is doing more harm than good.

So.... reducing emissions might do more harm than good? OK, I see. I can only assume that this is some version of the "economic doomsday" argument. But the fact is, economic predictions have historically been far more thorny than climatological ones. My guess is that you know no more than I do about the economic effects--and our best guess is not very good. Isn't it just as likely that moving to reduce emissions will spark a new cycle of innovations that will cause economic growth in new sectors? Even if you're dubious about that--you ought to be persuaded that the long-term economic consequences of doing nothing far outweigh whatever doomsday scenario you might concoct. The IPCC addresses this very issue in their report. Since you like graphs, here's a link to one (I'd paste it in, but it's kind of big):
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/08.17.jpg

Alot of the graphs that global warming activists use are not. I have no idea where your graph came from.

I don't know where hulkrogan's graph came from either. But that one came from the IPCC, which has synthesized the work of over 2500 scientists from institutions around the world. Your use of the term "global warming activists" makes me think that you believe that this information is coming from lobby groups. It isn't. It's coming from scientists doing original peer-reviewed research.

Taking a measurements from just one spot on the Earth does not indicate the global temperature average. In fact global warming will actually make some parts of the world cooler (mainly europe) due to ocean currents. I'd say it is foolish to use them as your main source of evidence.

Good thing that isn't what they're doing, then!

Another thing about those graphs that I hate is how they don't start from zero on the CO2 axis. It makes the flutuations look alot more dramatic than they really are.

Maybe you'll like these better:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/02.01.jpg

Note that on these, it's the right side axis (radiative forcing) that starts at zero, in order to standardize the graphs. In each case what's important is the trend, which is easily evident. As a result, each graph takes the baseline level to be theoretically zero, which actually if you think about it should make the fluctuations look LESS dramatic, by your logic.

IPCC has a ton of great charts. Many of them talk about oceans, by the way.

[Jake]

Oh, really?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

You may want to read more than just the abstract... all they did was use a computer model to simulate the carbon cycle, rather than studying it directly in real life. The only real life data recorded was from one location (Muana Loa). That must have been why there was only about one page of discussion.

As for the economic costs... the graph you provided was for "Global Costs of Extreme Weather Events". First of all proving those events were caused by global warming would be a difficult task. Second, I don't think it should suprise anyone that extreme weather events are costing us more and more... we are populating more areas of the earth and building larger, more expensive things. Also, I'm not sure what their definition is of an extreme weather event.

I agree that new innovations will spark new sectors to the economy. Thats a given. However I said in another thread about Kyoto that the possible benefit is far outweighed by the cost. Kyoto would have an imperceptable effect on future temperatures. We would be better off putting that money towards more research and educating the public (for some reason I don't trust Bono to do it...). Then maybe we could come up with a better solution (if one is needed).

Good thing that isn't what they're doing, then!

Then how are they doing it? You just can't go anywhere in the world and find an ice core like in the far north/south (thats a genuine question).

I hate what we do to the environment, most of my major interests lie in it (I'm a marine science major), but the situation on global warming is not as clear as some are making it out to be. Why is the climatic cycle argument (which has come up a few times in this thread) not valid? I've seen alot of data that shows a strong relationship between sunspots/temperature, internal heat/temperature, CO2/temperature etc. They all seem to have had a consistent pattern in earths history. Right now we're living in the 4th or 5th (I forget exactly...) glacial period in earths history. Maybe its ending.

Anyways I'm tired... I'm just sick of hearing rock stars and what not preach about how the earth is doomed. If activists want to send a message, send it through some one who knows what they are talking about (eg not snoop or Akon)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

You may want to read more than just the abstract... all they did was use a computer model to simulate the carbon cycle, rather than studying it directly in real life. The only real life data recorded was from one location (Muana Loa). That must have been why there was only about one page of discussion.

Well, if you didn't like that one, there were hundreds of others, at least enough to disprove your sort of weird claim that there are "no studies" about the role of the ocean in atmospheric CO2. In any case, as a marine science major, you probably already know that computer models are pretty much the gold standard for making climate predictions--stands to reason, doesn't it?

I'm not a marine scientist or a climatologist--but when you claimed there were "no studies" of the role of oceans in global warming, I suspected that was an overstatement--and it was. Moving the bar now doesn't help--climate science and computer models go together like peanut butter and jelly, it's a reality of the trade.

As for the economic costs... the graph you provided was for "Global Costs of Extreme Weather Events". First of all proving those events were caused by global warming would be a difficult task. Second, I don't think it should suprise anyone that extreme weather events are costing us more and more... we are populating more areas of the earth and building larger, more expensive things. Also, I'm not sure what their definition is of an extreme weather event.

Take another look--the costs are projected through 2080, and those extreme weather events ARE linked to global warming. This is again only one of dozens of graphs showing data from both computer projections and data collected in the world--along with charts and figures offering both the theory behind global warming science and possible solutions to the problem. One part that may interest you is that they project what they estimate the economic costs of emissions reductions. Take a look--they're significant, but if you're predicting a doomsday scenario, you may be surprised.

However--and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but one thing you said a few posts ago really struck me. Your willingness to label 2500 scientists from around the world as "global warming activists" makes me think that you won't believe anything they say--and that's your prerogative. I am curious, though--are you waiting for 3000? 4000? How many climate scientists have to say that anthropogenic climate change is unequivocally happening before you'll believe them?

I agree that new innovations will spark new sectors to the economy. Thats a given. However I said in another thread about Kyoto that the possible benefit is far outweighed by the cost.

We've already established that this is not a discussion of Kyoto. Look through the thread. Not one person in this thread has advocated Kyoto as a solution to the problem.

I hate what we do to the environment, most of my major interests lie in it (I'm a marine science major), but the situation on global warming is not as clear as some are making it out to be. Why is the climatic cycle argument (which has come up a few times in this thread) not valid? I've seen alot of data that shows a strong relationship between sunspots/temperature, internal heat/temperature, CO2/temperature etc. They all seem to have had a consistent pattern in earths history. Right now we're living in the 4th or 5th (I forget exactly...) glacial period in earths history. Maybe its ending.

The IPCC would disagree. Since you seem to be at least able to read scientific papers, unlike many people who participate in this argument, you might familiarize yourself with their findings. According to them, anthropogenic global warming is definitive and unequivocal. I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm inclined to believe them, based on the pedigree of their members, over a group of loonies like the American Enterprise Institute.

As far as the "celebrities" thing goes, I agree. People need to be having conversations about the science, not about Snoop Dogg. I'm not sure what the answer is, though--if those people want to help, who am I to tell them not to? For me, it's much more valuable to actually educate ourselves about the issue.

[Stranger]

Al Gore's average electric bill is $1359/month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033

I almost fell off my chair when I read how much his electric bill was. Makes mine look like small potatoes. His house is nine times bigger than mine, but still.

[Azure]

Yeah I saw that too.

Interesting to say the least. Why wouldn't he rely more on solar power or something?

[Stranger]

Just what I was thinking Azure. If he is going to tell everyone to be more environmentally friendly, Gore should step up and do so himself. He obviously is loaded. Spend the cash and get a solar powered house.

He says he invests enough money in environmentally friendly causes, so it offsets what he spends on his electric bill. The man spends more on his power than alot Americans make in a year. Over $16,000 a year.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Stranger

He says he invests enough money in environmentally friendly causes, so it offsets what he spends on his electric bill.

That's a really lame excuse. "I can use a lot of electricity because I do other nice things for the environment". Why not do other nice things for the environment and not use a lot of electricity?

If this is true then he's not in a position to preach to anyone else.

I know it's a big house, but they are only two people there. Do they have a ferris wheel plugged in in there or something? That's a lot of juice for a couple oldsters to be going through.

[Bobblehead]

What if he was paying for the "Green power", like what the C-Train does?

Apparently one of the gifts for Oscar presenters were Carbon Credits equal to the value of how much an average hollywood person generates in a year.

[Devils'Advocate]

It really is an unfortunate mess.

Gore is gets ripped for his electricity bill. Suzuki gets ripped for his deisel bus. The rich and wealthy will do what the rich and wealthy do; waste. They cannot be taken seriously as environmental stewards.

I on the other hand, those that actually give a damn to make serious changes in their lives are people that don't have the resources to be heard.

Just one more reason that I think the environmental movement is doomed. The message is only being heard from those too rich to practice what they preach.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

It really is an unfortunate mess.

Gore is gets ripped for his electricity bill. Suzuki gets ripped for his deisel bus. The rich and wealthy will do what the rich and wealthy do; waste. They cannot be taken seriously as environmental stewards.

I on the other hand, those that actually give a damn to make serious changes in their lives are people that don't have the resources to be heard.

Just one more reason that I think the environmental movement is doomed. The message is only being heard from those too rich to practice what they preach.

The thing is that no one is perfect. If you look hard enough at anyone you will find something contradictory.
I'm not excusing Gore's excesive power consumption, but I fully expect people to use this as a reason to ignore any and all of the good things he is doing, and that's wrong.

Just because he's doing one thing wrong, doesn't mean we should ignore what he's doing right. I hope this doesn't turn into a fuel for the "ignore his cause, he's a hypocrit" bunch.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What if he was paying for the "Green power", like what the C-Train does?

Apparently one of the gifts for Oscar presenters were Carbon Credits equal to the value of how much an average hollywood person generates in a year.

Which is, for those who didn't read the whole article, exactly what Gore is in fact, doing.

Gore participates in a utility program that sells blocks of "green power" for an extra $4 a month. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month, covering 16,200 kilowatt-hours and helping subsidize renewable energy sources.

Gore's spokesperson goes on to make this point:

"Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said.

This is nothing but a weak ad hominem attack by a think tank that is running out of ideas. It reeks of desperation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/...fLK9eazbBH2ocA

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which is, for those who didn't read the whole article, exactly what Gore is in fact, doing.



Gore's spokesperson goes on to make this point:



This is nothing but a weak ad hominem attack by a think tank that is running out of ideas. It reeks of desperation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/...fLK9eazbBH2ocA

No doubt it reeks of desperation, but he has given them a pretty easy target and we all know that people will hit it.

The guy has more money than God. He could have the coolest, most environmentally friendly house in the world but instead he lives in some old 10 thousand square foot mansion. I've never even been in a house that's 10 thousand square feet. If he wants to be taken at face value, I don't think he should live there.

[Bill Bumface]

You're missing the point. He pays money to someone else who builds solar/wind farms that produce as much power as he uses, thus he nets 0 tonnes of carbon dioxide from his electricity consumption. There was a link to the website with this program right at the end of the movie.

[Azure]

Why couldn't he set up his house to be strictly based on solar power?

Why give the critics something to latch onto?

Surely he is smart enough to know eventually they will figure it out.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why couldn't he set up his house to be strictly based on solar power?

Why give the critics something to latch onto?

Surely he is smart enough to know eventually they will figure it out.

His house is running strictly off of solar/wind.

Large scale solar/wind power plants are much more efficient than anything you'd set up at home, getting more power from less material. Less panels/turbines means less pollution from the manufacturing process. Really, what he's doing is about as good as it gets.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

His house is running strictly off of solar/wind.

Large scale solar/wind power plants are much more efficient than anything you'd set up at home, getting more power from less material. Less panels/turbines means less pollution from the manufacturing process. Really, what he's doing is about as good as it gets.

I was talking about setting it up at home, but anyways.

I had to go back and look at the link again when I read your post.

Like IFF said, it seems like a desperation move, but one that Gore should openly deal with. And I think he did.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was talking about setting it up at home, but anyways.

I had to go back and look at the link again when I read your post.

Like IFF said, it seems like a desperation move, but one that Gore should openly deal with. And I think he did.

I'm still confused.

Setting it up at home isn't as good as what he's doing. Also, what he's doing is more easily replicated by the average Joe. He's setting a great example in this area.

Whats desperation? He was doing this all along.

Sorry if I'm not understanding you, but its late and I'm still over-excited from the game, so help me along

[Azure]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'm still confused.

Setting it up at home isn't as good as what he's doing. Also, what he's doing is more easily replicated by the average Joe. He's setting a great example in this area.

What he is doing isn't exactly going to register on some people. Plus, there is an argument going on in my area, where wind power is a MAJOR issue, that setting up so many windmills isn't exactly healthy for the environment.

And with a recent breakthrough in the solar power field(I don't know off the top of my head) one would think Gore would be all over something like that.

Whats desperation? He was doing this all along.

Desperation by certain critics.

Sorry if I'm not understanding you, but its late and I'm still over-excited from the game, so help me along

Nah, I wasn't being overly clear in my post.

No worries.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Azure

What he is doing isn't exactly going to register on some people. Plus, there is an argument going on in my area, where wind power is a MAJOR issue, that setting up so many windmills isn't exactly healthy for the environment.

Supposedly wind turbines are destroying bat populations. For some unknown reasons the bats are attracted to them and fly right in. Not good at all.