NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear that in 50 years, the land between the Rockies and the Mississippi river will become desert! :eek:

More alarmist Bullshit brought to you by:

Al Gore
Eco-terrorists
The Green Party

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

I've heard something similar.

More alarmist Bullshit brought to you by:

Al Gore
Eco-terrorists
The Green Party

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

Its helped by men..........

The drought this year in the South convinced me that it will turn into a desert soon.........

I hear that in 50 years, the land between the Rockies and the Mississippi river will become desert! :eek:

It's happened before (Dust Bowl) and it'll probably happen again. Don't lose sleep over it. Climates change. *nod*

I hear Alex Rodriguez is being traded to the Padres for a relief pitcher plus a PTBNL. OH!!! And Mark Buehrle is going to the Reds for Griffey.

Seriously, speculation on this is just about as foolish as the trade speculation I have seen this off-season on baseball boards. The best climatologists (who say global warming is occurring) will all say that they can not even think about making any sort of predictions for 50 years from now.

I heard Alex Rodriguez is being traded to the Padres for a relief pitcher plus a PTBNL.

Seriously, speculation on this is just about as foolish as the trade speculation I have seen this off-season on baseball boards. The best climatologists (who say global warming is occurring) will all say that they can not even think about making any sort of predictions for 50 years from now.

still its scary, I'll still be around when that happens.........

Its helped by men..........

The drought this year in the South convinced me that it will turn into a desert soon.........

So a one year drought means that 50 years from now there will be a desert. Yeah right. The reason that land is not a desert is that the Gulf of Mexico is there to provide moisture. I seriously doubt the Gulf of Mexico will disappear with Global Warming.

still its scary, I'll still be around when that happens.........

You need to sit back and calm down. Whoever told you that stuff is messing with your mind if they think they can make any sort of accurate prediction.

So a one year drought means that 50 years from now there will be a desert. Yeah right. The reason that land is not a desert is that the Gulf of Mexico is there to provide moisture. I seriously doubt the Gulf of Mexico will disappear with Global Warming.

Not the Gulf of Mexico, I meant the Southwest. And the great plains.............


I'm not sure whats worse, Global Warming or Ice Age............

You need to sit back and calm down. Whoever told you that stuff is messing with your mind if they think they can make any sort of accurate prediction.

The guy that told me was news :D

anyway, I'll be back to debate later, we humans have stretched the earth's resrouces slightly to much now,

Not the Gulf of Mexico, I meant the Southwest. And the great plains.............


I'm not sure whats worse, Global Warming or Ice Age............

Well lets see, the Southwest is already a desert and the Great Plains should be a desert as they are bounded on the East and West by mountains. The reason they are not desert.

*drumroll please*

The Gulf of Mexico!

Well lets see, the Southwest is already a desert and the Great Plains should be a desert as they are bounded on the East and West by mountains. The reason they are not desert.

*drumroll please*

The Gulf of Mexico!

Well, Then I rather be worried about those future Hurricanes...........

Do you live on the gulf coast or atlantic coast? If not don't bother.

I've just had my first cyclone for this 2008, I don't think it's going get any better. I am not looking forward to March this year.

I've just had my first cyclone for this 2008, I don't think it's going get any better. I am not looking forward to March this year.

The weather is not getting any better of course, its just getting worse and worse...........:eek:

Its not as bad as, say, the people on Islands that are sinking in the Pacific ocean, due to climbing sea levels. Or not as bad as this and that. Honestly, it could be a LOT worse. Still, it is a concern, and should be dealt with.

Its not as bad as, say, the people on Islands that are sinking in the Pacific ocean, due to climbing sea levels. Or not as bad as this and that. Honestly, it could be a LOT worse. Still, it is a concern, and should be dealt with.

Hilina Slump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilina_Slump). :eek:

Ok, not caused by rising sea levels... but still frightening enough.

Climate change will be a bitch. It's gonna change many weather patterns, it will lead to greater risks of flooding in coastal areas, and it may well cause big droughts in some areas.

But most of the catastrophic scenarios you hear are stupid. It's the people in Bangladesh you've got to worry about. Or the farmers in central Africa who are going to get their rain patterns screwed over. Or indeed many of the Pacific island nations.

We're rich enough to deal with the consequences, they're not. So a much more realistic "horror" scenario that might spur people into action is one of millions and millions of poor climate refugees.

I'm still waiting for the terrible string of Lvl 5 Hurricanes that Al Gore promised.

I'm still waiting for the terrible string of Lvl 5 Hurricanes that Al Gore promised.

Wait for that in August, you won't see any this month, not yet anyway...........

But most of the catastrophic scenarios you hear are stupid.



Really? :rolleyes: I doubt it.......

A lot can happen in fifity years.
The area between the Rocky mountains and Mississippi could become desert.
We could be contacted by aliens.
The United States could implode in a massive civil war, unleashing terror and panic on the world as the global economy falls apart one piece at a time in a chain reaction, causing war on a massive scale and devastating the entire planet, turning EVERYWHERE into a desert.
An asteroid could hit the planet, ALSO turning everywhere into a desert.
Said aliens could drain the planets oceans, enslave humanity, and force us to work in their Zwit Crystal mines until we're extinct.
Or Earth's cats could suddenly reveal themselves as sentient beings, overthrow our governments, enslave us all, and force us to work the catnip fields and litter mines until we're extinct. Except the few humans kept as show pets, of course.

On the scale of 'likely to happen' I rate your veresion of events somewhere between Israel being handed back to the Muslims and Castro making a public announcement that his clone will be inhereting his office once he dies.

I'm still waiting for the terrible string of Lvl 5 Hurricanes that Al Gore promised.

Those come after the cats.

A lot can happen in fifity years.
The area between the Rocky mountains and Mississippi could become desert.
We could be contacted by aliens.
The United States could implode in a massive civil war, unleashing terror and panic on the world as the global economy falls apart one piece at a time in a chain reaction, causing war on a massive scale and devastating the entire planet, turning EVERYWHERE into a desert.
An asteroid could hit the planet, ALSO turning everywhere into a desert.
Said aliens could drain the planets oceans, enslave humanity, and force us to work in their Zwit Crystal mines until we're extinct.
Or Earth's cats could suddenly reveal themselves as sentient beings, overthrow our governments, enslave us all, and force us to work the catnip fields and litter mines until we're extinct. Except the few humans kept as show pets, of course.

On the scale of 'likely to happen' I rate your veresion of events somewhere between Israel being handed back to the Muslims and Castro making a public announcement that his clone will be inhereting his office once he dies.

I am also afraid of Asteroids coming :eek:

Wait for that in August, you won't see any this month, not yet anyway...........

Hell I haven't seen any since Katrina, that was in 2005. It's now 2008, and I'm still waiting.

Those come after the cats.

Yay kitties! :D *buys nets to catch the kitties*

Climate change will be a bitch. It's gonna change many weather patterns, it will lead to greater risks of flooding in coastal areas, and it may well cause big droughts in some areas.

But most of the catastrophic scenarios you hear are stupid. It's the people in Bangladesh you've got to worry about. Or the farmers in central Africa who are going to get their rain patterns screwed over. Or indeed many of the Pacific island nations.

We're rich enough to deal with the consequences, they're not. So a much more realistic "horror" scenario that might spur people into action is one of millions and millions of poor climate refugees.

QFT

You know I heard the moon is made of cheese and is inhabited by lactose intolerant lizard men.

Not that I don't think global warming is happening, I just don't like random predictions based on, apparently, nothing.

Hell I haven't seen any since Katrina, that was in 2005. It's now 2008, and I'm still waiting.



Yay kitties! :D *buys nets to catch the kitties*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes#Listed_in_chronological_order

Dean and Felix, 2007.

An unusual event:
The 2007 season is the only one in recorded history to have more than one Category 5 storm make landfall at that intensity.

I hear that in 50 years, the land between the Rockies and the Mississippi river will become desert! :eek:

Probably not, and certainly not that fast even if it does happen, but you can certainly expect bad things by 2100.
Hell, expect bad things now. The WHO stated earlier last year that up to 150,000 deaths annually in South-East Asia are caused by climate change, IIRC.

And a few weeks ago a paper was released predicting the possibility of the Arctic becoming ice-free in summer by 2013, and this ignoring the 2007 minima. I think this is too early, but most estimates only put it at another twenty years or so beyond that anyway.

That's all you're worried about? You should be worried that a monster hurricane will cause a tsunami to travel up the Mississippi River as far as the fall line, causing devastation to millions and flooding the entire city of St. Louis! Or that the volcano below Yellowstone National Park will blow its top, flooding the Snake River drainage with debris and leaving millions of Americans across five states without water! Or that the glaciers atop Mount Rainier and the Cascades will, due to global warming, come loose and thunder down in a torrent of ice, burying the city of Seattle à la Pompeii! Or that Ireland will be revealed to be an actual, sentient being that will come to life and fly off into outer space, throwing off the mass of the earth to such a degree that it spins out of orbit and collides with Venus!

Seriously, learn how to be paranoid properly. I know a place that sells great tinfoil hats.

More alarmist Bullshit brought to you by:

Al Gore
Eco-terrorists
The Green Party

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

Heheh are there people about that say it is solely mans fault? The important thing is to realise that yes we may have accelerated it, and yes we have to do something about it.

We would have to do something about it, whether or not it was all our fault anyway.

Seriously, learn how to be paranoid properly. I know a place that sells great tinfoil hats.


Bah make them yourself, it's cheaper, and it keeps you inside where 'they' can't read your mind!

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.

Wrong Al Gore

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate.
2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"
3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation. The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.
4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.

So really, it is 10000 times more likely that Paris Hilton will become president, the world is going to split into two, Cats will rule the Earth (thank you Dontgonearthere), we will suddenly find out that Mt. Olympus actually exists, we come in contact with the aliens at Roswell, people find out that their is actually no area 51, but actually an area 52, or we finally find a part in the week that doesn't end in the word "day", Than the Rockies turning into a desert.

3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation.


Of course it all melts. What sort of example is that?

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.

Wrong Al Gore

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate.
2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"
3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation. The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.
4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.

So really, it is 10000 times more likely that Paris Hilton will become president, the world is going to split into two, Cats will rule the Earth (thank you Dontgonearthere), we will suddenly find out that Mt. Olympus actually exists, we come in contact with the aliens at Roswell, people find out that their is actually no area 51, but actually an area 52, or we finally find a part in the week that doesn't end in the word "day", Than the Rockies turning into a desert.

Hardly a scientific attitude.

Point one: any geoclimatic physicist can tell you that radiative forcing is not dependent on relative amounts but on absolute amounts, just as I can make 1% of the volume of your tea cyanide and it can have an effect.

Point two: any sane environmentalist protests against CFCs, and I haven't heard anyone deny that they break down ozone.

Point three: ridiculous regarding the ice caps never completely melting. They have completely melted before, long ago in the past. And if you leave that icecube longer then it too will eventually melt, assuming a negative change in temperature does not cause some of it to refreeze.
As for sea levels, it depends both on the type of water (salt or fresh; they have slightly different densities) and on whether it is floating or not. The Arctic ice cap: pretty much no sea level rise. It is all floating.
The Antarctic ice cap: up to seventy metres if the entire thing goes. It is predominantly land-based.
Greenland ice cap: up to seven metres if it goes. It too is predominantly land-based.
Et cetera, et cetera.

Point four: nothing to do with science. Go home, troll.

Not to mention the fact that melted ice leaves more open water to absorb the sun's radiation, causing the water to expand and surprise, surprise cause a sea level increase.

Another point you assume is that all ice that melts is floating on the water so when it melts it'll be the same volume. That's true...but what about land ice melting/breaking off and falling into the water as has been observed? That increases the volume, and increases the sea level.

Not to mention the fact that melted ice leaves more open water to absorb the sun's radiation, causing the water to expand and surprise, surprise cause a sea level increase.

Another point you assume is that all ice that melts is floating on the water so when it melts it'll be the same volume. That's true...but what about land ice melting/breaking off and falling into the water as has been observed? That increases the volume, and increases the sea level.

A very good post.
Thermal expansion will be the main driver of sea level rise this century, so it is just as well that you mentioned it.

There is also the positive feedback mechanism invoked by the melting ice - water absorbs much more heat than ice does, as ice has a much higher reflectivity. This means that as ice melts the water revealed will warm quicker than the ice previously did, warming nearby ice, melting that and revealing more water, and so on.

The planetary albedo could be significantly reduced by the melting of the Arctic ice cap.

I'm also interested when and where Al Gore said that ozone depletion and global warming were the same when in fact they're two separate issues?

I'm also interested when and where Al Gore said that ozone depletion and global warming were the same when in fact they're two separate issues?

Search me.
I watched An Inconvenient Truth five times (it was that or The Great Global Warming Swindle; I hate both, but AIT is at least on the right side) and I can't remember him saying it.

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.

Wrong Al GoreThe fuck?

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate. Proof for this assumption?
2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"I have never heard of any environmentalist saying either of the two.
3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation. The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.The polar ice caps will never fully melt because an ice cube doesn't fully melt when floating in water (wrong by the way, if its hot enough, the ice WILL melt)? All that tells us is that the water level won't rise on account of floating ice melting. It does not say anything about the impact on ocean currents this will have nor is it in any way debunk ocean levels rising, since not all ice in the icecaps is actually floating (see Greenland and Antarctica for details).
4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.Irrelevant. Popularity means precious little to reality.

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.They are not irrelevant, albeit there are plenty of other factors that tie in. More extreme weather patterns can well cause droughts.

I blame global warming for this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_eiJkQzpzRc

A random event of superfast air powered the car over the edge.

You do know that the graph in An Inconvenient Truth that he refers to as a hockey stick shape is made with a new statistical method not the normal accepted ones. the code written to do this analysis has got a nasty little loop in it. what this loop does is make it always produce a graph of that shape. even with completely random data.:mad:

You do know that the graph in An Inconvenient Truth that he refers to as a hockey stick shape is made with a new statistical method not the normal accepted ones. the code written to do this analysis has got a nasty little loop in it. what this loop does is make it always produce a graph of that shape. even with completely random data.:mad:Complete the following sentence:

"You can find proof for my allegations at ..."

I'm personally rather worried what global warming will do to already endangered species. We, as humans, can at least relocate and attempt to shield ourselves from a rising sea and drastically changing climate, but animals cannot. I haven't really been able to find a speculative report on what global warming would do to threatened species, which is a shame, because I'd really like to read one.

You do know that the graph in An Inconvenient Truth that he refers to as a hockey stick shape is made with a new statistical method not the normal accepted ones. the code written to do this analysis has got a nasty little loop in it. what this loop does is make it always produce a graph of that shape. even with completely random data.:mad:

I have heard of the paper which alleged this, although if I recall correctly the paper had flaws of its own, too.
The basic premise of the 1998 paper written by Mann et. al. in which he first produced the 'hockey stick' graph (if I remember the year correctly; I think it was 1998), that both the rate and extent of the temperature increase of the 20th century were unmatched during at least the past thousand years, was supported by the American administrative division which investigated his methods in light of the critical paper and has been supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific papers since.

I'm personally rather worried what global warming will do to already endangered species. We, as humans, can at least relocate and attempt to shield ourselves from a rising sea and drastically changing climate, but animals cannot. I haven't really been able to find a speculative report on what global warming would do to threatened species, which is a shame, because I'd really like to read one.

I'm afraid I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've read an appropriate one before. I'll try and remember what it was.

Search me.
I watched An Inconvenient Truth five times (it was that or The Great Global Warming Swindle; I hate both, but AIT is at least on the right side) and I can't remember him saying it.
The Great Global Warming Swindle uses actual numbers, while An Inconvenient Truth relies on insinuation and unlabelled graphs. I know which one I consider the better science documentary.

Plus, in response to some complaints from people who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the film has been re-edited and rereleased in a revised edition. I don't see Gore responding to criticism like that.

The Great Global Warming Swindle uses fabricated, out-of-date and inaccurate numbers.
My opinion of TGGWS is found in some detail here (http://www.real-democracy.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=754).

It claimed, amongst other things, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.
Wrong. On average humans emit 130 times more CO2 annually than volcanoes do.

It used a graph showing a marked up turn in something labelled 'Solar' (the exact meaning of 'solar' was never explained, although it turned out to be the length of the solar cycle), matching the acceleration in temperature rise over the past four decades; the data was shown to be wrong, showing a more or less stable value for 'solar' and a continued rise for temperature when the data was corrected.

It states that only satellite data was found to be inaccurate. Wrong. Balloon data was found to be inaccurate too; indeed, I believe the scientist who made the claim worked on correcting some of the inaccuracies himself!

They made an unjustifiable claim regarding the temperature-CO2 lag in the ice core data, they claimed certainty for things which is not the scientific way, they completely misrepresented Carl Wunsch's position and, indeed, his whole point (so much so that he later described it as 'pure propaganda' and regretted appearing in it; he was not even told beforehand that it was to take a sceptic view!), it ignores the problem of rate of change of temperature now compared to the past, makes some fundamental and unforgivable scientific errors (it was claimed that we were made of carbon dioxide. That we were made of it) and, all in all, makes such a mockey of the idea of fair and balanced reporting that it should all but cast aside the idea that it is a scientific documentary. It is a swindle itself and, unfortunately, has been embraced by sceptics worldwide as a disproof of AGW theory, despite the fact that the scale and number of inaccuracies actually achieve the opposite! It was a fraud.

AIT was rubbish, yes, but it was considerably better than TGGWS.

Insinuation? Did you even watch TGGWS? Didn't you pay attention during the bit where they claimed it was a plot to hinder development of LEDCs?! Didn't you pay attention to the TITLE?

The Great Global Warming Swindle uses actual numbers, while An Inconvenient Truth relies on insinuation and unlabelled graphs. I know which one I consider the better science documentary.Proof for this allegation?

Plus, in response to some complaints from people who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the film has been re-edited and rereleased in a revised edition. I don't see Gore responding to criticism like that.Not to be punching a hole in that rationale, but whose criticism caused revision in TGGWS and who's been criticising An Inconvenient Truth? For the most part, criticism of AIT has been from political hacks such as Bill O'Reilly. Criticism of TGGWS came from scientific panels and two of the contributers.

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.
And I suppose a non random source would be...?

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.
I'd like a reputable source on Carbon Dioxide causing the decline in the ozone layer.

Wrong Al Gore
You wish. So far you haven't even managed to grasp what climatologists are actually arguing.

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate.
This is the point where you offer proof.

2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"
1) Yes, we know that Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause Ozone depletion. Nobody's ever said otherwise.
2) Envrionmentalists did say that CFCs would harm the earth. You know, that's why we have the Montreal Treaty and banned them.

3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller,
What kind of water do you use?

and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation.

The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.
And where does evaporated water go, pray?

Oh, and actually sea level rises actually aren't entirely caused by melting of the polar ice caps. Other factors include the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water.

4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.
And that changes what?

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.

So really, it is 10000 times more likely that Paris Hilton will become president, the world is going to split into two, Cats will rule the Earth (thank you Dontgonearthere), we will suddenly find out that Mt. Olympus actually exists, we come in contact with the aliens at Roswell, people find out that their is actually no area 51, but actually an area 52, or we finally find a part in the week that doesn't end in the word "day", Than the Rockies turning into a desert.
The fact that I can get links to articles on JSTOR on the subject indicates there's a scientific debate on the subject at least in scientific circles, making it look hardly like a silly possibility.

What kind of water do you use?


And where does evaporated water go, pray?

Oh, and actually sea level rises actually aren't entirely caused by melting of the polar ice caps. Other factors include the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water.I think his point was that polar ice caps melting do not result in sea level rising, because floating ice, as in with an ice cub melting in a cup of water, won't raise sea level when melted. He seems to have ignored that not all ice in the polar ice caps is floating, though.

I think his point was that polar ice caps melting do not result in sea level rising, because floating ice, as in with an ice cub melting in a cup of water, won't raise sea level when melted. He seems to have ignored that not all ice in the polar ice caps is floating, though.

And the different densities of salt and fresh water.

And the different densities of salt and fresh water.Yes, but that will have more of a profound effect on such things as ocean currents rather than sea level, so it's understandable why that isn't mentioned.

I think his point was that polar ice caps melting do not result in sea level rising, because floating ice, as in with an ice cub melting in a cup of water, won't raise sea level when melted. He seems to have ignored that not all ice in the polar ice caps is floating, though.
I thought his point was 'it doesn't matter if the ice melts, as it will magically disappear anyway.'

The Great Global Warming Swindle uses fabricated, out-of-date and inaccurate numbers.
My opinion of TGGWS is found in some detail here (http://www.real-democracy.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=754).

It claimed, amongst other things, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.
Wrong. On average humans emit 130 times more CO2 annually than volcanoes do.

It used a graph showing a marked up turn in something labelled 'Solar' (the exact meaning of 'solar' was never explained, although it turned out to be the length of the solar cycle), matching the acceleration in temperature rise over the past four decades; the data was shown to be wrong, showing a more or less stable value for 'solar' and a continued rise for temperature when the data was corrected.

It states that only satellite data was found to be inaccurate. Wrong. Balloon data was found to be inaccurate too; indeed, I believe the scientist who made the claim worked on correcting some of the inaccuracies himself!

They made an unjustifiable claim regarding the temperature-CO2 lag in the ice core data, they claimed certainty for things which is not the scientific way, they completely misrepresented Carl Wunsch's position and, indeed, his whole point (so much so that he later described it as 'pure propaganda' and regretted appearing in it; he was not even told beforehand that it was to take a sceptic view!), it ignores the problem of rate of change of temperature now compared to the past, makes some fundamental and unforgivable scientific errors (it was claimed that we were made of carbon dioxide. That we were made of it) and, all in all, makes such a mockey of the idea of fair and balanced reporting that it should all but cast aside the idea that it is a scientific documentary. It is a swindle itself and, unfortunately, has been embraced by sceptics worldwide as a disproof of AGW theory, despite the fact that the scale and number of inaccuracies actually achieve the opposite! It was a fraud.

AIT was rubbish, yes, but it was considerably better than TGGWS.

Insinuation? Did you even watch TGGWS? Didn't you pay attention during the bit where they claimed it was a plot to hinder development of LEDCs?! Didn't you pay attention to the TITLE?
All of this makes The Great Global Warming Swindle the better science documentary. Since it contains actual and verifiable/refutable data, we can actually discuss it on a factual level.

An Inconvenient Truth hardly contains any data at all. He shows us half-complete data and then suggests conclusions for the viewer, but never shows evidence of them directly. As a science documentary, An Inconvenient Truth was a gross failure.

Proof for this allegation?
How about An Inconvenient Truth?

Remember that part where Gore shows the graph of atmospheric CO2 levels and global average temperature (a nonsensical measure) over the last 650,000 years based on ice core data? And then he uses the hydraulic lift to demonstrate how much taller you'd have to make the graph to fit modern atmospheric CO2 levels? He never draws the modern temperature numbers. He suggests that they'll be similarly high, but he never draws them.

It's a crappy science documentary.

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.

Wrong Al Gore

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate.
2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"
3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation. The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.
4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.

So really, it is 10000 times more likely that Paris Hilton will become president, the world is going to split into two, Cats will rule the Earth (thank you Dontgonearthere), we will suddenly find out that Mt. Olympus actually exists, we come in contact with the aliens at Roswell, people find out that their is actually no area 51, but actually an area 52, or we finally find a part in the week that doesn't end in the word "day", Than the Rockies turning into a desert.

Zoingo, you ate wrong.......

and Al Gore should had won that election........he had more votes then Bush....

Probably not, and certainly not that fast even if it does happen, but you can certainly expect bad things by 2100.
Hell, expect bad things now. The WHO stated earlier last year that up to 150,000 deaths annually in South-East Asia are caused by climate change, IIRC.

And a few weeks ago a paper was released predicting the possibility of the Arctic becoming ice-free in summer by 2013, and this ignoring the 2007 minima. I think this is too early, but most estimates only put it at another twenty years or so beyond that anyway.

I hear from my father that we will be moving out of America when Global warming begans to strike. This is serious!:eek:

Except that, where to move? :confused:

I'm personally rather worried what global warming will do to already endangered species. We, as humans, can at least relocate and attempt to shield ourselves from a rising sea and drastically changing climate, but animals cannot. I haven't really been able to find a speculative report on what global warming would do to threatened species, which is a shame, because I'd really like to read one.

I think we are endangering us, Humans...........

A friend of mine said last week that humans will be extinct in 300 years, I was like what? But it seems likely.........

All of this makes The Great Global Warming Swindle the better science documentary. Since it contains actual and verifiable/refutable data, we can actually discuss it on a factual level.

An Inconvenient Truth hardly contains any data at all. He shows us half-complete data and then suggests conclusions for the viewer, but never shows evidence of them directly. As a science documentary, An Inconvenient Truth was a gross failure.

being demonstrably wrong and using ridiculous idiocies that all but the stupidest denialists have given up years ago is better than being generally correct without getting into technical details? i think you need a better method for ranking value.

global average temperature (a nonsensical measure)

how the fuck so?

how the fuck so?
Certain types of data can't be averaged. Global temperature is one of those.

It doesn't make any mathematical sense to average global temperature measurements.

being demonstrably wrong and using ridiculous idiocies that all but the stupidest denialists have given up years ago is better than being generally correct without getting into technical details?
Yes. Absolutely.

Without those technical details, we can't tell if he's generally correct. The entire piece becomes meaningless. An Inconvenient Truth cannot teach anyone anything because it doesn't contain any information.

That it's more persuasive says a lot about how irrational people are.

Yes. Absolutely.

Without those technical details, we can't tell if he's generally correct. The entire piece becomes meaningless. An Inconvenient Truth cannot teach anyone anything because it doesn't contain any information.

That it's more persuasive says a lot about how irrational people are.

AIT is primarily a political campaigning piece, meant to get people to pay attention to the issue.

TGGWS masqueraded as a science documentary but it smeared its opponents, presented deliberately fabricated data, did not label its sources correctly and in some cases made up sources and misrepresented the views of others.
Yes, really scientific, that.

Criticise AIT all you want but don't even think of pretending that TGGWS was better, because it wasn't. End of story.

Certain types of data can't be averaged. Global temperature is one of those.

It doesn't make any mathematical sense to average global temperature measurements.

And why not?

More alarmist Bullshit brought to you by:

Al Gore
Eco-terrorists
The Green Party

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

Accelerating it faster than nature can cope.

And why not?

because it's politically inconvenient. for llew's next trick, he will deny that the weather channel can meaningfully talk about average monthly temperatures.

Accelerating it faster than nature can cope.

Nature doesn't "cope" with climate change. There isn't a global average that the planet tries desperately to adhere to. Climate does change and we are due for an ice age within the next 1000 years or so. I'd say Greenhouse gases would actually help in that way.

Meh. I don't believe in any of that global warming bullcrap. Just more mindless stuff being spewed through out televisions to scare us. Remember the Bird Flu scare? Nothing became of that. There was no massive epidemic that killed millions.

I think this is all just the result of the sudden change in our technology. In the 1900's they had cars, but it wasn't an essential and easy to come by luxury everyone could afford. Today however, its impossible not to have a car. There are over 301,139,947 people in the United States. In 2001 they found that over 91% drove to work in cars. Now apply such numbers to countries all over the world and you've got more cars being used in the past 8 years than the early 1900's by a ton.

Obviously the atmosphere is going to take a more drastic change than it would have in the 1900's. But pretty soon we'll all get used to it.

Meh. I don't believe in any of that global warming bullcrap. Just more mindless stuff being spewed through out televisions to scare us. Remember the Bird Flu scare? Nothing became of that. There was no massive epidemic that killed millions.

Yet.
I think this is all just the result of the sudden change in our technology. In the 1900's they had cars, but it wasn't an essential and easy to come by luxury everyone could afford. Today however, its impossible not to have a car. There are over 301,139,947 people in the United States. In 2001 they found that over 91% drove to work in cars. Now apply such numbers to countries all over the world and you've got more cars being used in the past 8 years than the early 1900's by a ton.
And other things.
Obviously the atmosphere is going to take a more drastic change than it would have in the 1900's. But pretty soon we'll all get used to it.
Lol...
No.

Nature doesn't "cope" with climate change.

yes it does. it must.

yes it does. it must.

Yes, in the end, nature will cope.
We may not be able to cope very well however.

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore
How about people whose business it is to know these things, and has been for at least 20 or 30 years, making an easy, laughable buffoon out of many ignorant internet posters?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13347937&postcount=22
What would you say to them?

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore,

As compared to your source being corporate-funded research that helps postpone any action of responsibility or profit-threatening regulation on your sources' part, propagated further by people who bloviate and lie for a living, paid for again by said corporate sources.

In short, don't be a stooge, worse yet a stooge who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Meh. I don't believe in any of that global warming bullcrap. Just more mindless stuff being spewed through out televisions to scare us. Remember the Bird Flu scare? Nothing became of that. There was no massive epidemic that killed millions. What do you mean, nothing became of that? It's still showing up in European poultry.

I think this is all just the result of the sudden change in our technology. In the 1900's they had cars, but it wasn't an essential and easy to come by luxury everyone could afford. Today however, its impossible not to have a car. There are over 301,139,947 people in the United States. In 2001 they found that over 91% drove to work in cars. Now apply such numbers to countries all over the world and you've got more cars being used in the past 8 years than the early 1900's by a ton.You'll find that US infrastructure is specifically geared for automobiles. Elsewhere, this is not the case. People can live quite well without them.

As compared to your source being corporate-funded research that helps postpone any action of responsibility or profit-threatening regulation on your sources' part, propagated further by people who bloviate and lie for a living, paid for again by said corporate sources.

In short, don't be a stooge, worse yet a stooge who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Oh hey, you're not dead. Congrats.

You speak the truth.

What do you mean, nothing became of that? It's still showing up in European poultry.



I think he means that Fox has stopped scaring him about it for the moment.

The Great Global Warming Swindle uses actual numbers, while An Inconvenient Truth relies on insinuation and unlabelled graphs. I know which one I consider the better science documentary.

*Sigh*
I feel sorry for you.


Plus, in response to some complaints from people who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the film has been re-edited and rereleased in a revised edition. I don't see Gore responding to criticism like that.
Did Gore get criticised for making up numbers and figures by the scientist who collected the data?

.
You'll find that US infrastructure is specifically geared for automobiles. Elsewhere, this is not the case. People can live quite well without them.

And, of course, it's entirely plausible to greatly enhance the environmental friendliness of automobiles, even without any significant changes in driving habits. As oil supplies begin to become more and more taxed, and the developed world begins to switch en masse to alternative technologies, it'll have a considerable effect on CO2 emissions.

They just had tornadoes in Wisconsin. That's not normal.

Certain types of data can't be averaged. Global temperature is one of those.

It doesn't make any mathematical sense to average global temperature measurements.

The hell?!

You should come tell that to my fellow astronomers who talk about average planetary and stellar temperatures all the time. Such numbers -are- meaningful data. Global temperature can't be averaged...what a crock of shit.

Certain types of data can't be averaged. Global temperature is one of those.

It doesn't make any mathematical sense to average global temperature measurements.
The hell?!

You should come tell that to my fellow astronomers who talk about average planetary and stellar temperatures all the time. Such numbers -are- meaningful data. Global temperature can't be averaged...what a crock of shit.
(In a spirit of mediation, and because I agree with both these points of view)

Planetary average temperature - of the Earth or any other planet - is most certainly meaningful data. However, when measuring climatic change it is insufficient. As a ridiculously simplistic example, consider winters getting 1 degree colder each year and summers getting 1 degree warmer. In such a scenario the average temperature remains the same, but the climatic conditions are changing drastically.

(In a spirit of mediation, and because I agree with both these points of view)

Planetary average temperature - of the Earth or any other planet - is most certainly meaningful data. However, when measuring climatic change it is insufficient. As a ridiculously simplistic example, consider winters getting 1 degree colder each year and summers getting 1 degree warmer. In such a scenario the average temperature remains the same, but the climatic conditions are changing drastically.

You are of course correct. I apologize for the vehemence of my reaction. It happens when I'm distracted, read something, and knee-jerk before I consider all the implications, so thank you.

They just had tornadoes in Wisconsin. That's not normal.

Thats kinda freaky....... :eek:

AIT is primarily a political campaigning piece, meant to get people to pay attention to the issue.
And if it had data in it it would have worked better on rational people.
TGGWS masqueraded as a science documentary but it smeared its opponents, presented deliberately fabricated data, did not label its sources correctly and in some cases made up sources and misrepresented the views of others.
Yes, really scientific, that.
Bad science is more scientific than the absence of science.
Criticise AIT all you want but don't even think of pretending that TGGWS was better, because it wasn't. End of story.
But it was, for all the reasons you've just explained.

The hell?!

You should come tell that to my fellow astronomers who talk about average planetary and stellar temperatures all the time. Such numbers -are- meaningful data. Global temperature can't be averaged...what a crock of shit.
I studied Asttrophysics, you know.

Global temperature can be measured (ideally from really far away) with methods as simple as looking at blackbody radiation. But global temperature measurements can't be averaged to produce meaningful information.

Thanks, Longhaul.

Planetary average temperature - of the Earth or any other planet - is most certainly meaningful data. However, when measuring climatic change it is insufficient. As a ridiculously simplistic example, consider winters getting 1 degree colder each year and summers getting 1 degree warmer. In such a scenario the average temperature remains the same, but the climatic conditions are changing drastically.

did anyone claim that global temps are the be-all and end all of climate change?

The hell?!

You should come tell that to my fellow astronomers who talk about average planetary and stellar temperatures all the time. Such numbers -are- meaningful data. Global temperature can't be averaged...what a crock of shit.

Hey .... you should stick around. I think your input will be greatly appreciated in future posts as well. Seriously. :)

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

Except that during interglacials, it doesn't continue to warm indefinitely. It starts to cool.

We're rich enough to deal with the consequences, they're not. So a much more realistic "horror" scenario that might spur people into action is one of millions and millions of poor climate refugees.

Ha! Just wait until he Oglalla acquifier starts really running out of water in 25 yearrs.

These threads always remind me of a Jay Leno monologue:

"According to a new UN Report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. This is pretty bad, when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet."

did anyone claim that global temps are the be-all and end all of climate change?
No, but they're an important component in the anthopogenic climate change argument, and they don't make any sense.

As long as the anthropogenic advocates rely on flawed or nonsensical data to support their position, they lose credibility.

Ha! Just wait until he Oglalla acquifier starts really running out of water in 25 yearrs.
Desalinisation.

Desalinisation.

And incredible amounts of energy to transport that water from the coast, to where it will be needed, in the breadbasket of America. Coming at a time when we are running out of traditional sources of energy and/or trying to phase them out because of their negative environmental effects.

So all in all, we are going to be running faster and faster just to stay standing still. When does the race end?

No, but they're an important component in the anthopogenic climate change argument, and they don't make any sense.

As long as the anthropogenic advocates rely on flawed or nonsensical data to support their position, they lose credibility.

here's the problem; you don't know crap on the subject. so we don't believe you. especially when those you are up against do apparently know things, and there are literally thousands of them, and they actually do science.

Seriously, when you get that type of information from a random source or someone like Al Gore, immediatly you should say to yourself that it is going to be crap.

Global Warming 101:

Global Warming means that we are spewing harmful carbon dioxide into the air that destroys the ozone layer and the polar ice caps will melt.

Wrong Al Gore

1. There isn't even close enough of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make a change in the climate.
2. Carbon dioxide does not destroy ozone, CFC's (some long world like, cloroflourinecarbons, found in things like friges, and air conditioners) do that, which all the environmentalists says "they wouldn't ever harm the earth"
3. The Polar Ice Caps won't ever fully melt. Think of an Ice Cube floating in a glass of water, now when you leave it out on a deck on a nice clear and hot day, does the ice fully melt, no, but it is smaller, and the water level still stays the same because of evaporation. The same principles apply to our Ice Caps and the oceans.
4. Al Gore lost the election..............enough said.

Now about the Rockies turning into a desert, or the Southeast turning into one....those are compleatly and utterly irrelivant to global warming and are made up by the press to scare the populace.

So really, it is 10000 times more likely that Paris Hilton will become president, the world is going to split into two, Cats will rule the Earth (thank you Dontgonearthere), we will suddenly find out that Mt. Olympus actually exists, we come in contact with the aliens at Roswell, people find out that their is actually no area 51, but actually an area 52, or we finally find a part in the week that doesn't end in the word "day", Than the Rockies turning into a desert.

Legitimate source please?

As long as the anthropogenic advocates rely on flawed or nonsensical data to support their position, they lose credibility.

....

Bad science is more scientific than the absence of science.

On one hand you seem to be talking about your subjective appraisal of "credibility," on the other you seem to be making excuses for bad science. Something is either scientific or it isn't, saying some non-scientific thing - like bad science - is "more" scientific is like saying that 2+4=49 is "more mathematical" than 2+4=50 because hey, it's closer to being right. Close doesn't cut it.

And your simplistic generalization of "anthropogenic advocates" - apparently they all share a hive mind and rely on the same data - doesn't give YOU much credibility.

Oh hey, you're not dead. Congrats.Is it uncouth to think in kind? :p

You speak the truth.As best i can tell. *bows*

Desalinisation.

Stats.
Take note of the post just below yours.

That's incorrect, actually. Owing to the fact that we are pretty much at the furthest point in the cycle away from the Glacial Maxima. Meaning that it doesn't normally get warmer than it is right now, sea levels are about as high as they ever are during a warm period, and should only really go lower from here.http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/healthscience/ice.php
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQmBUlYskvnKT0CLHBucXxY5_wKAD8U1UQ200

More alarmist Bullshit brought to you by:

Al Gore
Eco-terrorists
The Green Party

yes, gloabal warming exists, yes it is affected by man. Is it solely Man's fault? no. We are in a gap between ice ages. We may have accelrated it a bit but it would still be happening.

That's incorrect, actually. Owing to the fact that we are pretty much at the furthest point in the cycle away from the Glacial Maxima. Meaning that it doesn't normally get warmer than it is right now, sea levels are about as high as they ever are during a warm period, and should only really go lower from here.

Legitimate source please?

They lost me at "carbon dioxide destroying the ozone layer". I have actually heard people say that, but I'm pretty sure Al Gore was not one of them.

And incredible amounts of energy to transport that water from the coast, to where it will be needed, in the breadbasket of America. Coming at a time when we are running out of traditional sources of energy and/or trying to phase them out because of their negative environmental effects.

So all in all, we are going to be running faster and faster just to stay standing still. When does the race end?
It's easy to get clean energy if you don't need it to be mobile. Collect it in space.

Giant solar collectors in space that beam the energy to earth (with lasers, for example) could power the entire North American grid. The thing we wouldn't have would be mobile energy sources like the hydrocarbons we burn in cars and planes.

GREAT! My point has always been that you shouldn't believe anyone unless they have genuinely compelling data, and I haven't seen any compelling data in support of anthropogenic global warming.

you have seen it (or at least been pointed to it), you've just ignored it. there is a difference.

here's the problem; you don't know crap on the subject. so we don't believe you.
GREAT! My point has always been that you shouldn't believe anyone unless they have genuinely compelling data, and I haven't seen any compelling data in support of anthropogenic global warming.

Never abandon the rational default position of uncertainty without cause.

Climate change generally I find a lot less scary because climates changing isn't necessarily a bad thing (warmer here, colder there, wetter here, drier there), but the entire world getting warmer actually eliminates certain types of environments on the earth (cold ones), and that I can understand wanting to avoid.

On one hand you seem to be talking about your subjective appraisal of "credibility," on the other you seem to be making excuses for bad science. Something is either scientific or it isn't, saying some non-scientific thing - like bad science - is "more" scientific is like saying that 2+4=49 is "more mathematical" than 2+4=50 because hey, it's closer to being right. Close doesn't cut it.
You didn't understand me at all.

My point is that 2+4=49 is more mathematical than "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

We can point out what's wrong with 2+4=49, the "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" defies examination.

It's easy to get clean energy if you don't need it to be mobile. Collect it in space.

I'm not convinced we are going to be there, even in 30 years. You seem to be putting an awful lot of your eggs in one basket ...


Giant solar collectors in space that beam the energy to earth (with lasers, for example) could power the entire North American grid. The thing we wouldn't have would be mobile energy sources like the hydrocarbons we burn in cars and planes.

Which is problematic, given how many of those emissions come from the transportation sector.

Which is problematic, given how many of those emissions come from the transportation sector.
Air travel's probably dead for a while. But we could always build electric trains.

GREAT! My point has always been that you shouldn't believe anyone unless they have genuinely compelling data, and I haven't seen any compelling data in support of anthropogenic global warming.the entire world getting warmer actually eliminates certain types of environments on the earth (cold ones), and that I can understand wanting to avoid.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200801101016DOWJONESDJONLINE000776_FORTUNE5.htm
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/?hp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=top-25-science-stories-of&page=2

It'd be just fabulous to hear your "take" on knocking down the people in the last link there.

Air travel's probably dead for a while. But we could always build electric trains.

True ... wait a sec ... are we agreeing on something? :)