Al Gore's "Global Enriching" Inconvenient Truth, or how to tell

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 08:11 AM) [snapback]510591[/snapback]</div>

You pretty well blew any credibility you might have had hopes for with this line. Pluto is so far away that virtually nothing is known of it, other than the fact that it is so small and so cold that it has no atmosphere.

Nobody is seeing any rise in temperature on Pluto, because it's not possible from the Earth to measure the temperature on Pluto.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]510723[/snapback]</div>

You know, there was a time I'd get all worked up about this (Pluto? What the *&%&&? Of course it's getting warmer, it's in the August-equivalent of its 248-year cycle! Solar-forcing theories have been largely discredited scientifically over the last year or two). But I realize now that yelling or cajoling or even calmly elucidating facts won't change people's opinions on this. But year by year the AGW denier's position has changed - originally it was no change is happening, the measurements are wrong, it's all heat-island. Then people notice when they go camping at Glacier N.P. or fishing in northern Canada, it's not like it was, and a big heat wave hits the U.S. So suddenly people think that change might really be happening, but really it's mostly for the good (more agriculture in Canada!) and we couldn't do anything about it anyway. Now more and more people are shifting to the view that change is happening (maybe the hurricane thing is real despite 2006), but even if people caused it, it's too expensive to fix it. Uh, what about increased efficiency = increased productivity, and less reliance on OPEC = more secure future + lower trade deficit, or even getting in on emerging technologies, which was our strength in past decades? It's not even a neo-con/liberal thing, as people like James Woolsey (ex-CIA director) as well as that coalition of fundamentalist preachers, and a few more Republican leaders every year clearly show.

Oh well, time will show that those ignored all the warnings just to enjoy the mediocrity of the status quo won't be able to look their grandchildren in the eyes. It's just a shame so many species will be taken out because of their complacency.

I'm not blameless. I have a house that's bigger than I need, and I drive when I could often bike. But every year I'm reducing my carbon footprint and I'm saving money by doing so. It's not slowing down the economy, the only ones losing out are the foreign energy suppliers.

Maybe realclimate.org is a little too strident in its defense of AGW, but they have to be, given the arguments repeatedly pushed forward by the dissidents. We don't understand everything yet, but we know enough to be concerned. Very concerned. Kinda like saying Iraq has WMD and we better attack before they get us, except this time we can see they still have the WMDs. If you want an insurance policy, this is it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]510591[/snapback]</div>

It's rare that I see someone able to inject humor into another global warming thread. Kudos to you, Mr. Straight Man. By the time I got to 'the oceans are warming from the internal heat of the earth' I was laughing out loud.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]510847[/snapback]</div>

OK, I guess MIT isnt that great a school then. MIT
It is from 2002 though.

 

Life Style Extra? Sounds like the name of a condom. I had no idea you were such a comedian. That article, by the way, points to a need for education. You should try some.

 

Life Style Extra? Sounds like the name of a condom. I had no idea you were such a comedian. That article, by the way, points to a need for education. You should try some.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 11 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]510935[/snapback]</div>

Kow, cannot read peer reviewed journals remember?

The rest of this thread is getting quite amusing. So far all of these links are either old, non-scientific, or not being read correctly. IE looking for meaning that is not in there.

ACD, I've actually listed all of the major contributors to GHGs and their #s in output a few times here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 11 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]510935[/snapback]</div>

Kow, cannot read peer reviewed journals remember?

The rest of this thread is getting quite amusing. So far all of these links are either old, non-scientific, or not being read correctly. IE looking for meaning that is not in there.

ACD, I've actually listed all of the major contributors to GHGs and their #s in output a few times here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]510847[/snapback]</div>

You'd be surprised how clever scientists can be. "Pluto's atmospheric temperature varies between around -235 and -170 degrees Celsius, depending on the altitude above the surface."

Pluto's atmosphere is expanding

Of course, this has no bearing whatsoever on Earth. Changes in Pluto's atmosphere are due to its highly elliptical orbit around the Sun.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]510847[/snapback]</div>

You'd be surprised how clever scientists can be. "Pluto's atmospheric temperature varies between around -235 and -170 degrees Celsius, depending on the altitude above the surface."

Pluto's atmosphere is expanding

Of course, this has no bearing whatsoever on Earth. Changes in Pluto's atmosphere are due to its highly elliptical orbit around the Sun.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]510881[/snapback]</div>

So far none of ACDs references count for material worthy of discussion. Some snippets from his links:

"Gary Novak Independent Scientist" or Lonely Contrarian Guy

Two newspaper articles that are obviously not peer-reviewed.


The good bits are actually contradictory to ACDs and Lonely Contrarian Guy's point of view:

"Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.""

The paper that best examines the question of solar variability CAN be found in a peer-reviewed journal. That little rag known as Nature. It contains the following quote:

"In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century."

So I'll call the discussion off unless the minimum criteria for intelligent discussion can be met.

Cheers!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]510881[/snapback]</div>

So far none of ACDs references count for material worthy of discussion. Some snippets from his links:

"Gary Novak Independent Scientist" or Lonely Contrarian Guy

Two newspaper articles that are obviously not peer-reviewed.


The good bits are actually contradictory to ACDs and Lonely Contrarian Guy's point of view:

"Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.""

The paper that best examines the question of solar variability CAN be found in a peer-reviewed journal. That little rag known as Nature. It contains the following quote:

"In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century."

So I'll call the discussion off unless the minimum criteria for intelligent discussion can be met.

Cheers!

 

" This is great a published confession from a lib and a AGW'er that they are using fraud, deceit, lies and obfuscation to push their agenda and get their way."

I conceded it is a scare tactic, I conceded that the jury is still out. You saying it's all lies does not make it so. My ONLY point was there are other reasons to change, so let's quite bickering about the why and move on to the how. And this is the response i get? You have completely ignored my entire post and called me a lying liberal and I'm neither.
Clearly you're only interest is in trolling, calling people liers, and avoiding/disrupting any real rational discussion. Then again, I guess everyone here already knows that.


BTW: Pluto is not a planet!

 

" This is great a published confession from a lib and a AGW'er that they are using fraud, deceit, lies and obfuscation to push their agenda and get their way."

I conceded it is a scare tactic, I conceded that the jury is still out. You saying it's all lies does not make it so. My ONLY point was there are other reasons to change, so let's quite bickering about the why and move on to the how. And this is the response i get? You have completely ignored my entire post and called me a lying liberal and I'm neither.
Clearly you're only interest is in trolling, calling people liers, and avoiding/disrupting any real rational discussion. Then again, I guess everyone here already knows that.


BTW: Pluto is not a planet!