Gore gets Noble peace prize for film etc.
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We will have to learn to live with the warming in store for us, there's no choice about that, but we could think about humanity in the long term sometimes. I think the problem of how to deal with global warming should be addressed with the same science and hard work that led to our understanding of it. No one wants to see the economy collapse, but everything points to an immanent collapse of our oil based economy and living arrangements. It's a choice between being unprepared for an economic collapse, and already starting to move towards a sustainable future.
How very accommodating now of the conservatives to at least acknowledge some sort of consequence, for wasn't it just a few years ago they claimed that there was no global warming at all—and they had their well-paid scientists pumping out studies to prove it!
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
not very accurate. the GW is very real, but perhaps man has very little to do with causing it. I personnally think man does for two reasons:
(1) I tend to not believe in strange chance coincidences. I.e. that the sun or some natural source "just happened" to be generating this period of GW in sychronization with man's increased addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (not just CO2 from fossel fuels, but also chlorine and flourine compounds that never before existed in the air and are both active IR absorbers and also good catilizting agents for other chemical reactions. The NOx that pours from all modern high compression internal combustion engines also increase GW much more than CO2 on a "per molecule" basis. In addition, H2O is much more effective GHG "per molecule" than CO2. Water vapor in the air is very abundant and surely the dominate GHG. It has a complex natural cycle, of evaportaion and rain, etc. By introducing more small particles to nucleate water drop formation the "rain side" of this natural cycle is being encouraged and probably the "evaportion side" is being surpressed as more clouds are formed to reflect back into space sunlight that would have passed thru the same amount of water vapor as the cloud contains. Puting these particles and CO2 up high, 30,000+ feet as airplanes do, is particularlly effective.)
SUMMARY - man is definitiely doing many different things that definitely have an effect on GW but how important each is is very difficult to evaluate, but it is hard to believe that the sychronization of GW with these rapidly increasing activities that at least contribute to GW is not a significant part of its cause, but that could be the case. - I.e. It is possible, but improbable, that GW has a mainly natural causes and it is only chance that has it sychronized with these GHG producing activities of man.
(2) Although there have been periods in the long history of the Earth when concentrations of CO2 were higher and lower; the RATE at which it changes is very important and never before has the rate of change been so great. CO2 is quite stable molecule. (Heavier than air, so can pour it on fires to put them out, etc.) A huge amount of it can still be absorbed into the oceans (They are far from saturated at current temperature and one atmopsphere pressure.) BUT this process of removal is slow relative to the rate that combustion of fossel fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere (Why the CO2 concentration in the air has increased by at least 1/3 in less than a century.) The other (perhaps the only other) removal process for taking CO2 from the air is photosynthesis by green plants. Here too, man is greatly interfering with the natural process by clearing land of forests and the agricultural practice of plowing.
For example:
Brazil is one of the greatest GHG producers in the world despite it relatively small population and low level of industrialization as evey time a tree is cut down or a field plowed to expose to oxidation some of the organic material that was buried in the soil, this is man-made "negative photosyntheseis." - I.e. photosynthetically removed carbon is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 once angain.
SUMMARY: "Mother nature" can not keep up with the RATE of man's production of CO2 or do anything to rapidly remove some of the compounds that man has released because they are "un-natural" - never before existed and nothing has evolved to "eat them" etc.
PS
Because of the rapid RATE of distrubance man is causing, it is possible, but I think (but do not know and only hope NOT) that a terrible positive feed back loop may be started or even already now acting. For example of very serious one (there are others and they can jointly interact to create the "greater than unity loop gain" discussed now):
It is completely obvious that the ice covering the Artic Ocean will be destroyed in less than a century. This will convert a large surface area from a 90% reflector of sunlight into an 80% absorber and heat the Artic Ocean significantly. There is no doubt considerable menthane hydrate on the Artic Ocean floor (and in the surrounding tundra of the near shore lands, which will also certanly release huge quanties of both CO2 and CH4 into the air). This surge of atmospheric CH4 will further increase the GW as on a per molecule basis, CH4 is much stronger GHG. I.e. IF the "unity gain" threshold is breached of this positve feed back loop, then ALL life on Earth will die, not just mankind, probably in less than a 1000 years, because Earth will become a slightly cooler version of Venus. I.e. The atmosphere of Earth will be hot high-pressure steam, as the oceans slowly boil away into space.
Also it should be mentioned that the warming of the ocean surfaces, which has been noted already beyond doubt, is DECREASING the ability of the oceans to absorbe CO2 (Cold water can hold more than warm H2O.) this may be one of the significant contributors to a net loop feed back gain greater than unity.
SUMMARY: Gore may be wrong, probaly is a rationallizing hypocrite, at least to some extent, as he jets around spreading his message, but I for one do not want to bet the fate of all life forms on Earth on this being the case. I think it only to reasonable "to play it safe" and hope that the positive feed back loop can still be avoided (has not already gone past the point of no return.)
Last edited by a moderator:
No, that's not true. Most people who scoff at "global warming" aren't saying that it's not warming, they're saying that no one has proven that it's the fault of humans.
And I agree ....and no one has proven that it is the fault of humans. We've had changes in the global weather over eons when there were no humans on Earth. What caused those changes?
And I'll say it again ...What can we do to stop it? Almost all scientist will admit that nothing we do can change what's happening. And yet environmentalists will make silly suggestions like switching to compact flourescent lights will suddenly put the brakes on global warming! How silly.
There ain't nothin' that we pitiful humans can do to stop global warming. Ain't nothing we can do to even slow it down!
Hell, just get a bigger air conditioning system and relax and forget about global warming.
Baron Max
That may be true, or may be false. Man does not understand GW well enough to accurately model the contribution of man, but clearly they are not zero so certainly man can reduce the rate of GW and as discussed in more detail in post 27 that change in RATE, even if small, may be extremely critical.
Yes that is what many will CONTINUE to do and is part fo the "positive feed back mechanisms" I spoke of in post 27. Perhaps cumulatively these postive feed backs have already passed the point of no return and in less than 1000 years, Earth's atmosphere will be hot high-pressure steam and there is already nothing man can do to stop Earth from becoming a "cooler version of Venus." If you do not wish to remain in your entirely ignorant state, read post 27 carefully.
If we (and all life forms) are to die in a hot steam atmosphere, I for one want to go down fighting, not trying to turn my air conditioner up more, sipping my last beer. It may very well be possible still to avoid converting Earth into a cooler verions or Venus (or even possible that such a conversion is not possible) but I prefer to fight, doing what man can, to preserve life forms.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy, you'll be dead and gone long, long before any such conditions occur. So kick back, relax and enjoy that beer and the cool airconditioning.
Baron Max
Yes that at least is true, but I have grand children and am "romantic" about life on this insignificant "blue marble" lost in the vastness of the universe. I think there is likely life in many other places, but that is far from certain. If Earth is the only place, and that one sample is lost because evolution produced and exceptionaly capable but very stupid "intellignet" life form, to one member of that life form, perhaps not as stupid as the average, that would be sad.
I not only enjoy my beers, but do not pay for many. The owner of local bar, about four minute walk from my apartment, calls me when one of his customers wants to practice his English. (I have about 15 "regular students") I go about half the time when he calls. (Usually only when already wasting time here at computer and need an hour's exercise brake, "bending my elbow" swallowing, and then slightly staggering home. He makes money on me from the customers who come and drink even when I am too busy to go, so all are happy and we have a lot of fun in the bar.
I am currently translating* a short English poem I know to give owner, my friend, a framed copy. In English it is:
He is not drunk, who from the floor, can lift his head to ask for more.
But he is drunk who prostrate lies, and can neither burp nor rise.
BTW, for your benefit, I have edited post 27 to make the essence bold - I know reading my typically long posts is too boring for you. (I have on many occasions accused you of lack of ability to read with comprehension, but think the truth is you just can not be bothered to read long posts.)
-------------------
*Translating is easy, but keeping it rhyming is proving to be hard. (Nothing useful rhyms with the portuguese word for "floor")
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet it was your generation that caused the problems in the first place! So just how "romantic" are you ....when the dust finally settles?
This is a discussion forum, not a place for long-winded preaching and high-sounding sermons from the mount! Say what you mean in as few words as possible. If you can't say what you mean in just a few words, then it's a sure sign that you don't know what the fuck you mean .....and have to hide the fact by spewing words like a politician!
Baron Max
No, long posts are more an "accademic disease." I like to be complete, accurate, and support my POV with rational arguments and facts, ususally; although on a few occasions I have adopted your style, giving you credit of course (another syndromn of the "academic disease"). For example I have posted:
"In the style of the Baron: That is a load of bull shit."
when replying to someone obviously too dumb to be educated, etc.
And has it ever done any good for anyone? ...with the possible exception of your own satisfaction of posting the long, involved, convoluted bullshit?
Just curious, Billy, .....what do you think of politicians who do what you and Fraggle and Tiassa do?
Baron Max
Some times I do get thanked. For example only two days ago Sparywowo, relative new here, thanked me twice in different posts the second one being:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1574558&postcount=31
Once a few years ago someone even posted something like:
"For Billy: clinck, clink (coins dropping)"
But usually these thanks are for my explaining some physics in simple terms (I actually am a better teacher of physics than most, at least for the average student. Not always smart enought to keep up with the best I have taught.)
I can not recall, being thanked for my political or economic posts, but more frequently now many are saying that they agree with my "black cloud is approaching" US economy (but not you of course. From your POV, they are just more the "sky is falling" nonsense. As in this area, you seem to be in "can not be educated" group, I will reply back in your style, with following simple unsupported declaration: "The dumb will pay for not seeking protection.")
Generally I tend to like to hear what they have to say, with rational support. - Most just utter the nonsense that their advisers tell them will win more supporters than it will lose them.Just curious, Billy, .....what do you think of politicians who do what you and Fraggle and Tiassa do?
For example, there was a recently a debate between Republicans, which I did not see, but some ex-actor (forget his name, the newest announced candidate) had a sound bite reproduced by CNN which made me notice him. He actually said something that public needed to be told, but probably will cost him support. If I were voting in the Republican primary, he would have my support.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gore...wasn't that the guy who was vice president of the USA once and during his term they murdered civilians in foreign nations?
I do not remember that, but perhaps if true it was an early effort at reducing their CO2 producion? (If he had done a lot more, the climate would be more stable.) Us old 'farts" are not getting out of way, by dying young, as we formerly did. A "Solvent Green" solution or something is needed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, but Gore was adamant about not wasting unnecessary energy or using too much fossil fuels to pollute the atmosphere in killing all them damned civilians!
Baron Max
I agree. Except the difference is that I really mean it, where you probably just said that as sarcasm. If humans all died at about 50-55, then this world wouldn't be in such dire straits as it is now.
And the young could actually have the power to get some of their idealistic goals in place without us old farts pointing out realities to them, squelching their dreams.
Baron Max
Does anyone know if there was ever a nobel prize winner for peace who deserved the prize?