LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Sorry Dan. I couldn't make it past the third paragraph Dan.

Yes, the "truth" has been inconvenient in more than a few issues of late.

Sonny wrote:Sorry Dan. I couldn't make it past the third paragraph Dan.

Doesn't the third paragraph only say that Al Gore would bring the film to the White House? What about that notion is too much to swallow?

Actually... I couldn't get past this part:

The entire global scientific community has a consensus

Sean Hannity said I shouldn't see this movie. He is a very bright man and is never wrong, so, just like our great leader GW, I will not be viewing this movie.

sohotrightnow wrote:Sean Hannity said I shouldn't see this movie, so unfortunately I won't be able to see it.

Not to worry. Michael Moore gave his seal of approval, so you should be in the clear.

You must have an Anti-Hannity post detector! That was a quick response!

The entire global scientific community has a consensus

As a member of the global scientific community, I know that this statement is false. Mr. Gore should know better than to use words like "entire" in any public speech, always gets you into trouble. The problems arise when political hacks on either side equate increases in greenhouse gases with rising temperatures.

What is widely accepted is that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. What is less well understood is the ramifications of this rise. The world environment operates with many complicated feedbacks that make simplistic statements such as, "rise in gases = rise in temperature" tenuous at best. It is also dangerous to rely on short term indicators such as receding glaciers and increased storm activity as indicators of man induced climate change. These so called indicators operate on time scales that are far too short to be conclusively linked with rising gas concentrations.

What HAS been proven is that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the acidification of the ocean. This acidification in turn makes it more difficult for organisms that precipitate calcium carbonate shells (ie corals and plankton) to survive and will have impacts on the marine food chain by reducing the populations of primary producers that are the food source for commercially valuable species.

I believe that Americans need to reduce their "carbon footprint" but that the argument is getting lost in political rhetoric as both sides argue over climate change. Of course, this discussion is completely irrelevant as India and China ramp up their energy use and carbon dioxide production.

I dig what you're saying, Cliff. Less politics, more genuine concern for the environment. Can't we all at least agree on that?

Here's an unrelated question-

India and China are ramping up their use, but does it measure equally with our use? A lot of people get on India and China, but do we not share in the blame simply because we were producing lots of carbon first? I've heard the, "We should be concerned about the gasses of China and India" argument a few times, but that just deflects blame off of our own gas production and on to someone else.

Any clarification on this?

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

So, while it is human nature to deflect attention to "the other guys", it doesn't seem to matter whether it is the West or China or India who contribute the largest share of that, relatively small, amount.

It's like the Barry Bonds discussion - his home run production since 2001 is "stronger" (51.2 hr/yr) than before 2001 (32 hr/yr).

In neither case can we categorically point to a single cause. As in my example, it's how you define the metric, too ("lies, damn lies and statistics").

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

StrykerFSU wrote:

The entire global scientific community has a consensus

As a member of the global scientific community, I know that this statement is false. Mr. Gore should know better than to use words like "entire" in any public speech, always gets you into trouble. The problems arise when political hacks on either side equate increases in greenhouse gases with rising temperatures.

What is widely accepted is that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. What is less well understood is the ramifications of this rise. The world environment operates with many complicated feedbacks that make simplistic statements such as, "rise in gases = rise in temperature" tenuous at best. It is also dangerous to rely on short term indicators such as receding glaciers and increased storm activity as indicators of man induced climate change. These so called indicators operate on time scales that are far too short to be conclusively linked with rising gas concentrations.

What HAS been proven is that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the acidification of the ocean. This acidification in turn makes it more difficult for organisms that precipitate calcium carbonate shells (ie corals and plankton) to survive and will have impacts on the marine food chain by reducing the populations of primary producers that are the food source for commercially valuable species.

I believe that Americans need to reduce their "carbon footprint" but that the argument is getting lost in political rhetoric as both sides argue over climate change. Of course, this discussion is completely irrelevant as India and China ramp up their energy use and carbon dioxide production.

StykerFSU,

I support your contention that political rhetoric tends to make hazy the inherent environmental problems we as a global community face. However, I find it quite contradictory that you attack Gore for using "words like entire" while professing an argument to be, "completely irrelevant". I certainly yield to your scientific expertise on the subject, but from an argumentative standpoint, I believe your statement, albeit nobly intentioned, lends itself toward the same rhetorical dead-end that you profess to resent. Furthermore, though China and India's proliferation of coal-based industry is no doubt a terrible threat, the United States still remains the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. (nearly 50% more than china). Either your argument is false or you are using rhetorical devices just like Mr. Gore.
I understand this is long-winded and quasi-inappropriate for a forum, but I think you're being unfair to Gore. In my opinion, irregardless of the accuracy of his claim, his bringing of important environmental issues to the mainstream media is a step in the right direction and further, warranting of my $8 at a local theatre.


Being a bored, new B.A. ,
Joe

Joe Opron wrote:

StrykerFSU wrote:

The entire global scientific community has a consensus

As a member of the global scientific community, I know that this statement is false. Mr. Gore should know better than to use words like "entire" in any public speech, always gets you into trouble. The problems arise when political hacks on either side equate increases in greenhouse gases with rising temperatures.

What is widely accepted is that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. What is less well understood is the ramifications of this rise. The world environment operates with many complicated feedbacks that make simplistic statements such as, "rise in gases = rise in temperature" tenuous at best. It is also dangerous to rely on short term indicators such as receding glaciers and increased storm activity as indicators of man induced climate change. These so called indicators operate on time scales that are far too short to be conclusively linked with rising gas concentrations.

What HAS been proven is that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the acidification of the ocean. This acidification in turn makes it more difficult for organisms that precipitate calcium carbonate shells (ie corals and plankton) to survive and will have impacts on the marine food chain by reducing the populations of primary producers that are the food source for commercially valuable species.

I believe that Americans need to reduce their "carbon footprint" but that the argument is getting lost in political rhetoric as both sides argue over climate change. Of course, this discussion is completely irrelevant as India and China ramp up their energy use and carbon dioxide production.

StykerFSU,

I support your contention that political rhetoric tends to make hazy the inherent environmental problems we as a global community face. However, I find it quite contradictory that you attack Gore for using "words like entire" while professing an argument to be, "completely irrelevant". I certainly yield to your scientific expertise on the subject, but from an argumentative standpoint, I believe your statement, albeit nobly intentioned, lends itself toward the same rhetorical dead-end that you profess to resent. Furthermore, though China and India's proliferation of coal-based industry is no doubt a terrible threat, the United States still remains the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. (nearly 50% more than china). Either your argument is false or you are using rhetorical devices just like Mr. Gore.
I understand this is long-winded and quasi-inappropriate for a forum, but I think you're being unfair to Gore. In my opinion, irregardless of the accuracy of his claim, his bringing of important environmental issues to the mainstream media is a step in the right direction and further, warranting of my $8 at a local theatre.


Being a bored, new B.A. ,
Joe

I just went from feeling "meh" about Oakland to thinking I should donate some $$$ to the school.

peterwho wrote:Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

So, while it is human nature to deflect attention to "the other guys", it doesn't seem to matter whether it is the West or China or India who contribute the largest share of that, relatively small, amount.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I'm skeptical about that site.

The pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2 is estimated to be 280 ppmv. It had been at that level for roughly 14,000 years since the end of the last ice age, when it was estimated to be 170 ppmv. With that ancient rise in CO2 concentration, there was a simultaneous rise in surface temperature of 5 degrees.

Note that these events may simply be correlated and caused by something else, like increased solar activity. It is not clear evidence that one necessarily causes the other.

Regardless, by 1958, atmospheric CO2 had risen to 315 ppmv.

By 2004, atmospheric CO2 has risen to 375 ppmv.

No one really knows what this is going to do to our climate in the long run. I think it would be prudent to try to stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere until we figure out what the hell we're doing.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/06.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphi ... rudc04.pdf

I'm very skeptical of peterwho's website seeing as how it also espouses the benefits of strip mining and is clearly linked to the coal industry but I will concede that cloud cover (water vapor) is a very difficult factor to model and it's effect on global climate is poorly understood at this point. Whether the albedo (reflective) effect of clouds is more important than their contribution to the greenhouse effect is an area of current study well outside my area of expertise (such as it is). I also acknowledge Wally Broecker as a well respected scientist and am going to try to find some time to go back through his literature and see if I can find some context for the quotation shown on the website.

Joe, I stand by my statement that the contribution of the US to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will become irrelevant. According to the US Census, there are currently about 1.3 billion and 1.1 billion people living in China and India respectively. These nations are both rapidly industrializing with coal fueling their growth. There has also been an explosion in personal ownership of cars, especially in China. Currently, the US may produce the lion's share of the world's carbon dioxide but I expect in the future that while the total amount of CO2 in the air continues to soar, our percent contribution will go down.

You are of course free to spend $8 to see Gore's movie if you think it's worthwhile. I was only pointing out that he misspoke when referring to the "entire science community" and then presented my personal opinions on the matter. I will reiterate that I believe we should all try to reduce our personal CO2 release but as more nations become industrialized the US' contribution will be diluted.

Of course, you might just want to wait to see the movie until it's available on the internet (that Gore invented...j/k)