Al Gore's -- An Inconvenient Truth

Yes. I have. You should, too. Then we'll talk.

I think the foundation behind the message "That we humans can make small changes to our actions and cool the earth" is false. I accept the truth that the earth is warming, maybe even that the sea levels will rise as greenland'd ice shelves melt. But I question how we can make small changes and send the world back into a glacial state? Wouldn't the Glaciation process result in death of most of humanity?

Hmm, here is the problem with the 100% theory. The "proof" of the factdoes not neccessarily guarantee a trend on future solar output cycles. If one accepts that there might be a cycle, then how will our actions impact what happens?


http://www.gatago.com/alt/global-warming/5413879.html

Title: Russian Scientist Predicts A "Mini Ice Age" or Global Cooling - So Much For the GW Fraud
Author: Wilton Milktoast
Date: 08-02-2006
Show original


I guess we can stick a fork in "global warmming" because it is 'done."

I will take the word of a Russian astronomer who knows hard science
over some UN lap dog faux scientists pushing the GW dogma.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has
predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of
this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St.
Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or
seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar
activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output
decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary
phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the
sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between
1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left
canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland
to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

In other words...relax, have a cocktail, enjoy life...

Ahh, yet more problems with the 100% statement.

The guy at iceagenow is hawking his book, but he probably doesn't have the resources that Gore has. Well, other stuff is the sea levels are falling - not rising. Cold weather in winter. Eath temperatures are cyclical. Global warming stopped in 1998. Next Little Ice age is around the corner.

http://www.iceagenow.com/


http://www.iceagenow.com/Dishonest_Headline.htm

Dishonest Headline

"Polar ice sheets show net loss," says the headline. However, if you take time
to read the full article, you may come away with a totally different conclusion.

According to an article published on BBC online (9 Mar 06), melting glaciers are
adding 20 billion tons of water to the oceans each year. The discovery came after
a team headed by Dr H. Jay Zwally of Nasa analyzed satellite and aircraft data.

"The survey documents extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves," the
article says, "but a thickening in the East of the continent, though not by as much as
some other studies have shown."

What the article fails to mention is that West Antarctica is only
one tenth the size of East Antarctica . In other words, the ice is
growing thicker across 90% of Antarctica .

The study also shows, the article continues, that the interior of Greenland is gaining
mass due to increased snowfall, but the edges are getting thinner.

Read that again. The interior of the Greenland Ice Sheet is gaining
mass, not losing mass.

But rising temperatures could have the opposite effect at the edges of both
landmasses, the story says, causing rates of melting to increase.

It doesn't say that it is having the opposite effect, just that it could.
Big difference.

"A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow
build-up in the interior and ice loss on the edges," explained Dr Zwally.

"But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each
other, or if that balance has already tipped in favour of the recently accelerating
outflow from glaciers."

"We don't know," says Zwally. Hardly a definitive statement.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during
the decade studied was much smaller than expected," said Zwally, "just two
percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year."

Sea levels are rising by less than three millimeters per year.
That's about 1/10th of an inch. At that rate, it would take 100
years for sea levels to rise 10 inches.

But remember, Zwally says that only two percent of that increase
comes from melting glaciers. (Apparently 20 billion tons is not all
that much when you look at the size of the world's oceans.)

According to my calculations, two percent of 10 inches works out
to two inches of sea level rise every thousand years. I don't think I'll
stay awake nights worrying about this.

Actually, considering that sea levels have risen some 370 feet
(121 meters) since the end of the last ice age ( 3.7 feet per 100 years),
it would appear that the trend is reversing.

In fact, with the ice build-up in East Antarctica , I think sea levels
are already beginning to fall. And I'm not alone in this. A group of
scientists under the leadership of Professor Nils Axel Morner has
found that sea levels in the Maldives in the Indian Ocean have been
falling for the past 30 years. (Global and Planetary Change,
Vol 40: 177-182, 2004)

.

To see the full "Dishonest Headline" article, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm

The first mproblem I have , from the statement that Al Gore creates a zeroline from 1970-2000. I recall the Soviet union determining their history ZeroLine being from 1917 to , well you know they crumbled . Point being there is billions of years of ecological history tha Al GOre is asking you to ignore. A real scientist knows that the more you know the more you will discover. If AL Gore actually had a real ounce of scientific knowledge in his head, he wouldn't be out there treating the populous as a bunch of kindergarteners that need him to "teach us" about our environmental follies and how we are destroying the world.
I know our climate will vary and I know the history of the planet has the climate swinging in extreme directions at times< I also know in the timeline of this planet we are but a blip and yet the planet has gone from hot to cold climates without our presence. Why would anyone believe that just because we are aware of our surroundings, unlike the rest of the creatures on our planet, that the weather would stop doing what it does to accomadate our desires for things not to change? If the perception were to be that we are slipping into an Ice-Age, what would the cry be then? Burn more fossil fuels, lets turn that world thermostat up?
Does anyone connect the worlwide legends of the Great FLood in all cultures that is probably the recounting of a similar event in mankind's early history, so far back, but so big an event it has etched itself in our collective subconscience. Anybody realize we are still here to ponder it?

Haven't seen the film yet, but like the idea of making people aware of a problem. Just don't see how the movie theater is the place. Unless he's just going for the "bowling for columbine" affect.....

If we are slipping back toward a glacial cycle, we can't really do much to heat the world. People will die. Sea ice will spread. I recall seeing temperatures really cold in siberia in the winter.

Similarly, what canm we do about the shifting of Earth's magnetic poles?

Of course, it's a good story if one man can influence humanity to alter behavior.

When a person criticizes a presentation they have not seen, how can they be taken seriously? Such a person is obviously not responding to knowledge, but to preconceived notions, which may or may not be correct. There is only one way for said person to ever really know if their assumptions are correct; experience the presentation. Until that has occurred, you simply are not qualified to evaluate it. See it, weigh it by its own merits and/or flaws, then evaluate it.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth", and I can now say without doubt, Global Warming is real. It is a fact, not just a theory. Natural cycles are at play, and those cycles are impacted by our actions. Our abuses of this world's ecosystems are adding up to exaggerate the natural patterns, and if we don't wake up and listen, we could bring about our own demise. Those who refuse to acknowledge the reality that we must all face a responsibility of caring for our home world, fall into two categories; greedy profiteers, and pawns of the greedy profiteers. They use excuses like "no scientific consensus", and habitually use spurious arguments, like we small humans could not make that much of an impact on the big Earth. Mr. Gore presented data that stretched back more than 400,000 years, revealing the natural cycles. He also shows us just how much higher than the natural highs we have pushed the Earth since the time of the onset of the industrial revolution. Current carbon dioxide levels are elevated way off the chart, compared to the natural cycles. And when we correlate carbon dioxide levels with average global temperatures, we find them directly synchronized. As levels of these greenhouse gases rise, so too average global temperatures rise. There is no question that the one is a consequence of the other.

And as for the idea that we are leading toward a glacial cycle, this is pure denial of reality. Localized lowering of temperatures in specific places, does not alter the fact that the average global temperature continues to rise, year after year. Global warming does not mean that everywhere is warming evenly. Just like when you heat your burrito in the microwave, some spots are hot, while other spots are still cold. But you can't deny that the average temperature of the burrito has unquestionably risen. So too, has the temperature of the Earth. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is fact, Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" is fiction.

In order for Gore's projections and patterns to be valid, one needs to accept that the output from our local star, Sol, the sun is constant. If the sun's energy output is constant, then average temperatures should be constant -- except for the contributions that man has made in the past 100 years. That is not the case. Volcanoes can produce alot of the same greenhouse gasses that we do. If one accepts the notion that Sol, our local star, the sun is a variable star, at times giving off less energy, at times giving off more--then the fact that the warming/cooling cycle isn't really in our control. Sometimes Sol has solar storms which can cause problems for our satellites and other objects in orbit.

Global warming has supposedly stopped in 1998. Now the atmosphere and mantle are taking a while to catch up. Coupled with the fact that the solar output is only decreasing slightly for now.

Marty you said, "In order for Gore's projections and patterns to be valid, one needs to accept that the output from our local star, Sol, the sun is constant. If the sun's energy output is constant, then average temperatures should be constant -- except for the contributions that man has made in the past 100 years. That is not the case."

Absolutely, that is not the case, and if you had watched Mr. Gore's presentation, you would know that he never said anything remotely like that. His projections totally deal with the fluctuations caused by natural forces. At NO point has he ever suggested that average temperatures should be constant. That entire idea is nothing but a complete misrepresentation, on your part.

What Mr. Gore does show is an amazing chart spanning more than the last 400,000 years, showing how global temperatures have a pattern of rising and lowering, not constant. He talked about how this natural pattern relates to Solar cycles, and volcanism among other natural causes. The problem is that the greenhouse gasses we have added to the mix has taken global levels of carbon dioxide way higher than any natural high in the past. And in consequence to this highest level of CO2, global temperature is off the scale, as well; multiple times higher than any of the other natural highs during the last 400,000 years. During this long time span, each time temps got no higher than a specific limit. We left that limit way behind last century, and each year of the current century global average temps have just continued to climb. We passed natural temp highs a long time ago.

And I don't know where you get the idea that global warming stopped in 1998. 2005 was the hottest year on record, to date, with no let up in sight for this year. You appear to be laboring under some misconceptions, Marty. I suggest you go see, "An Inconvenient Truth", and learn.

400k years

looking at the chart of the last 400k years, there are 3 specific times that the earth has gotten hotter than it is at present. It's more convincing when you just look at the last 50,000 years. Intellectually dishonest, yes, but more convincing all the same.

I have not seen it, but intend too. I've also seen where specialists come out and scream at the top of their lungs that global warming is responsable for the natural disasters the entire planet is experiencing, then a week or two later those specialists lose their jobs or backtrack at an unbelievable speed. That just adds more credibility to the global warming theory in my book.