How It All Ends: Why There Is Still Debate (Pt 1 of 2)

[SSedmak]

If Newton said "F = something or other" do you think we would know his name today? Of course, he didn't: the science was testable, repeatable, verifiable, and the predictions always worked as expected. That is why there is still debate on climate change! Sorry, but that's human nature. If you want to convince people to make major changes, you need solid predictions.

[FenixLites]

the fact that there IS argument, is NOT in itself a valid argument.

[cwross1976]

there will always be debate as long as people are free to disagree. oh and concensus is not science it is politics. for science we need proof (or evidence if you prefer... whats the difference? spelling?). also, a good alternative to combustion would be nice, solar is so limp wristed...

[williampinn]

Dr. Richard Lindzen's latest paper falsifies the greenhouse theory. Uncertainty is not holding anyone back. It is a lack of ideology and a preference for empirical evidence.

[timonix2]

well now i know where to try and get my research published (if ever).

[kcjenner1]

At 4:50 is the end of the quote and I searched and actually found it and here is the link to what David E. Wojick wrote

bit ly/4Jr9KX

What he is saying in this video matches that.

[warren52nz]

There is precisely no chance of convincing the "average" American that global warming is a serious issue and here's why:

About 70% of Americans claim they are religious and that God therefore created us (most side with the Bible's version).

And that means that they deny Evolution. And Evolution is one of the mostly highly supported, robust theories in Science but they still don't believe it because they don't WANT to. Global Warming is nowhere near as conclusive as Evolution. Pity.

[fuhmeregan]

wondering mind seems a god-screw - they eventually get around to no-warming. they've commercial interests in the crooked/ordumb republican log all forests, pump-use all crude oil. It's apparent to all that the planet is warming per destroying trees (needed to absorb CO2) and emitting greenhouse gases, methane, CO2 etc. The stupidity of Bush oil types, jew-fuck businesspeople keeping China in money is that without an environment the big house and new mercedes won't matter if there's no air.

[Tachyon55555]

only a master or the master controls the crawling chaos (media)

[Tachyon55555]

NSA and FEMA yeah real sweet guys... but not if you have depht.. to keep light in black vortexes...then you will discover how bees can spread or how carbonite works.. you are a bad manipulator...but a funny guy anyway.. If one didn´t knew better they will think you were a former agent of investigation..

[KrazyGerman29]

Im talking about the Canadian media. Recently I have been in Canada and not once was there an article that goes against global warming. Maybe Im just not looking in the right places.

[KrazyGerman29]

A problem with this video is he says that media presents both sides of the issue, although all I've ever heard is that GW is real. Us skeptics never get heard...

personally I find that there is more evidence pointing against CO2 warming than for it.

[Lukethemk]

He's talking about the american media, not the german/european.

[dbrotman]

Personally I find does not mean much. No one cares what someone personally thinks. The only thing that matters is what evidence you have that supports your premise.

[johnro76]

There are 4 hits now. Which is the original sole hit?

[TheFallibleFiend]

Great info. thanks

[isaak74]

The death spiral in a nutshell:

- People are dumbing down

- The earth gets more polluted

These two factors cause and support each other.

[RobertWhitlock]

Thanks for taking the time to produce all these videos. It's so sad to watch humanities headlong plunge down the slopes of social and environmental degradation.

[zenmproductions]

global warming is fake..

if it was real then scientists would agree on facts! not speculation...

and last time i checked 30,000 scientists wanted to sue al gore and have a debate with him, but al gore said no debate.... y cause hes a hypocrite and spends the most money on electricity in his county...

global warming is fake worry about other stuff...

like obama hes gunna screw us over

[Starstreamtracker]

There's no debate. A comet will hit the earth, sooner or later. Solution, build a mile deep in the earth....quick. The disaster will destroy the economy. The lack of absolute certaintity is holding back the solution. A mile deep...that's the solution.

[wwickeddogg]

You are way off, the people and the media are being influenced by a campaign not out of short term interest (assuming fossil fuel companies are stupid) but out of long term interest.

If you look at the graph of fossil fuel supply and use, you will see that every minute they delay a shift of energy supply is worth Trillions on the back end when the price of oil is $500 a barrel.

[starwarsgeek8]

"On some level, I suppose you can't fault them. After all, they are just playing the game we've got, since the whole purpose of a publicly traded corporation is to increase value for shareholders, not do the greatest good for the greatest number."

That's the problem with Capitalism: Life doesn't carry any weight. Money does.

[ozzyloki]

i love the hair flip at 1:30

[boxturtle64]

did someone just clap at the end of that? Did anyone else hear?

[ash4432]

the think tank is chris horner.

[DickMcPenis]

lol your "cliffhanger" tactics really work.. I can't stop!!! AAAh.. Am I ever gonna get any sleep?

[AjaPuppy1]

yeah, me too

[KID433321]

let us fight,this guy is right, towards cero carbon emssions we must unite!

[AjaPuppy1]

that hat is really ugly

[000sexy1]

so are you.

[000sexy1]

so are you.

[ShwangShwing]

I can't find such thing in google "we're all seekers of truth here". Maybe It's archived?

[TempestStormwind]

Did you include the quotes? I got it first try.

gristmill grist org/story/2006/10/25/22413/741

Replace the spaces with dots and off you go.

For the record, the fellow WM42's talking about is this man:

tinyurl com/3xdxad

Posted in the thread is a list of his clients (tinyurl com/32lpmu).

With that in mind, read his comments as WM42 suggests. Ask yourself if they sound like a reasonable skeptical position, or if they're deliberately designed to keep the debate going.

Also, google "Luntz Memo".

[ShwangShwing]

OK, thanks. I'll see this when I'm back from work.

[boogle362]

the quote to search is "we're all seekers for truth here"

"for" not "of"

[hellomynameisbecca81]

Thank you so much for your work to help make this so simple and understanding for those who don't believe in global warming. It's not that you're wrong, it's that we should work to prevent it from happening if it does.

[Edukator99]

HEY! That argument about the media amplifying bias was MY original idea! I was even so smart as to post it a comment...on risk management 3 I think. Yeesh...is there nothing you haven't thought of? Not even the thoughts in my own head?

[TempestStormwind]

Well, the Index's tagline *is* "Swami has read your mind...".

He is NOT joking when he says he is FREAKIN' THOROUGH. It shows. And it's totally worth it.

[Edukator99]

The guy is good.

[TempestStormwind]

Then get the message out! Send links around, discuss it with others, and get other people looking for holes in it. Spread the word!

If people have problems with the YouTube navigation, there's an organized index at manpollo (dot) org or wonderingmind42(dot)com, both set up by unaffiliated individuals for just that purpose.

[mdiem]

I've told my ten friends and I have replies saying links are being posted on message boards and network sites - it's getting spread, my friend, like fine manure...

[Thurman91]

your obviously not the first person to think of that

[knucklescrape]

All of the electrical principles you cite here have been put to falsifiable tests. I have done them myself in lab experiments in college. They correctly predict the behaviour of electricity. The IPCC has yet to put together a model that correctly predicts climate, yet refuses to consider that the underlying theory may be the problem.

I am done with this discussion, but you have my respect and continued disagreement.

[wanderingmind21]

Your analysis of the falsifiability, is close but off. On the bench in the lab scientists have measured, Steffan Boltzmans law. (Thats law not theory) They have also measure the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 and all the other greenhouse gases. The row of bench lab tests that show that CO2 and all the other greenhouse gases _will_ make the climate warmer if they are increased is immense.

[wanderingmind21]

AFAIK: The only uncertainty the climate scientists have is in the magntude of the feedback loops. That raising CO2 causes temp to go up is not a serious question, the only serious question is, how much. (ie only thing in not in insignificant doubt)

[wanderingmind21]

In an electircal circuitry sense, the amplifier is nearly in critical feedback. Its output is bitch to predict precisely, but there is still only one direction that CO2 forcing will push average temperature.

Finally if your done Im :(. Nothing and I mean nothing will make me happier than finding out I or more correctly the IPCC and AAS and are all wrong.

[wanderingmind21]

Alternatively if I am right, what I personally can do about AGCC, is undertsand why people still such as yourself do not undertsand, its real, it is nowish, and it is bad. Then I can try to construct the explanation that you do get that does resolve your misundertsanding.

In particular as you are literate and share a common knowlege of circuitry, I stand a good chance. hence :(.

[wanderingmind21]

That, teaching, not climate science is (one) of my central areas of expertise. All of my other areas of expertise(formal univ training) happen to be pertinent or closely related to the task at hand of assessing and teaching/explaining/exploring why AGCC is a threat. The 500char limit makes it hard though.

[aurelia314159]

knucklescrape,

Keep in mind that wonderingmind42, being a layperson like most of the rest of us, is not trying to argue about the details of climate science, but has made a sound argument that changing to green technology is in our best interests, given the premises that AGW is LIKELY to be true and that fossil fuels will soon reach their peak in rate of consumption.

[knucklescrape]

One of the basic maxims of my life has been "if everybody knows something, it is probably false". Plus, if people get mad and call you ignorant when you ask how they know it is true, then it is almost certainly false. And when liberals declare the debate "finished" despite credible arguments to the contrary, bet everything against them.

Fine, you win, the world will end if I do not do as I am told. Why should I be skeptical?

[wanderingmind21]

For the same reason I am. I was posting to usenet sci.skeptic in the 90's. Questions are good, especially when you get answers.

[wanderingmind21]

In Australia, our Liberal party mirrors your republicans. In the 1980s, when I first realised the fossil fuel resources were finite and our use was according to economists growing, and anythign less than exponetnial growth was an awful depression.

I applied your maxims. I bet everything against them, seems my bet is playing out as you said it would. There are wars fought over dirt and water, once that was fanciful.

BTW everyone knows the earth is round....

[knucklescrape]

My "everybody knows" maxim is a soft generalization, so I concede the roundness of the earth. I was taught we would be out of oil by 1990. Previous analyses indicated being out of oil by 1910. I think that the sheik was right when he said "the stone age ended, but not for lack of stones".

BTW I am Canadian, not American; a Canadian is like an American, only unarmed.

[wanderingmind21]

Have you watched, the other series of 8 videos on expoinential growth. "Most important video ...."

I dont think we will have peak oil at any particular time, I suspect this time we are right, and PO is soon, but perhaps we will mine methyl hydrates from the ocean shelf.

However, I know for certain that finite resources versus exponential growth makes PO certain, in the mathematical sense.

Peak oil, peak coal, peak uranium, are all coming.

[aurelia314159]

The projections for oil production today are made using the figures for the total amount of discovered oil AND estimates of the undiscovered oil. Can we say the same for the projections of previous centuries? And please be sure to distinguish between the peak in oil production and the time at which all oil is exhausted. The peak is the problem because modern agriculture depends on cheap oil.

[ColdBloodedCarl]

You're right on the money. I think it's wise to question the mainstream opinions once in a while because people aren't always thinking for themselves. Saying "debate is over" at least rings my alarm bells quite loudly!!

[websoulsurfer]

I will take from that comment that you believe that Newton was wrong and that the Sun revolves around the sun and the earth is flat. All are "things everybody knows". So your logic is thay are false.One of my maxims is if someone puts a label on others("liberals", NeoCons) they are biased and not credible.

[knucklescrape]

You accuse me of ignorance, but do not understand the concept of falsifiability? In order to be a legitimate scientific theory and not religion, there must be some way to show if your theory is false. This is usually done predictively, ie Einstein used e=mc2 to correctly predict the orbit of Mercury and the behaviour of light during a solar eclipse. Had either failed to behave as predicted it would have falsified the theory.

[wanderingmind21]

I understand falsifiability it is central to science. I dont understand that it has standards. Science is falsifiable, religions are not. However those in science needs to be aware of very real biases. This is why when I studied psychology the concept of double blinds was so laboured over.

[wanderingmind21]

Your eistein example simplifies (500chars?) but its important not to in this case. If Einsteins predictions failed, it would have falsified the exact theory he had proposed. Newtonian mechanics is not so much falsified by the failure at high speeds (SR) small size(QM) or high gravity(GR), but is refined. Similarly,

Evolution and AGCC are exceedingly unlikely to be falsified in toto, refined and tweaked, not revoked is the plausible future.

[knucklescrape]

You have yet to answer the question: what would falsify the CO2 theory? If the IPPC or some other body used their climate models to correctly predict climate, or somehow replicate the conditions in a lab on a smaller scale, I would join your side in a a heartbeat.

What would it take to demonstrate that the CO2 model is wrong? If the answer is "nothing can prove it wrong", then this a matter of faith.

Just for the record, I am sorry for the "full of sh@t" comment.

[wanderingmind21]

I have, specifically stated what would break the chain of causation at the end of no holds barred. That greatly underestimates the list of possible things. BUT note the way I described science works by refining theories in the light of new evidence.

[wanderingmind21]

When attempting to frame a first order approximation of complex science to fit through the medium of telivison aimed at the masses, somethings gotta give. Try explaining virtual ground and opamps to ordinary people.... I remember clearly it being done in physics class, and everyone except me accusing the lecturer of getting drunk at lunch. Ive never seen a popularised version of any science I actually understood that was not faulty. Al Gores was better than Average as is wonderingmind42s.

[wanderingmind21]

Many things would refine the theory, modify the magnitude of GCC. Some would even make it not scary. To reverse it or even negate that CO2 forces climate if you change it, youd need to show CO2 does not absorb infra red.

[wanderingmind21]

Consider a 9Ohm and 1Ohm resistor in series. What would it take to falsify you belief that modifying the 1 ohm to a 2 wont change the voltage divider the way you know it does.

CO2 does exactly the same thing to similar equations in the climate. If the V divider is in complex amplifier, fiddle with the feddbacks and anything from an oscilator to steady stable state is possible.

[websoulsurfer]

The only way to prove that climate models are wrong is to wait & do nothing. A more reasonable proof of viability would be to take that same climate model with data through a certain date(1950?) & then predict what would happen using that data through today. Did it accurately reflect what happened?

[Kthonix]

Yurp. Furthermore, when they rely only on natural phenomena, e.g. solar variation, carbon from volcanoes, etc etc, they do not get the modern climate. These models do, however, line up with ice core samples when working backwards.

[knucklescrape]

Your argument begs the question because it ASSUMES that increases in CO2 levels radically change global climate, which is the point you are trying to prove in the first place.

PS my point about the ECO ad was intended as a political argument, not scientific, and therefore not fallacious, just in case anyone misunderstood.

[wanderingmind21]

In 500 char comment I gotta assume something.

I assume, based on evidence that inc CO2 inc temp. The evidence is CO2 absobs infra red then reradiates it, sum out into space, some back down to the earth. Clouds do the same thing, that why on clear nights it gets colder.

[knucklescrape]

I was just going through my old CDs and found one with an ad by the Earth Communications Office, which read "We Only Have 10 Years To Save Our Planet Its Starts With You And Its Easy". Sound familiar?

The release date of the CD was 1990. You do the math.

[wanderingmind21]

When the tidal waves hit the beach in indonesia, some people knew and ran away when the tide went out. Other stood around and procrastinated.

A bunch of other people recntly waited for some comet to fly by because they knew there was spaceship behind it come to colelct the true believers.

Both interesting stories but neither more relevent than your story. That you think your story relevent is odd in a discussion about science.

[knucklescrape]

Whether political groups have distorted environmental data in the past goes to the credibility of said organizations. You want me to assume that environmental scientists are honest. I have the right to rebut the presumption of honesty.

[wanderingmind21]

You rebut the presumption of honesty of the environmental scientists by rebutting what Gore said? pardon? Want to try that one again.

[knucklescrape]

No, I used the ECO ad to show an example of a prominent, respected environmentalist group using false scare tactics for political purposes. Rebutting Al Gore does not in and of itself prove anything, but the acclaim he has received undermines the credibility of those who claim to be scientists that praise Gore yet allow his blatant falsehoods to go uncorrected. I would say that a large chunk of your argument is based on the credibility of the proponents of these theories.

[wanderingmind21]

I praise Gore for trying to frame his understanding of AGCC to make it accessible by ordinary people. The IPCC and AAS blah, may well be the best at climate science, but they seem not that good at communicating with ordinary people. BTW do you think the climate scientists who have been modelled AGCC are environmental scientists? I think the vast majority of them were researching all sorts of stuff with no specific environmetnal focus when AGCC turned up.

[knucklescrape]

Whenever the AGCC crowd wants to show the evidence that CO2 causes climate change, they point to the ice core samples, and show the graph of CO2 concentration VS temp. For some reason, the X and Y axes are conveniently left off. The fact that they line up is "proof" that CO2 causes GCC. But if temp goes up 1st then something else is to blame for GCC. I understand where you are coming from with your "feedback loop", but it ultimately begs the question.

[wanderingmind21]

No it does not beg the question. Before man the earth warmed up and cooled down numerous times. They were not due to man, and CO2 didnt make it happen, then, but its +ve feedback happened. In fact no one thing is thought to have made it happen, different times different things happened. Solar forcing, orbital wobble, blah blah.

This time its us lifting CO2, so this time CO2 leads. Last time something else happened.

Whats the problem?

[knucklescrape]

What is your standard of falsifiability?

[wanderingmind21]

Whats your question mean. Standard of falsifiability?

[wanderingmind21]

You 'claim' to understand my points. All you know is you think you understand, which is different. I also udnerstand your points and see your errors. Mexican stand off. At the minimum one of us misunderstands something.

That I understood that point and you didnt ought make you pause.

[wanderingmind21]

You also say totally non sequitor things such as "But if temp goes up 1st then something else is to blame for GCC." Well of course it does. When CO2 went up first in the ice cores, no one suggests it was CO2 forcing that ended the ice age. In fact as far as I know it is not assumed all the warming periods were caused by the same thing happening over and over. You harbour a false assumption.

[knucklescrape]

My comments about the ice core samples are a rebuttal of the assertions of various environmentalists, most notably Al Gore, who state categorically that the ice core samples show that CO2 has driven climate change in the past. They emphatically do not show that.

And please try to avoid leftist fallacy number one: disagreement must mean ignorance. I really do understand feedback loops, I am both an electrical technologist and a guitarist.

[wanderingmind21]

When did I say you didnt understand feedback loops? I said your claim, not you, your claim

"But if temp goes up 1st then something else is to blame for GCC." was wrong.

[wanderingmind21]

AL Gore etal misunderstandings and misdescribing the science in broadcast would be important how? The aim of simplifying the science so it is digestibale by real humans, who have never solved a network of kirchoffs equations, is tough. I know I taught for time.

That Gore or any F'd up while doing so is.... so what?

The ice cores do support and are integral to the AGCC. Rebutting someones misunderstanding of just how it fits into the picture is?

[iiopen]

RE: Impact of ocean warming on coral reefs - Corals are under stress from a multitude of factors; over-fishing, deliberate destruction, water pollution, sea level rise, ocean acidification and, finally, warming oceans. The comment in the movie, that rising temperatures and other factors cause coral bleaching, is undoubtedly true.

[iiopen]

Bleaching episodes happen when the coral is under stress, and many examples have been linked to anomalously warm ocean temperatures (Australia in 1998 and 2002, all over the Indian Ocean in recent years). Corals are a sobering example of how climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in eco-systems, potentially playing the role of the straw that breaks the camel's back in many instances.

[iiopen]

RE: "The rest of my points are flat facts, not opinions. Look at the data yourself" - thanks - I did. Could your research efforts be clouded by your political bias?

[iiopen]

Hate Al Gore all you want. Global warming is real.

[iiopen]

I would even argue that Al Gore -- being such a politically divisive figure as he is -- is counter to the momentum this requires. I really hate to say that -- his heart truly aches for this issue.

[knucklescrape]

Could yours?

[wanderingmind21]

Given that you say

"Because CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record?"

and that by now it ought to be 'well known' that this evidence in no way contradicts AGCC. In fact it could be reagrded as evidence that bad positve feedbacks will make any change we make to CO2 worse. It will do this if the CO2 we release raises temp a bit, then that temp makes CO2 rise (by more lagged CO2) (yes temp causes CO2 and Co2 causes temp, is what worries me about AGCC).

[wanderingmind21]

Yet seemingly you are so misinformed you think CO2 lagging temp is a nail in the coffin.

So no, there is less chance my understanding is clouded by my political bias.

Indeed my science changed my politics drastically.

[knucklescrape]

What would contradict AGCC? What is your standard for falsifiability? I understand all of your points and disagree with your conclusion. When I started to study this whole greenhouse gas thing, I was hoping to find an area where I could agree with my liberal friends and thus fit in better. But the DATA shows that the sun is the most likely culprit, not CO2.

[wonderingmind42]

Holy cow, iiopen!! Nice foaming of knucklescrape.

[iiopen]

RE: Hurricane Katrina and global warming - Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming.

[iiopen]

Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

[iiopen]

RE: Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears - Arctic sea ice coverage shattered all records this year (2007) for the minimum extent. This was partially related to wind patterns favorable to ice export in the spring, but the long term trends are almost certainly related to the ongoing and dramatic warming in the Arctic.

[iiopen]

Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely. The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate.

[iiopen]

However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough. In the best observed populations such as in western Hudson Bay (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006), female polar bear weight is going down as the sea ice retreats over the last 25 years, and the FWS is considering an endangered species listing.

[iiopen]

However, it should be stated that in most of the discussions about polar bears, they are used as a representative species. Arctic ecosystems are changing on many different levels, but it is unsurprising that charismatic mega-fauna get more press than bivalves. In the end, it may be the smaller and less photogenic elements that have the biggest impact.

[knucklescrape]

Could it be that people are skeptical because there are nine serious scientific errors in "An Inconvenient Truth"? Because the IPCC has never come up with an accurate predictions based on their climate models? Because CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record? Because we are experiencing tremendous solar activity that is raising the temp on other planets?

[jthomp3120]

what is the credibility of the people making those arguments?

[knucklescrape]

The nine serious errors come from a ruling by a judge in the UK, who ruled that if the video "An Inconvenient Truth" is shown in the schools it must contain a disclaimer identifying the "errors" (deliberate lies, in my opinion). The rest of my points are flat facts, not opinions. Look at the data yourself.

[iiopen]

RE: Ice-sheet driven sea level rise - Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period.

[iiopen]

Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today - and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously.

[iiopen]

RE: Pacific island nations needing to evacuate - Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways - increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that.

[iiopen]

The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.

In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: "That's why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand", which is out of context in the passage it's in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of it's time.

[iiopen]

RE: Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor - The movie references the Younger Dryas event that occurred 11,000 years ago when, it is thought, a large discharge of fresh water into the North Atlantic disrupted the currents, causing significant regional cooling. That exact scenario can't happen again, but similar processes are likely to occur. The primary unresolved scientific issue regards how quickly the circulation is likely to change as we move forward.

[iiopen]

The model simulations in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation - by about 30% by 2100 - but there is much we don't understand about modeling that circulation and future inputs of freshwater from the ice sheets, so few are willing to completely rule out the possibility of a more substantial change in the future. Further discussion on what this really means and doesn't mean is available here and here.

[iiopen]

RE: CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record - Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they 'fit'. Again, both of these statements are true. The complexity though is actually quite fascinating and warrants being further discussed by those interested in how the carbon cycle will react in the future. We've discussed the lead/lag issue previously.

[iiopen]

A full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth's orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect.

[iiopen]

Gore's terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point--that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations--is correct.

[iiopen]

Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate.

[iiopen]

RE: Mount Kilimanjaro - Gore is on even more solid ground with Kilimanjaro. In the movie, the retreat of Kilimanjaro is not claimed to be purely due to global warming, but it is a legitimate example of the sort of thing one expects in a warmer world, and is consistent with what almost all other tropical mountain glaciers are doing.

[iiopen]

There is indeed some ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether or not the retreat of ice on Kilimanjaro is related to the direct effects (warming atmospheric temperatures) or indirect effects (altered patterns of humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation influencing Kilimanjaro's ice mass) of climate change, and that argument isn't yet over.

[iiopen]

But these arguments would be of more relevance if (a) we were not witnessing the imminent demise of an ice field that we know has existed for at least the past 12,000 years and (b) most of the other glaciers weren't disappearing as well.

[iiopen]

RE: Drying up of Lake Chad - It is undisputed that Lake Chad has indeed shrunk rapidly in recent decades. While irrigation and upstream water use are probably contributing factors, the dominant cause is the reduction of rainfall across the entire Sahel from the 1950s to the 1980s and with rainfall today still substantially below the high point 50 years ago.

[iiopen]

There is substantial evidence that at least a portion of this drying out is human-caused. A few recent papers (Held et al, PNAS; Chung and Ramanathan and Biasutti and Giannini) have addressed causes ranging from Indian Ocean changes in sea surface temperature to the increase in atmospheric aerosols in the Northern hemisphere.

[iiopen]

Gore uses this example to illustrate that there are droughts in some regions even while other areas are flooding. Unfortunately this is exactly what the models suggest will happen.

[ColdBloodedCarl]

What is the credibility of vp Al Gore?? :-)

[iiopen]

Being a single individual, although well versed on the subject, he'd be at the bottom of the scale. He is prophetic though.

[Edukator99]

I think he's very credible even though he's on the bottom of the credibility scale. He does site very credible sources. That beind said...I was 100% behind him but after watching this stuff I think I SHOULD listen to the arguments against him just in case...but the only arguments I'll listen to are from sources higher than him on the credibility scale. So if AAAS and NAS contradict him I'll be all ears.

[krabstarr]

ACK! I've watched the 'expansion pack' from the top of the menu on down but now I can't continue! DARN YOU and your silly hats!