Oscar time for Al Gore's movie

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:10 PM GMT on February 26, 2007

Share this Blog
3
+

If you haven't seen Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", it's time you watched this important film. The movie took home the Oscar award for best documentary feature of 2006 at last night's Academy Awards, and also won an Oscar for best original song, singer Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up." As I wrote in a movie review last year, Gore does a good job educating the non-scientist about the science of climate change and the dangers it poses. The only major flaw scientifically in the movie is the unwarranted connections he makes between climate change and severe weather events such as Hurricane Katrina and the record number of tornadoes in 2004. I gave his science a "B" overall. I thought the movie was a bit too long and was excessively political, but definitely worth seeing (2.5 stars out of four). It is difficult to make a scientifically accurate movie about climate change that will also be interesting enough to do well at the theaters; an "An Inconvenient Truth", while admittedly imperfect, does a respectable job educating us about climate change and the challenges and dangers it poses.

Should "An Inconvenient Truth" be shown in schools?
According to a recent blog posted at realclimate.org, "An Inconvenient Truth" has a become a required part of the science curriculum in some countries. One of the producers of the film, Laurie David, recently offered 50,000 free copies of the $19.99 DVD to National Science Teachers' Association (NSTA) for use in U.S. classrooms. The NSTA turned down the offer on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against "product endorsement", and a fear that distributing the film would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." Realclimate.org points out that one of these targeted supporters is oil giant ExxonMobil, and questions whether concern about losing funding from ExxonMobil influenced the decision not to take the free movies. I don't have a problem with the NSTA rejecting the free movies on the grounds that Al Gore's presentation is politicized. However, as pointed out in the realclimate.org post, NSTA does not offer much content on climate change in their list of recommended materials. One of the recommended books, "Global Warming: Understanding the Debate", has no business being on their recommended reading list. This book is written by Kenneth Green, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). This fossil-fuel funded think tank recently offered $10,000 to scientists willing to criticize the recent landmark 2007 Summary of Policy Makers climate change report issued by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI offered to award the money to scientists who would "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs", as explained in an article in the UK Guardian. Given the lack of quality climate change education material it offers to teachers, NSTA needs to seriously rethink their recommended offerings on this important subject. If they are going to continue to recommend a book written by the fossil fuel industry-funded American Enterprise Institute, they should recommend Al Gore's movie as well. The two best books for teaching about climate change are missing from the NSTA's recommendations: Robert Henson's excellent Rough Guide to Climate Change (high school level) and The North Pole Was Here (grades 6-9), by New York Times climate change writer Andrew Revkin.

I'll be back Wednesday with a look at the weather of January 2007--the warmest January on record, globally.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 309 - 259

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

309. kellnerp
9:55 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
Snowboy and Michael STL

I hold that at any given time it is the marginal effect of adding or subtracting a component to the atmosphere is what we are talking about. In business terms, ROI (Return on investment). Adding a pound of CO2 has far less effect than adding a pound of CH4. Adding a pound of H2O like wise has a far greater effect. If you look at the contribution of all that C02 to actual energy retention it is only about three times that of the small amount of CH4 currently in the atmosphere.

The overall effect of global warming may not be what everyone thinks. If you look at the average temperature over the entire surface of the planet and you think about raising that average there are two extremes of how that average can increase. In one extreme of looking at it is that the average temperature at the equator increases and the average temperature at the poles increases. In other words for the sake of argument the average in Kenya and the average at the poles both increase could be one scenario in which the average increases. The other scenario is that the average at the pole increases while the averages around the equator remain roughly the same and the averages in deserts like the Sahara actually go down (as they did this winter). I think greenhouse gases will push things according to the second scenario.

Living in the midwest I see the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere on warming all the time. It is very apparent and very strong. This time of year, when there is no cloud cover ice will form on my windshield even when the ambient temperature is above freezing. If there is cloud cover and the temperature is below freezing there will be no ice. Once big difference between the effect of CO2 and CH4 is that they don't travel in localized features like H20 does.

Finally, at some time in the past the levels of CO2 must have been much higher than today. Ask yourself where all the carbon once was that is now locked in petroleum deposits like coal and many oil deposits. It had to be the atmosphere and it was distributed all over the planet from the equator (Nigeria, Mexico, Saudi, Russia, Siberia, Canada) to near the poles. They can look at the ice record all they want, but the petoleum record should not be overlooked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
308. Fshhead
5:31 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
I'm a firm believer that Momma Star up above is the main culprit. Too bad we're too unevolved to grasp the whole grand scheme. Maybe one day, if we have enough data collected, instead of forming a hypothesis over 30 years of data and "running with it"

And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short

I just wanted to point out that I hear this comment frequently here....
This statement in bold was taken right from the I.P.C.C. report. I think they knew this view was going to cdome up just like they said that the Atlantic hurricanes ARE being influenced by global warming.
Also I want to apoligize to anyone I might have offended last nite with my comments to our temporary Troll visitor. Like I tried to point out last nite it was IGNORANT people like him that results in the slightly tarnished reputation we have in the world right now. This is the greatest country on the face of this planet, just to be able to express our views so openly is evidence enough!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
307. FUBFEE
5:03 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
The NSTA ought to allow the movie, especially if they are allowing material from the AEI, a neo-conservative, right wing think tank.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
306. Skyepony (Mod)
4:54 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
Here was a different take of why Inconvenant truth was having trouble being shown in some public schools. A parent complained & here's the quote..(the whole article is worth a read)

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

After much school board debate teachers in that district can show it but they have to show the opposing view as well.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
305. Tazmanian
8:33 PM PST on February 27, 2007
hello aron nic to see you pop in hows it going
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
304. wxfan
4:21 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
This is ridiculous. I'm done reading this blog. It got political - now it's crap.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
303. WunderYakuza (Admin)
8:15 PM PST on February 27, 2007
This isn't the forum for relentless ad hominem and snark. Post that kind of drek on your own blog.

Tirador2 has had comment privileges removed for this blog. Thanks for flagging everybody.
302. snowboy
4:17 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
Ah, that's better thanks! MichaelSTL, that's a lot of CO2 that we need to be trying to either stop emitting or to sequester before it gets to the atmosphere..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
298. snowboy
3:50 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
hey folks, last night's troll is back. Please do not respond, just flag the posts as spam/obsecene, set your filter to screen the troll posts, and he'll eventually go away..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
297. snowboy
3:38 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
kellnerp, you are correct that CH4 (methane) is a more potent greenhouse gas. However there is a lot less methane up there, and it has a shorter residence time. Bottom line is that currently CO2 is THE greenhouse gas to worry about.

You are also correct that water vapour is a very potent greenhouse gas. However human activity is not increasing atmospheric concentrations, except that by warming the atmosphere (with our Co2 and methane emissions) we are increasing its ability to hold water vapour.

Re the leaves, best thing to do is mulch them in place (on your lawn using a mulching mower). They then fertilize the lawn, and save all the transport, composting etc.
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
293. kellnerp
3:06 AM GMT on February 28, 2007
Everybody is excited about CO2, but CH4 is worse and water vapor is the worst. Burn methane and reduce potential greenhouse gas by a factor of 10.

"Methane, a "greenhouse" gas, is 10 times more effective than carbon dioxide in causing climate warming. " http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

So I never understand why our county burns diesel in the trucks used to pick up leaves with vacuums* to haul it to a composting area where it then generates CH4. Burn the leaves in situ and lower green house gas.

*Vacuum pickup of leaves has to be one of the most energy wasteful ways to move them that was ever invented.

TOP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
292. LowerCal
5:47 PM PST on February 27, 2007
Posted By: Caffinehog at 9:38 PM PST on February 26, 2007.
CFL's:

They use 1/4 of the electricity of an equivalent incandescent light bulb.
...


Caffinehog, thanks for posting all the info on CFL's. (page 3)
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 9196
291. Skyepony (Mod)
11:49 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Thanks snowboy, I thought they'd changed their stance. But when I went for irrefutable back up I couldn't find it. Well scratch Exxon/Mobile off my last comment.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
290. Skyepony (Mod)
11:25 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
BPG~ We are near 100ppm higher in CO2 then ever before in our cycles of the last 650000 years. Apparently you didn't read the NASA link I posted. With every peer approved scientific paper in something like the last 5 years, the EPA, NASA, NOAA~ pretty much all the heads of government around the world except the USA (Australia just abandon us)~ all the oil companies except for Exxon/Mobal all of these think humans are playing a most likely real bad experiment on our enviroment by putting up so much CO2 & other greenhouse gases. Things are already changing~ ice, tree lines, species, sea levels. If you choose to keep your head in the sand, which you say you are, I don't understand where you fit in the discussion or have anything constuctive to say on the subject. You certainly gave me no links or reason that I shouldn't believe climate change is atleast partually to blame on humans. Yet I've brought thoughts & facts forth from repital sources. To not believe BP is like not believing Phillip Morris that smoking cigerettes ups your risk of cancer. But we burn them anyways, we like to burn things even if it's bad for us & your right it's easier to stick your head in the sand & take that next drag.

As for Tirador~ we try to keep the discussion about science & facts which they brought none & there is a rule by the blog administrator that says no personal attacks, agreed could have been handled better but Tirador's comments didn't belong here.

Welcome aboard, pick your head up & look around.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
289. snowboy
11:27 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
thanks for that thoughtful post bpg28 - you will understand if it takes a little time to formulate an equally thoughtful response.

I will however quickly respond to the issue of Tirador2. There was no excuse for his tirade last night. There is plenty of room on the global warming issue for discussion and honest, even heated, debate. But there is no room for the nonsense being posted last night. The one question Tirador2 posed has been brought up repeatedly by new folks, and I would have had no trouble responding. But I wasn't going to indulge a petulant and obscenity spouting bully. Best to just go out for a walk, and come back to it next day once the storm has blown over. Life is too short..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
288. snowboy
11:22 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hey Skyepony, last I heard Exxon was coming around. See the attached article from the Boston Globe:

Debate over global warming is shifting - Some skeptics resolute, others revisiting views

By John Donnelly, Globe Staff  |  February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON -- With Democrats controlling the environmental agenda in Congress, a panel of international scientists saying there's a greater-than-90 percent chance that humans contribute to global warming, and former vice president Al Gore calling climate change a moral issue, many besieged global warming skeptics are starting to tone down their rhetoric.

Some, though, are sticking to aggressive tactics, even contending they are gaining momentum. And they have influential allies: some scientists, conservative think-tank pundits, a minority of Republicans in Congress, and a sympathetic White House that has rejected attempts to force companies to curb carbon dioxide emissions -- even though the vast majority of scientists say those emissions are heating up the earth.

Still, both sides acknowledge that the global warming debate has changed significantly in recent weeks. The biggest factor is the Feb. 2 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC -- a review of scientific literature by hundreds of scientists who determined that it is more than 90 percent certain humans contribute to global warming.

That seemingly irrefutable conclusion helped shift the position of ExxonMobil, which had taken the strongest stance among oil companies against global warming policy.

Last week, Rex W. Tillerson , ExxonMobil's chief executive, acknowledged that greenhouse gases from car and industrial exhausts are factors in global warming, a stark reversal in the company's long-held position. For years, ExxonMobil has funded several Washington think tanks that have questioned the science -- and whether national policies would be effective.

Scott Barrett , a global warming believer and director of the International Policy Program at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies , said ExxonMobil's about-face is significant. "They accepted the responsibility to do something, and that could change the debate" from uncertainty about climate change to finding solutions to a fast-approaching crisis, he said.

Other oil giants, including BP and Shell, had made the shift much earlier; both are aggressively promoting fossil-fuel alternatives such as solar and wind power..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
287. Skyepony (Mod)
11:20 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
This is straight off the BP (a major oil company's) website..

Whether in coal, oil or gas, carbon is the essential ingredient of all fossil fuels. When these fuels are burned to provide energy, carbon dioxide (CO2), a "greenhouse gas", is released to the Earth’s atmosphere.

As we’ve become more dependent on carbon-based fuels, we’ve seen a rapid increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; from around 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to 370 ppm today. If current trends of fossil fuel use continue the concentration of CO2 is likely to exceed 700 ppm by the end of this century. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this could lead to global warming of between 1.4 and 5.8°C, more frequent severe weather conditions and damage to many natural ecosystems.
Based on current scientific opinion, BP believes that it is realistic to promote actions that ensure stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at around 500-550 ppm. This is a considerable challenge, given that global energy demand is expected to double between 2000 and 2050.
To achieve carbon stabilization, we need to ask ourselves some tough questions: What exactly is our current relationship with carbon? How can we reduce our dependency on carbon emitting technologies and fuels? What steps are others taking around the world?

Let’s start.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
286. bpg28
11:23 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Obviously most of you are close on this blog. You frequent the blog and check up on one another. From what I can glean you all, too, are from various parts of the earth. I commend you on finding this site on which to discuss common interests and problems that effect us all. I believe that through diversity and cooperation across the globe we will continue to ensure a bright future for our planet and kids and their kids. Cooperation rather than control or occupation. If folks aren't cooperating they should expect consequences and strife until they are ready to work together toward all of our success.

You may have noticed also that I said, "continue to ensure..." I am just not ready to buy into the whole GW thing yet. It is far to politicized as evidenced by what some of you seem to think (or at least acted like) was a playground bully - Triador2. He came crashing into your seemingly quiet blog community and began to push you around. Your response was to have him banned from the blog and to tell him not to call you names. Surely you all are bigger people than to run away and tell him to stop calling you names. You seem to be from what I've read, anyway. Suddenly you went from sounding like a group of learned folks to a class of first graders. Meanwhile, you didn't actually answer his question.

If you plan to present a strong front with fact on the GW issue, you need to toughen up, produce irrefutable facts, and answer the tough questions as they come. Science has seemingly become consensus, rather than tested data. Just because there are 10 people (arbitrary and random number) across the world who say that we are warming doesn't mean anything without the data sets to back it up. As a non-believer I don't have any hard facts at my disposal. And I am not willing to take the word of 10 people who may have an agenda without seeing the data. That's just not science. That's politics.

I'm not uneducated overall. I am uneducated in the theory of GW because I haven't yet seen irrefutable evidence worth my time to digest. And, frankly, I've got better things to spend my time on at this point than proving this issue right or wrong. I leave that to the folks who are getting paid to do the research. Hopefully, and this is perhaps my most naïve position, they are being paid by independent entities (one’s without political affiliation). Admittedly, I've read most the information on the links in this blog. All seem to have some place in the debate. But I expect that if you expect me to trade my full size truck and suburban in order to save the planet that you do have the hard facts to convince me minus the political spin. Just saying that we are now emitting more CO2 doesn't do it for me. There were times in the past according to some folks where there were more emissions, or similar. These were times before vehicles and such... How did that happen???

Also, one other comment that bothered me on this blog was one made by Fshhead. “Tirador everytime I meet someone like yourself it reminds me of how this country came to be in the shape it is in lol.” I had no idea that things were so bad here. Perhaps, Fshhead, if you find fault with the way things are, you should step up and do something about it or find a new home. I happen to think that the country as a whole is prospering. I’m certainly not eating beans and weenies. Please be careful with sweeping generalizations like that. True, we do have our problems. Governments from the local level to the federal level are out of control and full of problems. But if you or I don’t step up to throw the problems out we have no right to sit around and complain.

I find it very difficult to believe that if you look at the world around you - dirt, trees, water and the atmospheric conditions that may exist at any given moment, that we can have any control over “mother nature”. Ever build a sand castle on the beach only to have a single wave wipe away hours of work? Ever look at the destruction a tornado leaves behind? The earth and "mother nature" are so in control of us it's laughable to think the opposite. Why do we build houses with insulation and a roof over us? To protect us from the elements. If we're so tough and have so much control over the situation I think that we'd be much better at controlling it. We can't even forecast it most of the time. Just about the time we think we have it figured out, something changes. This thing is so much bigger than any of us.

I hope and pray that you all are wrong. I'd like nothing more than to believe that we are just in a cycle of warming and a cooling cycle will be coming soon (100 years or less). February in Kansas proved to me that we are not in an indefinite warming trend here. We had more snow and ice this month than I can remember for 25 or so years. Maybe I have my head in the sand. But, it's nice warm sand that moves about the beach as the sea pleases. Even if I dig up the sand and move it somewhere else, more sand moves back into where I dug.......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
285. Skyepony (Mod)
11:14 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
I have to make a correction BP & Shell have joined in the side of human caused climate change. Exxon is the last to hold out.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
284. snowboy
11:07 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hurricant, it is fine to post here if you are not a scientist. But when people respond with scientific facts and observations to your posts, it is not fair to write off those responses if they do not correspond to your beliefs with a condemnatory statement like "facts are irrelevant to the politicos.. as always..." Better would be to reexamine your assumptions, do some research, and respond constructively.

If you'd bothered to do your own research or to read the posts that were made, you would have learned that contrary to your BELIEF, the FACT is that Krakatoa cooled the earth's climate for a few years and no more than that.

Please note that no one here is from the "earth is dead in 20 year gang". This is a science based blog, and if you stick around you'll get a better sense of that.
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
283. hurricane23
6:14 PM EST on February 27, 2007
More hurricans number wise but we could see a year like 1999 which was above normal.There are still alot of unanswered questions for this upcoming season like how will the SAL be across the atlantic come time for the heart of the season and of course the all important steering currents how will they set-up?It really doesn't matter if 40 systems develope across the atlantic this season cause its the ones that actually make landfall that have the greatest impact.I tend not to focus on numbers predicted cause it only takes one to ruin lives.1992 proves even a quite season can turn out very bad as south florida was impacted by CAT 5 hurricane andrew.Adrian
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
282. hurricane23
6:04 PM EST on February 27, 2007
Extensive cloud-cover in my opinion has put a lid on thunderstorm activity today across south florida and the situation has been very isolated in nature.The severe thunderstorm watch should be allowed to expire at 7:00pm this evening.Adrian
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
281. hurricant
10:19 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
fossil fuel emissions are impacting mother earth negatively, i do not argue this. but it is much hyped and not accurate.( the earth is dead in 20 years gang) one major eruption is all it takes.. put the vitriol to good use.. we need to make a concerted effort, globally if possible, to stop our oil addiction.
now on the matter of oil and politics....well....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
280. Skyepony (Mod)
10:09 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Here's a great read from NASA on Volcanoes & Climate Change. Well it's a general about climate change, volcanos included. NASA, NOAA, even Exxon & BP admit humans are helping to warm the planet by burning fossil fuels as well as the Eastern Nations that live on oil.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
279. hurricant
10:01 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
i welcome the feed back and i again express that am not a scientist. however weights and measures in cubic tons of debris from a volcanic event of krakatoan extent or greater will abate considerably the warming trend , decades at the least

however facts are irrelevant to the politicos.. as always...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
278. snowboy
10:08 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hey ricderr, try here for a good overview: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The site includes the following excerpt:

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
277. Skyepony (Mod)
10:06 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Here's a graph each event there is months before & after a volcano. This has been proven many ways for a while now & isn't even considered myth. Volcanos throw so much ash, dirt & arosols high into the atmosphere they sheild the earth & cools it for a short while. Yes CO2 gets put up there but not enough to completely negate the arosol cooling.


source
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 179 Comments: 38340
276. snowboy
10:05 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
good point, homegirl - the science should transcend politics..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
275. stormchasher
5:08 PM EST on February 27, 2007
LA NIÑA MAY SOON ARRIVE
On the heels of El Niño, its opposite, La Niña may soon arrive. In a weekly update, scientists at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center noted that as the 2006-2007 El Niño faded, surface and subsurface ocean temperatures have rapidly decreased. Recently, cooler-than-normal water temperatures have developed at the surface in the east-central equatorial Pacific, indicating a possible transition to La Niña conditions. Typically, during the U.S. spring and summer months, La Niña conditions do not significantly impact overall inland temperature and precipitation patterns, however, La Niña episodes often do have an effect on Atlantic and Pacific hurricane activity. “Although other scientific factors affect the frequency of hurricanes, there tends to be a greater-than-normal number of Atlantic hurricanes and fewer-than-normal number of eastern Pacific hurricanes during La Niña events,” said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “During the winter, usual La Niña impacts include drier and warmer-than-average conditions over the southern United States."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
274. snowboy
9:55 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hurricant, there was one recent massive volcanic eruption (of Mount Pinatubo in the early 1990s), and it counteracted the effects of humanity's CO2 emissions for a couple of years. Krakatoa also caused cooling (even more), which lasted a few years. Nothing on a 100-year timescale though. Once the ash and sulphur particles settle and rain out of the atmosphere (which is process that takes a few years at most), we're back to warming..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
273. homegirl
9:44 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
I would like to point out, I was merely editing jorick23's post. In no way does it indicate my political views or my position on the issue of global warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
272. snowboy
9:51 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
MisterPerfect, when is the cooling of the planet you're boldly predicting going to occur, what is the mechanism that is going to cause the cooling, and what is the basis for your prediction?
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
271. hurricant
9:50 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Look, I am not a scientist , but the present fact that volcanic eruptions directly effect and cause global cooling when they are of a Krakatoa level. It is a fact .. period not conjecture .. despite how poorly we have treated mother earth ONE massive eruption and global warmong is set back 100 years

lets leave the politics out of physics please

i know is soooo cool to be green but political drama that ruins the credibility of real research is just foolish.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
270. snowboy
9:41 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
MisterPerfect, your technical arguments are full of holes so now you go after me personally for pointing that out. Nice try at deflecting attention from the technical deficiency of your posts.

Sorry if I've hurt your feelings, but if you can't contribute to the technical discussion on Dr. Masters' blog topic then maybe it's time to move on..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
269. MisterPerfect
9:42 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
I'm a firm believer that Momma Star up above is the main culprit. Too bad we're too unevolved to grasp the whole grand scheme. Maybe one day, if we have enough data collected, instead of forming a hypothesis over 30 years of data and "running with it"

But no doubt, the planet is getting hotter..

And no doubt, it will get a lot cooler too one day
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
268. ricderr
9:43 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
where do you see that snowboy?
Member Since: June 27, 2006 Posts: 674 Comments: 21772
267. snowboy
9:38 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hey ricderr, got it. Now to put your factoid into context, volcanoes worldwide generate about 1% of the C02 that human emissions do..
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
266. MisterPerfect
9:28 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Snowboy, I'll take you to task on subjects that are more important in life. You already gave away your political affiliation so everything that comes out of your mouth from now on is the cause for global warming to me. You come off as someone looking for a fight and won't get that from me. Do me a favor and go play on a melting glacier please.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
265. ricderr
9:30 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
volcanic eruptions cause COOLING of the atmosphere.


bud...by releasing CO2..note WBK....i used your better word than generate..semantics semantics semantics..LOL.. volcanoes contribute to global warming...thus my link..showing actual studies of CO2 volcanic emmissions
Member Since: June 27, 2006 Posts: 674 Comments: 21772
264. snowboy
9:29 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
hey TugHillTina1, let's try to keep the focus on the issues, not the messenger (ie. Mr. Gore). Otherwise you can look forward to having me asking you to tell us about YOUR weight and lifestyle..

By the way, did your area of the Tug get that stupendous lake effect snow storm earlier in the month?
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
263. snowboy
9:13 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
ricderr, of course volcanos release CO2. I'm not disputing that.

I'm taking Jorick23 to task for spouting off, and making the following statement:
"Global warming caused by human pollution? I think not. One major volcano eruption can put more pollution into the air in one day than humans have ever done in their entire history."

We're also taking MisterPerfect to task for getting his facts wrong.

Finally, your link about "Total CO2 output from Ischia Island volcano (Italy)" has me confused. Maybe I'm not understanding what you were trying to convey with your link - could you help me understand the point you were making?! My current reading of your post and link is that neither refutes anything I've been saying this afternoon..

Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
262. TugHillTina1
9:15 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Algore needs to take his own advice and get out and walk a few blocks, good lord has he put on some weight. Yes and what a carbon footprint his mansion leaves. This is why no one takes these liberal socialists seriously. If it were a crisis he would change his life style but he demands the little people to do so. Disgusting really!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
261. weatherboykris
9:07 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
OF course they generate CO2!Or,more accurately,release it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
260. ricderr
9:00 PM GMT on February 27, 2007
Snowboy...you might want to become informed just a weebit or you could end up sounding like the same people you deride.....the question is..do volcano's generate CO2?..you might find this link interesting..then..might i suggest the "modify comment" button :-)

Volcanoes and CO2 oh my!!
Member Since: June 27, 2006 Posts: 674 Comments: 21772
259. Patrap
2:54 PM CST on February 27, 2007
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128879

Viewing: 309 - 259

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.