WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Oscar time for Al Gore's movie

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

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

Book and Movie Reviews Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Frankly, taking the word of a man who uses limos and private jets, that emit more co2 into the atmosphere than commercial jetliners, is naive.

Hollywood? Should be Hypocritewood.
Sad is the word, when in an effort to "get the word out" we'll accept material that is incorrect and politically biased.
Al Gore is a complete tool. I have seen his science based movie. It seemed to be a little bit more about his life. It should have been called "The Al Gore Story with Some Incovenient Climate Changes."

A little too political is the understatement of the year. Maybe if it wasn't Al Gore and was someone a lot mure reputable that doesn't incessantly talk about themselves it would be good.

I agree 27 windows. I remember when his movie debuted how much flying he did across countries. I can't remember how much jet fuel he burned. But, I remember someone saying that is was the equivalent to about the life span of 1,000 SUVS.
Gore is not the subject.
The real subject is objective reasoning about what seems to be happening.
I read comments here last week disputing global warming because of a snowstorm in the northeastern US!
I also read a comment stating that more trees are growing today than are being cut.
If you take a 100ft, 100 year old, old growth spruce from the forest, and plant a pair of 5 inch spruce saplings, yes you're doubling the number of trees growing in the forest.
People really need to open their eyes and recognize the skewing and spinning and outright lying.

"hypocritewood"? That doesnt even rhyme, dude.
Ok am i here at the wrong time
hey dr m is that you this time????


whee did you go did you have a good time how come you did not put a note up went us no
It does say Jeff Masters at the bottom this time. It didn't have that when Aaron was posting the, I was Lurking at that time.
How about follywood? That rhymes.
Why Doritos?
Patrap..is that the guy in 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'?
In my opinion, this is a movie about a politician who happens to lecture about an important topic.

I've learned more from reading the climate change blog than I did Al's movie...about climatic issues anyway.
I think that movie is a load of Rubbish. you should see the reviews for it.
That would be Gort.Below is Oscar 3
As Al Gore said at the Oscars and many Hollywood elites repeated: "Global warming is not a political issue but a moral issue." This statement is a "convenient" way of sidestepping a political debate, by simply claiming it does not exist. Another statement I have heard, "The debate is over, we must take action." Any action taken by our government to address climate change is, of course, a political issue, which involves technocratic tinkering with our economy and way of life. Thus, it is true when Hollywood says "we have gone green" not red and blue. It all boils down to money -- and money is politics.
Heres the movie if ya got time..Link
Franck...there lies the problems....both sides of the issue have chosen to use "pre-packaged sound bites" and scare tactics rather than address us with facts... trusting that "we the people" have enough smarts ta be cipherin da ifurmashun...

Now as for forests..today american and canadian forests have rebounded (by mans hand..just as a sidenote)and are better at absorbing carbon dioxide than they were 50 years ago...new growth trees are better at absorbing CO2 than old growth and in some certain situations very much better. The forest issue i beleive is best left as an ecological issue. it is proven that our forests are a renewable resource...one that must be managed respectfully of it's ecological impact..proper harvesting methods and reforestation... sensitive to the impact on land..it's waters and old growth groves must be managed...when done properly..it's a win/win situation
More BAd news from GLobal Warming...Link
VP AL Gore has done PSA in the Past for NOAA.One cannot Wack the mesennger,for the message.Heres AL giving some simple but Effective words on a Easy way to stay alive in a Weather Event...1996Link..I can see Cheney doing this one.."Eh..you!..Get a radio.HAlliburton Sells um for 499.99.I suggest 4.Intelligence show these radios have been shown to be a part of the Vital National Interest.Now..Lets go Hunting Quail"..LOL!
Al Gore on NOAA alert Radios.....Link
I can't think of a better way to "push the envelope" on a political agenda such as Global Warming, using Hollywood and the Motion Picture Acedemy for publicity. Al Gore and his producers wined and dined the right people in California. Using the film in the education circle would be like using the Rocky movies as models of how to box. Imagine using a physics text book that was only half true and opinionated.
I do not even have to see Al Gore's movie in order to know the storyline. Man is solely responsible for global warming, and namely the United States at that!!! Blah, blah, blah!!! More left wing propaganda!!!

For many of you out there that are to young to remember, back in the late 60's and early 70's, the environmentalist leftist were claiming the earth was headed towards an Ice Age, and we as humans were doomed!!! Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourselves!

Yes the planet Earth has been going through a natural warming phase for the last 15 years due to increased solar flare activity of the Sun! There is nothing that Man can do about the solar cycles of the Sun, no matter what Al Gore and the wackos like him would have us believe. The human race, like it or not, is just along for the ride...

Tell Gore...Klaatu Barada Nikto.
Glad to see you back DR.Masters look forward to your next blog.Hope vacation was good.
I meant tell Gore that.
I meant tell Gort that.
Gort, Gore...I keep getting them mixed up. They look so much alike.
Go AL!! At least they can't take away his Oscar like they took away his Presidential victory!!
Yes, absent a global entity able to enforce certain restrictions on human activity, there can't be any reduction in human caused global warming.
We may be 'shocked and awed' by what happens, and in the very near future. The global corporate pyramid is fully perfected now. Tons of polystyrene for francise coffee shop fascades!!
...serving scorched coffee at that!
Good for Al. Won't vote for him, but he found the medium that 95% of the population uses for all of their information. Is it an issue? Probably. Is it wrong to do nothing? Absolutely.
Thank you, Dr. Masters, for another excellent report. Particularly like all the links that you provide us. We watched Al Gore last night at the Oscars. It's so cool that he got an Oscar. Perhaps this will be a real wake up call for the general public.
ricderr, you posted:
"Now as for forests..today american and canadian forests have rebounded (by mans hand..just as a sidenote) and are better at absorbing carbon dioxide than they were 50 years ago...new growth trees are better at absorbing CO2 than old growth and in some certain situations very much better..."

I'm not sure where you got that bit of propaganda for the forestry industry from but it is simply NOT true. Canadian forests have not "rebounded", they're under seige from a rapacious globalized industry that trashes highly complex, multifaceted and integrated ecosystems and leaves behind monocultures that have little ecological value and are susceptible to the first pest that comes along.

Some of the forestry companies' bigger Canadian clearcuts are so large as to be visible from space, they commonly clear the cuttings left behind by burning (hello, carbon inputs!), they douse the tree plantations left behind with pesticides, and generally decimate every aspect of what before the logging were vibrant ecosystems.

Our forests have not "rebounded" - by any objective measure they are in worse shape than they were 50 years ago, including as a sink for carbon.

I'm not as familiar with how things are in the US, but I imagine they're no different..
here you go snow...Document #1
Snow..you might find this interesting...Document #2
hey get real, GetReal! You do not have to watch the movie to condemn it??!! Sounds pretty closed-minded to me. Seems you're taking a similar approach to global climate change - not bothering to understand the science before spouting your own scientifically illiterate opinion.

The planet has been warming for the past 130 years, at an ever increasing rate. I WAS around in the 1970s when the "new ice age" theories were being peddled. What no one in the science community was willing to add to the discussion in the US at the time (likely because it was politically incorrect to do so) was the direct relationship between the global cooling that took place from the 1950s through the early 1970s and the above-ground nuclear tests that were being conducted by the major powers from the late 1940s through 1970.

Once the bomb-testing stopped throwing up clouds of radioactive ash (which reflected away sunlight and cooled the planet), the global warming that had started in the late 1800s resumed. It has been ongoing without interruption since then, and your vaunted solar cycles account for at best 10-20% of the warming in the past decade or two.
Not sure this article has been posted yet but my props go out to the NHC on there hurricane landfall accuracy last season...

The National Hurricane Center displayed unprecedented marksmanship during the 2006 Atlantic storm season, setting records for accuracy while tracking 10 systems, an internal report released Friday said.

The center, in Miami-Dade County, amassed its lowest average errors ever in predicting where storms would go over 12, 24 and 36 hours, as well as over two and three days.

Of note, the center predicted within an average of 35 miles where storms would aim 12 hours in advance, while the average error in the past five years is about 43 miles.

Considering that a hurricane can wreak destruction more than 100 miles on either side of its track, forecasters hit the meteorological equivalent of the bull's eye, outside observers said.

''We know they have very difficult task,'' Palm Beach County Assistant County Administrator Vince Bonvento, who deals with emergency planning, said. The main reason for the improvement: forecast models have become more technologically advanced, said hurricane specialist James Franklin, who authored the report.

''So we've seen a fairly consistent downward trend in these errors every year,'' he said.

On the other hand, the hurricane center continued to struggle with intensity projections. Last year, forecasters were 21 mph off in predicting the sustained wind strength of storms three days in advance.

''That's the same old story too,'' Franklin said. ''The intensity errors have changed very little in the past 15 years.''

A glaring example last August was Tropical Storm Ernesto, which initially was forecast to hit South Florida as a hurricane but wobbled to shore near Miami as a blustery blob.

Overall, for forecasts of one to three days, track errors have decreased about 50 percent since 1990. In addition to more powerful models, atmospheric observations have sharply improved as a result of satellite images, Doppler radar, reconnaissance aircraft and other technological tools. The more accurate the observations, the more accurate the models, Franklin said. (EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
The payoff was seen in Tropical Storms Alberto and Ernesto, the only two storm systems to make U.S. landfall last year, both in Florida. A day in advance, forecasters were off by 72 miles in predicting the landfall point of Alberto, which hit Northwest Florida in June. They were off by 54 miles with Ernesto. Both forecasts were better than the five-year average error of 74 miles over a 24-hour period.

thanks for the links ricderr, will give them a look and get back to you
Is anyone On?
One more snow boy....Document #3

now..canada has lagged behind the US in clear cutting practices......you've once again..picked apart my statement...without looking at it's whole...it is better..it's not perfect...and hee's the part that you conveniently omitted..which describes my views on clear cutting


one that must be managed respectfully of it's ecological impact..proper harvesting methods and reforestation... sensitive to the impact on land..it's waters and old growth groves must be managed.
Good Link ricderr
I'll be back later
I don't honestly understand why anyone would feel perturbed or not with regards to an award Hollywood decided to bestoy on any individual. It is a popularity contest or at least a "ratings" contest to say the least. Surely we don't hinge our daily decisions and future ambitions on the information or lifestyles of Hollywood or Hollywood types. I for one, didn't watch the Oscars, and really could care less who won what - then again, I go to very few movies these days. I haven't seen Al Gore's movie - only read a review here and there. I just find a hard time believing any media outlet is forthright, honest or factual in complete regarding today's issues. What I do find wonderful is the blogger's reponses and reactions to those responses on this particular day. It shows me that people actually do care enough to seek information, facts and figures regarding the real issues instead of waiting for Hollywood to tell them what is going on.
Great point Saddlegait
I'll be back later
ric you going to do scores?
hey ricderr, the first and more substantive document is essentially making the point that Canada's foresty practices are more sustainable than those of many comparison countries including some First World nations as well as Indonesia, China, Brazil, Mexico, Congo. Okay, I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that what we're doing in Canada is NOT sustainable - obviously it follows from the paper that forestry in many other countries is even less sustainable..

I do not see anything in either document to support your assertion that:
"Now as for forests..today american and canadian forests have rebounded (by mans hand..just as a sidenote) and are better at absorbing carbon dioxide than they were 50 years ago...new growth trees are better at absorbing CO2 than old growth and in some certain situations very much better..."

Obviously a newly planted seedling will be able to take up more carbon over its lifetime than an existing 200' tall forest giant will over its remaining lifetime, for the simple reason that the giant has already taken up 95% of what it possibly could. But that does not make the seedling better for the world from a global warming perspective - it makes it much worse! The giant is happily sequestering hundreds of tons of carbon TODAY, for the seedling to get to that point will take 100 or more years.
ricderr, I agree with your views on clearcutting! However I disagree that Canada is anywhere even remotely close to forest management practice such as you described:
"one that must be managed respectfully of it's ecological impact..proper harvesting methods and reforestation... sensitive to the impact on land..it's waters and old growth groves must be managed."
I no longer watch the Weather Channel for biased global warming reports. It is unforgivable to use scare tactics when trying to get your personal views across. I remember in the 60's a story about teh coming ice age and how it scared me as a kid. I hope you are all happy with this global warming effort. Stick to weather forecasting if you dont I guess I will just have to stick my head out the window each morning to see if it is raining.
fly - very good point - I think if we were to each be more accountable and more involved in our own days and the information we are fed, we would be better for it. If we choose to sit in front of a screen and expect those on that screen to feed us the information without being responsible enough to decipher and research it some on our own, we can expect the very "Scare tactics" you are referring to. Same goes for reasons to start wars, etc. We are a media driven society - seemingly to have lost our own will and sense of responsibility for the information we gather and re-distribute.
hey flytyerva, this is taken from my 7:36 pm GMT post about the "ice age" hype that so scared you as a kid:

"The planet has been warming for the past 130 years, at an ever increasing rate. I WAS around in the 1970s when the "new ice age" theories were being peddled. What no one in the science community was willing to add to the discussion in the US at the time (likely because it was politically incorrect to do so) was the direct relationship between the global cooling that took place from the 1950s through the early 1970s and the above-ground nuclear tests that were being conducted by the major powers from the late 1940s through 1970.

Once the bomb-testing stopped throwing up clouds of radioactive ash (which reflected away sunlight and cooled the planet), the global warming that had started in the late 1800s resumed. It has been ongoing without interruption since then, and your vaunted solar cycles account for at best 10-20% of the warming in the past decade or two."

The fact is flytyerva, that the planet WAS briefly cooling when you were a child, and that it IS rapidly warming now. It is not hype or bias to say that the planet is warming, it is a simple observation of what is occurring on the ground.
your all making good points
RobbieVM - nice to meet you - I don't hang here much but this topic caught my attention.
Nice to meet you too Saddlegait.
Great blog Dr Masters:) I'm suprised how no one has brought up that they're feeding the kids in school the oil think tank info. I find this appalling.

Saddlegait great point poeple & their scare tacktic this & that. Turn off the TV, put down that video & read some scientific peer approved research papers on it. & really if people'd seen Gore's movie they wouldn't be all ooohh the big scare tacktic approach. I watched it so I could comment on it, cause if ya don't & you state your opinion those that saw it are gonna think you sound like you have no idea what your talking about (& many of ya'll do). If that movie was so scarey why did I have to keep trying to stay awake? Your lucky not to fall asleeep in the 1st 5 mins.

Overall it was accurate, I don't see the 1/2 trueths. The stronger storms may not be wrong, agreed it's a little premature to be putting that in there but is 1 of 100s of facts that were on. NOAA & many other agencies of respect believe it won't be 100 years & storms will certainly be stronger with higher max wind speeds, due to higher SST.
Skye - it would take someone with scientific knowledge to actually be able to intelligently comment on the movie I believe. I could talk about whether or not it entertained me but your analysis has much more meaning.
I keep hearing this in the 70's people worried of ice age coming. I was there, don't remember this being the majority's thought. We were putting out so much pollution, arosols, nuclear & a few volcanos, many suspected it was only masking the warming. It was what the public schools were teaching at the time as well. Maybe that's why I'm so shocked by the oil influence being taught to the kids now.
Al Gore has got to know what he's talking about. He's so smart. Remember? He invented the internet.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anybody who'd give this guy so much as an ounce of credit would have to be a complete bonehead.
You'd be sadly disappointed if you watched it for entertainment value. That's where it loses alotta stars.
I am guessing you are right. I just don't watch many movies unless I am sitting down with the kid. I don't find "Hollywood" holds my attention much at all - just seems so superficial.
But the issue isn't Gore. Gore didn't research this. This movie could have been done 100 times better by alot of other people, but the fact Gore made it doen't change the amount of CO2 in the air & how that relates to tempurature in the last 650,000years
I'm not a big movie goer either but this literly opened for the 1st 5 mins looking at a flowing river with Gore rambling on~ in what sounded like a voice so monotone & slow that it sounded nearly forced to sound like your 8th grade science teacher.
Skye- I think you just made the prime point. It really is not about Gore even though it's been made out to be. It IS a critical issue for our future. We should all take the responsibility of becoming more informed and trying to make our contribution towards the good side.
& he'd pull these little narratives in his life in there & here's where people that didn't see it use a review to drag it overly political. But they'd be things that would inpire him to move on this cause or equate how this was related to the smoking industrys cover up for years. His family raised tobacco when he was a kid, they did the denial thing til his sister who's favorite thing to do was run through the feilds died really young of cancer.
I grew up in the midst of tobacco country. We would sell our "tobacco rights" to other larger farmers. Each farm got a certain allotment at one time based on the percentage of your total property you could plant in tobacco. You could sell that allotment to other farmers so the larger ones could grow more on their farms. I've been around when it is harvested - it smells wonderfully inside those tobacco barns. That industry where I am from is all but dead now. Some blame their demise on the loss of those revenues. It was about profits - not health for a very long time.
Thanks saddle... More could be put out to help the masses that look for their info in the form of entertainment. The oil companies would hate that. I can imagine that one reason Gore was able to do this movie & get it to the masses is it would accustom people to shooting the messenger of this sort of info. Gore's an easy target to practice on. Look how many do it who haven't even seen it. I study up on it from the source of the horses mouth & believe there is a real problem, saw the movie & still make fun of it~ Which is a shame since we should be discussing the issue.

I'm gonna look for The North Pole was Here at the liberary. Great blog, must run for now.
Global Cooling

Skye.....here's a decent place to start especially since it comes from the side of MMGW supporters....i know...all those that tell me i should read to educate myself on GW...believe me...i at some point will take that into consideration..don't know how i stumbled on this a few weeks ago....random mistake..LMAO...notice now...almost 40 years later...while admitting some scientist believed in a coming ice age..they say...that the press blew it out of proportion..and yet..today..that same press..is their friends..and many have already said it..and will continue to do so.."it doesn't matter if the media doesn't get all the facts straight....getting the message to the masses is the important part"...that's my complaint..give me facts..don't blow it out of proportion..give me credible evidence and discussion...
Don't mean to be a tree hugger, but the benefits of a grown, standing tree over newly planted seedlings are immense, ie. aeration, soil structure and moisture
absorption...flora/fauna habitat...shade from the radiant heat from a Sun shining through an ever thinner atmosphere!
The simple replanting of seedlings as an answer to clear cutting forests is no answer. Only select cutting sanctioned by foresters who love the woods and have legal authority over timber producers can protect forests.
Yep..some people love the woods, like others love the city..and shopping.
franck - I join you in your love for trees. I hate seeing a section of "timber land" after they have come in and stripped it of it's beauty. Even more saddening to me is the replacement of the hardwoods and beautiful blooming trees with pines. I don't know all the scientific reprecussions, but just the sight of it saddens me. Then again, I would love to be able to afford the lumber to build my house - that's me in the middle there - not able to take a stand in the argument because of my selfish need and my appreciation for the beauty we are allowing to be destroyed.
Good afternoon. This is an interesting discussion, that seems to hinge on Al Gore ( the messenger ) and not on the point that he ( and millions of other people ) have been making. Some folks are letting their political laundry hang out there in an attempt to discredit the entire point of the movie.

What good is trhat.

Come up with an alternative arguement, and put it here.!!!!!!!
Posted By: LuvzLabz at 12:43 PM PST on February 26, 2007.
Al Gore has got to know what he's talking about. He's so smart. Remember? He invented the internet.


The words that Al Gore actually used in a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer were, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

So what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet?

According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country."


If you are interested in facts you'll find more in
Inventing the Internet. Did Al Gore Invent the Internet? and
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Internet of Lies

It's easy enough to drill down to the facts in this so-called "political debate". If you do it enough and find the real facts, the sources and their motives then you'll have a good basis for an opinion about who's trying to fool you and why.
Hey Snowboy hate to throw snow all over your response, but here it goes... Snowboy most of the nuclear bomb testing you referred to had been conducted at underground sites since the mid 60's, by the major nuke powers. The few above ground test in the 50's, when compared to volcanic eruptions, put a minuscle amount of dust into the upper atmosphere.

The planet has been going through these cycle changes since the beginning of time. May I remind you that at one point in time Antartica was full of lush vegetation, and was populated by dinosaurs.

The same was true for Greenland in the northern hemisphere. As late as the time of the Viking were sailing the northern Atlantic, Greenland was known as an island lush with green vegetation, from hence it obtained the name Greenland.

Again, I agree the planet has warmed over the last fifteen years slowly, corresponding with the increased solar flare output activity. I just do not swallow the propaganda of leftist environmentalist, like Al Gore, that wish to economically destroy the U.S., and lower the U.S. to a Third World status.
GetReal ~ do you understand where the CO2 & other greenhouse gases are now in relationship to anywhere in the past natural cycle? Have you studied how greenhouse gases & temperature has varies together though the last 650000 years? Horse traders & stable hands got real worried & screamed economic disaster 100 years ago when the car came on the scene. The rest of the countries that aren't 3rd world now have excepted we are making way too much CO2 burning fossils, they are working on the technoligies of the future, we can be the leader of that or be left behind..
ricderr I read a good bit of that article a little while ago, still got to finish it. It's long, but excellent. As I was only going off what I remember of the '70's & I was pretty young then & what they were teaching in the public schools at the time. I must have missed the big myth as truth in the media because I wasn't exposed much to the media then. I remember being aware of it & understanding there was controversy with the majority saying it was only a short reprive in the overall warming.
I think the current warming trend actually started early in the 20th century, not 15 years ago. See here
I side with the DATA..and see the drastic abrupt changes, along with Satelitte and Other measureable parameters.But the data is overwhelming that the CO2 and other manmade fossil processed carbon burning ..is contributing to a very BAD spike in Global Effect.Its the cause and effect science that shows the Human Element ..slowly but cumulativley,influencing the very atmosphere...Stay away from the Politics in GW.Study the DATA..not the Political winds.They usually have agendas not based in science,..and usually not in the Overall public welfare.Here or Globally.
Interesting Link
Skyponey there has always been Greenhouse & co2 gases present in the Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of time, when carbon based units started to populate the planet.

Ricderr is correct, the news media was in a similar hysteria about the coming ICE AGE during the late 60's because of, you guessed it, man polluting the Earth. Why should the same media and enviromentalist be given anymore credability today.

And again Skyponey, were Greenland and Antartica once land masses with green vegetation. The current warming is again a natural cycle, that we, man, happens to living through at this time. The current warming cycle may last another 100 years, who knows. But as a natural cycle man is powerless to change what is occurring, and is just along for the ride, like it, or not....
Thanks for posting that link 27windows. I was aware of that information, but some others may want to read that weather history lesson.
Well said Patrap...Nothing like a dry peer reviewed article written by an actual scientist, tested & retested by other scientists & unaltered by people who aren't scientists.

That link makes a good point 27...it's warmer now than during the Medivial Warm period.
Good link, Windows.
Trouble is..pollution on a Global scale..has no borders.What burns in Africa..and Japan..contributes as much as cars in Europe or America.The cause is fossil fuels and coal fired emissions.The effects are locally made, burned and dispensed..but cumlativly..Global
Political winds are blowing strong,creating the internet and supporting the internet are two different things.
In[edit] North Atlantic and North American regions
During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain[5][6][7] although less extensively than they are today[8] (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards and the time of greatest extent of medieval vineyards falls outside the MWP). The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. The MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century when the current period of global warming began.

In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, researchers found large temperature excursions during the Medieval Warm Period (about 8001300) and the Little Ice Age (about 14001850), possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation.[9] Sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley show a dry Medieval Warm period from AD 8001300.[10]

Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States and especially eastern California and the western Great Basin.[4] Alaska experienced three time intervals of comparable warmth: 1300, 8501200, and post-1800 AD. [11]

A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).[1

The above information was found in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia!!!
Getreal nowhere in the past natural cycle has greenhouse gases suddenly come to the total they are now. We are around a peak in the natural cycle but realize at the same moment we threw an extra near twice as much CO2 that would be there in the natural cycle. Notice the red line on the right~ where in the history of that cycle has it ever gone straight up like that????
never ..Thus the concern and all the excitement.
Some more info. to read:

Link
How strong of a greenhouse gas is C02? And how much are we actually contributing? According to this, not even 1% - it is actually .28 of 1%:



Link
GetReal I don't believe the media I spend my time reading those dry research papers:)...& even though Wikipedia~ anyone can alter & not a normal read of mine...

from 27's link & GetReal you reposted part of that where they are growing grapes more north now then then..



it is hotter now... It states as well that wasn't an overal big global warming event, it was more local, unlike now.
The discussion Dr.M wanted by the Al Gore hook is working great here.I feel as though the Man..although a Politician, has brought the Subject to a New Dawn.Nothing wrong with that...everything to Gain.I know..from My Post -Trauma here that the Numbers and stuff over Katrina are hard to seperate from the politics of it.Co2 and Fossil fuels burning 24 /7 365 is not natural to the Eco-system of 3rd rock out.Its Like asbestos in a Boilmakers lung in a way.Short term..it wont kill you..but over time ..the "effect" ,,"causes" Changes in the Lung..leading to symptoms..then sickness then death.Your fine in your 20s..but gasping in the end.
..were outta the Blue ..and into the Black..
Nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine
If I don't read, my soul get lost
Nobody's fault but mine

My mama she taught me how to read
My mama she taught me how to read
If I don't read, my soul be lost
Ain't nobody's fault but mine

My sister she taught me how to read
My sister she taught me how to read
If I don't read, my soul be lost
Ain't nobody's fault but mine

Nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine
If I don't read, my soul be lost
Ain't nobody's fault but mine

Nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine
If I don't read, my soul get lost
Nobody's fault but mine
You're right,Gore is a hook,only because the movie was such an exageration. The main point of the show was that sea levels would rise over 20 feet by 2100. Even the IPCC forecast had the ocean rise at between 8 and 17 inches for the same period. These over-the-top forecasts are what makes it so hard to believe.
Posted By: Bgoney at 3:53 PM PST on February 26, 2007.
Political winds are blowing strong,creating the internet and supporting the internet are two different things.


This is from one links I posted (and no I won't tell you which one)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System ... Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system ...

When you intentionally misinterpret something in an attempt to make someone look stupid ... well, it's a double edged sword.
103. watch
that "hockey-stick" graph is dubious at best. Read Here:

Link


graph comparison
The movie has done its part. People are talking about GW, whether you believe it or not.
Its like Binding arbitration or Mediation work..or denial. Some people,..if they dont wanna know,You cant tell um.
Earth cares not what WE think.She was here long before us.Eons ago..and she will be here Long after we gone..By Large Impacting Rock..asphxyiation..Or Thermonuclear Poof!..either way what we say here is moot in another million years.A mere paragraph in the earths long trek around Sol.
The debate really isn't Al Gore and when someone uses an unrelated bogus attack on the messenger as their argument against the message you have to suspect they can't come up with anything better.
Lost in the hype over Gore is a really good documentary on climate change that appeared on PBS narrated by Alanis Morissette. Global Warming- the Signs and Science was worth showing in science class.
110. 882MB
Hey everybody, Can anyone tell me the ENSO UPDATE. And what CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED DURING HURRICANE SEASON?
A conservative leader in Power,..now..His take.Thought Id heard the Hockey Stick thing before..LOL
ENSO Link..NWS..page Link

Right !! He invented the INTERNET Too !! Well he said he did so he must of !! Come on smart Guys he's taking everyone for a ride !!
Good evening,

Models are in very good agreement on Neutral conditions in the atlantic basin threw october. Might La nina make an appearence this season were just going to have to wait to see how everything evovles during the coming months.

MORE HERE
Not the one
Pressure field over the USA is almost flat--less than a 15 mb difference between the lowest and highest pressures in the lower 48 states. Never seen that before
Pretty much everyone that says that Al Gore is a hypocrite is being a hypocrite themselves. Consider this, a compact fluorescent light bulb uses 1/4th the energy to generate the exact same amount of light. I'm pretty sure that not a lot of people saying harsh things towards Al Gore use all compact fluorescent light bulbs. Its not like I use them either, its just that people should look at themselves before they call someone else a hypocrite.
BTW StSimonsIslandGAGuy, I noticed the same thing, looks a little weird to see only 2 colors on a map, doesn't it.
Ldog~ I called him monotone in his movie & I don't have an old lightbulb left in this house. The new ones save more than a 1/4. I think I figured up I'm saving about $43 a month & not one has yet to blow out where the old ones were always needing replaced. Instead of running electricity out to the barn I put in solar, it was cheaper to install than conventional electric, with no ditch digging & every bit of energy used out there since has been free. Everything I've done from caulking to covering skylights in the summer has saved me money. Everything you can do to not burn a fossil fuel will put money in your pocket.
Skyepony, my comment wasn't directed at you or anyone else who is a regular contributor to this blog. I applaud your concern for conserving electricity. I was more bashing the people who have names that i have never seen before on this blog who act like they have come up with the next breakthrough to why Al Gore is a hypocrite. I have seen his movie and do agree that he is monotone. Thats cool with the solar in the barn thing.
hey Get Real, re the "news" you posted that the polar regions once had vegetation - have you ever heard of plate tectonics? Maybe look it up and get back to us on the implications for your posts..
I got my ENSO update in my blog (click my name). CPC after breaking the news last week that La Nia would most likely be around the 2nd 1/2 of the year, dropped a bomb this week that La Nia conditions will most likely develop in the next 3 months...

Ldog~ I know & didn't take it as such, many people could have made a better movie & by that I mean not so boring. There was a good point back there about one on PBS that got near no attention. I saw it, really good, scientifically correct as far as what is agreed on as fact at this time through & through, well done & interesting. Not a snoozer like the Inconvenent Truth. No oscar to it though.. Just a start to my rant well if ya don't want to save the enviroment don't ya want to save a buck? Or how about a whole lot of them.
Here is a chart of the last 65 million years of temperature.Link
Note that it uses oxygen isotope ratios in fossils, so it isn't perfect... there's more explaination on that page.

We're just barely out of the ice age, and FAR cooler than the average temperature over the last 65 million years. Over most of this time, there was no antarctic ice sheet.

Note this second image: Approximate temperature over the last 542 million years.Link

We're a bit warmer now than we were in the very recent ice age, BUT we're still near the bottom of the second coldest period in the last 542 million years.

To me, that says, like it or not, it's going to get warmer, and, whether humans triggered it or not, it's going to get warmer.
Think you can control it? Well, you might be able to keep it from getting warmer, but that could plunge us into an ice age. Or maybe we can't do it at all.

My suggestion: Plan for it, and deal with it as it comes. There's probably not much else we can do.

Of course, we DO need better sources of energy than fossil fuels, but that's another story.
CFL's:

They use 1/4 of the electricity of an equivalent incandescent light bulb.
They seem to die randomly. My parents have one that has lasted 12 years, but I have had some blow in less than a month. Most last 3 years on average.
They do contain some mercury, so it's best to dispose of them, unbroken, at city household hazardous waste collections. Although some mercury is used, coal power plants pump out more mercury to power an incandecent bulb than a CFL contains. But, if you break one, the mercury is in your home. Don't worry, though, it's not really enough to harm you. Just don't make a habit of breaking them.
CFL's also come in different "kelvins" Higher kelvin numbers mean a whiter light. This brings out more color, but isn't as warm as a lower kelvin bulb. Additionally, you can get full spectrum bulbs. These mimic natural sunlight, keep a warm feeling, and bring out colors. Unfortunately, they cost more. Incandescent bulbs also come in full spectrum, but they are also more expensive than a standard bulb, and don't last nearly as long as a CFL.
Tirador, your nattering is getting tiresome. Either post something of substance on the weather/climate that we can discuss, or move on. Attacking Mr. Gore is easy - dealing with the substance of his film so far seems beyond you. Maybe you can rise to the challenge!?
Science is not consensus. Science is a result of carefully controlled experimentation that produces hard and verifiable results.
At best Al Gore is speculating. At worse he is a pathetic politician trying to scare people into voting for those akin to his leftist beliefs.
But the one thing he is not is a scientist.
billkodak, Al Gore is no scientist, but I doubt you are either. For sure you are not up to date on atmospheric science..
Tirader, you are clearly unable to rise to the challenge. Come back when you can spell, be civil, and put together something coherent..
i am reporting you tirador, you are attacking snowboy
Hmmmm Tirador well, if you expressed yourself in a more intelligent way maybe we could take you a little more seriously!!!!!!!
tirador go to a site where you can take out your lifes anger on other people in a meanful way, not here on WU, go to accuweather
How much you been drinking tirador? calling FH a party handler doesnt make any sense what so ever, this blog, Admin Notice When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself. Please do not engage in personal attacks or bickering. Material not conforming to these standards should be flagged as Spam and ignored.
I am suggesting you get out of this community, you cannot talk in a nice debatable way, and anvilboy and Fishead will be flagging you if you continue to post in a way in which you cant be sensible
anvilboy
Am i up early or are you guys having a party?
I agree with anvil on this one tirador.
Ok. I'm up and i'm here now could someone please fill me in on what is going on?
hello Robbie, trollinador here is on something or drunk, you can tell, he called snowboy snowboylicker FSHead Fishead
We have no problem posting your views, it would be the manner in which they are expressed!
Tirador, 2 words- GO AWAY!!
t2 well, um trollinator loves to debate in a way where he thinks he rules over other people, he doesnt let us have a chance at our opinion and when we do comment he comes back with mean names
Your hurting the community with your attitude
exactly Fsh, I dont like the name calling and I am stopping now
Funny thing is he is smarter than all those scientists saying it is occurring & we are the cause.Hey Tirador why don't you get caught up on the latest I.P.C.C. report or go back to the playpen or something lol
Pease stop with the name calling Tirador. you'll know what will happen to you.
I believe MichaelSTL awnsered this for you did he not? you are trying to draw attention to yourself, you dont run WU, you are a member of it, WU is a website designed for friendly conversation on topics in which are debated nicely, no name calling, and no thinking you rule the blog by putting people in there theorys down
Global Warming, is not caused by humans.


Where did you here that
provide examples, of mean names?

Snowboylicker????and anvilboy????, a friendly community here has been spoiled by trolls like you.
Posted By: Thunderstorm2 at 12:05 AM PST on February 27, 2007.

Global Warming, is not caused by humans.


Where did you here that


lol
If you were meaning me i amn't out the door yet infact i'm firmly in my house
His 105 year old grandma


no doubt
Posted By: Tirador2 at 12:02 AM PST on February 27, 2007.

t2 well, um trollinator loves to debate in a way where he thinks he rules over other people, he doesnt let us have a chance at our opinion and when we do comment he comes back with mean names
-=--

provide examples, of mean names?


Not you TS2
Tirador so you dispute what the report found out??? You can't be serious?? That shows the person that you are (no offense)
wow, Anvil
You're so sensitive.
I grew up in a time when we were able to stand
on our own. Not needing a group to back us up.
Self esteem is earned. Not given.
Sorry to break that reality for you.
Everyone got a trophy in your school just for showing up eh?



Anvil being sensitive??? your the one that is sensitive. Talk about growing up i got brought up in one of the toughest little towns in Scotland, UK. So don't preach about your childhood, Please!!!
Dr. Jeff. What say you?
Isn't the University of Michigan the one that
has the university chancelor that promotes 12 year olds as ok for being sexualy active?

A lib U???

Snowboylicker

I expose you as a party hack.
One who hopes for favors from the party.

Go see your handlers. They will suggest another topic to discuss...
You are failing in your attempts to promote
global warming, or climate change, or what ever your group has decided it should be called today.
LOL

Fshhead,
sorry, I don't speak liberal starbucks.
I speak the truth. Maybe you should have spent more time learning English in gradeschool.
Oh, you are a youngster. And public school of late was a party. Where liberal teachers taught you how to put condoms on cucumbers and the rights of lesbians rather than the basics you need to succeed in life.
I'm glad you don't like my point of view.
Truth hurts. Its not the liberal crap that's been shoved down your throat is it.
Global Warming, or Climate Change, is not caused by humans.
sleep well.

case in point!!!!!!
Its the way its presented lol
Ok your getting on my nerves now
wow, Anvil
You're so sensitive.
I grew up in a time when we were able to stand
on our own. Not needing a group to back us up.
Self esteem is earned. Not given.
Sorry to break that reality for you.
Everyone got a trophy in your school just for showing up eh?



I have nothing to say to you triador
ID Max Top VIL Chance of Severe Hail Chance of Hail Max Hail Size Speed Direction (from)
O4 64 dBZ 10,000 ft. 20 kg/m 50% 50% 0.50 in. New Cell
I don't want to answer your question cause i know little about GW. Just go Away now and don't come back untill you've learned some manners.
Lets flag him for that anvil
K to shut you up, there were many reasons why the warming has happened before, all natural BUT, now here present we have these temps correlating with massive concentrations of greenhouse gas buiding to levels not seen in what,like 650,000 years? Seems kind of suspect to me especially everything they predicted years ago IS happening before our eyes. Guess some of "us" have clouded vision!!!!
Well Done Fshhead
......storms blowing up
Tirador everytime I meet someone like yourself it reminds me of how this country came to be in the shape it is in lol
thanks Fshhead, I am off subject because of triador
flagged multiple times now, ok lets go to my blog TS2 and FSHHEAD
I think we have got a better chance of Earth turning into Mars than we have tirador having a better attitude.

Well it's 3:30 am here so i'm going back to bed.
Nice chatting with you all.
i mean anvilhead2 not anvilhead...
ok have a nice rest of the night TS2
Posted By: Fshhead at 8:26 AM GMT on February 27, 2007.

Tirador everytime I meet someone like yourself it reminds me of how this country came to be in the shape it is in lol

What do you mean by that last statement? I still believe that the U.S. is still the strongest economic & military power in the world today.
TRIADOR IS GONE! YES!
k relax relax this guy was really bugging us.... I dont want to get into it with someone else too lol Yes America is IT no doubt, just a little tarnished in the reputation dept right now thats all!!!
Goodnight guys.....I am going to bed.
Ok, I can live with that clarificatiion.
Cya Anvil
Wow I am really leading in having the diragatory comments thrown my way here tonite!!!! Don't get why someone cant have a normal talk about a subject lol
GetReal:

I think he's referring to the rise of abject stupidity masquerading as a point of view. Triador is a perfect example. Ignorance is held up as something to be applauded.
I side with the DATA..and see the drastic abrupt changes, along with Satelitte and Other measureable parameters.But the data is overwhelming that the CO2 and other manmade fossil processed carbon burning ..is contributing to a very BAD spike in Global Effect.Its the cause and effect science that shows the Human Element ..slowly but cumulativley,influencing the very atmosphere...Stay away from the Politics in GW.Study the DATA..not the Political winds.They usually have agendas not based in science,..and usually not in the Overall public welfare.Here or Globally.
201. IKE
Nice going Albert....

"February 26, 2007

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Al Gores Personal Energy Use Is His Own Inconvenient Truth
Gores home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gores global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gores mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWhmore than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWhguzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gores average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gores energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006."..........

The data is the Key..not the Man.But many focus on the Man..and never see the data.Whats one Mans energy consumption compared to any CEOs home in America?Politics clogs one judgement easily because its a Emotional tug on personal views.The DATA is pure,numerical science.Not Left right thinking.Thats just one-upmanship to another.Just like in Congress.....Pursue the Science in the GW debate.Stay out and ABOVE the fray of that din.Its way to loud from Both sides..Just my take on it.Nothing more.
204. IKE
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

So we should reduce, while his mansion continues to use more. That's hypocritical.
205. IKE
And no...I'm not saying he couldn't have done better as president then what's in there now. "W" is graded as a D- as prez.
Well said again, Patrap.

In physics, and in evolution, every action has an equal and opposite re-action.
Thats why there are so many jackasses around.
They are apparently part of the overall plan, but I have not figured out their role as yet.
Ike......although i and pat might argue his conclusions...everything else he last posted i agree with 100 percent....time for a little study today that i was pondering last night..in the case of MMGW it appears to me..science has is parterning with the media, politicos and stars to spread the word...in my opinion..odd bedfellows..and one that might bite them in the butt in the not so distant long run
Its simple...but problamatic and cumlative over time.Cause and effect.
Also, in these crazy times, if Mr Gore did not live in a mansion, and fly a private jet, you think anyone would even mention his movie, far less discuss it. ? Most people NEED bling , which is seen as truth and power.The props are everything. If Mother Theresa had made that movie, there would have been a different response from different people.

Disregard the froth, look at the data and arrive at conclusions based on that.

Dissagreement is OK, but see stupidity for what it is.
The discussion Dr.M wanted by the Al Gore hook is working great here.I feel as though the Man..although a Politician, has brought the Subject to a New Dawn.Nothing wrong with that...everything to Gain.I know..from My Post -Trauma here that the Numbers and stuff over Katrina are hard to seperate from the politics of it.Co2 and Fossil fuels burning 24 /7 365 is not natural to the Eco-system of 3rd rock out.Its Like asbestos in a Boilmakers lung in a way.Short term..it wont kill you..but over time ..the "effect" ,,"causes" Changes in the Lung..leading to symptoms..then sickness then death.Your fine in your 20s..but gasping in the end
With that..Im off to buy some Market shrimp and see if I can coax some speckled trout into the ice chest at the Lakefront
Chairman of Senate Enviromental and Public Works Committee.He believes 75 percent of US..are wrong and Have been fooled. ..LOL..Inhoffe..another Lame Duck with NO clue..LOL.What a Moron.This guy is a Party line Butt munch.Even HIs peers say so.
He IS big Oil.Check out his Biggest contributers.Or former ones.They ALL backed away from Him after this..Hes like a radioactive Sen. now.
216. IKE
That's what's great about America...you can voice your opinion...I'm not saying Gore is wrong on GW. I'm saying he's a hypocrit....telling everyone to reduce, while his consumption goes up...significantly!

Mr. Politician....
Please don't deceive us.

Mr. Politician...
You're there to relieve us.

Can how can we tell mister, when to believe in you?

Thats all fodder for thought Ike..but put it in perspective.Hes a rich Guy.You think he pays the Bill with a check every month?.LOL..I seriously doubt that source too.Either way.Its a moot point.Ever see Manhattan from Orbit at night.
Most Politicians "relieve" themselves on US..My thoughts only..LOL
It amazes me how quickly people who otherwise can seem sane and rational immediately shut down their brains and turn into right-wing-lie-spewing robots because they don't like the guy sounding the alarm. You people are gonna fry the planet over your political mindlessness. I'm outta here.
"You people", not very definitive.I avoid sweeping statements.BAd form .
I've read this blog a long time and never posted, but I couldn't just sit back and read anymore when i saw these comments... Usually I can depend on someone else refuting obviously untrue data, but I didn't see anything on this one:

Posted By: GetReal at 10:51 PM GMT on February 26, 2007.

The planet has been going through these cycle changes since the beginning of time. May I remind you that at one point in time Antartica was full of lush vegetation, and was populated by dinosaurs.

The same was true for Greenland in the northern hemisphere. As late as the time of the Viking were sailing the northern Atlantic, Greenland was known as an island lush with green vegetation, from hence it obtained the name Greenland.

And Again...

Posted By: GetReal at 11:42 PM GMT on February 26, 2007.

And again Skyponey, were Greenland and Antartica once land masses with green vegetation. The current warming is again a natural cycle, that we, man, happens to living through at this time. The current warming cycle may last another 100 years, who knows. But as a natural cycle man is powerless to change what is occurring, and is just along for the ride, like it, or not....

*sigh* it hurts to read it again:

1. About 250 million years ago, Antartica used to sit closer to the equator as part of the land mass called Pangea. It was roughly in the same latitudinal position that South America and Austrialia are now. That is why it was a green lush place where dinosaurs roamed. Please see this link to Wikipedia article about continental drift: Link You can also click from there to read more about 'Pangea' itself and where exactly all the continents sat at that time.

2. Greenland is still a beautiful green lush place. Have you ever observed a map of the Easthern portion and southern tip of the island? It was named Greenland for those Beautiful lush green mountain slopes on those eastern and southern points where the vikings lived. It looks alot like the southern island of New Zealand. Very tall striking snow covered mountains that slope off and flatten in to a green lush coast line. Yes these areas lead to glaciers above, and snow over for some months of the year, but where people live its beautiful and GREEN.

Map of Greenland (couldn't get it any smaller): Link

So Please stop spouting off incorrect information to attempt to skew the views of the less informed. It's insulting and annoying.
Excellent Post MissBennet.You keen observer.
Thank you Pat. By the way, I always have liked your posts. =) You're always cool headed and state facts and not so much opinion.
Well, the antarctic was iceless between 15-25 million years ago, and between 40-65 million years ago. In fact, it appears that having polar ice caps is NOT the "normal" state of things throughout earth's history.
Well.thank you MissBennet,..thats very kind.Welcome to the fray.
miss bennett...thought it might interest you....norse legend says that its name origins come from eric the red when he explored greenland in the late 900's....he felt the name would attract more people to the land...also to note that in the 10th century it's believed that their climate was warmer than it is today
MissBennet, I agree with Patrap that your post is excellent. I would add that in the time at that time and not even in the 19th century it was the massive industrial waste, massive amounts of cars, massive use of natural resources, massive change of the landscapes and vegetation, and on, on, that we have nowadays. The Earth is an equilibrium easy to change and with so many massive changes, something has to change in turn.
You're always cool headed

ummm...oh yes..i do agree...cough cough...lol
Turn yer head to the Left when ya Cough ric..Ill start ya on some Penecillin too..LOL!
Well, I think you needed a women to stop these childish fights and cool things down...
Take a deep breath... Haaaa that's better...
Why New Orleans and the Nation needs the 8/29 comission..Professor Van Heerdan Link
AH HA ! I note some political bashing in here. Good. Helps to keep them on their toes.

But are we, as a society, culture, civilization, whatever, responsible for helping to change weather by our actions, or lack of action?

The answer is YES.
This MAn..who runs LSu Tropical Studies in BAton Rouge had the Katrina scenerio down years before it happened.A man who even the Day Katrina Hit..knew what was to happen.No one in the loop gave him much mind .Till August 30th.When they knew all too well.This man ..along with Dr. Masters...saved thousands of lives with their timely post.Heres The Profs words before Katrina hit..notice the date on this link folks.Dont ever think the devastation we saw here wasnt predicted.Youd be mistaken...Link
LSU Tropical Page..Link
Good loop from that page showing the Loop current and How its eddys are constantly evolving and moving...great link page.Link
"Most politicians relieve themselves on US...".

By Jove, I think you've got it!!
Why doesn't Gore regrow his beard. He could save kilowatts from his electric shaver that way.
LSU offers great images especially for the eastern atlantic and central.
The ongoing and unrelentingly snide comments about Al Gore on this blog just kill me. Coming from a bunch of folks who all together in their lifetimes will not accomplish anything approaching what Mr. Gore has achieved in his, the pot shots from the peanut gallery are a bit rich.

Take issue with the movie if you like. Take issue with the theory and fact of global warming if you like. But please stifle the comments about the man. He is simply the most prominent messenger to date about an issue that concerns us all.

And while Mr. Gore is not perfect, I suggest that if we were to closely scrutinize the lives of those posting their cheap shots they would also not be perfect. Let's get away from the personal, and stay focussed on the issue please.
Snowboy, welcome to American politics...get used to it bro
GORE 2008: An Inconvenient Campaign
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.
Metro France: RSMC Reunion
18:00pm UTC 27Feb 2007


Cyclone Tropical Gamede 10 min sustained winds of 75 knots with gusts up to 105 knots.

◘ Red Alert remains in effect for Reunion

Dpression Extratropical (Ex-Humba)10 min sustained winds of 45 knots with gusts up to 65 knots.
thanks for that uninformed opinion Jorick23, now could you please cite a reference to back up that preposterous statement?
246. N3EG
Global warming has to be Bush's fault. He has no plan to stop volcanoes.
There is nothing preposterous that Jorick23 said...

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 billion tonnes (145-255 billion tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release far less than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

site to reference at your leisure:Link

Snowboy, you are acting like a troll just looking for an arguement...
So have fun
DURING THE PAST FEW HOURS, "GAMEDE" ACCELERATED SLIGHTLY ALONG ITS
SOUTHWARDS TRACK. WITHIN THE NEXT 12 TO 24 HOURS, IT IS EXPETCED TO
HEAD FOR SOUTH-SOUTHWEST AND TO TRACK AWAY FROM MASCARENES ISLANDS.
"GAMEDE" PRESENTS A VERY BROAD CIRCULATION, THE STRONG WINDS EXTENSION IS
IMPORTANT. THE CURRENT WEAKENING IS EXPECTED TO BE TRANSITORY AND AN INTENSIFICATION IS
FORSEEN WITHIN 12 TO 24 HOURS
.

Visible Image

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Here's a pretty good article on how volcanic activity affects global warming.

Link
N3EG, jorick23 & MP~

Your little volanoes warm the planet more than humans do is preposterous...

Volcano eruptions cool the planet. They eject tons of ashs & other reflective arosols that inturn reflect the suns rays before they they have a chance to heat the globe. There has been many years without a summer. This a long time realized fact. It's prodictable & expected to see a large drop off in temps globally after a large eruption.
Nice link homegirl~

From there..

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.
Volcanic eruptions

ok..other articles state that volcanic activity accounts for 150 times more CO2 output than humans.....i haven't researched it yet...but...is there a chance....with volanic activity..and volcao eruptions..we're talking apples and oranges?
Oh, MisterPerfect, millions and billions are very different numbers. Your link was incorrect it's: Link
for those interested. It states that volcanoes emit millions and humans emit billions. Sorry you're not so perfect.
Check this out.They just added a hurricane chapter.
MisterPerfect, let's let Jorick23 speak for him or herself - outlandish claims about global warming need to be backed up.

Jorick23 made the following statement at 7:31 pm GMT:
"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."

I want to see the reference(s) for that preposterous statement. There will of course be none forthcoming, because Jorick23 was just spouting off..

Just to further your own education MisterPerfect, it has long been known to atmospheric scientists and to those that have any understanding of atmospheric science that volcanic eruptions cause COOLING of the atmosphere. Thanks for the info on that Skyepony and homegirl.

ricderr-good point, i'll try to find something.
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!!
OF course they generate CO2!Or,more accurately,release it.
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!
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..

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?
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
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.


hey ricderr, got it. Now to put your factoid into context, volcanoes worldwide generate about 1% of the C02 that human emissions do..
where do you see that snowboy?
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
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..
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.
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?
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.
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..
LA NIA MAY SOON ARRIVE
On the heels of El Nio, its opposite, La Nia may soon arrive. In a weekly update, scientists at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center noted that as the 2006-2007 El Nio 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 Nia conditions. Typically, during the U.S. spring and summer months, La Nia conditions do not significantly impact overall inland temperature and precipitation patterns, however, La Nia 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 Nia 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 Nia impacts include drier and warmer-than-average conditions over the southern United States."
good point, homegirl - the science should transcend politics..
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
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.
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...
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.
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....
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
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
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.
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.
286. bpg28
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 nave position, they are being paid by independent entities (ones 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. Im 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 dont 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.......
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 Earths atmosphere.

As weve become more dependent on carbon-based fuels, weve 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 5.8C, 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?

Lets start.
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..
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..
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.
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.
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)
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
Everybody is excited about CO2, but CH4 is worse and water vapor is the worst

The level of methane is in parts per billion while CO2 is in parts per million - a huge difference, which means that CO2 is far more important. Also, water vapor is naturally occurring in large amounts; adding more CO2 means more greenhouse warming (and more heating, which means more evaporation and more warming until increasing cloud cover stops it at a new, warmer equilibrium; adding even more CO2 repeats the process).
By the way, for those who say that the CO2 we emit is insignificant:

25 billion tons CO2 = 50 trillion pounds CO2 = 22.7 quadrillion grams CO2 / 48 g/mol = 472.9 trillion mols of CO2 * 22.4 L/mol = 10.59 quadrillion liters of CO2 = 10,593 cubic kilometers (2,543 cubic miles) of pure CO2 (at 0C and 1 atmosphere pressure).

Every year and increasing as well...
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.
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..
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..
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.
304. wxfan
This is ridiculous. I'm done reading this blog. It got political - now it's crap.
hello aron nic to see you pop in hows it going
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.
The NSTA ought to allow the movie, especially if they are allowing material from the AEI, a neo-conservative, right wing think tank.
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!
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.
Yes snowboy as usual the tug got alot of lake effect snow. AGAIN AS USUAL, nothing new but nice try. And exactly my point it doesn't matter what my weight is or my lifestyle but your messenger wants everyone else to change theirs. Make no mistake about it, this global warming religion is nothing but punishing western civilizations.
The thing I do not understand is how GW becomes Rightwing versus Liberal. As a person who is both (depending on the issue), GW should be clear cut:

Liberals: feel free to use it to promote environmental concerns.

Rightwingers: feel free to use it to promote achieving energy independence for America.

Depending on the source/company involved, 4 - 37 cents of every dollar spent on filling up your car leaves the country and/or goes to regimes who are actively or passively anti-American.

The politicians who paint this as a Liberal Concern tend, for the most part, to be funded or invested heavily in Big Oil. Big Oil is NOT necessarily part of being conservative.
ok......after spending some time researching volcanic releases of CO2....it would appear to a simple layman..there's enough research and collection of data for an intelligent theory concerning the amount of CO2 released versus CO2 that is used for human functions.....I think it's very conclusive that volcanoes cannot be held accountable for the rise of CO2...now...below is a link to a long read..but a great read concerning the issue....if more work about climate change could be produced in this form...more discussion of facts could be forthcoming rather than the same old rhetoric from both sidesvolcano research
Louisiana IS Big Oil.In every sense.From Drilling..to production,to refining and distributing.ALL the East Coast and west coast States moan and groan when it come to offshore production.Louisiana is almost to the point politically to yield THAT clout to get the needed Monies as a need...to complete and strenghten our Hurricane levee protecton system,You know the one that failed at CAT-2 levels during a Cat-3/4 event.Boston got 14 billion for a WANT..the Big dig.We just asking for our share of royalties to sustain and Build better protection for Humans..the wetlands,and Americas Saudi Arabia.ALong with Texas,Miss and ALa..too.
Watch the Puppet show on Cable News and the evening networks from the Presidents Gulf Coast Visit tommorrow.No words for us from the SOTU address..but now some Air time to bolster the Feel...But for US or him I wonder.
DEms and Reps both burn gas in Cars and Homes...too.
And it sure wouldnt hurt to Lighten the EPA restrictions and build a refinery or 10.We havent built one in 30 years because of that.You can have a trillion BBLs of Crude.But we still restricted on refining as a whole.Dubai refines more than us.
Looks like I made a mistake. Millions vs. Billions. When articles state things like 200 million tons vs. 22 billion tons, they should use only one measurement (200 million tons vs. 22,000 million tons). It would be much easier to see the difference. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Now I think there are others on this blog that owe some apologies for the acidic response to my post.
A post on climate modeling. I found the following port to be illuminating with regards to the difficulties of climate modeling:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html
Race and nation are a fluid thing, changing with time. What a great people recognize is the common good. It is a good better than the individual good.
There was a time in America, the time when great and very pretty bridges and dams were built by a progressive people, a people going somewhere. Many worked on those projects to feed themselves and their families. Many worked vigorously because they were glad to be a part of something bigger than themselves, something for everybody.
It would take those people to fix the levees. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be around anymore.
The Corps of Engineers Built the Levess that failed here...Link
I know how it went ..I was here...
pat......i agree...the levees need to be funded or else new orleans should undergo the largest land fill project known to the US..something on the affect of the dubais project sounds good...ok..it's a joke...don't kill the comedian....but...it should not be equated with the possible destruction of the gulf of mexico...

now....regardless of co2 output..a great reason america needs to look at alternative fuels..

1
Thats crazy talk ricc..ya need a better info source.Like a visit..LOL
Breach August 30th..click to enlarge.Below Firemans footage condo in this view too.The wet side..and the dry side.The day after. Link
what's crazy about it?..you don't want a landfill project that gives new orleans the footprint of a palm tree?
Corps almost done with this Boondoggle that would have kept the water out in the first place.This is now between the Below bridge and the lake...
Article published on 24 Feb 07 about CO2 effects:

SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- The pristine Southern Ocean, which swirls around the Antarctic and absorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is slowly losing a fight against industrial gases responsible for global warming, scientists say.

The Southern Ocean's unique wind and storm conditions make it the world's greatest carbon "sink"; the earth's oceans absorb a third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the Southern Ocean absorbs a third of that.

But the waters that surround Antarctica are becoming more acidic as they absorb increasing amounts of carbon dioxide produced by nations burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Deforestation and slash-and-burn farming also releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide stored in timber or peat bogs.

The more acidic an ocean gets, the less carbon dioxide it can soak up.

"It is becoming more difficult for the Southern Ocean to absorb the excess carbon dioxide," said Dr Will Howard of Australia's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

Howard has just returned to the Australian Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research Program's base in southern Tasmania state after leading a team of 60 international scientists on a five-week expedition to gather evidence on how ocean systems are struggling to cope with the build-up of greenhouse gases.

"I would not say it's being killed," Howard said in a telephone interview. But it is being changed. "And once the system is altered ... it's going to be a different ecosystem," he said.

Rising acidification of the Southern Ocean has already begun to affect the ability of plankton -- microscopic marine plants, animals and bacteria -- to absorb carbon dioxide, scientists have found.

In the sea as on land, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Oceans soak up carbon dioxide from the air and sink it to the depths.

Looking at the Design almost done..from the Lake side..photo courtesty of aquak9.6
..just wanted to get the President and his visiting entourage an update before the visit ric. They not up to speed on such....
ok.....start and finish landfill project.......break levees...add water..and you have this..new new orleans...just call me CB Jr.
1
yeah ric..Palm City.Dubai.
humor with levees breaking bad form.
Palm city was built by dredging then filling over..Then they had some serious wave wind driven erosion problems that had to be dealtwith.Have HAliburton Mudlogger friend worked on it.
Dubai..Switzerland of the Arab states.
I applaude ya'll that revisited the volcano issue, looking at research & all.

musterion~ There is an award out for anyone that can get something published questioning these models, to the tune of $10000. Beyond that What is written there about how these models work just isn't true. Not suprised they offered no links to how these models work & are tested. Check out the IPCC link up there Dr Masters left, there is accurate model info in there. There is factors that throw the models a little, we can't predict everything, true. The trend has been though that the models say it will get hot quick & the ice is going to melt quick & then it gets hotter & melt occurs faster than the models said. The last few years changes occured faster than the worse of the gloom & doom models had predicted.

TugHillTina1~ As for this being a punishment for western civilization~ I've begun to live a greener life. Changed my lightbulbs, added some insulation, caulked the house. All the apliance upgrades have payed for themselves in the energy they saved...It's like getting fancy new appliances that do their job better for free. We switched out the cars. One of them has payed for itself & payed us back in the amount it has saved us on gas. Growing a few veggies instead of flowers has tasted so much better. My standard of living is no less than before it's better with fancy appliances, better cars, I just save a few grand a year more than i did & eat healthier, better tasting veggies.

pat...i've had hurricane damage from three storms....i've had a 120 foot tall tree crash through my house with becky and daughter a few feet away...i've had a wife in a coma and a daughter three months premature....i've joked about them all...a funny look at rebuilding new orleans..after saying that i agree the levees should be rebuilt...heck....listen to new orleans comedians...i'm milk toast compared to them
i think i'll find a new thread..this one appears a little frayed around the edges
I think one of the biggest challenges to the GW debate is the politicalization of it. I agree with greentortuloni. We live in a free country. It is a useful tool to use to do what is best for you and yours with debate. Why do we have to require the government to force us to do what one group wants. I want to have solar power on my house because it make sense not necessarily b/c I want to stop using fossil fuels. The free market system will always provide the technical innovation to overcome a problem if the financial motivation is available. Look how much more efficient everything in our houses are today .. .even something as simple as new heating / AC units.

I am concerned about the rising La Nina. Wonder how this will potentially effect our summer . . .don't think the el Nina / la Nina is a result of GW . . just the way the earth is trending right now.
morning all..... good to see alot of the same old faces.....

saw this and thought i would say howdy!

"Forecasters warned Tuesday that a La Nina weather pattern - the nasty flip side of El Nino - is brewing, bringing with it the threat of more hurricanes for the Atlantic."

Looks like the relative calm of last year will come to an end, and a return to a "more active" atlantic hurricane season seems to be on the horizon!

Look forward to studying and tracking "blobs" this year! :)
thelmores......great to see you......sharpen your pencil...you might get to use it a little more this year than last
Very big of you to admit the mistake MrP, I'm just here to learn so I shouldn't have made the snide remark. Bygons?

Looking forward to following the blobs myself thel!
HOLD ON.....LOOK AT THE SOUTHERN MOST SECTION OF CENTRAL AMERICA....EASTERN SIDE...IS THERE ROTATION TO THAT BLOB?....DID ANYONE GET THAT ON QUICKSAT?.....NEVERMIND..JUST PRACTICING WITTY REPARTE' IN ADVANCE..SPRINKLEBOTTOM
A more active season number wise maybe instored with la nina createing a more favorable enviroment but they are alot of questions that wont be answered for the next couple of months.For example will the SAL also put the cap on 2007 as it was a factor keeping numbers down back in 2006. How will the steering currents setup?Will there be trofiness to turn systems away or will there be a ridge like in 04-05.Alot factors go into a developing tropical cyclone and warm sea surface temps is only a smart.
345. Inyo
RE: the logging/forest debate

it IS possible to sustainably log and in some areas it has been practiced for hundreds of years. Unfortunately in many areas, including most of the western US and Canada, unsustainable logging is occurring. In most cases, clear cutting is not sustainable within century-length timescales because it causes severe damage to the soil and type conversion of habitats. (in a few tree types such as red fir, small clear cuts are more effective and sustainable than selective logging - it depends on natural disturbance regimes).

as for co2 sequestering using trees, it only works if you bury the trees in a bog or hole. Where did the trees go that were cut out of thye old growth forest? They largely went into paper or firewood (remember only the main trunk of the tree is usable for construction.) Even wood frame buildings are short term. Also, when you clear cut a forest, much of the detritus in the soil breaks down into CO2, and often times there is as much CO2 down there as there is in the trees.

So logging forests faster won't help in any way. IT will also increase some of the ill effects of greenhouse warming such as erosion.
Typically During an El Nino event, energy from warm water in the Pacific is transferred high into the atmosphere and funneled, in the form of strong winds, eastward, where it settles over hurricane-forming regions of the Atlantic, thousands of miles away. The settling of this air tends to choke hurricanes in their infancy. La nina on the other hand, allows Atlantic hurricanes to develop their potential with less inhibition.Everything looks like a more active season this time around but lets wait and see how all this factors pan out in the coming months.

More info can be found here or at noaa's page.
thanx h23.....you've given me another great cut and paste site..guess we both have to thank skyguy.....for my fellow cut and pasters..the above h23 post can be found in its entirety here skyguy

modified in response to my good buddies modification and a wonderfull button this mod button is......
Riderr the link has been there!You might want to hit refresh next time before you start trying to create a problem.
If this mid august nothing would develope out there with the way the SAL is right now.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

h23..thank god for the modify button...it wasn't there at first..good job..albeit a bit late..but..nice to see you're learning..keep it up..you're doing a good job
Not interested in negativity hope u have a pleasent day...

I still remember how NOAA last year made a call claiming la nina was back and we saw how everything turned out.Much is still unknown about this phenomena.
very true h23....very true....and the months in question.....experts say...are the hardest to forecast
Even a slow can end being deadly as we saw back in 92 and numbers predicted are just that a prediction.Overall we could see a more active season with more named storms but its all about trofs and ridges which will determine who gets affected.The intensity of this la nina remains unknown.
Thankfully gamede turned away from land and is now moving south-southwest and is not heading towards mainland Africa.This region was brushed by favio.

A couple of pics from Gamede at peak intensity.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
This whole global warming thing is knee jerk reaction. wait 30 years and you'll see its a load of hooooey. The earth will warm and cool it is such a slight change in the grand scheme of things.
hey jorick23, you made this post at 2:19 PM GMT on February 28, 2007:

"Looks like I made a mistake. Millions vs. Billions. When articles state things like 200 million tons vs. 22 billion tons, they should use only one measurement (200 million tons vs. 22,000 million tons). It would be much easier to see the difference. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Now I think there are others on this blog that owe some apologies for the acidic response to my post."


In fact, no one owes you anything. Yesterday you made the most preposterous statement I've ever seen on this blog, namely:

"Posted By: Jorick23 at 7:31 PM GMT on February 27, 2007.
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."


You were called on it, and it was confirmed that you and your alter-ego MisterPerfect were dead wrong (out by a factor of 1000). Why would anyone apologize for emphatically pointing out that your statement was totally preposterous?
two words, one man. Dr. Roy Spencer. Worked for NASA and is a climatologist. He was a proponent of global warming but has since changed his mind after his own calculations and data collection. Look him up. I would post some stuff on here but I am at work and am restricted.