Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Unconfirmed: Al Gore doesn't pay for his own carbon credits??

Global Warming Al Gore Carbon Footprint 2007

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 06:41 PM

^ Is CNSNews the same as CNN?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#22 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 06:46 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 8 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

^ Is CNSNews the same as CNN?

^My bad. That would be CNS (Cybercast News Service) - my brain went one way and my hands another. :p~ I'll edit.

CNS was founded in '98 because they didn't like both the liberal and the conservative bias in the media. They were trying to create a news service that didn't lean in either direction. I really like the lack of heated rhetoric in their news stories.

Edited by Rhea, 08 March 2007 - 06:49 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#23 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 06:48 PM

There are bigger fish to fry than Al Gore and his tree-hugging blabber.  Critters like those in Congress, and in politics in general should be under such scrutiny, and not this guy.  Gore is the least of our nation's worries.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#24 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 07:31 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 8 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Former CIA chief R. James Woolsey recently spoke about how US dependence on oil threatens the nation's national security and finances terrorism (link). He says it is of paramount importance that we shift to renewable energy.
Yeah and we should all start to do that by tooling around in private jets and buying carbon credits to offset it.  Gore is doing wonders to burn up all that foreign oil so we can longer be dependent on it.  

Gore is the biggest hypocrite on the planet when it comes to global warming.  The left just gives him a get out of jail free card because he's their poster boy.  Shocking the left is guilty of the same thing they accuse the right of being when it comes to Bush.  Gore buying these carbon credits is only a very slim way for him to hide his own extravagant lifestyle and protect him from taking any sacrifices.  If he was genuinely alarmed he'd fly commercial, buy carbon offsets, and put the saved money into making his house more efficient on a grand scale.  For the cost of the fuel in that private jet for a year Gore could probably erect a windmill and run his house off the grid between that and the solar.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#25 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 08:20 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Mar 8 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Yeah and we should all start to do that by tooling around in private jets and buying carbon credits to offset it.
Great idea!  I've been meaning to trade out the Neon.  Who's buying? (Make sure mine's a G550!)

Quote

Gore is the biggest hypocrite on the planet when it comes to global warming.
...

Gore buying these carbon credits is only a very slim way for him to hide his own extravagant lifestyle and protect him from taking any sacrifices.
Quick, everyone list the sacrifices they've made to reduce their carbon emissions to an effective net value of zero!  

(In governmentally recognized ways only, please.  No shady cash-only deals with your neighbors to have them only ride a moped so you can keep the Escalade hummin' down the suburban wilds.)

Once we make the short list, we'll draw straws to see who gets to cast the first stone! :D


Quote

For the cost of the fuel in that private jet for a year Gore could probably erect a windmill and run his house off the grid between that and the solar.

Ignoring of course, the difference between Gore and a lot of jet setters, is that Gore's company actually acknowledges there's a problem, and is *paying money* (and a fair chunk of it) to try and offset its own excesses.  Even if all he's doing is giving away money to other companies to appease his own conscience, he's still doing more than the average joe in his tax bracket.  (Or mine, for that matter.)

I guess I'll take a little hypocrisy (though I'm not sold it's existing yet) over gross indifference if it means someone is actually able to get the message out in ways everyone else can't.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#26 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 08:56 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Mar 8 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 8 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Former CIA chief R. James Woolsey recently spoke about how US dependence on oil threatens the nation's national security and finances terrorism (link). He says it is of paramount importance that we shift to renewable energy.
Yeah and we should all start to do that by tooling around in private jets and buying carbon credits to offset it.  Gore is doing wonders to burn up all that foreign oil so we can longer be dependent on it.  

Gore is the biggest hypocrite on the planet when it comes to global warming.  The left just gives him a get out of jail free card because he's their poster boy.  Shocking the left is guilty of the same thing they accuse the right of being when it comes to Bush.  Gore buying these carbon credits is only a very slim way for him to hide his own extravagant lifestyle and protect him from taking any sacrifices.  If he was genuinely alarmed he'd fly commercial, buy carbon offsets, and put the saved money into making his house more efficient on a grand scale.  For the cost of the fuel in that private jet for a year Gore could probably erect a windmill and run his house off the grid between that and the solar.

I see you're quick to jump into personal attack mode. At the risk of engaging in badgering, let me ask some questions to expose your post for what it is: Just because Al Gore flies a private jet sometimes, do you have any evidence that he also doesn't fly commercial at least as often? Do you know how many trips Al Gore makes per year using his private jet and the number of tons of carbon dioxide released? Do you really think the fuel burned by one person flying a private jet uses enough oil to significantly raise the threat to our national security? Are you aware of the fact that even if Al Gore completely eliminated all his carbon emissions that this would be just a symbolic statement and that the effect on total human carbon emissions would be insignificant so long as the other billions of people keep burning fossil fuels like there are no consequences?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#27 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,312 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 09:20 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 8 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

I see you're quick to jump into personal attack mode.

I don't think I saw a personal attack.  

That said - I'll ask everyone to take a few deep breaths before posting...  veiled accusations against one another skate dangerously close to the line.

Quote

At the risk of engaging in badgering, let me ask some questions to expose your post for what it is: Just because Al Gore flies a private jet sometimes, do you have any evidence that he also doesn't fly commercial at least as often? Do you know how many trips Al Gore makes per year using his private jet and the number of tons of carbon dioxide released? Do you really think the fuel burned by one person flying a private jet uses enough oil to significantly raise the threat to our national security? Are you aware of the fact that even if Al Gore completely eliminated all his carbon emissions that this would be just a symbolic statement and that the effect on total human carbon emissions would be insignificant so long as the other billions of people keep burning fossil fuels like there are no consequences?

I'd prefer we didn't engage in badgering.

If I've followed this story closely enough, it seems that some watchdog group out there did in fact do a bit of fact-checking and turned up these potential embarrassments for Gore.  And - the concern of jumping too quickly to Gore's aid because he is the "poster boy" for a popular cause is a valid one, imho.  So rather than engage one another here, I think we should engage the issue at hand.  

I'm still waiting for someone to address the fact that the rich don't live like the middle class and aren't going to, by and large... so setting a "rich man's example" is inherently a valuable thing for Gore to be doing...

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#28 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 09:57 PM

^ My bad. I should have said "partisan sniping." CJ, did work in a slam against the left. He also did attack Al Gore although I suppose that's the subject of this thread. Still, there's no cause to take such a sarcastic tone and make claims like Al Gore is burning up all the foreign oil and isn't extremely concerned about the consequences of global warming. [This brings up the tragedy of the commons tie-in, whereby a single person doing something beneficial (or not destructive) to the commons takes a significant sacrifice but gets little benefit for their effort because individually each person causes little harm in relation to the commons' ability to absorb it (although the population's damages to the commons taken together end up being devastating). People always fail these scenarios in the absence of strong central management.]

I don't give Al Gore credit for setting a good example for wealthy people because I don't think he is. However, given that he has taken steps to reduce and offset his carbon emissions, I don't think he's a hypocrite given how addicted the developed and developing world is to fossil fuels. I'd give him a B- for taking measures in his personal life to reduce global warming, while I'd give most Americans an F. I give him an A- and profound gratitude though for his efforts to get out the message about global warming and the consequences.

Edited by Solar Wind, 08 March 2007 - 10:11 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#29 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,312 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 10:15 PM

What would setting a good example for rich people look like, in your opinion?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#30 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 11:01 PM

Quote

If I've followed this story closely enough, it seems that some watchdog group out there did in fact do a bit of fact-checking and turned up these potential embarrassments for Gore.

I'm not sure I follow what you are talking about.  What exactly is embarrassing to Gore?   I'm actually following this quite closely too, and everything I read doesn't even reach the level of embarrassment or hypocrite [despite the ranting's of the fringe right].

If we're just talking about the fact that he's not living a "perfect" green life, then OK.  You might feel that could be embarrassing, but I don't.  I don't think it is being a hypocrite either.. unless we all want to jump on that bandwagon and call ourselves hypocrites.  Not one of us lives a "perfect" life that "perfectly reflects our ideals.  I wish I could say I did, but I don't.  I don't hold other people to standards I can't meet myself.  I do admire Gore's dedication to what he believes and hope he can soon attain this state of perfection so people can get off their high and mighty horses and listen to the message regarding climate changes.

Charges of hypocrisy are the "buzz" word of our culture.  It's the charge trolls make when they come to EI to troll, and there is a reason for that.  It's an easy pot shot, since most of us are hypocritical at some time, over some *thing* in our lives.   You throw out the charge and there's bound to be something, some where that will validate the claim.  

What I think is important here is.. "Is the man trying to get the message out to the public, and should any of his failings [if there are any] discredit that message?  And, does he [or any of us]  have to be perfect first in order to speak out about the way 'things should be".

I don't think so.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#31 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 11:25 PM

QT said:

What would setting a good example for rich people look like, in your opinion?

100% use of green energy at his house. Even then, the house should be energy efficient.

Living in a community which is walkable, or at least one that doesn't require driving more than a couple miles to get to the store. [BTW, I don't buy the argument that one should be exempt from this expectation because of the area where they live. If people don't buy houses in communities that require long car trips, we'll start seeing more communities that are designed to reduce use of cars.]

Driving fuel-efficient vehicles and keeping it to 65 mph or preferably 60 mph. Even better would be to use mass transit.

No use of private jets. At the very least, only use a private jet when traveling with a large party.

Investment in alternative energy companies.

As, I said I personally would give Al Gore passing marks for his efforts to reduce his carbon footprint. Still, there's a lot more he could do. That last sentence goes for most of us. The main problem that Gore is running into is that he's put himself into a position where he needs to be above reproach because by merely taking significantly more steps than most people do to reduce his carbon footprint, he leaves himself open to the kind of sniping we've seen in this thread. He'd be attacked just because he's a prominent Democrat. Add in the fact that global warming deniers and skeptics cannot answer the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting global warming and the evidence is becoming so overpowering that they're losing the battle to confuse the issue and play of off uncertainty, and they'll latch onto whatever straws the can. If they can't refute the claims regarding global warming, then they'll try to say, "Oh, look. That prominent person is just warning about global warming to get attention; if he were actually concerned he wouldn't be doing [insert carbon-emitting activity here]" or "Even Al Gore puts a lot of carbon dioxide gases into the atmosphere so it's okay for us to do it too, and it would be unreasonable for people to expect us to do otherwise." By making his film, Al Gore has raised the American public's awareness of global warming, but he has also grabbed onto a lightning rod and held it high to the sky. Consequently, if Gore only takes moderate measures to reduce his greenhouse gas emissions, he'll be raked over the coals. We cannot afford for unchecked carbon emissions to be seen as acceptable or for it to be viewed as unreasonably hard for us to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. Prominent people warning about global warming must be above reproach with regard to their carbon emissions. Perhaps it's unfair and even impossible to ask of them, but that's the way our society works.

Let's be honest here; if Al Gore switched to 100% commercial flights, how many people taking potshots at him in this thread would light into him for not carpooling in his hybrid car?

Edited by Solar Wind, 08 March 2007 - 11:39 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#32 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,312 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 11:42 PM

OK - but I think you missed the point of my argument.  My argument is that there are some things that rich people aren't going to do any time soon.  Among them are buying easily accessible houses on reasonable amounts of land (or for that matter, reasonably sized houses).  

Given the lifestyle many rich people feel live, how do we move the most recalcitrant of this set to do their fair share? Trendsetting in a green way is something I'd like to see more of.  Commercial jets aren't trendsetting... neither is car pooling.  Yes - they should do those things, but I want to know what the Paris Hiltons of the world do to help the cause, or what the CEOs with their overblown salaries do to help the cause.  If carbon credits become the "in thing" for the rich and famous - that's very very good, in my opinion.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#33 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:06 AM

What rich people can do is the same as what everyone else can do: increase their energy efficiency and use of green energy. Rich people simply have more money at their disposal to accomplish these goals although they've also become accustomed to a lifestyle that involves big houses that are hard to heat and cool, private jets, gas guzzling V8 cars, and the like. CEOs who don't want to be part of the solution can stop spreading lies, distortions, and confusion regarding the scientific evidence.

I disagree that it would be a good thing for carbon offsetting to become the "in thing" because it takes the focus off reducing carbon emissions.

[Carbon credits are quite different from carbon offsets. Carbon credits have to do with the proposal that companies that exceed their carbon quota purchase unused quota from companies that don't use their full quota. The EU countries and other signatories of the Kyoto Protocol have set up carbon credit markets for this purpose.]

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 12:12 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#34 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:43 AM

Quote

Living in a community which is walkable, or at least one that doesn't require driving more than a couple miles to get to the store. [BTW, I don't buy the argument that one should be exempt from this expectation because of the area where they live. If people don't buy houses in communities that require long car trips, we'll start seeing more communities that are designed to reduce use of cars.]

In a rural area this is simply not possible. In the county I grew up in there was one incorporated town with the only supermarket and all the other stores in it and it was 7 miles away from me. There was no mass transit of any kind, not even leftover rail lines. My county wasn't even among the most rural in West Virginia and by comparison to states like North Dakota, Montana my own home state is a sprawl. Solutions proposed for metroplitian or suburban areas simply will not work for rural areas. You have to depend upon your own vehicles when the nearest area you can get food and medical care is in say a western state dozens of miles away. As it was the nearest hopital to my home in the earlier 1990s was 45 minutes away and more than 30 miles and outside of an ambulance ride a car was the only way to get there. These communities are places that can't afford to provide bus service let alone light rail or other mass transit options.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#35 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,312 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:01 AM

First, acknowledging tennyson's very good point about rural communities - destroying rural communities isn't a good thing - so for them, vehicles with low carbon emissions would be tremendous.

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 9 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

What rich people can do is the same as what everyone else can do: increase their energy efficiency and use of green energy. Rich people simply have more money at their disposal to accomplish these goals although they've also become accustomed to a lifestyle that involves big houses that are hard to heat and cool, private jets, gas guzzling V8 cars, and the like. CEOs who don't want to be part of the solution can stop spreading lies, distortions, and confusion regarding the scientific evidence.

I disagree that it would be a good thing for carbon offsetting to become the "in thing" because it takes the focus off reducing carbon emissions.

[Carbon credits are quite different from carbon offsets. Carbon credits have to do with the proposal that companies that exceed their carbon quota purchase unused quota from companies that don't use their full quota. The EU countries and other signatories of the Kyoto Protocol have set up carbon credit markets for this purpose.]

Sure they can, but will they, most of them? Nope, because if they would, they would also not buy giant sprawling houses that they don't actually need, nor collect more cars than they could reasonably drive in a week, etc.  Rich people do these things, so the more those tendencies can be turned to good purpose, the better.  

In countries where rich people had their lands appropriated because they wouldn't share more with the poor for the good of the country - the country winds up much worse off, and the brain trusts of those lands flee.  The revolutionaries say - good riddance, but the outside observer looks on with sadness.  

Better to turn people's natural inclinations toward good. SOME rich people will do all the good things you say, and will hopefully be celebrated and lavished with more money for doing it.  Some won't - and those folks need ritzy do-good kinds of things that make it relatively painless for them to give back some of what they take.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#36 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:10 AM

tennyson, the post of mine you responded to did implicitly acknowledge that it might be hard in some areas to find a community that doesn't require long drives.

If people stopped buying houses that were so far away from the closest store, the problem would diminish. I do recognize though that some people, like farmers, do have to live in areas where long drives are needed to get to the supermarket and other stores.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 01:11 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#37 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:54 AM

View PostQueenTiye, on Mar 9 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

View PostSolar Wind, on Mar 9 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

What rich people can do is the same as what everyone else can do: increase their energy efficiency and use of green energy.

Sure they can, but will they, most of them?
It's not all that difficult to design houses that use architectural techniques to reduce the energy required per square foot for heating and cooling. Such houses cost more initially, but we are talking about rich people here. Also, it's not hard to purchase green energy or have geothermal heating and cooling installed.


Quote

In countries where rich people had their lands appropriated...
Where did this statement come from? I haven't advocated this.


Quote

Some won't [do the good things you say] - and those folks need ritzy do-good kinds of things that make it relatively painless for them to give back some of what they take.
Which of the measures that I listed wouldn't be relatively painless for a rich person? Couldn't every person, whether wealthy or not so wealthy, implement at least one of them, even if only partially?

Also, as I've said, wealthy people can provide capital for alternative energy companies to get off the ground.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 02:34 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#38 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:59 AM

View PostZwolf, on Mar 8 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Quote

G, I'm asking you to edit out the last line. Calling posters names is not allowed, even if it is in a round about way. Thanks

Not wanting to play second-guesser too much here, but I didn't take it that G was calling any posters a kook - just Al Gore and the glacier-guy from the '70's.   It didn't look aimed at anyone here... at least, that's not how I read it.

Cheers,

Zwolf

Thanks that is exactly how I meant the post. I do think that the Gobal warmers are going on about things that they claimed in the 70' was going to led to a gobal cooling problem. The issues to me is how can only a 150 years of records show what might be the end action of a thousand year cycle.

The Mini Ice Age which altered the climate of England so that it could not longer make local wines. Which was a trade item of England of those times. We saw famine brought about by reduced harvests in Europe. Yet because we have so few records to give us more than stories and folktales of the climate we do not really know what we are headed into.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#39 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:41 AM

View PostG1223, on Mar 9 2007, 02:59 AM, said:

I do think that the Gobal warmers are going on about things that they claimed in the 70' was going to led to a gobal cooling problem. The issues to me is how can only a 150 years of records show what might be the end action of a thousand year cycle.

The Mini Ice Age which altered the climate of England so that it could not longer make local wines. Which was a trade item of England of those times. We saw famine brought about by reduced harvests in Europe. Yet because we have so few records to give us more than stories and folktales of the climate we do not really know what we are headed into.

We have millions of years of climate records, trapped in polar ice and seabed sediment. Over time, polar ice has been deposited on top of the already existing polar ice, year after year since ancient times. The temperatures can be reconstructed by analyzing the ratios of isotope concentrations in the ice core samples. Since heavier isotopes require more energy to vaporize and stay vaporized, their concentration in precipitation (rain and snow) relative to the lighter isotopes is strongly related to temperature. The vapor pressures of the isotopes at various temperatures can be measured in laboratory conditions, and this information can be used to calibrate the reconstruction technique to infer the temperature from the isotope ratios in the core samples. There are several methods for dating the core samples, as discussed in my fourth link below. The link about the oxygen isotope ratio cycle talks about sediment core samples taken from the ocean floor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://en.wikipedia....ope_ratio_cycle
http://www.csa.com/d...core/review.pdf
http://www.talkorigi...s/icecores.html

If this does not sufficiently address your issue relating to how climatologists can infer the temperature from millions of years ago, I'll see if I can track down something more rigorous on the Internet. Most of my search hits provided citations to journal articles or abstracts, but not full-text articles.

You're quite correct that the Little Ice Age did alter the climate in Europe. It's interesting that you're willing to make this claim since you said we only had 150 years of records, and yet the Great Famine that you attribute to climate change occurred from 1315 to 1317. Scientists have identified decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity as likely causes of the Little Ice Age (link). The Barnett et al study that I talked about earlier in this thread provides compelling evidence that changes in solar activity and volcanic activity are not the primary causes of the current warming trend. The models of the effects of solar activity and volcanic activity upon the oceans' temperatures at different depths correlate poorly with the observed measurements while the greenhouse gas models correlate stunningly well with the observed measurements.

Also, your first paragraph does contain a fairly major error when you claim that "Global warmers are going on about things that they claimed in the 70' was going to led to a global cooling problem." An increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was never believed to cause global cooling. The concerns about global cooling in the 1970s had to do with Milankovitch cycles (periodic changes in the tilt of Earth's axis and shape of Earth's orbit over tens of thousands of years). There was also concern that the increase in tiny particles in the atmosphere resulting from pollution would cause global cooling by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. [These tiny particles are known as aerosols, but think particulate pollution from factory smokestacks, not the household cleaner spray containers that were bad because of the CFCs they used to contain.] For both potential causes for global cooling put forth (Milankovitch cycles and aerosols), there were even in the 1970s a fair number of scientists who took the position that any cooling effects from these causes might be dominated by the warming effects from the increase in greenhouse gases. BTW, the scientists who said that tiny particulate pollution particles could cause cooling were correct, but for the wrong reasons. It has been shown in the last decade that this type of particulate pollution changes the seeding of clouds in the atmosphere so that the water droplets are smaller and more numerous. This results in the clouds being brighter and reflecting more sunlight back into space. This global dimming has masked the full extent of the global warming we've already experienced -- global dimming reduced the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface by amounts ranging from 10% in the US to almost 30% in Russia, although the global dimming effect has since diminished due to pollution controls factories and car manufacturers have been required to install.

Edited by Solar Wind, 09 March 2007 - 08:59 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#40 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:20 AM

Quote

Gore is the biggest hypocrite on the planet when it comes to global warming. The left just gives him a get out of jail free card because he's their poster boy. Shocking the left is guilty of the same thing they accuse the right of being when it comes to Bush

I'll wait and see on this, as the conservatives ask us to do when the Bush administration is accused of something new. There is so much lying from both sides these days its difficult to tell what is what, but even if Al is guilty, that doesn't make him the biggest hypocrite on the planet. That's reserved for the people who lied to the country about Nuclear weapons, so we would go along with invading a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist who attacked the USA in the first place.
Can't Touch This!!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Global Warming, Al Gore, Carbon Footprint, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users