Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Give it up for my main man, Nobel Laureate Al Gore!

Give it up for my main man, Nobel Laureate Al Gore!
Thread Tools
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 05:49 AM
 
And the results are in:
Gore and Panel Win Nobel Peace Prize

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 12, 2007
Filed at 5:05 a.m. ET

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures needed to counteract it.


I think it's fantastic. The Nobel often goes to activists in the midst of their struggle, and this is a tremendous acknowledgment of Gore's foresight and courageous leadership on this issue.

EDIT: Also, how about an official Peace Prize Assist for Apple Keynote?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 06:00 AM
 
I suppose he brown nosed enough for it, he deserves it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Graviton
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 06:16 AM
 
Kudos to the 3,000 scientists on the IPCC panel who have also won this prize.

     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 07:32 AM
 
Carter now Gore.

It appears that Nobel has reduced itself to a backslap to liars and politically self serving leftists.

Uh..Congratulations?

No..not really.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 07:46 AM
 
Don't worry people, it's not over yet! Just wait for the inevitable recount, then the court cases, and this result will be Fixed™ in no time.
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 07:52 AM
 
Carter now Gore.
Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, Yassar Arafat, Kofi Annan

Excelsior!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, Yassar Arafat, Kofi Annan

Excelsior!
Pass completed. TOUCHDOWN!
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 08:08 AM
 
Well, this looks like proof that the global warming stuff is politically motivated hokum.

The Peace Prize should be given:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
So what we have here, essentially, is an invented global bogeyman designed to form a common enemy to rally against. As per plans of the Club of Rome.

"The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.
( Last edited by Doofy; Oct 12, 2007 at 08:15 AM. )
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Mithras  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 08:32 AM
 
because if a lunatic believes it, it must be false!
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Well, this looks like proof that the global warming stuff is politically motivated hokum.
I don't think the Global Warming stuff is total hokum. But like you, I do question what Gore's work has to do with the Peace Prize. It could very well be that there was a lack of other viable candidates. At least folks like Kissinger and Arafat were working on efforts related to stopping actual fighting at the time they won their awards. Gore's work has nothing to do with that.
     
shabbasuraj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 09:01 AM
 
A-GEE-ZEE is da man!!!
blabba5555555555555555555555555555555555555
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 09:16 AM
 
They are in the works to make Gore's movie into a Broadway show so that the left can shower him with a Tony as well!



I'm pretty sure even those who agree with Gore can see the folly in giving the guy so many accolades for stuff that is demonstrably false.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
They are in the works to make Gore's movie into a Broadway show so that the left can shower him with a Tony as well!



I'm pretty sure even those who agree with Gore can see the folly in giving the guy so many accolades for stuff that is demonstrably false.

Can you see the folly in throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
At least folks like Kissinger and Arafat were working on efforts related to stopping actual fighting at the time they won their awards. Gore's work has nothing to do with that.
If you believe in global warming story, as most people now do, then you have to believe that global warming will cause major conflicts around the world, but especially in places like the Middle East and Africa. So Gore's work has to do with preemptively preventing conflicts. It doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you don't believe in the global warming story, that is fine too, but you have to realize that you are in a small minority (especially weighted by expertise) and so you can't expect your opinion to have much weight.

But you are also right that there might not have been too many other candidates, I don't know.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
If you believe in global warming story, as most people now do....but you have to realize that you are in a small minority...
Please show me where there are a "majority" of anyone but leftist kooks who believes that we are in the middle of man-made global warming which can be prevented via simple conservation. I do admit that the number is growing day by day, due to the successful and dishonest propaganda campaign that the left has waged, but I think you're confusing general assumptions about global warming with what you'd like people to think.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 12, 2007 at 09:48 PM. )
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
If you believe in global warming story, as most people now do, then you have to believe that global warming will cause major conflicts around the world, but especially in places like the Middle East and Africa. So Gore's work has to do with preemptively preventing conflicts. It doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is one way to look at it. But the more I think about it, the more I think the Nobel should go to people who are actively trying to achieve peace and prevent wars right now, or even people who are actively working to prevent future conflicts directly. Not people who might prevent wars in the future as a convenient by-product of their work.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Please show me where there are a "majority" of anyone but leftist kooks who believes that we are in the middle of man-made global warming which can be prevented via simple conservation. I do admit that the number is growing day by day, due to the successful and dishonest propaganda campaign that the left has waged, but I think you're confusing general assumptions about global warming with what you'd like people to think.
Please just go back and read your own post again.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
That is one way to look at it. But the more I think about it, the more I think the Nobel should go to people who are actively trying to achieve peace and prevent wars right now, or even people who are actively working to prevent future conflicts directly. Not people who might prevent wars in the future as a convenient by-product of their work.
I can see that. Do you have someone else you are thinking of? Myself, I don't, but this may be because I worry more about the problems (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Burma,..) than about the solutions.

Basically, I think Gore is deserving, and his work complements that of the IPCC. I think they were trying to do something different, address a big issue. If you believe in global warming, then today global warming is among the top global issues. Nonproliferation and terrorism are others.

I don't know that "convenient by-product of their work" is entirely accurate. As global warming continues, there will be famines and wars. If the science is correct, then they are preventable (if not, we'll live with them). I could certainly see how one could work on global warming purely to try to prevent these, even if you had no interest in any of the other effects of climate change.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2007, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Please just go back and read your own post again.
Done. NEXT!
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2007, 05:13 PM
 
fantastic!

go al go!

anyone want to put up money that george w will never ever win one?

btw, isn't it also great that al is on apple's board?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
...and just when you thought the Nobel prize couldn't get any more meaningless.
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2007, 03:57 PM
 
It is sometimes humanetarian based; like when doctors without borders won it. As for President Carter it was Habitat for humanities that won. Bravo Mr. Gore; well deserved someone is listening. It is wonderful that someone at least thinks about the children's future unlike the conservatives that are ready to sell their future to the highest profiter.
     
Mithras  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2007, 05:32 PM
 
I ran across a great phrase this morning: "Gore Derangement Syndrome".
I think it captures some of the rage on the right upon the bestowal of this award.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2007, 06:37 PM
 
How about all the Goregasms?

Maybe there are a lot of righties who are a little too upset or offended but there are even more lefties that are way too excited.

Just like Chris rock said about the OJ trial ; Black people too happy, white people too mad.

If you really care that much either way you need to get a life.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2007, 10:46 PM
 
^^ well it looked like steve jobs was very excited like any normal person would be

i truely wonder if the ones who are so anti-global warming are also end-times christians...ie, why bother saving the planet when jesus is coming soon.

sad
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 12:36 AM
 
No, I'm not an Evangelical, and I do believe that we are experiencing climate shifts, but I don't believe that it's solely, or even largely, caused by man.

I'd really like to see a breakdown of certain liberal's stock portfolios and see if they're investing heavily in alternative fuel companies, that would be quite telling.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 02:18 PM
 
Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia.

That was discredited within ten years of the award being issued.

תודה
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, I'm not an Evangelical, and I do believe that we are experiencing climate shifts, but I don't believe that it's solely, or even largely, caused by man.
While you're entitled to any belief you like, that's an odd position to take given the evidence the other way. Do you, by any chance, beleive NASA faked the Moon landings?
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'd really like to see a breakdown of certain liberal's stock portfolios and see if they're investing heavily in alternative fuel companies, that would be quite telling.
Wow. A real conspiracy nut - the whole climate crisis is orchestrated by some liberals trying to pump and dump solar companies!
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i truely wonder if the ones who are so anti-global warming are also end-times christians.
Nobody has yet managed to tell me exactly what's so bad about global warming.
OK, so fat chicks wandering around without the appropriate level of cover might be a bit rough.

If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that the powers that be would be insisting on cars not having cats?

This whole thing isn't about climate change - it's about control over the population. The Gore family yearn for it (anyone remember Tipper's little foray into the music biz in the 80s?).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nobody has yet managed to tell me exactly what's so bad about global warming.
Starvation and death aren't enough of a disincentive for you?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nobody has yet managed to tell me exactly what's so bad about global warming.
OK, so fat chicks wandering around without the appropriate level of cover might be a bit rough.

If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that the powers that be would be insisting on cars not having cats?

This whole thing isn't about climate change - it's about control over the population. The Gore family yearn for it (anyone remember Tipper's little foray into the music biz in the 80s?).
so it's more anti-gore than anti-science?

the "powers that be" are oil men from texas. they want money money money AND btw they are in control of the population

i'll put up 50k to anyone who wants to bet that jebus will not be a-comin' anytime
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that the powers that be would be insisting on cars not having cats?
A better line of reasoning: If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that spikes in atmospheric CO2 would come before spikes in global temperature rather than several centuries after?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia.

That was discredited within ten years of the award being issued.

תודה
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1975 was awarded to David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin for their discoveries concerning the interaction between tumour viruses and the genetic material of the cell.

Their discoveries remain significant to this day.

My point: what's your point?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:23 PM
 
Even better still: if the contention is that current warming is dissimilar from past warmings (because you know, humans are involved), how can you make any definitive statements about current warming based on your ability to recognize patterns in past warmings?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
A better line of reasoning: If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that spikes in atmospheric CO2 would come before spikes in global temperature rather than several centuries after?
Simple Answer: it's not a "better line of reasoning"; it's a piss-poor line of reasoning which has had an answer for many years, so go do some basic research on climate change before you make someone explain it once again. For a quick start, read my recent post on this argument in the Al Gore thread.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Even better still: if the contention is that current warming is dissimilar from past warmings (because you know, humans are involved), how can you make any definitive statements about current warming based on your ability to recognize patterns in past warmings?
Heh heh, it seems as if you should be saying something significant here, but I can't quite pick it out; the only answer I could come up with is that your statement is its own answer (ie. we can make definitive/semi-definitive/speculative statements about current warming because of our ability to recognize patterns in past warmings).

Care to try and restate to help my poor brain out, or was that the answer you were looking for and you've caught me in your cleverly laid trap?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Simple Answer: it's not a "better line of reasoning"; it's a piss-poor line of reasoning which has had an answer for many years, so go do some basic research on climate change before you make someone explain it once again. For a quick start, read my recent post on this argument in the Al Gore thread.

greg
So, from reading your post there, it appears that your rebuttal of the point I made was that we don't know what's happening so it must be human produced carbon dioxide despite the fact that at no point in the history of our planet has CO2 caused any sort of massive increase in global temperature?

Here's what you said verbatim:
In fact, your statement here is actually an argument for anthropogenic global warming. That CO2 levels historically increase after warming events is a basic tenet of climate change science. Why? Because carbon dioxide has traditionally not been a "climate driver", but limited to an amplification effect, whereby warming temperatures (eg. from increasing solar radiation, etc.) led to more CO2 (eg. by "unlocking stored CO2") which led to further warming temperatures because of CO2's chemical properties within the atmosphere.

This is the entire point of anthropogenic climate change: that this process is no longer happening. We have no other mechanism to explain modern climate change, except the fact that humans have artificially enhanced the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. In other words, what has traditionally not been a driver of climate change, suddenly is because of human involvement.
Let me try and give you a better picture of where I'm coming from. 1) Clearly the Earth is warming. 2) Clearly there is a link between concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. 3) Clearly past occurrences of warming have resulted in increased concentrations of CO2. 4) Clearly CO2 does serve as a greenhouse gas and so 5) clearly increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will have some warming effect on the global temperatures. All I dispute is the degree to which you claim it will have an effect.

People arguing for catastrophic global warming seem to be saying that global climate is so sensitive to increases in atmospheric CO2 that the amounts we're putting in the atmosphere is going to essentially kill us all. But the science doesn't really support that. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's very limited in the effect that it's able to have; there are negative feedbacks in effect that result in diminishing returns the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere. In other words, if we were to continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at a steady rate, the rate of temperature increase that it causes would decrease asymptotically. I don't deny that the planet is warming, nor do I deny that human activity might have some effect on it. I do, however, find it highly unlikely that we're going to hit some point of no return when the climate spirals out of control in defiance of just about everything else in nature. You want us to believe that CO2 causes significant enough warming to cause significant enough increases in atmospheric CO2 to drive a positive feedback cycle. This just seems incredibly unlikely. Nowhere else in nature do we see positive feedback cycles (except, I suppose, nuclear reactions). I don't deny that it could theoretically be possible, I just don't think it's very likely.

You say that CO2 has never before in the history of the planet been a climate driver. What makes you think it would be now? If it had that capability, why would it not have happened before when there were major increases in atmospheric CO2? The simple fact is, there is no evidence to support this claim. All you have on your side is computer models, and those aren't particularly useful for predicting the future, and can be easily manipulated to produce whatever results you want.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Starvation and death aren't enough of a disincentive for you?
There will be no starvation and death. At least not through climate change - maybe through meddling politico assmunches, yes.

CO2 and heat are good for plants, in case nobody noticed.

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
so it's more anti-gore than anti-science?
Yep. For me, anyways.

I'll start believing that man made global warming is real when the left (the main boys who keep banging on about it) start saying that immigration is bad because of all the carbon miles immigrants do to get to their destination. Until then I'll continue to see it for what it is: A political hammer with which to bang everyone over their heads with.

Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
A better line of reasoning: If CO2 was the cause of global warming, don't you think that spikes in atmospheric CO2 would come before spikes in global temperature rather than several centuries after?
'Tis funny how all the folks who bang on abut the hockey stick can't actually see that. I mean, it's right there on their precious graph, right in front of them.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 06:37 PM
 
Oh, forgot this...

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
the "powers that be" are oil men from texas. they want money money money AND btw they are in control of the population
This is, of course, Americentric BS. The powers that be here (in Europe) are quasi-communist assholes who have nothing to do with oil. I think you'll find, if you dig deep enough, that the same is true for the colonies.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yep. For me, anyways.

I'll start believing that man made global warming is real when the left (the main boys who keep banging on about it) start saying that immigration is bad because of all the carbon miles immigrants do to get to their destination. Until then I'll continue to see it for what it is: A political hammer with which to bang everyone over their heads with.
what if republicans were the ones saying global warming is real due to human?

then you would change your mind right?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
what if republicans were the ones saying global warming is real due to human?

then you would change your mind right?
No. I don't trust Republicans either. They're all politicians looking to keep their jobs.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
People arguing for catastrophic global warming seem to be saying that global climate is so sensitive to increases in atmospheric CO2 that the amounts we're putting in the atmosphere is going to essentially kill us all. But the science doesn't really support that. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's very limited in the effect that it's able to have; there are negative feedbacks in effect that result in diminishing returns the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere. In other words, if we were to continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at a steady rate, the rate of temperature increase that it causes would decrease asymptotically. I don't deny that the planet is warming, nor do I deny that human activity might have some effect on it. I do, however, find it highly unlikely that we're going to hit some point of no return when the climate spirals out of control in defiance of just about everything else in nature. You want us to believe that CO2 causes significant enough warming to cause significant enough increases in atmospheric CO2 to drive a positive feedback cycle. This just seems incredibly unlikely. Nowhere else in nature do we see positive feedback cycles (except, I suppose, nuclear reactions). I don't deny that it could theoretically be possible, I just don't think it's very likely.
You're taking the ebuddy "extremist view" of it: that global warming is a harbringer of doom and will "essentially kill us all." That's just plain ridiculous; you're rejecting the entire theory by taking one extremist side of it and saying "I don't think this will happen." I for one think it's ludicrous that global warming will somehow "kill us all." I do think, however, that our current worldwide civilization has developed based on a remarkably stable Holocene climate history (note: of course it hasn't been "stable" but it's been stable compared to most other periods of human evolution), and that if climate change proceeds as is predicted (ie. unpredictably!), then that will have significant consequences for continued human poopulation growth and the layout of this aforementioned civilization. (For example, I think increased extreme-weather events, leading to more "natural disasters" and more difficult consistent crop growth, as well as slow coastal flooding and the resulting displacement of large populations is probably something that most people agree is a likelihood whether they believe in anthropogenic warming or not. However, while I think it's stupid to think that these scenarios won't have any affect, I also think it's ridiculous to think that they'll somehow take out most, or even all, humans.)

Finally, your statement "nowhere else in nature do we see positive feedback cycles" is quite the blanket statement, not to mention being completely false. Anyone with a background in population ecology will quickly point how sadly incorrect you are; complex predator/prey (whether herbivore or carnivore) feedback cycles are seen on a regular basis

You say that CO2 has never before in the history of the planet been a climate driver. What makes you think it would be now? If it had that capability, why would it not have happened before when there were major increases in atmospheric CO2? The simple fact is, there is no evidence to support this claim. All you have on your side is computer models, and those aren't particularly useful for predicting the future, and can be easily manipulated to produce whatever results you want.
Hmmmm. At this point I will force you to acknowledge that you quoted my post, and then summarized it by claiming I said something which I emphatically did not say.

I clearly said that CO2 has not traditionally been a "climate driver"; you quoted me by saying that I said CO2 has never before in the history of the planet been a climate driver. You deserve a spinning roundhouse kick for this type of cheap and underhanded argumentation.

But to get back to this question, I will fully admit to giving a half-assed and, at least technically, perhaps partially incorrect answer. (After all, the entire issue is so complicated that to go into even a moderate level of detail would certainly be above both our abilities to understand.) However, I'll try to elaborate a little more, at least far as I understand it:

CO2 in and of itself is generally not a primary driver of climate change, often because of the long-ish timescales involved in its accumulation – which is a varying rate of exchange between the oceans, biosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, yadda yadda. The effect of, say, solar radiation (which was fairly well-discussed in that thread natch) has been shown to have a much "tighter" correlation with climate, as well as well-established climate-change factors such as Milankovitch Cycles and other potential factors such as Atlantic current slow-downs.

Thus, these more-immediate (and perhaps in some instances like MCs, more powerful) affects are expected to "lead" CO2 by a significant number of years. For example, if I remember correctly I believe that could be around 800 years for a temperature lead over CO2 – an estimate taking into account changes in ocean circulation and the resulting time it takes to "flush" the oceans via the marine carbon pump (ie. the oceans act as a buffer with, I think, about a 1000-year flush time...this can be seen at the end of ice ages, as CO2 rises for about this time...which seems to be the "flush time" of the oceans to release stored CO2 during the ice age, if that makes sense to you). Furthermore, there is some controversy over this exact time period, because ice core data is quite difficult to correlatively date wrt temperature, for a number of reasons but primarily involving the age of the ice being older than the gas bubbles it contains...blah blah blah, anyway, the important part is that there have been some publications which suggest the lag is actually closer to a couple hundred years, rather than 1000.

The point is, CO2 doesn't cause the initial temperature change – because it usually doesn't start rising until afterwards. However, our "historical global warming data" shows most warming periods continuing for thousands of years. So, for the majority of the warming period, CO2 and temperature both rise together, and as I already stated, the chemical heat-trapping properties of CO2 in the atmosphere are well-established; thus, there is an amplification effect on temperature. In fact, there is no method of explaining the temperature change without including the affect of CO2. We can't do it. Take out CO2, and we simply cannot explain why our climate has behaved as we believe it has. Solar variation, Milankovitch cycles, you name it; none of it fits without adding in CO2 affects.

However, is there a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature? No, of course not, which seems obvious. In fact, as far as we can tell, surface albedo had a much larger effect in the ice ages – how much ice there was and how it reflected solar energy back into space instead of absorbing it. CO2 and the "important" GHGs (pretty much CO2 along with CH4 and NO2 I think) are usually attributed from 1/4 to 1/2 of the warming affects (probably around 1/3?), while surface albedo is given the other 1/2-1/3 of the responsibility.

In fact, from what I understand a doubling in CO2 is expected to lead to a worldwide temperature increase of 2-3 degrees C...and this isn't some new idea, but was first roughly calculated something like a century ago by the great Svante Arhhenius (sp?). In other words, yes, it is possible to calculate and model temperatures from a chemical standpoint on a worldwide basis. Better yet, those models can then be tested against our rapidly expanding historical data to see how they stand up, and try to discover possible reasons why if they don't.

Of course, you're obviously disdainful of modeling efforts. That's okay; they've certainly been harshly criticized in the mainstream media. The reality is, however, that climate models are used for research on a daily basis throughout the world, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed published papers dealing with climate models. The simple fact is that our climate models have thus far been surprisingly accurate, and we have the luxury of refining them on a continual basis as new data information is added. (For example, if you look up Jim Hansen's famous 1988 paper on future global warming, and check out the 3 model scenarios he presents...the middle one is remarkably similar to what we've seen in the ~20 years since that time. Considering the mindboggling strides in modeling made since that time, it's pretty surprising.)

Anyways, I've spent far too much time on this and have to run.....but you can look up this in more detail/clarity should you like.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
'Tis funny how all the folks who bang on abut the hockey stick can't actually see that. I mean, it's right there on their precious graph, right in front of them.
What's funny about this is the "hockey stick graph" clearly illustrates how CO2 is leading temperature...which kinda destroys that argument....

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What's funny about this is the "hockey stick graph" clearly illustrates how CO2 is leading temperature.
Ummm... ...no it doesn't. Not in any version I've ever seen anyways.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
No. I don't trust Republicans either. They're all politicians looking to keep their jobs.
what about pollution? do you think it has any impact on the environment?

     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
what about pollution? do you think it has any impact on the environment?
Yep. All y'all should stop having kids. And stop living in cities.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Ummm... ...no it doesn't. Not in any version I've ever seen anyways.
CO2 concentration has gone from ~280ppm to around 384ppm in the past 200 years or so. Are you saying that global temperatures correspondingly rose before that time? Link please....

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
CO2 concentration has gone from ~280ppm to around 384ppm in the past 200 years or so. Are you saying that global temperatures correspondingly rose before that time? Link please....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 10:47 PM
 
Laughable. Logic much?

From your own source:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[3]. NOAA states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2]
So you're implying that what essentially seems to be a regional temperature variation but which may have been a slight (at best) global rise in temperature...resulted in a ~40% increase in CO2? Jebus, now that's amplification! Considering the Little Ice Age followed thereafter, I suppose we should be preparing for the resulting plummet of CO2 soon, right?!?

Laughable.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2007, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Laughable. Logic much?

From your own source:
Love how you pick the only bit of it which is IPCC modified. You'll get those climate change research grants no problem Greg.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,