An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Ramo]

1. McIntrye = Einstein?
2.
3. AFAIK, Einstein had only one paper rejected by peer-review (the EPR paper), and that was both after his ideas generally became conventional wisdom (indeed, the referee used his ideas on gravity to criticize the paper) and because he rejected the idea that anyone would dare criticize him - despite the referee having legitimate criticisms. Einstein picked a crappy coordinate system, and "proved" that gravitational waves don't exist. The paper was later published in another journal after he addressed the referee's concerns. Einstein never had any problem publishing his ground-breaking 1905 papers or his paper on general relativity.
4. Peer-review isn't perfect. Sometimes crappy papers get through and sometimes good papers don't, but it's definitely the best filter that the scientific community has come up with so far. And if you want to be taken seriously, you need to get published. And there's no grand conspiracy throughout academia preventing that. Creationists whine about the same thing, and their argument has the same merit as McIntrye and crew's.

[Ramo]

c'mon Ramo, look at graphs of paleoclimates and the cycle(s), we're a factor, but not the machine driving climate.

The climate's an interesting beast in that two points in phase space that are arbitrarily close to each other can rapidly diverge. Small changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can have a huge effect in how the climate behaves. Figuring out what happens when you bring the concentration this far outside equilibrium takes more than a cursory glance at recorded temperature cycles.

And no, Cali, it's not a totally impossible task. We've been able to figure out a great deal about nonlinear systems, particularly in the past few decades. These aren't arbitrary computer models, but ones that have definite basis in the physics of our climate.

and speaking on behalf of all those future people with more space...to live... I hope we can actually pollute ourselves into a warmer globe. The world doesn't get better when a mile of ice covers Manhattan. But it would be fun looking for treasure along coastlines 400 ft below current sea levels.

Not for the uncountable numbers who are killed in the process.

[BlackCat]

It seems that you have complete knowledgede about the effects of manmade greenhouse gases, so I guess that you are not a bit worried about the outcomes of the CERN experiments next year.

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_memo.pdf

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
And no, Cali, it's not a totally impossible task. We've been able to figure out a great deal about nonlinear systems, particularly in the past few decades. These aren't arbitrary computer models, but ones that have definite basis in the physics of our climate.

What will the most catastrophic consquence of global warming be, and when do you expect it to definitely happen by?

[chequita guevara]

That's impossible to determin, since we haven't stopped damaging the environment.

[BlackCat]

And we are not a part of the environment ?

[snoopy369]

Eskimos for a warmer summer

[Berzerker]

The climate's an interesting beast in that two points in phase space that are arbitrarily close to each other can rapidly diverge. Small changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can have a huge effect in how the climate behaves. Figuring out what happens when you bring the concentration this far outside equilibrium takes more than a cursory glance at recorded temperature cycles.

As the paleoclimatologists said, CO2 levels were even higher when the Earth was in a deep freeze. And we aren't far outside equilibrium, whatever that means. Well, I kinda know what it means, but these are trace gases we're talking about, not N and O2.

Not for the uncountable numbers who are killed in the process.

Far more people would die if the ice returns, almost half the northern hemisphere would be under ice.

[snoopy369]

Desert Cats for a colder summer

[Ramo]

As the paleoclimatologists said, CO2 levels were even higher when the Earth was in a deep freeze. And we aren't far outside equilibrium, whatever that means. Well, I kinda know what it means, but these are trace gases we're talking about, not N and O2.

Yes, greenhouse gases like CO2. They compose a small part of the atmosphere, and even a small change in their concentration can result in drastic changes in the climate. That's how nonlinear systems can behave.

And I don't know what you mean by "the paleoclimatoligists," but you're certainly not articulating the scientific consensus. Again, see i.e. Oreskes' study.

Far more people would die if the ice returns, almost half the northern hemisphere would be under ice.

There's no evidence that an ice age is returning anytime soon. OTOH, it looks like uncountable numbers of lives are threatened within a century by our irresponsible behavior.

It seems that you have complete knowledgede about the effects of manmade greenhouse gases, so I guess that you are not a bit worried about the outcomes of the CERN experiments next year.

This complete knowledge nonsense is a strawman that I've never claimed. There's never complete knowledge about anything, and there's still a lot of important work to be done in modelling long term climate changes.

What will the most catastrophic consquence of global warming be, and when do you expect it to definitely happen by?

Again, there's no such thing as a definite prediction. But if nothing's done, we could see i.e. the Nile Delta and huge parts of Bengal submerged in a century.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
As the paleoclimatologists said, CO2 levels were even higher when the Earth was in a deep freeze.

Which one are you talking about?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
And we are not a part of the environment ?

Are you trying to make a point?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo

It seems that you have complete knowledgede about the effects of manmade greenhouse gases, so I guess that you are not a bit worried about the outcomes of the CERN experiments next year.

This complete knowledge nonsense is a strawman that I've never claimed. There's never complete knowledge about anything, and there's still a lot of important work to be done in modelling long term climate changes.

Quite right, but won't you admit that you have a tendency to be a bit aggresive when someone mentions that there are a possiblity that manmade CO2 isn't the main component in todays climate changes ?

About the Oreskes study, well, isn't it like if the pope made a study amongst his cardinals about wether they belived jesus was gods son or not.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker


As the paleoclimatologists said, CO2 levels were even higher when the Earth was in a deep freeze. And we aren't far outside equilibrium, whatever that means. Well, I kinda know what it means, but these are trace gases we're talking about, not N and O2.



Far more people would die if the ice returns, almost half the northern hemisphere would be under ice.

CO2 levels were LOWER during glacials (180ppm vs. 260ppm) moron.

[Odin]

The moron's who think that "this is just a natural cycle" forget that climatologists take that stuff into account in thier models.