Al Gore on global warming...

**rarhomes** · 10-13-2009 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Glenn W

Released today:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-...&asset=&ccode=

It's a shame that economic self interests have turned something that should be left to science into such a political topic.-- it's gotten so you don't know what to believe contributes to the current trend in Global warming.
It seems most every study has a political venue and is clearly biased (both directions). The most objective studies I've seen seem to conclude that the answer is "we don't know". That is, there is no doubt that the earth is warming. Is this just a blip (random)?--- is it a trend?--- I guess the most important question is: to what extent are man made greenhouse gases contributing to the earth's warming?--- The most objective studies seem to conclude uncertainty--- i.e., can't say that man is significantly contributing, and can't say that we are not.

On a more definitive note:--- Al Gore is definitely a idiot.

I totally agree.

Capt Rick

**seapower** · 10-14-2009 08:18 PM

lately Glenn is starting to make sense

Is "MoonBatness" contagious??? Frank

**Catcher's Mitt** · 10-15-2009 01:28 PM

ok so i dont know the answer to all these questions. but here is my feeble attempt at math and conversions. y'all please check my math and conversions. but if they are right a 3% melt of the polar cap, glaciers and permanate snow would raise the oceans by 6.5 feet.

so i think we can all agree that we don't want the ice caps to melt. no way do we want that melt. are we going to have that much of a melt. i have not a clue.

it doesn't attach or copy and paste well. pm me and i will send you the spreadsheet.

calculations of rise in ocean with ice cap melt

139,000,000 square mile of ocean
640 acres in a square mile
88,960,000,000 acres of ocean
1233.48 cubic meters of water to cover 1 acre 1 ft deep

1 cubic mile is = to 4,168,181,825 cubic meters

ice cap, glaciers, snow 5,773,000 cubic miles of water

ice cap, glaciers, snow 24,062,913,675,725,000 cubic meters

m3 to cover ocean to 1 foot
109,730,380,800,000

melts oceans rise in feet
quarter 0.25 6,015,728,418,931,250 cubic meters 54.82281548
third 0.3333 8,020,169,128,119,140 cubic meters 73.0897776
half 0.5 12,031,456,837,862,500 cubic meters 109.645631
three quarter 0.75 18,047,185,256,793,800 cubic meters 164.4684464
all 1 24,062,913,675,725,000 cubic meters 219.2912619

3 percent 0.03 721,887,410,271,750 6.578737857

**Captain Michael Buffington** · 10-15-2009 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Catcher's Mitt

ok so i dont know the answer to all these questions. but here is my feeble attempt at math and conversions. y'all please check my math and conversions. but if they are right a 3% melt of the polar cap, glaciers and permanate snow would raise the oceans by 6.5 feet.

so i think we can all agree that we don't want the ice caps to melt. no way do we want that melt. are we going to have that much of a melt. i have not a clue.

it doesn't attach or copy and paste well. pm me and i will send you the spreadsheet.

calculations of rise in ocean with ice cap melt

139,000,000 square mile of ocean
640 acres in a square mile
88,960,000,000 acres of ocean
1233.48 cubic meters of water to cover 1 acre 1 ft deep

1 cubic mile is = to 4,168,181,825 cubic meters

ice cap, glaciers, snow 5,773,000 cubic miles of water

ice cap, glaciers, snow 24,062,913,675,725,000 cubic meters

m3 to cover ocean to 1 foot
109,730,380,800,000

melts oceans rise in feet
quarter 0.25 6,015,728,418,931,250 cubic meters 54.82281548
third 0.3333 8,020,169,128,119,140 cubic meters 73.0897776
half 0.5 12,031,456,837,862,500 cubic meters 109.645631
three quarter 0.75 18,047,185,256,793,800 cubic meters 164.4684464
all 1 24,062,913,675,725,000 cubic meters 219.2912619

3 percent 0.03 721,887,410,271,750 6.578737857

explain that to me on our next trip Mark

Mike

**Catcher's Mitt** · 10-15-2009 03:12 PM

I think the jury is still out on this issue but it is a fact that plants absorb CO2 and release O2. As to warming, it seems to be cyclic over time. Man made stuff seems trivial comparatively speaking....P
________________________________________

________________________________________
Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change
Monday, October 12, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Fred Singer, founder and chairman of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, holds up a book "Climate Change Reconsidered" that contains hundreds of scientific studies that dispute global warming and CO2 as a pollutant that causes global warming. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.

John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.

“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”

“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.

H. Leighton Steward holds up his book as he speaks to a crowd on Capitol Hill about the benefits of CO2 to the planet, people, plants and animals. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.

Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.

“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”

“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.

“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”

Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.

In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.

The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.

Many in the room laughed at his comment, but the crowd that gathered in the Rose Garden just moments earlier heard Obama use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an opportunity to again issue a warning about the threat of global warming.

“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children – sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities,” Obama said.

Marc Morano, former congressional staffer and founder of the Web site climatedepot.com, told the crowd that he thinks the tide is turning against what he called global warming alarmists. He cited a call by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to hold a global warming trial.

“The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial ‘complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect,’” Morano wrote in an editorial he distributed at the event.

**Glenn W** · 10-15-2009 04:02 PM

Catcher's Mitt sources exemplify the problem with a lack of objective and unbiased venues. It seems Catcher's Mitt is giving considerable weight to the studies and findings of so called experts with a pro- industrial conclusion ( man doesn't contribute to global warming). Let's just look at the affiliations and sources of funding for these "scientific" studies:

Fred Singer---- good ole Fred---- a former UVA right-wing professor---- who was retained by the tobacco industry and testified around the Country in the infamous tobacco lawsuits that smoking is NOT harmful to our health---- yea right.
Since these litiation cases have dried up, Fred has turned to the issue of Global warming to make a buck. The various "institutes" he has set up in the name of reseach ( from which he draws handsome compensation) have been funded by the following partial list of contributors: Exxon Mobil; US Coal Institute, APCO, Cato Institute, The Asbestos Industry Council, Texaco, ARCO, Shell Oil, and the American Gas Association.

H. Leighton Stewart--- AKA Mr. Oil man. Mr. Stewart is a former CEO of a Oil exploration Company. and former chairman of the U.S. Oil & Gas Association and honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.

Marc Morano--- it is reported that his "scientific" funding is financed by ExxonMobil and Richard Mellon Scaife.

Now, these "experts"? opinions may indeed be correct--- however, the credibility of their studies are certainly impeached when you consider their sources of funding.

The other side of the fence is just as guilty--- so don't think I'm taking a side on this issue other than I don't believe a word of what I read until I know the reason ( or funding source) for the study.

**Catcher's Mitt** · 10-15-2009 11:17 PM

s**t

i had a long diatribe typed up and poof it was gone i was back to the thread and it was highlighting everything.

i guess that was a hint to shorten it up.

if you read earlier that if 3% of the ice cap, etc. melted it would cause a 6.5 foot increase in ocean mean sea level. not good. hell you would think that little bit of change would happen every year. obviously not. see Antartica is very robust in its ice holding ability.

I don't know how much they are saying this global warming hypothesis is supposed to up the average temp. but i think i heard 3 degrees. but hell with that lets say the average temperature in the region of anartica is going to increase 30 degrees. and lets say that is going to happen this year not some time in the future. are you gonna buy property a little north of the coast? i got some to sell you. THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN ANARTICA IS -58 DEGREES FARENHEIT. it aint going to melt.

you can set off a TND or two and melt some but the fall out anit gonna be rain. it is going to sleet

now dont go breaking off half of it and let it float up towards the equator. then you would be in a world of s**t.