Al gore- What the fuck?

[Tristam]

Not everything in the nature is reversible, and saying "it's not the first time temperature rise, so it's not an issue" is kinda stupid. Human activity might not be the only factor, but it still is one.

That wasn't the only reasoning behind it. The only planet we have a ton of historical temperature data on is Earth, so its the only one were we can see any cyclical motion. I guess I should have found some of the more recent links, but the fact that the other planets are heating up also points to me to be a big sign it's not just a problem on Earth. While the amount of radiation the Sun outputs has only increased minutely (.5-1%), it can still have an effect. I guess we'll just have to wait a few years and see what happens. What you do during those years depends on what you think is happening.

I've heard this claim before, and there is no evidence to support it, until I see solid, real evidence that other planets are warming, I'm calling BS.

Just to humor the point, if other planets were warming, the only cause could be the sun. The sun isn't getting hotter, nor is it putting out more energy.

[Enkidu]

Al Gore does indeed release CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, every molecule of CO2 that Al Gore releases is one less molecule that someone else releases (due to carbon credits) or one more molecule that newly planted trees convert into oxygen (due to planting).

Gore's offsets are in renewable energy, not planting trees. Planting trees is a viable strategy to "net zero" emissions, even though it's not practical in most cases. In Gore's case it's not zero net emissions, as like you said he emits carbon and doesn't remove it. At best you could claim he effectively halves his carbon emissions by paying (not personally paying in his case) for carbon offsets.

[archibaldcrane]

Al Gore does indeed release CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, every molecule of CO2 that Al Gore releases is one less molecule that someone else releases (due to carbon credits) or one more molecule that newly planted trees convert into oxygen (due to planting).

Gore's offsets are in renewable energy, not planting trees. Planting trees is a viable strategy to "net zero" emissions, even though it's not practical in most cases. In Gore's case it's not zero net emissions, as like you said he emits carbon and doesn't remove it. At best you could claim he effectively halves his carbon emissions by paying (not personally paying in his case) for carbon offsets.

Do you have reason to believe he doesn't participate in Carbon offsets that plant or prevent the destruction of trees?

[Kaylia]

Not everything in the nature is reversible, and saying "it's not the first time temperature rise, so it's not an issue" is kinda stupid. Human activity might not be the only factor, but it still is one.

That wasn't the only reasoning behind it. The only planet we have a ton of historical temperature data on is Earth, so its the only one were we can see any cyclical motion. I guess I should have found some of the more recent links, but the fact that the other planets are heating up also points to me to be a big sign it's not just a problem on Earth. While the amount of radiation the Sun outputs has only increased minutely (.5-1%), it can still have an effect. I guess we'll just have to wait a few years and see what happens. What you do during those years depends on what you think is happening.

Sun output might increase, but Earth's core is getting colder at the same time. I don't remember if it was by a significant number tho, would need to double check.

Life had a huge impact on the atmosphere, and allow us to preserve the unstable equilibre that we know. If there was no life here, Earth would reach a stability level similar to Venus. Comparing this planet to other can't be done, because of the complexity of our system versus other system. Venus, Mars, Mercury can be explained easily by looking at the sun outputs, the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and the gravity (capacity to retain gases in the atmosphere).

Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets, consisting mostly of carbon dioxide, as it has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor organic life to absorb it in biomass


Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere


The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a constant temperature between day and night and between the equator and the poles.[21][22]

Mankind atm is raping forest, and destroying the sea, the two primary thing that remove Co2 from the atmosphere. To add to that, our emission of CO2 are pretty damn high. There is still more emission that come from the nature itself, but we can't minize the effect it has.

[Charla]

Solar output increases and decreases pretty rapidly in a very regular cycle(link is the big version of this image here):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cycle-data.png

That easialy recognizable trancendental curve has a period of about 10 yeras. Although accurate direct observations only go back about 50 years since that's how long we've had satellites, some extrapolations indicate that the curve itself has been shifting (if the solar output has previously followed the rate of sunspots, as it does in the above graph, then it's been shifting pretty irregularly over the last 400 years or so, which is how long we've been measuring sunspots). In any case, the long-term change is both more difficult to predict and less significant than the short-term change, making it quite difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the effect that changing solar output will have on Earth in the forseeable future.

Of course, in any event, the actual insolation depends on the solar output, the planet's albedo, and the composition and density of the atmosphere. What that all means (mostly the first part) is that the change in solar output over the last 50 years doesn't mean much of anything other than we can probably count on a mostly regular 10-year sun cycle for at least the next 20 or so years, and we end up right back where we started arguing about CO2 concentrations.

[Enkidu]

Do you have reason to believe he doesn't participate in Carbon offsets that plant or prevent the destruction of trees?

Because his PR said the offsets were in renewable energy and it's the most used "carbon offset" in the market right now.

Even with that said my definition of a zero emission home would be a house on your own land in which the net carbon emission was zero taking into acount the trees and any other carbon sinks available. Not emitting like mad while somewhere else hundreds or even thousands of miles away some trees are planted... In Gore's case he'd need to just about live in a state forest.

[Khamsin]

Al Gore does indeed release CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, every molecule of CO2 that Al Gore releases is one less molecule that someone else releases (due to carbon credits) or one more molecule that newly planted trees convert into oxygen (due to planting).

Gore's offsets are in renewable energy, not planting trees. Planting trees is a viable strategy to "net zero" emissions, even though it's not practical in most cases. In Gore's case it's not zero net emissions, as like you said he emits carbon and doesn't remove it. At best you could claim he effectively halves his carbon emissions by paying (not personally paying in his case) for carbon offsets.

It's possible to reverse CO2 you emit down to a net of 0 without removing it from the atmosphere. All you have to do is buy a carbon credit, which means the person that sold it won't be releasing that CO2. That effectively transfers the responsibility for the emission to the seller of the credit, and you can claim that you emit nothing.

In short: Two people, A and B, are in a room with a potted plant. The plant converts CO2 to oxygen at X rate. Therefore, A and B need to limit their CO2 emissions to X/2 rate each, or else it becomes too much for the plant to handle and they flood the room with CO2. A says "Hey, I'll pay you if you don't emit any CO2." B agrees. A can now emit CO2 at the full rate of X, while B emits none.

[aurik]

Again, holy shit at people not understanding the concept of "net". It's a good thing you're not in charge of anything important.

[Charla]

Even the gross CO2 output can get pretty close to 0 with enough solar panels. That doesn't take a car/plane/lawnmower into account of course, but it's still not hard to get Gore's lifestyle to 1/10 of the national average if you give him credit for the solar panels he's apparently working on (hybrid car, jet fuel, astroturf, etc.).

[Ace-o-fire]

I say fuck it and look in to terra forming mars.

Come on algae!

[Kaylia]

I say fuck it and look in to terra forming mars.

Come on algae!

Irony in all that is that you would need CO2 to warm up Mars. Not that terraforming is likely to happen.

[Charla]

I say fuck it and look in to terra forming mars.

Come on algae!

Irony in all that is that you would need CO2 to warm up Mars. Not that terraforming is likely to happen.

Not to mention you'd be best off using my solar lens to warm it up even faster.

[Day]

Kindof a necro-bump, but I thought that this arcticle was relevant to this topic. Seems more and more scientists are coming out to debunk Gore/Global warming etc...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=

Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970's. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 -- not 1998 -- the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm.

[Artemas]

The man deserves something for staying married to that detestable harpy of a wife.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I watched the video and DAMN that guy is full of propaganda.

ps: When somebody says "Hollywood Elitists" I tend to think that person's objectivity is nonexistent.

[Rocl]

Al Gore is the anti christ.
It's true

[Kuya]

Al Gore is the anti christ.
It's true

6 letters, omg rocl

[aurik]

Kindof a necro-bump, but I thought that this arcticle was relevant to this topic. Seems more and more scientists are coming out to debunk Gore/Global warming etc...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=

Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970's. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 -- not 1998 -- the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm.

Not really, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe ... tal_record
He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.

Inhofe is a loon.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

oh lawdie

...As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.

loooooooooool

Sen. Inhofe is one of a small minority of senators opposed to expanding access to students by lowering interest rates. According to the Claremore Daily Progress, Inhofe was one of 12 senators who voted against a 2007 bill to cut interest rates on student loans in half from 6.8% to 3.4%. The bill passed 79-12.

THIS is your anti-global warming guy? Come on looooooooool

[Senoska]

I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

oh lawdie

[quote:ztirf8m5]...As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.

loooooooooool

Sen. Inhofe is one of a small minority of senators opposed to expanding access to students by lowering interest rates. According to the Claremore Daily Progress, Inhofe was one of 12 senators who voted against a 2007 bill to cut interest rates on student loans in half from 6.8% to 3.4%. The bill passed 79-12.

THIS is your anti-global warming guy? Come on looooooooool[/quote:ztirf8m5]

This guy is a fucking loon~