PDA

View Full Version : Environment Transcript: Al Gore Got ‘D’ in ‘Natural Sciences’ at Harvard


KILLER_CLOWN
05-25-2011, 02:21 PM
Transcript: Al Gore Got ‘D’ in ‘Natural Sciences’ at Harvard
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
By Michael W. Chapman

(CNSNews.com) - In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.

Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.

Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming.

For his college board achievement tests, Gore earned a 488 (out of 800) in physics, and a 519 (out of 800) in chemistry. Gore’s academic records were first obtained and reported on by reporters David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima at The Washington Post in March 2000.

Gore did relatively well, however, on the SAT, earning 1355 (out of 1600). For comparison, George W. Bush got 1206 on the SAT.

President Barack Obama has not released his academic records. He first attended Occidental College and then transferred in 1981 to Columbia University, where he earned his B.A. He later went to Harvard Law School and earned his J.D. in 1991.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/climate-expert-al-gore-got-d-natural-sci

FishingRod
05-25-2011, 03:01 PM
Might be Why Barry doesn't want anyone to see his stuff.

BigChiefFan
05-25-2011, 03:27 PM
Is it any wonder? He's a crook, trying to gouge the average American with his money grab.

Ugly Duck
05-25-2011, 05:42 PM
The glaciers are sure to stop melting when they hear this news.

mikey23545
05-25-2011, 06:47 PM
The glaciers are sure to stop melting when they hear this news.

But the fallacy of man-made global warming will start to evaporate even faster...

Donger
05-25-2011, 06:55 PM
Well, GW is much more of a cult than science, so it's good.

Donger
05-25-2011, 06:56 PM
The glaciers are sure to stop melting when they hear this news.

And you are suggesting that the glaciers are melting because of global warming?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 07:39 AM
Well, GW is much more of a cult than science, so it's good.

Global warming is not a cult. It is science.

Here is the science at about College level of understanding.

I have an A in every science class I have ever taken (exclucing the incomplete when I got sick). And that includes biology, chemistry, physics, meteorology and geology at 4 different educational institutions.

If you have trouble with it yourself ask someone who does have some training in this area to review the science.

Donger
05-26-2011, 07:45 AM
Global warming is not a cult. It is science.

Here is the science at about College level of understanding.

I have an A in every science class I have ever taken (exclucing the incomplete when I got sick). And that includes biology, chemistry, physics, meteorology and geology at 4 different educational institutions.

If you have trouble with it yourself ask someone who does have some training in this area to review the science.

I wasn't referring to the actual measuring of global temperatures. That's science. I was referring to the belief that man is responsible for it (this time).

tiptap
05-26-2011, 07:49 AM
And yet you read the article so quickly and didn't digest the direct connection between concentration of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and temperature.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 07:51 AM
I wasn't referring to the actual measuring of global temperatures. That's science. I was referring to the belief that man is responsible for it (this time).

Or that it's effect would be catastrophic, which has no basis in reality.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 07:51 AM
And yet you read the article so quickly and didn't digest the direct connection between concentration of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and temperature.

Not everything you read is true.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 07:54 AM
Seeing that the article had nothing directly to say about historical measurements of temperatures (which are about to substantiated by Dr Muller who thought the rise in temperature could be urban heat sink effect and found not the case) or with the increase in CO 2 (directly atttibutable to the burning of fossil fuels by the isotope ratios of combustion vs respiration of plants).

Donger
05-26-2011, 07:56 AM
And yet you read the article so quickly and didn't digest the direct connection between concentration of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and temperature.

I didn't read the article.

Is man the only source of greenhouse gases? Are greenhouse gases the only reason that air temperatures rise?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 07:56 AM
Not everything you read is true.

Physically prove it wrong otherwise shut up about what is valid. Excuse the bluntness but your statement is about as polite. Just a bit more passive aggressive.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 07:58 AM
I didn't read the article.

Is man the only source of greenhouse gases? Are greenhouse gases the only reason that air temperatures rise?

Do you not have a opinion of a thought in this question to begin with.\? Then certainly your ignorance to make judgement is truly lacking.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:00 AM
Do you not have a opinion of a thought in this question to begin with.\? Then certainly your ignorance to make judgement is truly lacking.

Sure. No and No.

I quickly scanned the article. I didn't see where it definitively states that man is responsible for GW. Did I miss it?

Shaid
05-26-2011, 08:02 AM
The glaciers are sure to stop melting when they hear this news.

LMAO

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:03 AM
Sure. No and No.

I quickly scanned the article. I didn't see where it definitively states that man is responsible for GW. Did I miss it?




Your original statement was the GW was bunk. Now it is that man induces GW is false. I addressed GW alone first. That is what the article is about. Can we conclude that CO 2 is a Greenhouse Gas and its concentration in the atmosphere, holding all other heat inputs constant, drives temperature.

eazyb81
05-26-2011, 08:03 AM
Gore works out of my office building, so I'll get a quote for CP on this issue the next time we are in an elevator together.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:04 AM
Your original statement was the GW was bunk. Now it is that man induces GW is false. I addressed GW alone first. That is what the article is about. Can we conclude that CO 2 is a Greenhouse Gas and its concentration in the atmosphere, holding all other heat inputs constant, drives temperature.

No, I stated that GW was a cult, specifically the part that humans are the cause of it.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 08:05 AM
There is Global Warming just as there is Global Cooling, I like to refer to it as Climate or temperature change. This big spinning green ball has/will always function this way yes?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:06 AM
Can you get it on tape. I like to hear his Tennessee accent. It was my Mom's accent.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 08:07 AM
No, I stated that GW was a cult, specifically the part that humans are the cause of it.

So there is global warming but there is also GLOBAL WARMING, which seems more scary? Which requires you pay higher taxes on everything and which occurs naturally and has never required higher taxes?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:08 AM
No, I stated that GW was a cult, specifically the part that humans are the cause of it.


Can we conclude then that the science of Greenhouse Gases is instrumental in understanding temperatures in atmospheres and concentration is related to increases in temperature.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:09 AM
Can we conclude then that the science of Greenhouse Gases is instrumental in understanding temperatures in atmospheres and concentration is related to increases in temperature.

It's part of it, sure.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:11 AM
There is Global Warming just as there is Global Cooling, I like to refer to it as Climate or temperature change. This big spinning green ball has/will always function this way yes?

As usual your understanding is not how the temperature is obtained. It amounts to stating the obvious.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:13 AM
It's part of it, sure.

And you dismiss or are you confident that temperatures are rising?

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:14 AM
And you dismiss or are you confident that temperatures are rising?

I wouldn't be surprised if temperatures are rising.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:16 AM
And you attribute the cause or causes to be?

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 08:21 AM
Physically prove it wrong otherwise shut up about what is valid. Excuse the bluntness but your statement is about as polite. Just a bit more passive aggressive.
LOL!

I was just commenting about the idea that the article was true just because it existed.

I've already provided evidence in many threads of the past including with you directly. Therefore, I see no need to re-iterate in a circular manner the same arguments. These included the point that much of the GW claims does not require vast knowledge of advanced science; evidence of thousands of scientists including climatologists and one meteorologist ( who do have advanced knowledge of weather) that disagree with man-made GW and that it is a natural occurence that is beneficial; that this is political science more than real science because I counted up all the real scientists at the IPCC which were no where near the amount of those who disagreed; mentioned the generalities using the word "scientists" as a plural in new articles and reports when it was usually an activist that was cited and perhaps one scientist.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 08:21 AM
And you attribute the cause or causes to be?

Natural. Also, it's beneficial—not harmful.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:21 AM
And you attribute the cause or causes to be?

I don't know. Why did they rise after the Ice Age?

It's really pretty simple: is Man responsible for the present rise in global air temperatures? I'd like definitive evidence that is irrefutable.

If there is not, you and others like you are taking it in faith.

morphius
05-26-2011, 08:22 AM
And you attribute the cause or causes to be?
Things like coming out of an ice age would lead me to believe the temperatures would surprisingly rise...

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:33 AM
I don't know. Why did they rise after the Ice Age?

It's really pretty simple: is Man responsible for the present rise in global air temperatures? I'd like definitive evidence that is irrefutable.

If there is not, you and others like you are taking it in faith.

As is another recent thread where this came up with you, I stated explicitly that the initiation of rise in temperatures that results in retreat of Ice Age, was the Celestial Orbital changes. But that result was an increase in Greenhouse gases which drove the higher temperatures until again Celestial Orbital changes influenced both a drop in radiation and resultant decrease in Greenhouse gases.

We do not find Celestial Mechanics indicating rise in illumination; quite the contrary the tendency is down. But CO 2 is still rising with a human fingerprint in measured production of CO 2 from power plant production and the isotope ratios of Carbon in the atmosphere

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:37 AM
As is another recent thread where this came up with you, I stated explicitly that the initiation of rise in temperatures that results in retreat of Ice Age, was the Celestial Orbital changes. But that result was an increase in Greenhouse gases which drove the higher temperatures until again Celestial Orbital changes influenced both a drop in radiation and resultant decrease in Greenhouse gases.

We do not find Celestial Mechanics indicating rise in illumination; quite the contrary the tendency is down. But CO 2 is still rising with a human fingerprint in measured production of CO 2 from power plant production and the isotope ratios of Carbon in the atmosphere

Okay, so that's a "no, I do not have definitive, irrefutable proof that humans are the cause of global warming, Donger." Right?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:37 AM
Greenhouse gases are an integral part in rise and fall of Ice Ages. The initiation is solar and is amplified by the Greenhouse gases. Both have prehistorically played their role with solar leading. Today's situation has CO 2 at higher levels than in 750,000 years by direct measurement and longer by proxy measurements. And the physics of adding CO 2 is not refuted.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:38 AM
Greenhouse gases are an integral part in rise and fall of Ice Ages. The initiation is solar and is amplified by the Greenhouse gases. Both have prehistorically played their role with solar leading. Today's situation has CO 2 at higher levels than in 750,000 years by direct measurement and longer by proxy measurements. And the physics of adding CO 2 is not refuted.

Do you acknowledge that "nature" tends toward equilibrium?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:40 AM
Okay, so that's a "no, I do not have definitive, irrefutable proof that humans are the cause of global warming, Donger." Right?

Temperatures are going up and the only item in the tool box that affects temperature that is going up too is CO 2 increase, increase caused by man read by isotope ratios and measurement of fossil fuel consumption. It doesn't get any more irrefutable.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:46 AM
Do you acknowledge that "nature" tends toward equilibrium?

That is too broad of statement and too ambiguous to make a scientific conclusion. And too easily false since the second law of Thermodynamics states entropy in a closed system can only increase. Increasing is not equilibrium. Equilibrium is not static it is active and depends upon balance of input and not trending of its own.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:49 AM
Temperatures are going up and the only item in the tool box that affects temperature that is going up too is CO 2 increase, increase caused by man read by isotope ratios and measurement of fossil fuel consumption. It doesn't get any more irrefutable.

Seems like you are stating that as a fact. Link?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 08:52 AM
Do you acknowledge that "nature" tends toward equilibrium?

Nature has and will always be Chaotic, and to think we can control it by throwing money at it is absurd. Bottom line is we can pass legislation to destroy the poor/middle classes and seriously hinder the independently wealthy and that's about all we can do with the current structure. I can also admit that if the government was offering to fund me to look for something i could probably manipulate the numbers to show it is happening through faulty computer models and others paid to do the same to form a consensus.

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:52 AM
That is too broad of statement and too ambiguous to make a scientific conclusion. And too easily false since the second law of Thermodynamics states entropy in a closed system can only increase. Increasing is not equilibrium. Equilibrium is not static it is active and depends upon balance of input and not trending of its own.

Oh. So winds flow because they are angry or something? Trees eat CO2 because they are bored?

I was just reading that the temperature at the surface has increased 1.17F over the last 50 years. Do you agree with that?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:52 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Donger
05-26-2011, 08:54 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Yep.

shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:59 AM
Oh. So winds flow because they are angry or something? Trees eat CO2 because they are bored?

I was just reading that the temperature at the surface has increased 1.17F over the last 50 years. Do you agree with that?

You tended in your original statement to anthropomorphize Nature as looking to reach equilibrium. Equilibrium is a resultant of balanced forces. Not a fixed end point but a resultant of forces that can change and therefore change the equilbrium point and all movement is a result of non equilibrium of forces. To accuse me of looking for motive in nature is what I was refuting.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:03 AM
Yep.

shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce

Yes and it doesn't matter that some of the CO 2 humans are producing is being taken up by oceans if the measured CO 2 is still increasing measureably in the atmosphere. The Greenhouse Effect means increase vectoring of temperature up in response to increase CO 2. Especially if we continue to burn fossil fuels at present rate.

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:04 AM
You tended in your original statement to anthropomorphize Nature as looking to reach equilibrium. Equilibrium is a resultant of balanced forces. Not a fixed end point but a resultant of forces that can change and therefore change the equilbrium point and all movement is a result of non equilibrium of forces. To accuse me of looking for motive in nature is what I was refuting.

I'm not accusing you of that. I'm merely pointing out that nature tends to like equilibrium and that perhaps scientists should remember that when looking at the big picture.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:04 AM
Show us the study indicating CO 2 is going down.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:05 AM
I'm not accusing you of that. I'm merely pointing out that nature tends to like equilibrium and that perhaps scientists should remember that when looking at the big picture.

Not to LIKE equilibrium but new balanced point.

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:12 AM
Show us the study indicating CO 2 is going down.

I'm not suggesting it is right now.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:16 AM
Uhmm, tiptap, plants love Co2. More trees are growing. I thought environmentalists loved trees and wanted more of them.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:17 AM
And the article I posted is the science that there is an increase in temperature vector with the increase in CO 2. This is irrefutable. The CO 2 is increasing and that has to result in influencing the temperature up. Is the temperature going up? I think we answered that. CO 2 has to be playing some role in that. And I wait and wait and wait for what else could also be contributing to the rise.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:19 AM
Uhmm, tiptap, plants love Co2. More trees are growing. I thought environmentalists loved trees and wanted more of them.

That part of CO 2 increase is great. However there are other growth factors like iron or phosphates or nitrogen or water that are needed for growth as well so the limiting factor on growth is not CO 2 now (or was it ever) presently. And it doesn't change the heat balance effect in the atmosphere with the rise in the concentration of CO 2.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 09:20 AM
And the article I posted is the science that there is an increase in temperature vector with the increase in CO 2. This is irrefutable. The CO 2 is increasing and that has to result in influencing the temperature up. Is the temperature going up? I think we answered that. CO 2 has to be playing some role in that. And I wait and wait and wait for what else could also be contributing to the rise.

What the Fukushima is going on around here.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:21 AM
What the Fukushima is going on around here.

LMAO

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:22 AM
And the article I posted is the science that there is an increase in temperature vector with the increase in CO 2. This is irrefutable. The CO 2 is increasing and that has to result in influencing the temperature up. Is the temperature going up? I think we answered that. CO 2 has to be playing some role in that. And I wait and wait and wait for what else could also be contributing to the rise.

Question: how do yo know that the temperature is increasing? Do we have thermostats all over the globe? Do we use satellites to ascertain the temperature globally?

I couldn't help but note that you didn't respond to my 1.17F post.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:23 AM
What the Fukushima is going on around here.

Is that glowing or growing part of the discussion?

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 09:23 AM
That part of CO 2 increase is great. However there are other growth factors like iron or phosphates or nitrogen or water that are needed for growth as well so the limiting factor on growth is not CO 2 now (or was it ever) presently. And it doesn't change the heat balance effect in the atmosphere with the rise in the concentration of CO 2.

Except, the measurements for that heat are at or near heat sinks which drives them up. That is dishonest.

As for the other growth factors, the fact is more trees are growing and growing faster.

Graystoke
05-26-2011, 09:29 AM
Back to the OP...A:L got a D in Natural Sciences...meanwhile he tries to huckster us into Carbon Credit...
F-off AL

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:31 AM
Question: how do yo know that the temperature is increasing? Do we have thermostats all over the globe? Do we use satellites to ascertain the temperature globally?

I couldn't help but note that you didn't respond to my 1.17F post.

What is a thermometer? It is a physical change that is related to internal changes reflected to quantum exchange of energy increase or decrease availability. The most common known is the change in volume of a substance like Mercury in the energy available from the atmosphere. Others include change of states such as ice/water or water/vapor.

Where are the thermometers that are going down over time? 1.17 seems a very precise number you are comfortable with. How much extra energy in the atmosphere all the time to drive weather systems does that represent?

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:35 AM
What is a thermometer? It is a physical change that is related to internal changes reflected to quantum exchange of energy increase or decrease availability. The most common known is the change in volume of a substance like Mercury in the energy available from the atmosphere. Others include change of states such as ice/water or water/vapor.

Where are the thermometers that are going down over time? 1.17 seems a very precise number you are comfortable with. How much extra energy in the atmosphere all the time to drive weather systems does that represent?

I don't about the amount of energy it represents. I care about how it affects humanity.

I'm guessing not at all. You disagree?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:37 AM
Except, the measurements for that heat are at or near heat sinks which drives them up. That is dishonest.

As for the other growth factors, the fact is more trees are growing and growing faster.

You didn't talk on the thread about Dr. Richard Muller. Eminent physicists who thought your objection was worth exploring about heat sinks. He was considered a strong opponent of measured rise in temperatures. So he and his Berkeley guys did a new method and technique to show your are right. And low and behold he is on record and will publish in June that the rise in temperature is not an artifact but a real change in climatic temperatures.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:39 AM
As for the other growth factors, the fact is more trees are growing and growing faster.


And further north and south toward the poles and in higher elevations all in response to higher temperature.

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:42 AM
And further north and south toward the poles and in higher elevations all in response to higher temperature.

Huh. Equilibrium in action.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't about the amount of energy it represents. I care about how it affects humanity.

I'm guessing not at all. You disagree?

That extra energy is available to be "recruited" for more or larger weather events. That could be more drought or more rain. I don't know how the systems will respond. That is chaotic but I do know that they have to in some way to reach the new balance point. But it isn't a balance point in being calmer. It is a more rolling movement of that more energy moving through the atmosphere before being emitted out the dark side of the planet.

Brock
05-26-2011, 09:47 AM
And further north and south toward the poles and in higher elevations all in response to higher temperature.

Good!

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:48 AM
Huh. Equilibrium in action.

No Donger. Equilibrium hasn't been set. Movement is taking place. That un"set"tled point may be beyond the comfort level for man.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 09:51 AM
Hey back in the early 1990's I though time to buy up rights around the Canadian Arctic. It will sooon be the new Mediterranean sea exchange in a iceberg free zone. I only wish the good imagined would offset the bad totally unrevealed.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 09:53 AM
Let me get this straight, China is working towards Cold Fusion reactors and our scientists are still paid to look for a possible one degree increase in temp over the next 50 years?

RedNeckRaider
05-26-2011, 09:54 AM
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair~

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:56 AM
No Donger. Equilibrium hasn't been set. Movement is taking place. That un"set"tled point may be beyond the comfort level for man.

That works for me.

Donger
05-26-2011, 09:59 AM
That un"set"tled point may be beyond the comfort level for man.

I missed this. That's your concern, really? Man is pretty darn adaptable, you know.

gonefishin53
05-26-2011, 10:48 AM
I tend to follow Pres. Eisenhower's opinion of gov't. scientists. Right after criticizing the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address, he had this to say about gov't. science.

"the prospect of domination on the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present; and is to be gravely regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite".

I'm not surprised that gov't scientists see no relation between volcanic activity deep beneath the ocean's surface and warm currents at the ocean's surface. Apparently, heat doesn't rise and large lava flows do not exist beneath the oceans which cover most of the earth's surface. Gov't. scientists would have a difficult time blaming lava flows on humans.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 11:22 AM
And further north and south toward the poles and in higher elevations all in response to higher temperature.

And that is still a good thing. Longer growing seasons just in time for the food shortages. Easier drilling for oil due to less ice.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 12:10 PM
I tend to follow Pres. Eisenhower's opinion of gov't. scientists. Right after criticizing the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address, he had this to say about gov't. science.

"the prospect of domination on the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present; and is to be gravely regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite".



And then his speech continues immediately:

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. "

And as to your notion that the additional heat in the oceans and atmosphere comes from underwater volcanoes, would we not see increase seismic activity if the amount of volcanic activity has increased precipitiously to be large enough to affect temperatures? The numbers are accountable for CO 2 affecting temperatures. What is the mechanism that negates CO 2 forced temperature rise and only leaves underwater volcanoes as the culprit?

vailpass
05-26-2011, 12:17 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hydrae
05-26-2011, 12:25 PM
As to the original post, why do we care? Einstein is reported to have failed math while in school. I don't think that invalidates his theory of relativity. Just because someone did poorly in a class 40 years ago does not mean he has not gained knowledge since then.

Mind you, I am not a fan of Gore and am a skeptic at best with regards to GW but bring me a real issue, not this BS.

Donger
05-26-2011, 12:29 PM
Einstein is reported to have failed math while in school.

:spock:

tiptap
05-26-2011, 12:32 PM
I missed this. That's your concern, really? Man is pretty darn adaptable, you know.

"Up in Flames
Global warming could scorch the western U.S.
“If climate change drives temperature up a degree or two,” goes the common dismissal, “how bad could that be?”
Here’s an example: Higher temperatures draw mois- ture out of live and dead trees and brush, making them more flammable. The heat also can alter precipitation, as well as shift spring thaw earlier, lengthening the fire sea- son. A one degree Celsius climb in average global temper- ature could cause the median area burned annually by wildfires in parts of the American West to increase up to sixfold. “A one-degree rise could occur well before 2050,” notes Jeremy Littell, a climate and fire researcher at the University of Washington, who created the projections with the U.S. Forest Service and other institutions.
Scientists in Canada have reached similar conclusions about their western region. The U.S. prediction applies to area burned during median fire years; extreme fire years would consume still more area. Unfortunately, as temper- ature goes up, Littell predicts, “what were historically big fire years may become more frequent.” Increase in Median Area Burned if Global Temperature Rises One Degree Celsius (Compared with 1950–2003 baseline)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-jun-2011

(This particular graph won't come out until June so your view has to wait even though I have it presently)


The graph indicates a 600% (or 6 times increase) in forest fires in COLORADO as a result of a rise in temperature. I am sure you will survive. And I do sincerely hope you do. I hope in this regards and all else related that I am totally wrong.

Hydrae
05-26-2011, 12:34 PM
:spock:

You made me go look and what do you know, I learned something today. Damn urban legends! :cuss:

vailpass
05-26-2011, 12:36 PM
"Up in Flames
Global warming could scorch the western U.S.
“If climate change drives temperature up a degree or two,” goes the common dismissal, “how bad could that be?”
Here’s an example: Higher temperatures draw mois- ture out of live and dead trees and brush, making them more flammable. The heat also can alter precipitation, as well as shift spring thaw earlier, lengthening the fire sea- son. A one degree Celsius climb in average global temper- ature could cause the median area burned annually by wildfires in parts of the American West to increase up to sixfold. “A one-degree rise could occur well before 2050,” notes Jeremy Littell, a climate and fire researcher at the University of Washington, who created the projections with the U.S. Forest Service and other institutions.
Scientists in Canada have reached similar conclusions about their western region. The U.S. prediction applies to area burned during median fire years; extreme fire years would consume still more area. Unfortunately, as temper- ature goes up, Littell predicts, “what were historically big fire years may become more frequent.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-jun-2011

(This particular graph won't come out until June so your view has to wait even though I have it presently)


The graph indicates a 600% (or 6 times increase) in forest fires in COLORADO as a result of a rise in temperature. I am sure you will survive. And I do sincerely hope you do. I hope in this regards and all else related that I am totally wrong.

BFD. This has been going on in Arizona forever. This just in: heavily forested areas such as Colorado are prone to forest fires. Desert areas are hot as hell. With all the verified, pressing issues we face this one falls so far down the list as to not being visible.

Donger
05-26-2011, 12:36 PM
"Up in Flames
Global warming could scorch the western U.S.
“If climate change drives temperature up a degree or two,” goes the common dismissal, “how bad could that be?”
Here’s an example: Higher temperatures draw mois- ture out of live and dead trees and brush, making them more flammable. The heat also can alter precipitation, as well as shift spring thaw earlier, lengthening the fire sea- son. A one degree Celsius climb in average global temper- ature could cause the median area burned annually by wildfires in parts of the American West to increase up to sixfold. “A one-degree rise could occur well before 2050,” notes Jeremy Littell, a climate and fire researcher at the University of Washington, who created the projections with the U.S. Forest Service and other institutions.
Scientists in Canada have reached similar conclusions about their western region. The U.S. prediction applies to area burned during median fire years; extreme fire years would consume still more area. Unfortunately, as temper- ature goes up, Littell predicts, “what were historically big fire years may become more frequent.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-jun-2011

(This particular graph won't come out until June so your view has to wait even though I have it presently)


The graph indicates a 600% (or 6 times increase) in forest fires in COLORADO as a result of a rise in temperature. I am sure you will survive. And I do sincerely hope you do. I hope in this regards and all else related that I am totally wrong.

Are you related to teedubya?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 12:37 PM
As to the original post, why do we care? Einstein is reported to have failed math while in school. I don't think that invalidates his theory of relativity. Just because someone did poorly in a class 40 years ago does not mean he has not gained knowledge since then.

Mind you, I am not a fan of Gore and am a skeptic at best with regards to GW but bring me a real issue, not this BS.

Eisntein never got bad grades. They flipped the scoring while he was in school 1 being best instead of 5 as it had been. So people searching and not paying attention to the scoring and with the help of Nazis passed this information as true. FYI

Donger
05-26-2011, 12:38 PM
You made me go look and what do you know, I learned something today. Damn urban legends! :cuss:

LMAO

BigCatDaddy
05-26-2011, 12:38 PM
You made me go look and what do you know, I learned something today. Damn urban legends! :cuss:

He apparently was a late talking child however.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 12:46 PM
Are you related to teedubya?

You asked for survival outcomes? This is my own prediction and you CAN scoff at this because it is speculative. It is based upon the Western US fights over water rights. As temperatures rise the Missouri River Basin before St. Louis back into Montana, will become the next fight over water rights akin to what has been happening with the Colorado. This will adversely effect the Wheat producing region through Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before 2050.

I'll be dead though I don't think I'll reach 100.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 12:49 PM
He apparently was a late talking child however.

Yep! Didn't talk until age 5. People thought he was stupid.


Reminds of that story about Bill Gate's mother asking him what he was doing when he'd be silent for a period of time. His answer was, he was thinking.

Donger
05-26-2011, 12:50 PM
You asked for survival outcomes? This is my own prediction and you CAN scoff at this because it is speculative. It is based upon the Western US fights over water rights. As temperatures rise the Missouri River Basin before St. Louis back into Montana, will become the next fight over water rights akin to what has been happening with the Colorado. This will adversely effect the Wheat producing region through Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before 2050.

I'll be dead though I don't think I'll reach 100.

WTF? I thought we were talking about speculating that trees might explode with fire because the air temperature increased a few degrees F?

tiptap
05-26-2011, 12:59 PM
WTF? I thought we were talking about speculating that trees might explode with fire because the air temperature increased a few degrees F?

Well I am more willing to talk about the more substantiated material. But it is important to give all those who want to a real target to scoff at something to stick their teeth into.

Yes the forestry department understands Western Forests become more vulnerable to really large explosive fires as temperatures rise. That isn't new in of itself but the length of exposure of fire season is new to the problem and is a result of climatic higher temperatures.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 01:07 PM
Abstract

Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought to have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent of recent changes nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th- and 20th-century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full

Hydrae
05-26-2011, 06:59 PM
Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s...

Hmmm, I was not aware that global warming had a spike in the mid-1980's.

Brock
05-26-2011, 07:09 PM
the length of exposure of fire season is new to the problem and is a result of climatic higher temperatures.

No, it isn't.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2011, 08:05 PM
Well I am more willing to talk about the more substantiated material. But it is important to give all those who want to a real target to scoff at something to stick their teeth into.

Yes the forestry department understands Western Forests become more vulnerable to really large explosive fires as temperatures rise. That isn't new in of itself but the length of exposure of fire season is new to the problem and is a result of climatic higher temperatures.

The forestry department? Now that I'd like to see a link because I became acquainted with The Forest History Society whereby I ordered some of their publications on the history of our forests and they didn't seem to have anything on this. In fact they even knew we had more trees now than back in the 19th century and why that is the case. Something, a GWarmist claimed no scientist could possibly claim. You see instead of relying heavily on wood for fuel, relying on fossil fuels reduced that need. Not to mention the use of concrete. ( where the GW's keep their thermometers)


http://www.foresthistory.org/

They also cover: U.S. Forest Service History
http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/USFScentennial.htm

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:07 PM
Hmmm, I was not aware that global warming had a spike in the mid-1980's.

"Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons"

My parsing of this sentence is that fires increased suddenly in the 1980's and that temperatures in Colorado were higher. Lets see NCDC report on temperatures says that the average rank of the temperatures in the 70's is 50.8 and an average temperature of 64.7 during the summers. The 80's ranked on average at 73.9 at the temperature of 65.6 or about a degree higher average temperature for that decade. And that is what that statement was about.

By the way temperature have averaged even another degree higher over the last decade and of course more fires than even the 80's.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:29 PM
No, it isn't.

So to what do you attribute a longer fire season? The article defines it in terms of the number of days of active fires. Though upon reflection it is overreaching to this particular study to attribute the rise in temperatures in the 80's to GW climate warming. That was not within the province of this lone article finding. It only found that higher temperatures increased severity of fires in duration, numbers and size. However in their conclusion they didn't flinch from stating as much by indicating temperatures are going to rise.

tiptap
05-26-2011, 08:56 PM
The forestry department? Now that I'd like to see a link to this because I became acquainted with The Forest History Society whereby I ordered some of their publications on the history of our forests and they didn't seem to have anything on this. In fact they even knew we had more trees now than back in the 19th century and why that is the case. Something, a GWarmist claimed no scientist could possibly claim. You see instead of relying heavily on wood for fuel relying on fossil fuels reduced that need. Not to mention the use of concrete. ( where the GW's keep their thermometers)


http://www.foresthistory.org/

They also cover: U.S. Forest Service History
http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/USFScentennial.htm

Why study climate-fire dynamics?
FIREBGC imageFire is widely recognized as an important ecological process, especially in fire-prone and fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Many plants and animal species in North America have survived and thrived for thousands of years in the presence of fire and have benefitted from some of the changes that fire brings to landscapes, such as increased biodiversity and landscape heterogeneity. Ecological properties influenced by fire include vegetation species composition, distribution, and successional stage; carbon stores and carbon fluxes; nutrient cycling; and hydrologic dynamics. As demonstrated in work by Fire Lab scientists and others, climate is an important driver of wildfires, through effects on fuel moistures and amount and distribution of vegetation and fuels present on the landscape. Regional climate patterns have been shown to synchronize fires across the inland Northwest – years with widespread fires were characterized by warm spring-summers and warm-dry summers. Projected climate changes for the 21st century include increased temperatures and changes in precipitation, both of which are likely to influence the timing, size, intensity, and severity of wildfires. Research on climate-fire dynamics helps us to understand the ways in which climate changes will drive future patterns in wildfire occurrence, size, and behavior; and predict the influence of climate-fire interactions on future ecological patterns and processes. With this understanding we may be able to develop strategies that allow land managers to anticipate and respond to predicted ecosystem changes.

Climate drivers of wildfires – evidence from fire scars
firescar imageClimate variables are prime drivers of historical patterns in wildfire, and influence fire season length, fire intensity (heat released by a fire), fire severity (the degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire), fire size, and the amount of vegetation (“fuel”) present across landscapes. Hotter, drier climatic conditions in forested ecosystems tend to result in larger, more frequent wildfires because fuels are drier for longer periods of the year and across larger extents, stream runoff and precipitation are reduced, and increased growing seasons for plants result in larger fuel accumulations. A recent study from dry forests of the northern Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. (Idaho and western Montana) showed that warm springtime temperatures and warm and dry summers were associated with widespread forest fire activity across the region during the period 1650-1900 A.D. These same climate conditions were identified as important drivers for 20th century regionally-synchronous fire years. Based on these results and climate projections for warmer springs and continued warm, dry summers, forests of the U.S. northern Rockies are likely to experience large and synchronous wildfires in the future.

What can past processes tell us about future conditions?
Superimposed on the background of historical variability are novel trends of climate change. These are and will continue to alter fire behavior and fire regimes, resulting in unpredictable fire seasons, escalating costs, and unknown ecosystem trajectories. These unpredictable ecosystem responses present fundamental challenges to ecosystem management. Through the study of tree-ring records of past fires scientists at the Fire Lab are developing systematic and regional databases of fire‐climate relationships, and evaluating the historical range of variability in climate and fire dynamics across broad regions. These historical data will be used to validate dynamic ecosystem models; such models are inform our understanding of past, current, and potential future climate-vegetation-wildfire dynamics such as succession, pest and pathogen interactions, and carbon fluxes; and allow us to quantify important metrics such as landscape resilience and recovery trajectories following disturbance events.

http://www.firelab.org/cfdg

There are a half dozen or more research centers associated with the Forest Dept. You can search them for additional help with your interest.

These studies indicate the importance of temperature in forest fires. Causal relationships between CO 2 and temperature are not part of their research.

tiptap
05-27-2011, 06:51 AM
Do you acknowledge that "nature" tends toward equilibrium?

Donger, I slept on this phrase overnight. It is illustrative of how much we are talking past each other. And how behind in informative reasoning on these issues is even the most educated of the general population.

This phrase is the hallmark of PRE NEWTONIAN reasoning in Physics. This is the language and reasoning of Mideaval Impulse physics. They divided the universe into celestial events and human/earth related events and the understanding for earth based events was all about equilibrium and impulse and one's place in the universe. This kind of thinking is embedded in all of the European languages. We talk conversationally about movement and work based upon language built around this kind of reasoning.

And so when I talk about science I am talking only in Newtonian notions. It is not that I don't think you cannot recite the Newtonian Laws of Motion for example. That is language retention. But this phrase shows your understanding in physics is not Newtonian. Half of the people taking a college level physics class will not be comfortable thinking routinely in Newtonian terms. And even those who do occasionally slip away from doing so if they are not careful. It is not intuitive. It can be learned.

Brock
05-27-2011, 08:28 AM
Donger, I slept on this phrase overnight. It is illustrative of how much we are talking past each other. And how behind in informative reasoning on these issues is even the most educated of the general population.

This phrase is the hallmark of PRE NEWTONIAN reasoning in Physics. This is the language and reasoning of Mideaval Impulse physics. They divided the universe into celestial events and human/earth related events and the understanding for earth based events was all about equilibrium and impulse and one's place in the universe. This kind of thinking is embedded in all of the European languages. We talk conversationally about movement and work based upon language built around this kind of reasoning.

And so when I talk about science I am talking only in Newtonian notions. It is not that I don't think you cannot recite the Newtonian Laws of Motion for example. That is language retention. But this phrase shows your understanding in physics is not Newtonian. Half of the people taking a college level physics class will not be comfortable thinking routinely in Newtonian terms. And even those who do occasionally slip away from doing so if they are not careful. It is not intuitive. It can be learned.

How unbelieveably arrogant, in a really nice way.

tiptap
05-27-2011, 09:12 AM
It is a harsh statement on face. But here is a report about students at Cambridge in a physics class having trouble consistently reasoning from Newtonian principle. It isn't easy. And scientists who consistently use Newtonian reasoning many, many times forget a time when they also had to learn this new. And forget how much of the world is still not even Newtonian in their thinking.

I look at the statement Donger states later that "I'm not accusing you of that. I'm merely pointing out that nature tends to like equilibrium and that perhaps scientists should remember that when looking at the big picture." And I go no! Scientist need to be more diligent in removing such thoughts when learning Newtonian Physics. No wonder Donger thinks scientist don't get it.

Huffmeister
05-27-2011, 10:43 AM
Donger, I slept on this phrase overnight. It is illustrative of how much we are talking past each other. And how behind in informative reasoning on these issues is even the most educated of the general population.

This phrase is the hallmark of PRE NEWTONIAN reasoning in Physics. This is the language and reasoning of Mideaval Impulse physics. They divided the universe into celestial events and human/earth related events and the understanding for earth based events was all about equilibrium and impulse and one's place in the universe. This kind of thinking is embedded in all of the European languages. We talk conversationally about movement and work based upon language built around this kind of reasoning.

And so when I talk about science I am talking only in Newtonian notions. It is not that I don't think you cannot recite the Newtonian Laws of Motion for example. That is language retention. But this phrase shows your understanding in physics is not Newtonian. Half of the people taking a college level physics class will not be comfortable thinking routinely in Newtonian terms. And even those who do occasionally slip away from doing so if they are not careful. It is not intuitive. It can be learned.

This post is a prime example of why some people (including myself) view 'global warming' as an almost religious movement. Only the priests/scientists can understand and interpret the language of God, and the rest of us must take their word for it.

BucEyedPea
05-27-2011, 11:34 AM
This post is a prime example of why some people (including myself) view 'global warming' as an almost religious movement. Only the priests/scientists can understand and interpret the language of God, and the rest of us must take their word for it.

That's what the hi-priest of GW want you to think. It really doesn't take advanced knowledge. It just takes some time and effort.

tiptap
05-28-2011, 08:30 AM
As a strong proponent of democratic input, I do not wish to be a priest. After all I was raised a Southern Baptist and priesthood of every individual was a central tenet for me even then. So how do scientist make this discussion tangible or accessible. BEP certainly is correct that time and effort can lead to rewards. But I think, even if she disagrees in what is merited as study, that one can invest in wrong systems of understanding.

With apologies to Donger, because I do think he is a bright fellow and has interesting takes and comments, I do think it is important to directly confront underlying misconceptions about science and GW specifically. As such I want to look at the direction of his arguments and explain as simply as I can why they are not scientific.

Donger's persona is to ask questions in directing discussions and the central question to put concerns at ease about GW, was his question about "Nature seeking an Equilibrium." He also wished me to come to a consensus that temperatures had risen 1.17 degrees F in the last 50 years. The direction of these thoughts is seen in his statement that he wished scientist would only keep this Equilibrium in perspective when taking the question as a whole over time.
His position is that there is a "natural resting" that things settle into. That we can see prehistorically and historically that temperatures have risen and fallen over a great many epochal events (climatically speaking) and the world still presently supports life and human existence well. The trend is to see temperature extremes moderated back to the equilibrium norm. There is a sense of providence in this statement that in this abstract framing resonates with those of religious and optimistic and "can do" initiative views that judges "it is too easy to make a mountain out of a mole hill" when it comes to GW. The .7 degree Celsius (1.17 F) change over the last 50 years represent nothing substantial compared to the average 4 C degrees warmer weather say in the Cretaceous period of T Rex. That was a lush period supposedly. And the world's climate might benefit? This is the providential position. Arctic oil can more easily be extracted (BEP). We had plenty wanting less snow in the winter. And my own naive notions back in the 1990 when I first began to understand GW. I believed the Arctic, ice pack free, could be the Mediterranean of the 21 Century with all those resources opened up. So I too have succumbed to a optimistic set.

What's not to like?

Rausch
05-28-2011, 09:31 AM
Eisntein never got bad grades. They flipped the scoring while he was in school 1 being best instead of 5 as it had been. So people searching and not paying attention to the scoring and with the help of Nazis passed this information as true. FYI

Whatever...