Gore's global warming movie

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your honest, what?   

696772[/snapback]

 

 

No excuse. I deserve to be piled on for that...

[GG]

Gore's environmental positions are just one part of his platform. I've never voted for a single candidate whose ideas I totally agreed with.

696695[/snapback]

 

To me, there's a big difference in disagreeing with a portion of a platform and knowing that the portion of the platform is patently wrong, yet still voting for a guy. It's probably splitting hairs, but I like to see some rationale to a political madness. Framing the arguments is highly revealing in the possible outcome of governing, after the election.

 

Kind of like supporting a presidential candidate who says that there's nothing wrong with the long term sustainability of Social Security.

[erynthered]

 

Kind of like supporting a presidential candidate who says that there's nothing wrong with the long term sustainability of Social Security.

696777[/snapback]

 

 

Again, just like Mark said. Shiit, I'm learning!!

[finknottle]

global warming....

 

it is a natural process.

 

we are contributing pollutants which has and is slightly increasing the earths natural global warming process.

 

volcanoes and fires produce more pollution than man. (thats why its a natural process).

 

the ice caps will not melt over a 2 day span. sea level is rising but it will take a long time for all of antartica to melt (as they show in teh video)...

 

global warming did not cause the destruction in N.O., a huricane did. and we always get hurricanes that time of year.

 

you can slightly decrease global warming by decreasing human added pollutants, but you can NOT stop global warming because as i said, it is normal. you can stop using coal as a source of power, but will china stop using it? you can tell billions of people in other countries to stop burning wood to cook and clear forests with, but who are we to tell another countries people what to do.... (but some how they can tell us...).

 

the #1 contributer of air pollutants in the US is our CARS. if you want to really decrease the human added pollutants, stop using gas powered cars. but that will not happen.

 

if we stop using coal as a source of power we have to replace that power with something. i beleive 40% of all the power in the US is generated by coal power plants. i would like to see where we are going to get the power from.

 

we are advanced and have lots of money and technology, but a clean, reliable, and abundant power source is far from a reality.

 

global warming is not a "we are all going to die in 5 years unless we do something NOW" type of situation.

 

smog pollution in cities is a bigger problem right now, but noone seems to care about that.

 

our dependency on gasoline is also a bigger problem.

 

but if gore runs, i am going to vote for him.

696594[/snapback]

 

It may not take all that long for Antarctica to melt - the process accelerates as it goes along. The more the snow cover melts, the less there is to reflect sunlight, and the more heat is absorbed by the earth. Thus we are now absorbing more heat from the sun than we did 10 years ago, speeding up the process.

 

And the snow cover is disappearing measurably. The African glaciers have shrank rom 2.5 square miles in 1900 to 1 in 1995 to .4 today. The Alpine glaciers are noticably receeding, and the north pole ice flows are melting earlier and earlier - you can expect the Polar Bears to fall extinct in the wild over the next 15 years, since they primarily hunt during the winter and fewer and fewer are getting enough during the shortened season.

 

Glaciers over the south pole are not neccessarily natural; they formed about 25 million years ago (over maybe 5 million years, in a process that accelerated quickly) destroying a south pole ecosystem that had been only cool-to-temperate for the preceeding 50 million years. It should be noted that these climate lurches are usually accompanied by mass-extinctions.

 

So global warming may be a natural process, but the lurches can be abrupt. And they can be kick-started by man' s actions. You also cite natural hurricanes. It is quite clear that the frequency and intensity have increased over the past 50 years; interestingly, the effect appears to be in line with predictions of several simulations modeling the observed increase in the oceans temperatue.

 

Bottom line - IMO Global Warming is more than real, it is now inevitable and too late to do anything about it. Don't bother worrying about grandchildren.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It may not take all that long for Antarctica to melt - the process accelerates as it goes along. The more the snow cover melts, the less there is to reflect sunlight, and the more heat is absorbed by the earth.  Thus we are now absorbing more heat from the sun than we did 10 years ago, speeding up the process.

 

And the snow cover is disappearing measurably.  The African glaciers have shrank rom 2.5 square miles in 1900 to 1 in 1995 to .4 today.  The Alpine glaciers are noticably receeding, and the north pole ice flows are melting earlier and earlier - you can expect the Polar Bears to fall extinct in the wild over the next 15 years, since they primarily hunt during the winter and fewer and fewer are getting enough during the shortened season.

 

Glaciers over the south pole are not neccessarily natural;  they formed about 25 million years ago (over maybe 5 million years, in a process that accelerated quickly) destroying a south pole ecosystem that had been only cool-to-temperate for the preceeding 50 million years.  It should be noted that these climate lurches are usually accompanied by mass-extinctions.

 

So global warming may be a natural process, but the lurches can be abrupt. And they can be kick-started by man' s actions.  You also cite natural hurricanes.  It is quite clear that the frequency and intensity have increased over the past 50 years; interestingly, the effect appears to be in line with predictions of several simulations modeling the observed increase in the oceans temperatue.

 

Bottom line - IMO Global Warming is more than real, it is now inevitable and too late to do anything about it.  Don't bother worrying about grandchildren.

696817[/snapback]

 

And the Antarctic ice cap is shrinking, as the movement of the glaciers speeds up...

 

...except that, for the glaciers to move faster, they have to be heated from the bottom up (causing them to float on a thin layer of water, which acts as a lubricant and causes them to flow faster). Which is fundamentally imcompatible with the theory that the Antarctic ice cap's shrinking is caused by atmospheric warming. That's hard science. You can look it up. Give me a little time, and I can tell you where.

 

But hey...what's a few major theoretical inconsistencies between panicky idiots. Did you know it was actually a missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, too?

[finknottle]

And the Antarctic ice cap is shrinking, as the movement of the glaciers speeds up...

 

...except that, for the glaciers to move faster, they have to be heated from the bottom up (causing them to float on a thin layer of water, which acts as a lubricant and causes them to flow faster).  Which is fundamentally imcompatible with the theory that the Antarctic ice cap's shrinking is caused by atmospheric warming.  That's hard science.  You can look it up.  Give me a little time, and I can tell you where.

 

But hey...what's a few major theoretical inconsistencies between panicky idiots.  Did you know it was actually a missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, too? 

696822[/snapback]

 

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but:

 

glacier 'movement' is simply caused by the difference between the snowfall and melt at the base (loosely meaning the south pole, not the bottom). When more falls than melts, the surface icepack builds up. The weight of the icepack grinds the soil underneath it, and with pressure providing the lubricant the weight of the ice pushes the lower grind and ice and slush forward along the gradient of least resistence (this is what geologically carves valleys). So it's not that the glacier is actually moving. Rather, the tendrils flow forward. The tendrils advance and retreat (typically in winter and summer) based on whether they are being fed at a pace to match their own melt rate.

 

As far as I know it has nothing to do with surface temperature, only snowfall.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying, but:

 

glacier 'movement' is simply caused by the difference between the snowfall and melt at the base (loosely meaning the south pole, not the bottom).  When more falls than melts, the surface icepack builds up.  The weight of the icepack grinds the soil underneath it, and with pressure providing the lubricant the weight of the ice pushes the lower grind and ice and slush forward along the gradient of least resistence (this is what geologically carves valleys).  So it's not that the glacier is actually moving.  Rather, the tendrils flow forward.  The tendrils advance and retreat (typically in winter and summer) based on whether they are being fed at a pace to match their own melt rate.

 

As far as I know it has nothing to do with surface temperature, only snowfall.

696841[/snapback]

 

You're right, it does have nothing to do with surface temperature. It does, however, have to do with gravity and friction: gravity pulls a glacier down the slope, friction retards it. There's evidence - pretty good evidence, easily as good as any global warming evidence, i.e. not conclusive - that the glaciers in Antarctica are accellerating not because of snowfall differences or surface warming, but of subsurface warming - basically, tectonic activity or something warming the ground under them, creating a lubricating layer of water, accellerating the glaciers. Given the overall geology of Antarctica (i.e. the glaciers tend to flow towards the water), that means increased iceberg calving and decreased Antarctic glacial coverage - the two biggest pieces of evidence typically used to promote global warming.

 

Which is not to say global warming is a crock of sh-- - we know the planet can go through climate cycles, we know we pump pollutants into the atmosphere, and we have some hard evidence that the pollutants we put in the atmosphere can have global effect. It's just to point out that what's usually passed off as "evidence" of global warming is 1) horribly ambiguous, and 2) horribly simplified - such "evidence", as it is, is the visible culmination of a wide variety of complex interactions having almost nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions.

[finknottle]

You're right, it does have nothing to do with surface temperature.  It does, however, have to do with gravity and friction: gravity pulls a glacier down the slope, friction retards it.  There's evidence - pretty good evidence, easily as good as any global warming evidence, i.e. not conclusive - that the glaciers in Antarctica are accellerating not because of snowfall differences or surface warming, but of subsurface warming - basically, tectonic activity or something warming the ground under them, creating a lubricating layer of water, accellerating the glaciers.  Given the overall geology of Antarctica (i.e. the glaciers tend to flow towards the water), that means increased iceberg calving and decreased Antarctic glacial coverage - the two biggest pieces of evidence typically used to promote global warming. 

 

Which is not to say global warming is a crock of sh-- - we know the planet can go through climate cycles, we know we pump pollutants into the atmosphere, and we have some hard evidence that the pollutants we put in the atmosphere can have global effect.  It's just to point out that what's usually passed off as "evidence" of global warming is 1) horribly ambiguous, and 2) horribly simplified - such "evidence", as it is, is the visible culmination of a wide variety of complex interactions having almost nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions.

696846[/snapback]

 

I'll have to look into this. One simple test would be measuring the changes in height with satellites of the zone of accumulation that feeds the glacier coverage. If the surface temp is generally constant, then the heights should be sort-of-constant (or more precisely, porportional to the volume of the range) with changes in snowfall effecting the distance to the zone of ablation. But if the underlying resistence is softening due to warming of the surface then (snowfall accumulation being equal) the height in the zone of accumulation should be falling as the entire glacier flattens.

[Wacka]

The Antarctic glacier that is moving the fastest has a geothermal (volcanic) hotspot under it.

[meazza]

Okay.  Don't watch South Park (though I should), so I didn't know. 

 

No harm, no foul.  Although I'm still pissed that I had a $14k repair bill on a three month old car. 

696587[/snapback]

 

If you're insured with full liability, aren't you covered even if the other person isn't insured?

[ExiledInIllinois]

If you're insured with full liability, aren't you covered even if the other person isn't insured?

696929[/snapback]

 

He's rich... He carries his own insurance!...

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

If you're insured with full liability, aren't you covered even if the other person isn't insured?

696929[/snapback]

 

 

I just heard that two illegal aliens were involved in a car accident in NJ. Neither one had insurance. The one at fault took off. The other illegal, I mean documentily challenged person sued NJ and won a settlement that paid all his medical expenses! Illegal to be here, Illegal to drive, no insurance, let's make the American citizen pay!

[ch19079]

It may not take all that long for Antarctica to melt - the process accelerates as it goes along. The more the snow cover melts, the less there is to reflect sunlight, and the more heat is absorbed by the earth.  Thus we are now absorbing more heat from the sun than we did 10 years ago, speeding up the process.

 

And the snow cover is disappearing measurably.  The African glaciers have shrank rom 2.5 square miles in 1900 to 1 in 1995 to .4 today.  The Alpine glaciers are noticably receeding, and the north pole ice flows are melting earlier and earlier - you can expect the Polar Bears to fall extinct in the wild over the next 15 years, since they primarily hunt during the winter and fewer and fewer are getting enough during the shortened season.

 

Glaciers over the south pole are not neccessarily natural;  they formed about 25 million years ago (over maybe 5 million years, in a process that accelerated quickly) destroying a south pole ecosystem that had been only cool-to-temperate for the preceeding 50 million years.  It should be noted that these climate lurches are usually accompanied by mass-extinctions.

 

So global warming may be a natural process, but the lurches can be abrupt. And they can be kick-started by man' s actions.  You also cite natural hurricanes.  It is quite clear that the frequency and intensity have increased over the past 50 years; interestingly, the effect appears to be in line with predictions of several simulations modeling the observed increase in the oceans temperatue.

 

Bottom line - IMO Global Warming is more than real, it is now inevitable and too late to do anything about it.  Don't bother worrying about grandchildren.

696817[/snapback]

you make it sound like all humans will become extinct in the next 100 years. why? sea level will rise 20 feet? a chunk of florida will be flooded? huriacanes will wipe out all the other cities built below sea level next to major water bodies?

 

we should be talking in millions of years, not 100s of years. Even during the last ice age glaciers didnt get any farther south than virginia (some would say North Carolina). as for extinction, animals that can not adapt to the change or can not move to a better climate go extinct. humans can do both.

 

but the whole point of the global warming arguement is that its caused by man, or atleast significantly increased by man. we are addign to it, but there is no real way to show how much man is actually effecting it.

 

the average global temperature diffrence between now and the last ice age was only 10 degrees. 10 degrees colder and we will see glaciers take over canada and begin to move south. one major volcanic eruption has been seen to cause a 1 degree decrease in global temperature. on the grand scale of things, humans are the least of the planets worries.

 

if gore wants to reduce emitions and restrict the amount of pollutants put in to the air and water by industry, im all for it. but im more worried about the effects those pollutants will have on humans, rather than how that small amount of pollutants will effect the global temp.

[meazza]

I just heard that two illegal aliens were involved in a car accident in NJ.  Neither one had insurance.  The one at fault took off.  The other illegal, I mean documentily challenged person sued NJ and won a settlement that paid all his medical expenses!  Illegal to be here, Illegal to drive, no insurance, let's make the American citizen pay!

696978[/snapback]

 

If you have a good lawyer, you could sue anyone

But anyway, I think it works differently in Canada but if you hit someone who doesn't have insurance but pay for full liability, you are still covered. Probably higher premium though.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If you have a good lawyer, you could sue anyone 

But anyway, I think it works differently in Canada but if you hit someone who doesn't have insurance but pay for full liability, you are still covered.  Probably higher premium though.

697220[/snapback]

 

Collision, not liability. Your liability covers damage you cause to others. Your collision coverage covers damage done to your car. That goes straight back to English common law, so it should be identical in the US and Canada.

 

And I'm once again amazed you've survived in this world as long as you have...

[finknottle]

you make it sound like all humans will become extinct in the next 100 years. why? sea level will rise 20 feet? a chunk of florida will be flooded? huriacanes will wipe out all the other cities built below sea level next to major water bodies?

 

we should be talking in millions of years, not 100s of years. Even during the last ice age glaciers didnt get any farther south than virginia (some would say North Carolina). as for extinction, animals that can not adapt to the change or can not move to a better climate go extinct. humans can do both.

 

but the whole point of the global warming arguement is that its caused by man, or atleast significantly increased by man. we are addign to it, but there is no real way to show how much man is actually effecting it.

 

the average global temperature diffrence between now and the last ice age was only 10 degrees. 10 degrees colder and we will see glaciers take over canada and begin to move south. one major volcanic eruption has been seen to cause a 1 degree decrease in global temperature. on the grand scale of things, humans are the least of the planets worries.

 

if gore wants to reduce emitions and restrict the amount of pollutants put in to the air and water by industry, im all for it.  but im more worried about the effects those pollutants will have on humans, rather than how that small amount of pollutants will effect the global temp.

697002[/snapback]

 

No, its not about the temperature change per se. Minute changes can have dramatic effects on weather patterns. For example, it is thought that a half a degree rise in ocean surface temperature uncreases the intensity of the Hurricane season by something like 5%. Similar effect with El Nino. Another issue is the sensitivity of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream to temperature, salinity, and the effect of the Artic cap. If it begins to change, temperatures in Europe will shift to something more in line with their latitude (northern Canada).

 

But that's not your question. You are really asking how a seemingly small change in temperature can wipe out mankind. Well, a 1 degree change is an average. What really happens is that the climate shifts around everywhere, some places up 5 degrees, some down 6, and so on. That's why under global warming the temperature in Europe is actually likely to drop severly. Anyway, we've become so tightly linked to a just-in-time economy that I don't think civilization can survive a sudden climate shift. Suppose the trade winds shift over the course of a decade, changing the rainfall patterns. In that scenario it's not hard to imagine the heartland of America drying out like central asia and, say, Mexico becoming raindrenched. The two don't balance out - crops everywhere will fail, because they are the wrong kind of crops, and tens of millions will starve.

 

Or suppose the Hurrican intensity increases dramatically, effectively disabling the oil industry in the Gulf, Venezuela. What would happen around the world if production suddenly dropped 10% for the forseeable future?

 

If the State breaks down, and our fine-tuned system of commerce with it, what happens to people in Buffalo when there is no more food or oil coming in?

[Wacka]

Are you one of those people who were saying the Sabres will lose the series after game 2?

[Alaska Darin]

It's nice that someone who's gotten rich because a company he owns ALOT of stock in pillaged a rain forest for 30 years (while he was serving in a capacity to do something about it) is now making a movie about global warming and there are STILL some retards talking about what a great leader said move maker would be.

 

I don't care how much education funding the government throws at the schools, most people should still eat their children.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

he may be a little misguided on global warming, but so are a lot of people. but that doesnt mean he would be a bad president. he would be 1000 times better than bush.

696718[/snapback]

 

LMAO

 

Al Gore leading the nation in a time of war?

 

NO FRICKING THANKS. That's like asking Pee Wee Herman to run a school for sexually abused children.

[John Adams]

LMAO

 

Al Gore leading the nation in a time of war?

 

NO FRICKING THANKS. That's like asking Pee Wee Herman to run a school for sexually abused children.

697743[/snapback]

 

You think Al Gore would have attacked a third world despot while his neighbor enriches uranium, at the cost of about half a trillion (so far)?