Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
I first saw this on Net-Cool which is a great site to subscribe to for finding really interesting things on the web.
This movie explains some of the reasons of concern for monitoring the increase in temperatures that we have felt since the 1960s. It is very well done and enjoyable to watch. Unlike An Inconvenient Truth, it admits that this is not pure imagery but some CGI has been done.
If you can handle the bandwidth, you will see better graphics here rather than watching the embedded YouTube video below.
I am shocked and dismayed! (Not really – just being a bit sarcastic and melodramatic)
One of the foundations of predicting the climate is that we have some idea of how water moves around the planet. That water can be in the form of water vapor or liquid water that is flowing in streams, lakes and the oceans. Since the Earth is approximately 2/3 water and water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas, the way it acts is very important for understanding climate and predicting the future of climate.READ MORE
I do want to make three additional comments before you read below. If it takes 1,000 years to recover from an overload of carbon dioxide that has already poisoned our atmosphere then:
There is a lot of controversy over this. I really don’t know the right answer. Is it okay for a film maker to have scenes in a documentary that are not what the narrator is discussing? My gut says that this happens all of the time. Also, there was no question in my mind when I saw AIT that this portion of the film was CGI.
Of course, I didn’t know that it came from the movie “Day After Tomorrow” at the time but then I didn’t watch the credits and I am sure that he mentions them in the credits. I have long lost my copy of the movie so I can’t check that fact. If someone still has their copy of the DVD, please skip through to the end and check to see if the proper credit is given. You can leave a comment below to let us all know the truth.READ MORE
I recently received an email from Brittany C asking four questions. Brittany is allowing me to publish her questions and my answers. These answers are a combination of scientific fact with conjecture and opinion from me. Earlier, I answered the first of her 4 questions and today I will answer the second.
Question 2: If CO2 were linked to temperature increase wouldn’t that mean that temperatures would have steadily increased from the start of the Industrial Revolution to today? If that’s the case, why was there a cooling period from the 1940s to the 1970s?
ScieneNOW – February 14, 2008
While the cause or reality of global warming is frequently debated on this site and many others, the fact that humans can (and have) negatively impacted our environment is rarely challenged. There are innumerable examples of abuse or neglect across the planet even though there appears to be more of an understanding of this activity. If you read this site regularly (or occasionally) you are likely concerned with the environment to some degree and this study will be interesting to you.
This article points to a study that covers the impact that human activity has had on the oceans. It makes a scary claim that humans have severely compromised 40% of the water ecosystems! This is potentially a bigger problem than global warming which only potentially threatens some beach-front properties.READ MORE
This is the second of a 5 part series reviewing the comments of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) in regards to “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT).
ERROR 10 – Actually, SPPI isn’t tough enough on AIT on this one. Mr. Gore says that 350ppm of CO2 is all that keeps a mile of ice off of the top of Cleveland, Detroit, and New York. The last time that happened was 2 million years ago during the Pleistocene era and Mr. Gore’s data doesn’t extend that far back so therefore he is making an unsubstantiated claim.READ MORE
There is an old saying that statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics.
While I am not going to call anyone a liar, I will point out that the belief of the individual analyzing raw data can affect the outcome of the data. This is one of the reasons why one should always be skeptical.
This posting will not be about any given article but rather will cover several articles that have recently been getting a lot of discussion among skeptics and non-skeptics on the theory of global warming and its causes. I admit that I am somewhat of a “junkie” when it comes to climate news so you may not have been affected by all of the news so here is the high-level:READ MORE
San Francisco Chronicle – July 31, 2007
Interesting op-ed piece regarding the UN Secretary-General and his recent comments on global warming. According to the piece, the UNSG blames the US for much of the world’s problems but doesn’t come up with a plan for fixing the problem in light of current pollution levels or anticipated pollution levels.
IF YOU REALLY believe that the planet is at the tipping point on global warming and the consequences will be fatal for people around the world, especially the poor, then all industrialized nations need to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions. If the United States must sacrifice, so must China, which is fast emerging as largest producer of industrial greenhouse gases on Earth
San Francisco Chronicle – July 28, 2007
Some say that UN Sec.-Gen. Ban Ki-moon is trying to create a new world order and drag down the US economic dominance by actively talking about global warming and its impact on the world. I don’t think that he is that nefarious and simply think that he is discussing a very important issue. He should keep this up! While he is at it, I do wish he would discuss other important issues that should be on the mind of every citizen of the world (see my posts here: Africa: Live Earth Vs. Africa and VIEW: Live earth, deaf to reality).READ MORE