Al Gore on Conan

polaris

go sourdough!!

have you been gone?? ... well needed here ...

Puck78

world wrote:

Accoding to Al Gore, we have 9yrs 189days left before the planet is destroyed. This is from a quote he gave at Sundance that we had 10yrs left before the Earth was destroyed.

wow, cool, i work on physics of the atmosphere, oceans and climate and i didn't know this... I might have to throw away my studies and leave space to al gore...

sourdough

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

Pearl Jam and toast

sourdough wrote:

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

Yeah that's what i was thinking..

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

This was a misquote. He did NOT say that the world would end in 10 years. What he DID say was that we have about 10 years to change our behaviour re: the environment before it may become to late to reverse the consequences. There is a certain tipping point that if you cross it, you begin a feedback loop and may not be able to reverse the damage. This was spun nicely.

this is silly as well: we don't know if what we're observing is an oscillation of the climate or if the oscillator is "broken". This means that we don't know if it is already too late or how long we have before to make a permanent damage. Don't believe anyone that has an answer about that, that's propaganda

sourdough

Puck78 wrote:

this is silly as well: we don't know if what we're observing is an oscillation of the climate or if the oscillator is "broken". This means that we don't know if it is already too late or how long we have before to make a permanent damage. Don't believe anyone that has an answer about that, that's propaganda

I think said what he did regarding the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The debate is over whether we are contributing to climate change. Even if climate change can be credited with some of the changes, it is a given that humans DO indeed have a role. You cannot pump out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without expecting some sort of consequence, at the same time accepting that the greenhouse effect is correct. It is undisptuted that we have some responsibility. I'm not saying I agree with his assertion of 10 years. I would have to see how he got to that number before accepting it or dismissing it, but I've heard similar things from other sources not linked to political parties (ie books, school...).

What we DO know is that we are very close to a point where it will be very difficult to recover from. For instance, if glaciers melt and expose land beneath it, this will exacerbate the situation b/c glaciers reflect insolation back out where as the land will not reflect the insolation but rather absorb much of it therefore more insolation is kept facilitating warmer temperatures which then melts more glaciers. If enough of the glacier cover is gone and too much land is exposed, the glaciers may not be able to recover. This is only one example of how a feedback loop can start.

Melting of the permafrost which is a HUGE carbon sink is not defrosting eliminating a storage system for CO2 but also releasing any that was stored there.

I'm curious as to what people mean when they say environmentalism or climate change is propaganda. What is the goal of the propaganda in this case? Do you see it as a Democrat commercial, a knock on industry, and appeal towards a potential presidential campaign?

Thanks Polaris, I went away to South Africa way back for Christmas and kinda fell out of the loop a bit and life can get busy. Its nice to have a resident climatologist to clean up my mistakes!

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

I think said what he did regarding the CO2 content in the atmosphere. The debate is over whether we are contributing to climate change. Even if climate change can be credited with some of the changes, it is a given that humans DO indeed have a role. You cannot pump out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without expecting some sort of consequence, at the same time accepting that the greenhouse effect is correct. It is undisptuted that we have some responsibility. I'm not saying I agree with his assertion of 10 years. I would have to see how he got to that number before accepting it or dismissing it, but I've heard similar things from other sources not linked to political parties (ie books, school...).

What we DO know is that we are very close to a point where it will be very difficult to recover from. For instance, if glaciers melt and expose land beneath it, this will exacerbate the situation b/c glaciers reflect insolation back out where as the land will not reflect the insolation but rather absorb much of it therefore more insolation is kept facilitating warmer temperatures which then melts more glaciers. If enough of the glacier cover is gone and too much land is exposed, the glaciers may not be able to recover. This is only one example of how a feedback loop can start.

Melting of the permafrost which is a HUGE carbon sink is not defrosting eliminating a storage system for CO2 but also releasing any that was stored there.

I'm curious as to what people mean when they say environmentalism or climate change is propaganda. What is the goal of the propaganda in this case? Do you see it as a Democrat commercial, a knock on industry, and appeal towards a potential presidential campaign?

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

sourdough

Puck78 wrote:

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

I'm not sure about the science behing the 10 years (you could be right and there may not be any at all) but I'll reserve judgement until I can see where he got that estimate. I doubt he meant it as a hard and fast number but probably as a guesstimate. I don't know.

I do believe he is an environmentalist purely because he has studied and appears to understand the science. He's been an advocate since before he was a big name politician and has written book on it previously. profits from the book/movie is going to a non-profit carbon reduction organisation as well. I think you can be rich/famous and still be an activist.

We all could do a lot more for the environment and human rights than we are. Not just him and not just the rich. To the vast majority of the world's population, most of us posting here are rich.

Puck78

sourdough wrote:

I'm not sure about the science behing the 10 years (you could be right and there may not be any at all) but I'll reserve judgement until I can see where he got that estimate. I doubt he meant it as a hard and fast number but probably as a guesstimate. I don't know.

I do believe he is an environmentalist purely because he has studied and appears to understand the science. He's been an advocate since before he was a big name politician and has written book on it previously. profits from the book/movie is going to a non-profit carbon reduction organisation as well. I think you can be rich/famous and still be an activist.

We all could do a lot more for the environment and human rights than we are. Not just him and not just the rich. To the vast majority of the world's population, most of us posting here are rich.

1. if you know about the 10 years thing, please let me know: as i've written i work on the field, as a researcher, and i've never heard a 10 years estimate.
Anyway, it is not that because he studied and understands science that he's an environmentalist: in my department the majority of people are not environmetalists...

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

I agree with you, expecially about the first paragraph that you wrote. I was simply laughing about the 10 years idea. That's non-scientific.
Al-Gore is a politician, not an activist, i smell propaganda from very far away. I simply don't think he's an environmentalist. A lot of people here have a different idea than me about this, fair enough, but if you consider his resources and money, if he would really care he could start doing a lot of other things, too, about environment and human rights.

How is it non-scientific? The information I've heard is what a group of scientists have collaberated on over many years of study. While it may not be 10 years to the day, I'm pretty sure they have it well within the ballpark.

Keep in mind, if you do a little research on Gore's past you may find it startling to find that he was an "environmentalist" before he was ever a politician.

I guess I don't understand your last part about him doing other things with his resources and money. What more can he do to help the environment? Making a film that millions will see where all the money is going to environmental causes, fighting for environmental laws and regualations while he was in office, and being outspoken about environmental issues his entire life...I'd say he's going a pretty good job.

Eliot Rosewater

mca47 wrote:

Thoughts?

I've seen him speak about his film many times and the more I hear him the more I respect this man. I'm a bit of an environmentalist, but not quite a freak like many . I have a degree in Biochemistry so I've studied this material for years so I know what he's talking about. The more I hear from this guy the more I respect him. If only in 2000 he had this passion...oh wait he did, but he didn't politicize it.


Oh well...then again Kerry was considered the best environmental candidates of all-time.
Maybe next time...

I didn't see him on Conan, but I saw him on a different late night show....Letterman or Leno, can't remember. Then I saw him on Larry King too. That was very good because it's an hour of him and his message. I have so much respect for Al Gore. He's very passionate about his work and his film is the best I've seen in years.

And it's not that he didn't politicize this in 2000, although you're right that he didn't. The reason he didn't become president (besides dubya illegally stealing the election) is because he didn't entertain us. Had he been able to sing and dance and juggle and do backflips there is no doubt he would have been president. But America is full of fucking idiots that need to be entertained. What was the complaint about Gore? Not one attack on his character. Not one scandal. He was boring. That was his downfall. He was boring. Goddamn idiots looking for an entertainer rather than an educated and dignified leader.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

How is it non-scientific? The information I've heard is what a group of scientists have collaberated on over many years of study. While it may not be 10 years to the day, I'm pretty sure they have it well within the ballpark.

please, tell me the reference of the publication of the team of scientists. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, that's the main "team" working on climate changes) agrees that there's a climate change, but also that there's not agreement about the predictions. You may find their reports online.

Eliot Rosewater

sourdough wrote:

How different would this world be if he was president. I admit I wasn't a huge Gore fan during 2000 and I haven't seen his film... yet, but I have purchased his book which is quite good. What I enjoy is that he doesn't rely solely on emotional appeals and shock value but rather basis his analysis on statistics and fact which may not be great entertainment (although his book is very good) as the former. I think his passion is genuine and that is rare in polititions these days.

I guarantee this world would be in a far better place had Gore taken the presidency that he so rightfully earned. He's a man of passion and integrity. He cares about mankind and I'm certain we wouldn't be in Iraq right now if he would have been president.

However, I don't think the world would be any different at all had Kerry been president. Kerry is a puppet just like Bush....carved from the same bullshit Skull & Bones want-to-rule-the-world-club.

Eliot Rosewater

sourdough wrote:

For example, gravity is a "theory". Care to contest it because it is a "theory"?

Sorry but last I checked, and according to Isaac Newton, gravity was a "law" not a "theory".

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

please, tell me the reference of the publication of the team of scientists. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, that's the main "team" working on climate changes) agrees that there's a climate change, but also that there's not agreement about the predictions. You may find their reports online.

I'm pretty sure I could do a google search and find some climatologist who has done research on the matter. In getting my biochemistry degree I had multiple professors in my Climatology, Biogeography, and the various other environmental classes say similar things. I've seen interviews on CNN, NBC with "experts" saying the similar things. Granted, they may have not all been in agreement about the 10 years, but again, I think they'd probably agree it's a good ballpark estimate. Then you have Gore, who I can't imagine would be talking out of his ass without any information to back it up.

Since you're in the business are you trying to find if the 10 year mark is legit or that there is a "point of no return" as they say. You may not have everyone in the industry agree on the first, but I can't imagine many would argue with the latter.

mca47

don't gimme no wrote:

However, I don't think the world would be any different at all had Kerry been president. Kerry is a puppet just like Bush....carved from the same bullshit Skull & Bones want-to-rule-the-world-club.

I disagree. I'm not sure if you can still get this info, but during the last election pretty much every environmental agency claimed that Kerry was the best environmental candidate for president ever...that's including Gore.
Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

I'm pretty sure I could do a google search and find some climatologist who has done research on the matter. In getting my biochemistry degree I had multiple professors in my Climatology, Biogeography, and the various other environmental classes say similar things. I've seen interviews on CNN, NBC with "experts" saying the similar things. Granted, they may have not all been in agreement about the 10 years, but again, I think they'd probably agree it's a good ballpark estimate. Then you have Gore, who I can't imagine would be talking out of his ass without any information to back it up.

Since you're in the business are you trying to find if the 10 year mark is legit or that there is a "point of no return" as they say. You may not have everyone in the industry agree on the first, but I can't imagine many would argue with the latter.

I'm really looking forward for you to find that reference, send it to me by PM, if i'm not around, please.
No, as you might know both the atmospheric and ocean systems (and i'm not including interactions with vegetation, criosphere, etc) are strongly nonlinear. This means that the results that you have from numerical (computer) simulations, strongly depends on the initial conditions. This mean: even a small error in the initial conditions will lead to huge uncertainities in the results. Hence: no good predictions. If i would take out the "10 year" story with my professor he would take me away my PhD...

Eliot Rosewater

world wrote:

Dont get me wrong, I love our enviornment, im just a little skeptic when I see people blindly follow Hollywood.

Are we following Hollywood or are we following science? For fuck's sake....blindly following. Many of us are quite educated on this topic. Maybe you should watch Gore's movie or anything that explains the science of it and then get back with us. Carbon emmissions are directly related to global temperature. Can you please tell me who's responsible for carbon emmissions over the past 100 years? Okay, now can you tell me who's responsible for the rise in global temperature over the past 100 years? It's really that simple. It's as simple as this: If a=b and b=c then a=c. It's merely a lack of knowledge (otherwise known as ignorance) that leads anyone to dispute these facts.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.

and a long history in coorporate affiliations

Eliot Rosewater

mca47 wrote:

I disagree. I'm not sure if you can still get this info, but during the last election pretty much every environmental agency claimed that Kerry was the best environmental candidate for president ever...that's including Gore.
Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.

That may be his way of getting votes, but when it comes down to it, it's the Skull & Bones that run the show....the same ones running it now.