Gore - The Ultimate Global Warming Hysteric

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1475

OK, back to Myanmar. Deaths are now estimated to be above 100 thousand and climbing, and the Chinese earthquake victims are now piling into the tens of thousands and beyond. So what we have here is adding up to a combined death total coming into the 100s of thousands from two events in the same week.

But were they two distinct events?

The cyclone that wiped away so many lives also abruptly moved millions of tons of water onto land that had been mostly dry--free of that added weight. About a year ago I read something about how rising sea levels could place so much new weight on th edges of land masses that they could help tip tectonic plates enough to trigger earthquakes, but I can't find that source now. Has anyone seen such an analysis of these two events or of the connection between rising sea levels and earthquakes? The timing and geography seem to be about right. Any help on this would be appreciated.

Smudger · Last edited by Smudger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total

Cashmere
some things you really should look at calmly:
What Gore has said;
What events have been happening across the world; and
and how most sceintists now view the issue.

I think your note about water vapour/methane etc has been very ably dealt with already i.e. C02 is the current "flow" which is causing the warming - frankly, albeit I recognise it is rather obvious, if it was the others as well we would be roasting already!

You may want to look at the size and, importantly the thickness of the arctic these last few summers - hmm there seems to be a trend there doesn't there. It maybe, as someone looking calmly at the issue that you put a diary note to check its thickness in Sept.

Those pesky IPCC scientists have rapidly been found out to be too conservative in their estimates ignoring positive feedbacks such as less snow less relfection etc. The swines we have been misled into thinking we had at least ten years to sort this out. well they had better have some books down their trousers when they get questions on this as I am sure it will be six of the best for them all!

Anyway I'll leave it to you to reflect on your Gore/hysterics view as it appears that he was pretty accurate in what he has been saying - increasingly so as time marches on. best Smudger

blujay

arretium

Slowpoke · Tar Sands Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 67

MacG · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 1178

Oh dear, are you people still kicking this old dead horse? There are a couple of barn-wide holes in the theory about AGW, and I find it hilarious that people on a peak-oil site -of all places- missed the most obvious one:

The IPCC scenarios are built on assumptions of oil WHICH IS NOT THERE!

Please go and check. The IPCC are even more optimistic about oil availability than CERA (and we used to mock CERA on this site - those were the days).

Anyone who believe in the IPCC and Al Gore has nothing to get from this site (last time I checked the site was about Peak Oil), because the IPCC and Al Gore are promising happy motoring for at LEAST another 100 years. Even for the Chinese and the Indians.

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1475

Thanks for the reference, Slow. That's the kind of help that makes this forum so priceless.

nocar · Intermediate Crude Joined: Nov 05, 2004 Posts: 688

MacG, yes I too take a certain comfort in the likelyhood that there just will not be enough fossil carbon available for humanity to put into the atmosphere to reach the highest levels of CO2 predicted by the models.

However, so far humanity has burnt about half of all oil available, but less than half of natural gas and coal, as I understand the situation. Global warming is already happening with the less than half of CO2 we have already put out, and there is a great delay in the warming effects. It simply takes time for the ground surfaces, lakes and seas to absorb the extra heat. And there might be very serious 'positive' feedback mechanisms. So there is certainly enough fossil carbons for humanity to burn to create a problem.

Add to this the non-fossil carbon sources: Forests and peat, which also might be burnt increasingly (Logging and land clearing of agriculture, wild fires, wood for cooking and heating, peat starting to burn, or peat 'mining' for fuel.

So even if Gore et al are wrong about the amount of fossil carbon that can be burned, they can to be right about the problem (which I have been convinced they are).

My own hope lies in a great depression lasting a century or so, that really slows down global economic activitiy and the rate of fossil fuel burning, and also is accompanyed by a global reduction in birth rates. Surely, the least painful kind of dieoff must be fewer births while people still live to see their one or two grandchildren. Some of the many pollutants we (humanity) put out seem to have the effect of reducing fertility - perhaps a great blessing in disguise.

nocar

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 466

Economics is driving coal fueled power plant building around the world. Indonesia is going to triple its coal use because its oil production has collapsed. Russia is going to convert from natural gas to coal for electricity generation (aside from nuclear and hydro) because gas exports bring in more money. China is building them like crazy already. The decline phase of fossil fuel consumption will actually crank up the CO2 emissions compared to the buildup phase since coal and "liquid coal" (bitumen) are going to make up a larger fraction of the fuel burned.

Cashmere · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 1971

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1475

Great. Go ahead. You will quickly banish this thread to the house of flames, where it probably belongs anyway.

You have some great postings on other topics, but you would just embarrass yourself by further postings here.