montieth: Real Heros....

Ryan Gill (

montieth) wrote,
@ 2008-05-12 11:33:00

Real Heros....
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize for his activism on ~~Global Warming~~, ~~Climate Change~~, Anthropogenic Climate Change in 2007. One of the other nominees for the prize at that juncture was Irena Sendler. Another activist, though in a far more esteemed class if you ask me. She was in the Polish Underground and Zegota, the polish anti-holocaust resistance in Warsaw. She helped save 2,500 jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto by providing false documents. She was arrested in 1943 by the Gestapo. She was tortured and later sentenced to death. Some how she managed to not get executed by bribing a guard.

Irena Sendler died yesterday (12th of may) in Warsaw Poland.

That Al Gore won over her is absolutely pathetic. Alfred Nobel is probably spinning his grave.

(Post a new comment)

scarletfaewind
2008-05-12 04:08 pm UTC (link)

I got sick when he won for lying (Earth has cycles that involve heat and ice ages, man has not changed this, it is natural and beyond Al Gores understanding). Now to hear the someone much more worthy was passed up for the prize is disheartening and might even lead to depression.

Makes me wonder who is going to get the Noble for blaming humans when the North and South Poles switch again...for the billionth time!?!?!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	2501 2008-05-12 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-still-misrepresenting-500-scientists-as-co-authors-of-denial-paper (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

montieth
2008-05-12 04:30 pm UTC (link)

What's your point?

The Science is half baked. It's a hypothesis with models that don't even accurately reflect PARTS of the climate let alone the whole shebang. that people can't settle on a good working premise only supports the point that it's half baked.

When they start including stellar physics and solar wind and other astronomical details along with Geologic processes in their model they're NEVER going to have a proper working model of the Earth's climate. It's not a closed system, you can't model it as one with constants for energy input.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sydneyrodriguez
2008-05-12 05:24 pm UTC (link)

Historically, the earth has been mostly tropical. The fact that we've been hovering in colder temperatures is actually a fairly recent occurrence. I think that the cooling times, enough for ice-age temperatures, probably came from some sort of cataclysmic event, such as a meteor strike that blotted out the sun enough to drop the temperatures.

According to the image I linked, no ice age (white or blue band) lasted for more than 500 million years. And even the ones that lasted that long were before life beyond single-celled and/or microscopic organisms had formed. Considering that they're fairly random and occur in the midst of an otherwise tropical time, it would seem to me that something happened to cause it.

Considering how relatively unstable (and cool) the temperatures have been since humans emerged, it's possible that there's a) something we're missing, and b) something we're doing that's causing the instability. That said, it appears global warming should be the least of our worries.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

montieth
2008-05-12 05:34 pm UTC (link)

I'd be curious to see Geological activity over-layed with that graph. That and Solar activity as well as terrestrial impacts both large and smaller.

What's interesting is that trend is not towards warming, but towards cooling. I would suspect that the finer detail we have for cold/warm trends is due in part to easier mapping of such on the nearer end of the geological time scales. Considering there's been very EXTREME geological changes since life first started (sea life fossils in the mountains) it's a tricky thing estimating time scales and the amount of changes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

2501
2008-05-12 07:01 pm UTC (link)

The fact that an industry front group puts together a list of 500 scientists whose work they claim refutes climate change, and many of those scientists turn around and tell that front group that their research does not refute the evidence of climate change does not mean the science is half-baked. It simply indicates the desperation of the industries who stand to be on the outs if things change.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	montieth 2008-05-12 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	Ineffective work of the group cited above or not, I fail to see how that proves the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It IS still a hypothesis. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-13 01:27 am UTC (link)
	She saved 2500 lives. If Gore's work manages to prevent flooding of low-lying coastal land, it could potentially save millions from dislocation and poverty. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	montieth 2008-05-13 03:41 am UTC (link)
	Because people can't move if the sea rises ~2.8 mm per year? That threatens people's lives HOW? Given that one of the MAJOR points where global warming is supposed to see an INCREASE in temperature has seen a significant DECREASE in temperature, that is, Antarctica. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-13 12:23 pm UTC (link)
	I could move. You could move. My country can also afford to build barriers. There are millions of desperately poor people who live in low-lying areas who have no place to go. There's a least one island that has already been evacuated due to rising sea levels. The former residents are now refugees. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

montieth
2008-05-13 12:53 pm UTC (link)

And sea levels were NOT static before industrialized man came on the scene. In fact, coming over the hump from the last ice age sea levels were MARKEDLY lower and there were other tropical islands that were inundated. Witness the number of greek city states and harbors that are below water.

Over the lifetime of one of your supposed poor people who cannot move, how much is the sea level going to rise? I would argue that they're FAR more likely of dying of a natural disaster like a hurricane or cyclone because their poor status and incompetent government cannot do anything to avert the disaster. Burma is a good example of this. If you live on a low lying island and you're not protected from storm surge, you're essentially gambling on probabilities.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-14 01:20 am UTC (link)
	Sudden changes to local conditions will happen regardless. Sudden dramatic planet-wide changes will have more global impact that occasional sudden changes than either local sudden changes or global gradual changes. (Do I really need to be explaining this?) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

montieth
2008-05-14 02:05 am UTC (link)

The climate changes proposed by the IPCC are not dramatic. 1.1 to 6° C overall for the entire planet. 1-5mm rise per year if their high order change is to be believed. Daily tidal actions are far greater. Storms are far greater. Erosion effects are far greater. Geological effects are much greater. If you're flooded out by a gradual change in the sea level that is 27 cm (half of the IPCC's modeled extreme rise point over 50 years) then you're too damn close to the water.

More over, in looking at sources, There still seems to be arguments as to what acceleration has occurred in the latter half of the 20th Century at all. One source says there was no change another shows a very small change. Ultimately the changes don't seem to add up and the results based on previous predictions don't seem to be happening. More over, again, the models said that the Antarctic ice shelf should be melting. The center of Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer. The ice melt in the Himalayas has been determined to be from ash, not from thermal effects.

The data still doesn't add up. The models still don't work reliably. But people keep believing the hypothesis as a proven fact, it is not. Global warming is a hypothesis based on observations of a complex dynamic system that people are still trying to understand and gather data on with that data plugged into an imperfect model that's missing a lot more data and functions to accurately reflect reality.

Back to the original point, you're saying that Al Gore deserves the prize for potentially saving those lives? Has he saved any lives yet? As far as I can tell, no, he has not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-14 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	You're using wikipedia as a source document? Go check out the website I posted. Posts by climate scientists analyzing the available data. And no, Gore isn't saving anybody. He's publicizing the issue. Whether or not that leads to any action - well, I'm not optimistic. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-13 12:26 pm UTC (link)
	FYI, there's a lot of useful information here. http://www.realclimate.org (Reply to this)(Parent)

	montieth 2008-05-13 03:45 am UTC (link)
	More over, how exactly does Al Gore propose to halt geological processes? Is his reality distortion field going to extend to tectonic plate movement and subduction zones TOO? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-13 12:24 pm UTC (link)
	Red herring. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	montieth 2008-05-13 12:51 pm UTC (link)
	So are you saying that Plate Tectonics does not change sea levels? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	the_siobhan 2008-05-14 01:17 am UTC (link)
	No (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…