An Inconvenient Truth

[Zippyy]

Gore interview on Daily Show 28th of June!! (reruns on 29th)

See for yourself this time. Jon Stewart interviews him Wednesday night, uh, that's today.

I think I could just -- oops I think I just did. Ick.

-V
Laundry Room Attendant
The Forsaken Inn

For those who don't frequently watch the show:

It will air at 11:00 PM June 28th on Comedy Central. If all you want to see is the Gore interview, tune in at 11:15 PM.

It will run again on June 28th at 8:00 PM for old people who go to bed early. 8:15 PM for just the interview.

I assume they have different feeds for each time zone and that these times will be correct for anyone. If I'm wrong, feel free to smash ice cream into my face.

[Alram]

With all the TV appearances, it seems obvious to me that Gore is rafting a return into national politics--if not the presidency, he is jockeying for some position in his party.

I wonder if the Kyoto treaty is mentioned in his movie.

[kandrathe]

Did you move to a new street address? 1564 Lyric lane . . . Yeah, the house that looks like an Ivory Tower! :lol:

Thanks for the link, in any case.

Ah, scoff not. The house I bought was built in the 60's and was nicely planned and fitted into the environment. I stain my house with my own traditional mix of 1 gallon mineral spirits, plus 2 pints linseed oil, plus 1 pint of pigment. I don't have so much of a lawn as a montage of cliffs, rock, and perenial gardens that do not need fertilizers or tending by me. I also recall that the rain forest makes really poor farm land.

Of course, I harvest my food from the supermarket.

[SwissMercenary]

I also recall that the rain forest makes really poor farm land.

That doesn't stop anyone from exhausting the already nutrient-poor soil in a few years, and moving on to slash&burn another section. :rolleyes:

[Vandiablo]

National spotlight, definitely; but not elected, unless he forms a "Greener" party.

With all the TV appearances, it seems obvious to me that Gore is rafting a return into national politics--if not the presidency, he is jockeying for some position in his party.

And so what if he is??? I welcome him back from his break. If he chooses to work through the Democratic Party, then I will feel better about them, as they have been short on the environmental front as of late (perhaps they're still miffed about people voting Green in 2000.)

But it sure looks to me like he's not asking for votes any more. It's "don't hold back" time.

I wonder if the Kyoto treaty is mentioned in his movie.

It is.

-V
Catwarmer
The Forsaken Inn

[Alram]

National spotlight, definitely; but not elected, unless he forms a "Greener" party.
And so what if he is??? I welcome him back from his break. If he chooses to work through the Democratic Party, then I will feel better about them, as they have been short on the environmental front as of late (perhaps they're still miffed about people voting Green in 2000.)

But it sure looks to me like he's not asking for votes any more. It's "don't hold back" time.
It is.

-V
Catwarmer
The Forsaken Inn

I made that point because somebody earlier in this thread stated words to the effect that they didn't believe Gore has political aspirations. He certainly has the right to pursue political office. His movie is a tool he is using to help him get there.

Regarding Kyoto, I believe that Gore made a big push for it while he was VP. The US senate voted against it 95-0, and remember this was when Clinton was in office--not Bush. The treaty, as I understand it, absolves third world countries including India and China from pollution controls and can be viewed as hobbling the USA while enabling India and China. I have been to India many times. The quality of the air and water there is horrid--worse than anywhere in the states. I believe we have more consciousness about the environment here.

I fully support clean water and air. I have personally lobbied against an asphalt plant in Oak Hill. I am unconvinced about global warming particularly since it has become a political tool.

The argument that we had better do something about it even if it is not really true doesn't move me. That same argument can be used with many issues on both sides of the aisle.

[Olon97]

The argument that we had better do something about it even if it is not really true doesn't move me. That same argument can be used with many issues on both sides of the aisle.

Yup, it worked like a charm in the case of Iraq.

If you're already in favor of something, it's the precautionary principle on the preponderance of evidence and we can't take the chance of inaction.

If you already don't like the idea, it's something that hasn't been 100% proven and needs more study (or more time for inspectors)...


A fun exercise when comparing the he said / she saids amongst various individuals making public statements on global warming: research how many articles each one has published in a peer reviewed journal recently. The peer review process forces a much higher standard of intellectual integrity to get published than say submitting an op-ed piece to the Washington post (or any other news media outlet).

Treating "scientists" on a 1:1 basis where any given one-liner cancels another out is like saying hearsay intel from Chalabi and CIA satelite photo evidence that contradicts his statements effectively cancel each other out...

[--Pete]

hi,

A fun exercise when comparing the he said / she saids amongst various individuals making public statements on global warming: research how many articles each one has published in a peer reviewed journal recently. The peer review process forces a much higher standard of intellectual integrity to get published than say submitting an op-ed piece to the Washington post (or any other news media outlet).

Good point. However, lest someone unfamiliar with the peer review process and archival journals get the wrong impression, even that process is gravely flawed. Peer review is exactly that; your paper is sent to a number of your 'peers' taken from a list maintained by the journal you submitted it to. Usually, all information identifying you and your organization is removed (as if your true peers couldn't figure out who you were just from the contents and style of the abstract :whistling:). The peers review the paper primarily for content, usually by asking for clarification or additional evidence. Many also review it for style, although that should be the editor's job. The reviewers also recommend whether or not the paper should be published. Once some middle ground of agreement has been reached, often after a few iterations of the process, you pay your publication fees and your paper is published. Or, at least, that's how it works in theory.

The practice is a bit different. If what you are proposing is not what the mainstream workers in the field think, then they assign their ignorance of what you've done to *your* having failed to understand the problem. And if they don't recognize who you are, they will spend little time before making some vague general remark ("Topic not well covered." was one of my favorites -- just how do you reply to that?) and recommending that the paper not be published. If they do recognize you, then it depends on the relationship. If, during the last conference you spent a few hours with the reviewer eating pizza, drinking beer and telling jokes, then you might even get a call saying something along the lines of "Pete, your latest paper is a pile of manure, but there's just a glimmer that it might be useful if you'll change this and that, so I'm gonna recommend it be published with those changes." That will often lead to a dialog that gets something useful done (however, most journals use three to five reviewers, so the process isn't all that linear). On the other hand, if you spilled your coffee on his custom made silk Italian suit, then abandon all hope, find another journal and try again. And, yes, researchers can spot who the (supposedly anonymous) reviewers are just from the type and tone of their comments. Worst case scenario is when you and the reviewer are competing for the same pot of funding. Then the slightest nit is blown up to cold fusion proportions in an attempt to knock you out of the running for the bucks. If the funding was already awarded and you got it, then there's often a carry on effect that is partially retribution and partially setting you up not to get a follow on.

So, if what you want to contribute is outside (or, worse, opposed) to the mainstream, good luck. I know of one case where a person waited almost twenty years to defend and publish his Ph.D. dissertation because his school used the black ball system and he'd made a life long enemy of one of the members of his committee. When that member had the decency o die, my acquaintance finally published his (by then much enlarged) dissertation. Similar stories, usually just involving research papers, often appear in Science and Science News.

Max Planck was right, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ;)

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

Hard to miss . . . does anyone have the book???

Hi,
Unfortunately, that is a land centric view. There is a large amount of life, much of it vegetable, in the top 100 feet (35 meters) of the ocean. Just because plankton and krill are not as impressive as redwoods does not say that they are any less efficient at CO2 conversion. Probably, per acre, the small stuff is more efficient given that a much smaller percent of its mass is used only to support the working bits and that this reduction in infrastructure (branches, trunk, twigs) blocks less of the sunlight from getting to the lower levels (a forest on a bright summer day can be pretty dark below the canopy -- I know, I've spent a fair bit of time in them). Given the three to one ratio of water to land, the superiority of the Northern Hemisphere to regulate CO2 becomes even more questionable.

True enough, if we're talking overall CO2 conversion. But I was talking mainly about annual variation. Perhaps the conversion performed by plankton is relatively constant throughout the year, compared to large deciduous forests, which basically hibernate a large chunk of the year.

Maybe plankton do not need much sunlight to reach their saturation point. Or it may grow thicker in more direct sunlight, but is itself mitigated by more active fish or some other process.

I don't think whoever made the landmass hypothesis would blatantly ignore ocean plankton. (But I've thought wrong before...)

(edit)But don't think I've missed all of your point. Since, as you say, plankton is x times more CO2 converting than forest, it has more potential to be cause of variation, and it would also take more effort to show that it is NOT a factor in the variation. (end edit)

Anyway, does anyone have the book?? Maybe there's a footnote where the landmass thought came from.

-V
Gardener
The Forsaken Inn

ps. the frequency of "maybe" and "perhaps" shows that I'm no climatologist.

[Vandiablo]

Regarding the Ocean . . an article today . . .

The escalating level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the world's oceans more acidic, government and independent scientists say. They warn that, by the end of the century, the trend could decimate coral reefs and creatures that underpin the sea's food web.

Although scientists and some politicians have just begun to focus on the question of ocean acidification, they describe it as one of the most pressing environmental threats facing Earth.

"It's just been an absolute time bomb that's gone off both in the scientific community and, ultimately, in our public policymaking," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who received a two-hour briefing on the subject in May with five other House members. "It's another example of when you put gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you have these results none of us would have predicted."

Thomas E. Lovejoy, president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, has just rewritten the paperback edition of "Climate Change and Biodiversity," his latest book, to highlight the threat of ocean acidification. "It's the single most profound environmental change I've learned about in my entire career," he said last week.

A coalition of federal and university scientists is to issue a report today describing how carbon dioxide emissions are, in the words of a press release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "dramatically altering ocean chemistry and threatening corals and other marine organisms that secrete skeletal structures."

For decades, scientists have viewed the oceans' absorption of carbon dioxide as an environmental plus, because it mitigates the effects of global warming. But by taking up one-third of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide -- much of which stems from exhaust from automobiles, power plants and other industrial sources -- oceans are transforming their pH level.

The pH level, measured in "units," is a calculation of the balance of a liquid's acidity and its alkalinity. The lower a liquid's pH number, the higher its acidity; the higher the number, the more alkaline it is. The ph level for the world's oceans was stable between 1000 and 1800, but has dropped one-tenth of a unit since the Industrial Revolution, according to Christopher Langdon, a University of Miami marine biology professor.

Scientists expect ocean pH levels to drop by another 0.3 units by 2100, which could seriously damage marine creatures that need calcium carbonate to build their shells and skeletons. Once absorbed in seawater, carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid and lowers ocean pH, making it harder for corals, plankton and tiny marine snails (called pteropods) to form their body parts.

Ken Caldeira, a chemical oceanographer at Stanford University who briefed lawmakers along with NCAR marine ecologist Joan Kleypas, said oceans are more acidic than they have has been for "many millions of years."

"What we're doing in the next decade will affect our oceans for millions of years," Caldeira said. "CO2 levels are going up extremely rapidly, and it's overwhelming our marine systems."

Some have questioned global-warming predictions based on computer models, but ocean acidification is less controversial because it involves basic chemistry. "You can duplicate this phenomenon by blowing into a straw in a glass of water and changing the water's pH level," Lovejoy said. "It's basically undeniable."

Hugo A. Lo?iciga, a geography professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is one of the few academics to question the phenomenon. A groundwater hydrologist, Lo?iciga published a paper in the May edition of the American Geophysical Union's journal that suggested the oceans may not become so acidic, because enough carbonate material will help restore equilibrium to them.

Lo?iciga wrote that although seawater in certain regions may become more acidic over time, "on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2."

Two dozen scientists have written a response questioning this assumption, since it would take thousands of years for such material to reach the oceans from land.

"The paper by Lo?iciga ignores decades of scholarship, presents inappropriate calculations and draws erroneous conclusions that simply do not apply to real ocean," they wrote. They added that, unless carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere stabilize soon, the seas will soon exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended acidity limits.

Scientists have conducted a few ocean acidification experiments in recent years. All have shown that adding carbon dioxide to the water slows corals' growth rate and can dissolve pteropods' shells.

Langdon, who conducted an experiment between 1996 and 2003 in Columbia University's Biosphere 2 lab in Tucson, concluded that corals grew half as fast in aquariums when exposed to the level of carbon dioxide projected to exist by 2050. Coupled with the warmer sea temperatures that climate change produces, Langdon said, corals may not survive by the end of the century.

"It's going to be on a global scale and it's also chronic," Langdon said of ocean acidification. "Twenty-four/seven, it's going to be stressing these organisms. . . . These organisms probably don't have the adaptive ability to respond to this new onslaught."

Stanford University marine biologist Robert B. Dunbar has studied the effect of increased carbon dioxide on coral reefs in Israel and Australia's Great Barrier Reef. "What we found in Israel was the community is dissolving," Dunbar said.

Caldeira has mapped out where corals exist today and the pH levels of the water in which they thrive; by the end of the century, no seawater will be as alkaline as where they live now. If carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current levels, he said, "It's say goodbye' to coral reefs."

Although the fate of plankton and marine snails may not seem as compelling as vibrantly colored coral reefs, they are critical to sustaining marine species such as salmon, redfish, mackerel and baleen whales.

"These are groups everyone depends on, and if their numbers go down there are going to be reverberations throughout the food chain," said John Guinotte, a marine biologist at the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. "When I see marine snails' shells dissolving while they're alive, that's spooky to me."

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a scientist by training, attended the congressional briefing on ocean acidification. He said these developments are "new to me, which was surprising because I usually keep up with things."

"The changes in our climate are severe and urgent even if it weren't for this, but this just adds impact and urgency to the situation," Holt said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html

[Occhidiangela]

Regarding the Ocean . . an article today . . .

"The changes in our climate are severe and urgent even if it weren't for this, but this just adds impact and urgency to the situation," Holt said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html

Neat article, thanks.

So, who has the political will to curb the explosive growth of carbon fuels in China and India? While their per capita energy consumption is at present lower that in the US, they have four times the "capitas" and are growing, while their emissions control regimen is laughable. See also Indonesia. Filth per BTU is a lot higher in most "developing" nations thanks to lax or non existent standards enforcement.

The US has to do its share to clean up the old act, no argument there. (More nukes, as I have been saying for 30 years.) But giving the "growing" economies a free pass is beyond irresponsible, it is just plain stupid on a global scale.

As for how wonderfully Green Europeans are, I will make two observations.

In Italy, 8 years ago, there was still NO imperative for unleaded gas. Regular old leaded gas ran most cars there. (LPG was making inroads, however, you could get it at AGIP stations. Not sure at the current state of play.) Each nation has a different record on successful enviromental enforcement. Russia inheireted the USSR's eco disaster. Likewise some of the Eastern European nations. I wonder at how Green Russia will ever become.

The cultural norm to keep things clean is fairly recent (albeit strong) among the indigenous population of most northern European countries. (North of the Alps, to include France) I remember what the acid rain did to the Black Forest by the early 1970's. How well internalized is the "green and clean" ethic among the immigrant population of Europe, which is where the bulk of Europe's population growth for the next generation seems to be coming from? I know how it is in South Texas: non existent.

This is a cultural behavior issue, a cultural core values issue. Having been in a great many third world nations in my day, I have deep misgivings as to the buy in of "green" among developing nations. It isn't high enough on the Maslow pyramid to get grass roots support.

Behavior is not easy to legislate. It takes profound internalization of a new norm to make it a habit, particularly when it takes some self sacrifice to achieve. It took draconian government policy to create the 55 MPH speed limits in the US, and the enforcement of unleaded gas and rising MPG standards to make a dent in US car culture.

The Tragedy of the Commons is not a problem unique to the United States, and is the engine that drives the exhaust stacks of the entire planet. I don't see it getting any better, any time soon, particularly when NAFTA or other treaties turn a blind eye to environmental larceny among "developing" trading partners.

Occhi

[Assur]

So, who has the political will to curb the explosive growth of carbon fuels in China and India? While their per capita energy consumption is at present lower that in the US, they have four times the "capitas" and are growing, while their emissions control regimen is laughable. See also Indonesia. Filth per BTU is a lot higher in most "developing" nations thanks to lax or non existent standards enforcement.

Occhi

This is the reason why in my opinion the Kyoto treaty and all other attempts to reduce the output of climate gases will never work! India, China and the nations of Southeast Asia have a combined population of nearly three billion people. When they have the same per capita energy consumption as western nations climate change will be a fact.

These nations are to big to be pushed around. They view every attempt to to stop them from expanding their energy consumption as a neo-colonialist plot to stop them industrializing! So Al Gore can preach as much as he wants to, he's not going to change anything.

[Alram]

Even the air in the rural countryside in India gives me respiratory fits when the farmers burn the chaff, etc. And Delhi used to and perhaps still has one of the highest rates of respiratory ailments in the world. Hopefully the new Metro will help. At any rate there is no reason the industrialized countries can reasonably be expected to adhere to standards that China and India refuse to sign on to.

[Jester]

At any rate there is no reason the industrialized countries can reasonably be expected to adhere to standards that China and India refuse to sign on to.

The argument is what, then? Why bother, the environment is definitely going to hell, so let's live it up in the meantime?

Everyone should do better. If we don't, with our wealth, how can they be expected to, with hundreds of millions of people clamouring for a decent wage and a colour TV?

And, in any case, what gives us the right to shirk our environmental obligations, regardless of what happens elsewhere? If other countries are doing poorly, then it is up to us to do even more, not less.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think modern industrialized nations need to set an example. Sort of the idea of "Learn from our mistakes". Although, the industrial rape of this planet is mostly complete.

The problem is that without enforced global standards, wealthy corporations will move their dirty industries to the nations with the lowest taxes and least environmental protections. These poor nations will welcome the investment in jobs and base infrastructure at the sacrifice of their ecosystems, natural resources, and populations health. Like most industrialization, the money will be funneled to a fortunate few enterprising capitalists who will become their nations "robber barrons". I'm not complaining about the capitalist part, as long as they are willing to live in the cesspool they create.

I think there is a right way and a wrong way for nations to develop, and left to the easiest most lucrative path would be the wrong way. The right way would build sustainable neccesary infrastructure that does not cut corners and takes advantage of affordable pollution controls like scrubbers on smokestacks, and does not allow heavy metal industries to dump waste into water ways, etc.

But then again, I'm an optimist.

[Alram]

The Kyoto treaty was defeated 95-0 in the US senate. I believe this was largely because of the exemption of the developing nations. In the USA we already have stricter emission standards, etc. than in developing countries. Examples exist. Correct me if I am wrong--I am going largely by my own personal experiences abroad and in the USA. And I see no reason why we should unilaterally hobble ourselves economically.

Clean air and water is good. Standards should be in place. But global warming as a direct result of human activity is an unproven hypothesis.

[eppie]

Even the air in the rural countryside in India gives me respiratory fits when the farmers burn the chaff, etc. And Delhi used to and perhaps still has one of the highest rates of respiratory ailments in the world. Hopefully the new Metro will help. At any rate there is no reason the industrialized countries can reasonably be expected to adhere to standards that China and India refuse to sign on to.

Yes they can be expected yo do so. The industrialized countries are rich enough to feed all their inhabitants (that some of them don't is another discussion) while countries like India and China are not. If you don't know if and when you have your next meal I can imagine you care less about teh environment. We should act because we can. Anyway, economically we can never compete with countries where the standard wage is 2 dollars per day.....

What is important that we oblige multinationals to pay their share wherever they build their factories. We cant let them first 'take their business elsewhere' because wages are lower...and on top of that start polluting a lot more.

[kandrathe]

The Kyoto treaty was defeated 95-0 in the US senate. I believe this was largely because of the exemption of the developing nations.

I think it was because it would have driven our country into a huge recession or depression which would have taken a decade to recover from. Sometimes environmental zealots don't care what effects their environmental protections have on other systems, Kyoto was one of those. It was a good treaty for the environment, and a bad treaty for the world. If you are fighting a civil war or watching your family starve you aren't caring much about your co2 emissions.

It's not like we are not passing stricter environmental legislation. Coupled with rippple effects of higher gas prices, the US will likely meet the 2012 Kyoto goals. Still, India and China are becoming the economic engines of the world as well -- they need to be involved in protecting the planet or Kyoto will a pile of dog excrement.

[eppie]

I think it was because it would have driven our country into a huge recession or depression which would have taken a decade to recover from. Sometimes environmental zealots don't care what effects their environmental protections have on other systems, Kyoto was one of those. It was a good treaty for the environment, and a bad treaty for the world. If you are fighting a civil war or watching your family starve you aren't caring much about your co2 emissions.

It's not like we are not passing stricter environmental legislation. Coupled with rippple effects of higher gas prices, the US will likely meet the 2012 Kyoto goals. Still, India and China are becoming the economic engines of the world as well -- they need to be involved in protecting the planet or Kyoto will a pile of dog excrement.

There are many things that can cause a huge recession in the US, and because of that also in the world. One of them is the oilprice.
I think that by implementing the Kyoto treaty combined with an effort to get less dependent on fossil fuels would at least give you a great control on how things go.
I think it is not 'the economy' because of which congres voted against, but direct financial losses by big companies.
For e.g. an oil company on long term, it is also better to start working with alternative energy sources. However on shortterm it is a lot easier to sell oil. Companies think short term (because shareholders can move out any time they want)....better make money now.....in 20 years we can leave the company bankrupt, and we are ready to invest in something else.

Especially when there is a huge economic crisis it is handy to be not too dependent on other countries for energy.

[Occhidiangela]

The argument is what, then? Why bother, the environment is definitely going to hell, so let's live it up in the meantime?

Everyone should do better. If we don't, with our wealth, how can they be expected to, with hundreds of millions of people clamouring for a decent wage and a colour TV?

And, in any case, what gives us the right to shirk our environmental obligations, regardless of what happens elsewhere? If other countries are doing poorly, then it is up to us to do even more, not less.

-Jester

Jester, I agree with setting a good example, but the dirty little secret takes us back to the old ground of the utility of internaitonal laws and standards without enforceability. People cheat all the time, in all countries, regardless of the standards. Mexico has environmental laws and standards, but they don't bother to uphold even those with any rigor. How is one to expect some UN enforcement regimen when the UN is used by ruling cliques (putocrats, autocrats, aristocrats, democrats, what have you) in "the developing world" to create a competitive economic advantage?

The facade of "one world" easily vanishes as soon as someone wants more than the color television you postulate above.

Occhi