An Inconvenient Truth

I saw it. I quite enjoyed it. He's an excellent speaker, his material is quite engaging, and I found it very educational.Certainly it disabused me of the notion that there's any controversy whatsoever that the climate warming is anthropogenic. The evidence is simply unimpeachable. There's never been CO2 levels, in 600,000 years, anywhere near as high as they have been in the last two centuries of human industrial activity.I ask anyone who disagrees to put forth a scientific paper that has been published in a relevant article that lays a contrary case, or specifies an alternative mechanism for all that anomalous CO2.

We have records of the gas content of the atmosphere going back 600,000 years. The current CO2 content of the atmosphere is at least 10 times the previous high-water mark, profoundly out of the range of the natural CO2 variation.That time period includes several previous ice ages, and even that "Great Warming" that occured in the middle ages. There's absolutely no known process that could result in these super-elevated CO2 levels besides human industrial activity. I doubt that very much, since there's nothing up at the North Pole but ice floating in water. Maybe you were thinking of Greenland, or the South Pole perhaps? When you see the movie, you will be presented with the evidence that this simply isn't the case. it's unimpeachable.

Because it's far, far outside the normal range of variation for the temperature of the Earth, based on all the data and models we're able to devise. A lot of that data goes pretty far back, too.

The data. And it's hotter now than it's even been before, that we have measurements for. Those measurements go back hundreds of thousands of years.It's like the difference between it being a little warm in your house, and your house being on fire. When it's 2000 degrees in your living room, the correct conclusion is not "hrm, something's wrong with the thermostat." I don't think anyone's arguing that there aren't thermal cycles in climate; but the climate change due to human activity is 10 times that due to regular natural cycles. The relevance of a natural warming cycle is bupkis in the face of the enormous climate havok wreaked by human activity.

Maybe it's time people were afraid? We've been presenting the data for nigh on 40 years now, and nobody paid attention. So calm didn't get the job done. It's time for a little alarm, I think.

No speculation. The lines of force of the Earth's magnetic field "stripes" iron-bearing igneous rocks as they cool, just like the magnetic stripes on a hard drive.The only way that the stripes of rocks from that time period line up is if the munge all the continents together into a supercontinent. We can verify this because today's new igneous rocks get striped in the same way and we can see how the stripes line up according to today's position of continents. And when we line up the stripes per time period, it's like we get a time-lapsed movie of the Earth's history of continental drift.You can't make up that kind of data, that kind of convergence. Well, Africa's growing even now, right out of the Great Rift Valley. So obviously it would be smaller in the past. I'm not familiar with Greenland's tectonic situation, but most of its "land" area is actually nothing but ice, so obviously it was smaller in a warmer past. Because the warming trend is far more precipitous than any warming trend we've been able to detect in the Earth's past, and it's happening at the exact same time that we're dumping billions of tons of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.Look, you tell me. You walk into a darkened room that you've never been in, and you flip a switch. The lights come on. Now, do you really have to tear open the walls and follow the wires to come to the conclusion that the lights come on when you flip the switch? Isn't that a fair bit more likely than some kind of fairy story about "natural cycles of lights coming on, just at the same time you happened to flip a totally unconnected switch"?The thing is - we have torn open the walls and followed the wires. We know that atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas, from lab tests. We know it has a warming effect when you dump an assload of it into an atmosphere. No, reptiles growl. Komodo dragons growl, monitor lizards growl. I take it you don't know many herpetologists? It's just TV. Don't stress it. Do you have the same kind of coronary when Star Wars comes on and they act like you can really choke somebody with the Force? I doubt it. I don't complain when they treat Jesus like a real historical figure, either. Bones tell a lot. In particular they tell what kind of muscles they were attached to. They tell where they were located. To the trained eye, bones tell a lot. Maybe you should do some research about the stories bones can tell instead of dismissing the work of people who, frankly, know considerably more than you do.

OMG! I didn't even bother to look it up, because a smaller Africa actually seemed reasonable.If I had known that it was just that Kent Hovind was such a dumbass that he didn't know how to look at a map... seriously, NJ. You need to be bringing your A-game, here.

It's not. I said "most" when I should have said "a lot" or "some". The ice sheets extend out past the coasts, obviously, and in studying it's geography, I learned that most scientists think that, should those ice sheets melt, Greenland would probably become an archapelego rather than one single mega-island.But I was careless with my language. Indeed.

That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph. I'm going to assume that it was unintentional, although the caption of the graph should have made your error abundantly clear:

quote:

---

This figure shows apparent correlations between historical CO2 and temperature records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 750,000 years. The data has been normalised so as to be presented on a common scale. Current CO2 concentrations (380 ppmv) would be 5.48 (3 s.f.) on this scale.

---

The higest visible quantity on the graph itself is only 2.25 s.f. from mean.It is a considerable error on your part to suggest that the ice core evidence shows higher CO2 concentrations in the past than today. That is incorrect in the extreme, as you can see on this graph of the same data:As you can see, the data you refer to shows the exact opposite of your contention - CO2 levels are almost a full 100 ppm higher now than their highest point in the past, at least according to the ice core data. I'm not sure how you are able to make such a claim in one paragraph, and then in the next present a graph which shows world temperature data for the past 750,000 years. Again, the data demonstrates the exact opposite:The rising temperatures are in the face of a long-term cooling trend. The solar variance you refer to is known to be responsible for less than 30% of the total warming effect, and it's more than 90% likely that solar output will decrease within the next 50 years. There is no evidence that any "mechanism" has ever operated in the past that can ameliorate the effects of CO2 levels being 5.5 s.f. above their historical mean. What you urge is absolutely nothing more than "let's wait around for angels to save us." You urge restraint? I urge you to learn to read a graph. The liberties you have taken with the data (to speak charitably) in your post are a staggering departure from the general level of intellectual output that used to characterize your posts.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it). Could you present the temperature data that leads you to make this statement? Because when I look at the temperature record for the last 600,000 years:I don't see anything approaching the consistent elevated temperatures we see today. I see impressive, short term temperature spikes - but the trend beginning over at our side of the chart is nothing like what the rest of the ice core data shows.What am I missing? I didn't address it because you're basically hopeless. If you can look at the above graph, and assert that the connection between CO2 and climate warming is only "suggestive", especially in the light of laboratory studies that prove the effecacy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then there's no convincing you. You've erected a bulwark of invincible ignorance.Keep in mind what you're asking me to believe, in the face of proven abnormal CO2 levels and the proven effecacy of C02 as a warming agent in simulated trials:1) That an unknown factor is suppressing the warming effect of elevated CO2 levels, and;
2) an unknown factor, unrelated to the first factor, is actually responsible for the warming, but
3) a completely unknown factor will probably kick in at the last minute and save New York City.That's three completely unknown factors, at least. Can you see why I might have difficulty taking your argument seriously? I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past. Let me ask you again, since you didn't answer the first time. What process have we observed in the past that ameliorated the effects of 400 ppm of CO2? Could you point out what catastrophic claims are being made? Rising sea levels and the flooding of cities doesn't seem to be unreasonably catastrophic, especially considering that especially notable flooded city from last summer, and the observation that sea levels have already begun to rise above historical levels. At any rate, to suggest that low-lying coastal cities are going to slowly flood hardly seems unreasonable or carastrophic. I'm not familiar with any authority who has made claims of "burning skies" or whatever nonsense you mentioned last time. I'm not familiar with anybody serious who asserts that the human race is doomed as a result. That's certainly an unreasonable claim.But you know what I find equally unreasonable? Your claim that floods won't happen. Your claim that famines and drought won't occur. Your claim that absolutely nothing we might wish to avoid is going to occur as a result of this climate change, and we should all just relax with a margharita and wait for "enough data" to come in, with the obvious implication that there will never be enough data. Honestly, Holmes, I dispair of ever getting to the point where we discuss policy. It's like pulling teeth to get people like you to admit that there's even a problem!How about we concentrate on one thing at a time? I wouldn't discuss with a creationist the proper way to build a phylogenetic tree; covering policy with someone who doesn't even grant the existence of the problem in question would be equally fruitless. Who gives a fuck about Kyoto? Did you see any of us bring it up? That's like the last refrain of global warming deniers. "Well, it's not like Kyoto would have worked." Who the fuck cares about Kyoto when we can't even get everybody on the same page about the existence of the problem in the first place? How about you go see it before you review it? Just a thought. I'm surprised that you haven't yet, in fact. No time for movies, or what? I assure you it isn't boring, not in the least.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

But not the current ones. That's what I was saying. A completely meaningless statement, akin to "there's no warming happening, except for all the warming that is happening." Why would it be? Can you point to any climatologist who has asserted that absolutely nothing in the universe varies on Earth except the CO2 levels and the temperature? That the only influence on the Earth's atmospheric temperature is the level of CO2? Any climatologist at all?How about anybody in this thread? No? Anybody at all?Then why are you arguing against statements than nobody's making? It's not a spike, though. That is, if we don't do anything about it, it's not going to be a spike; it's going to be the new baseline. I am not mistaken. The consistent elevated temperatures are unlike anything in the paleoclimate data, and they're certainly higher than ever recorded. I don't consider brief spikes that disappear in the normalized data to be anything like the consistent elevated trend that we observe to this day.What am I missing? Show me in the data. I don't see it. I don't see anything at all like today's consistent elevated temperatures. Ludicrous. We are definately not in a period of temperature stability. If you disagree, show me your data. I've shown you mine and it shows a clear warming trend. Not caveats, Holmes. Outright denials. You deny that CO2 has a warming effect, in the face of the scientific consensus to the contrary. And you do this from the basis of absolutely no data whatsoever.You disagree? Show me the data that supports your contention. I don't understand why you think that's relevant. Obviously there exists more in the universe than just the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, and a bunch of thermometers taking it's temperature. Obviously there are other factors that affect climate.So what? Explain the relevance. None of those factors are known to ameliorate the effects of 400 ppm CO2 levels in the atmosphere. None at all. None of them are even suspected as the primary cause of the Earth's warming trend. So why are they relevant? Anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause. I don't know a single person who argues that it's the only cause, and I challenge you to present statements to the contrary.But it's certainly the only relevant cause, because it's both the largest cause and the cause that our actions are directly responsible for. All these other unknowns you think are so important are nothing but red herrings. Distractions from an important issue. Because it's potentially preventable, or at least, manageable. That strikes me as a fairly large difference. But what does it matter? What does it matter if it's "different" from other natural disasters? They call them "disasters", Holmes, because we would prefer that they not happen. Because it's bad when it happens.What do you have against New York, anyway? Could you point out exactly where I've had "visions of the apocalypse"? You make it sound like what we're talking about is little worse than running out of beer on a Sunday.The realistic consequences of rising sea levels and increasing temperatures on our populations are not "inconviniences." No more than Katrina flooding New Orleans was an inconvinience. That was a serious issue that took most of the nation's attention and resources to address. People called it the worst American disaster in 10 years. Can you imagine that happening to even three or four of our low-lying coastal cities in the space of a decade? That strikes me as pretty serious. Not apocalyptic - just a major issue, the kind that puts potentially fatal stresses on a country's economy. Nations have fallen under less.But in Holmes' view of history, nothing bad ever happens, so we're all safe, right? Cities can't flood. Famines never happen. Droughts are a myth. Or rather, those things do happen, but it's not like anybody got hurt, right? Just "inconvinienced." So it's not a huge deal, and anybody who says different is just being a mean ol' buzzkill. Could you point out my specific statements where I said it was irreversable? Post numbers, please, or better yet you could even quote the exact language.I mean your accusation here doesn't even make sense. If I thought it was irreversable, why would I support policies to try to reverse global warming? This is idiotic, Holmes. You're all over the map: "warming isn't happening." "it's happening but it won't have any results." "it'll have results, but it's not like the Earth will be destroyed, so who cares?"I guess I see the flooding of cities and the failure of crops as a serious issue. Something to be avoided if possible. Something that, if we plan for it, we can save a lot of lives.You don't, I guess. Restraint from what, exactly? I understood that to mean "restraint from doing anything different than we are now." Exactly what was it you intended to be restraining? And I don't know what you mean by "progressive". Or "programs", for that matter.In other words, you think you advocated some kind of policy, but the words you used communicated no meaning at all to me. I ignored them because they contained nothing to pay attention to. Geez, stop with the apocalyptic visions, already! You're scaring me! Sheesh, check out Mr. Doom-and-Gloom over here, guys! Just talking to you is like staring into the abyss!Seriously, though. Yes, floods and famines have happened in the past. The thing is - we're not very good at handling them. They cost resources. If they're going to start happening at a greater rate, in places that aren't prepared for them, we're not going to be able to handle them well at all. The effects are going to be widespread and probably not very good.I see that as an issue to do something about. To prepare for the worst, but try to make it not happen in the first place. I don't know what you think about it at all. On one hand, you seem to think it's apocalyptic fear-mongering to even assert the need to plan for the danger. Then, on the other, you're agreeing that the danger is present!I simply don't even know what we're disagreeing about any more. Your schizophrenic posts are all but unintelligible in terms of trying to percieve a coherent position in them. Or rather, there's one very, very obvious throughline in your posts so far - "whatever my opponent says is wrong." You're a relentless contrarian, and it's obvious that you're not interested in debate or discussion, but nothing more than rhetorical one-ups-manship.

Exactly what do you think his position is? I can't make heads or tails of it. Maybe you can explain it to me if you think it's so reasonable? I don't understand why an aversion towards Moore would keep you from seeing a movie that was nothing but an attack piece against Moore. Wouldn't that make you want to see it?

Ok. "It's happening but it won't destroy the Earth."I don't find that a contentious statement. Global warming with not destroy the Earth. What statements, specifically, have I or others made to the contrary? I don't recall making statements of immediacy. Could you quote the statements you believe that I made? Even the most pessemistic predictions, like Gore's simulations of flooded Manhattan, don't occur for 50-100 years.It's just that the problem may cease to be reversable before then. It may even have past that point. I don't recall making predicitons that New York will flood tomorrow, but the issue is important now, simply because the problems haven't happened yet, and so they might be preventable. Well, yes. When I thought you had challenged my entirely reasonable and well-supported conclusions, which mirror the conclusions of the scientific community, you appeared to be an unreasonable warming denier.Now that I realize you're simply having a good whallop at enviro-strawmen, and not actually responding to any of my positions, I see that we actually agree on quite a bit.You just won't admit it, I guess. Well, superb. You've successfully defended a point that was not in contention. Well, we haven't. They haven't been this hot throughout the range of our "modern" civilization - that is, one highly dependant on agriculture.Obviously, there have been even higher temperatures in Earth's distant past. Temperatures so high that the surface of the Earth was molten rock and sulphur at the beginning, for instance. But our civilization has never dealt with a situation like this, and so I don't see my statements as unsupported or unreasonable, but possibly a little unclear or unspecific. Certainly not as large a blunder as your assertion of higher CO2 in the past. Right. The consistent elevated temperatures I'm talking about. I don't see anything else like this, that high on the graph. What am I missing? There's absolutely no plateau that high anywhere else on the graph. Not every model shows that same rise. Many of them show a consistent decline in temperature between 1600 and the period where human industrialization begins to have an effect. Exactly what hysteria do you think is occuring? Shitty movies about New York freezing over? Color me not impressed. I've know what public hysteria looks like, Holmes, and what typefies the public reaction to global warming is apathy. Explain to me how these are apocalyptic in the face of these exact things already having happened in the past? What's so apocalyptic about the idea of a flooding city in the face of New Orleans, a city that flooded?Explain to me how it's reasonable to dismiss these scenarios simply because they sound serious? I mean, God forbid your mind be troubled, Holmes, but these are realistic consequences of unchecked warming. Hopefully, we'll check warming, and then they won't happen. Explain to me what's so apocalyptic about discussing the consequences of inaction? Excuse me? My scenario? Once again you're arguing with someone, but it definately isn't me. I've never asserted this was going to happen in the next 10 years.Holmes, discussion isn't going to be fruitful until you're actually addressing my points, not these "apocalyptic visions" that are nothing but your invented strawmen. I don't understand the relevance of the question. We're talking about the consequences of inaction. The fact that the consequences can be avoided with action does not prove that there will be no consequences at all. Human action. You specifically denied the need for human action - you "urged restraint" in response to the suggestion that human action be taken. Maybe you could have said all that in the first place? Because you succesfully communicated absolutely none of that before.These are largely the same things that I support. I support, too, planning for the socioeconomic results of flooding cities and famines on a larger scale that before, and occuring in places that they haven't before. That's the danger, you see - not that a city like New Orleans, built on a floodplain, will flood again - but that places like New York, that don't flood, will be subsumed by rising ocean levels.Honestly, you talk about flooding like it happens all the time. Well, it does, but the danger we're talking about is the flooding of places that don't flood - not flooding as a result of storm surge or flash runoff, but flooding as a result of the ocean's level finding a new, higher equilibrium.I certainly favor planning ahead for those things - how could I not? Why do you think that I oppose the measures you support? Just because I didn't immediately agree with the confusing language you used to imply them? I find either term unobjectionable, I guess. It's your choice.

If they're capable of building them now, why aren't they building them now?Because they don't see that there's a problem, yet. That's the point! If we want those defenses built, we have to start by convincing people that there's a need for them. How long do you think it would take us to build an earthworks capable of defending New York against rising ocean levels? Do you think that's something that it would be better to rush at the last minute, or to prepare well in advance? But the funny thing is - I keep asking you to point to these "apocalyptic statements that aren't supported by the facts" and you keep ignoring the question, and replying to statements that I haven't made. No. When you look at the map, you see an obvious cooling trend beginning at about 8k years ago and continuing to the present period. There are almost no plateaus at all. That you don't seem to know how to read a graph, yet. You are aware that the graph extends present to past, left to right? Your analysis doesn't seem to indicate that you do. RAZD has indicated that man's influence extends considerably into the past due to the immediate consequences of large-scale human agriculture, so I'm not sure this is the case at all. I've presented several graphs. To which one are you refering? I never said that it was! Jesus Christ, Holmes. Is it really so hard for you to keep track of the claims, here? I don't know. Why don't we? Why didn't we, in New Orleans? Show me where I've argued there was any other concern? Quote the exact statement. The whole point of this is to get people to use the technology. You seem to think that it goes without saying that they will. What leads you to believe this to be the case? As you've repeatedly asserted, New Orleans flooded because they refused to plan for the situation and employ the technologies that would have saved the city.What makes you think it's going to be any different in the future? Why is it that I keep asking you this and you keep ignoring the question? If they're capable, why aren't they doing it? Answer the question. I haven't said that it won't be, Holmes. By why will people use the technology unless they think there's a problem? And why would they think there's a problem with people like you saying there's no problem, and that discussions of the consequences of inaction are "apocalyptic visions" that can be safely ignored?And, mechanism? What, you don't understand the mechanism that if you put more water into the ocean, the surface rises in its basin? Go fill a bathtub and you might see the mechanism in action, if you pay attention. That's absolutely idiotic. There were a whole lot less human beings then, living in an entirely different way. We're a thousand times more dependant on the climate remaining within a certain range today. The fact that some primitive nomads were able to upstake their tents in the face of a creeping high tide is absolutely irrelevant, because it's not like we can uproot New York City and do the same thing.Honestly, Holmes. If your time is so limited maybe you'd like to consider taking this debate a little more serious than you have.

Well, if that's what you intend to do, I wish you'd stop using the term "man" to refer to all humanity. Even at the nadir of understanding about how gender assumptions load terms, the use of "man" never actually meant "all humanity". It would be much more accurate to say that the term "man" meant "men, who did everything important, plus the women that they owned."For instance, most people would find it pretty weird - even in the past - to display this image:and caption it "Java Man."