Post #281,281
4/10/07 4:10:32 PM
|
Which scientist complains of Gore's twisting his views?
-----------------------------------------
You can fire an at will employee for good cause or no cause, but not bad cause.
|
Post #283,083
4/25/07 6:26:09 PM
|
Well, my Google-fu is merely average
but I couldn't find other than general invective-loaded science-illiterate Thinking-light, unattached to any notable academic credential - all munged together in general emotive rant-form.
Besides - as I read the mission behind Gore's long-term activities - his aim is to keep the topic alive, amidst Nations of the uninformable and ADD-afflicted; certainly Not to pretend that he possesses all necessary (let alone sufficient) Knowledge to create some The Agenda, next. Of Course! he's a target for every marlowesque dance.
I remain unconvinced that, overall - the species possesses the gumption, tenacity, even once-natural Curiosity - to do much beyond pander to last century's raison d'etre; the signal/noise level continues its descent, as Distraction is not merely big Bizness - it's the Major big Bizness.
>There must be more-More-MORE and, we must make a Profit on each new offering.<
Or: it's a commyunist god-hating conspiracy to take away our Comfortable illusions.
Oh well.. Brahma opens eyes: a Universe appears. Closes eyes and
|
Post #283,086
4/25/07 7:36:45 PM
|
You notice I only asked for one.
-----------------------------------------
You can fire an at will employee for good cause or no cause, but not bad cause.
|
Post #283,089
4/25/07 8:01:15 PM
|
Gore did apparently get some things wrong.
And he's admitted as much. E.g. [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ei=5070&en=62c0fdec39ca9cd1&ex=1177646400&pagewanted=print|this] NY Times story from March: Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA\ufffds Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, \ufffdAl does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,\ufffd adding that Mr. Gore often did so \ufffdbetter than scientists.\ufffd
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president\ufffds work may hold \ufffdimperfections\ufffd and \ufffdtechnical flaws.\ufffd He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
\ufffdWe need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,\ufffd Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. \ufffdOn the other hand,\ufffd Dr. Hansen said, \ufffdhe has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.\ufffd
In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. \ufffdOf course,\ufffd he said, \ufffdthere will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.\ufffd
He said \ufffdnot every single adviser\ufffd agreed with him on every point, \ufffdbut we do agree on the fundamentals\ufffd \ufffd that warming is real and caused by humans.
Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. \ufffdI have received a great deal of positive feedback,\ufffd he said. \ufffdI have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments.\ufffd He gave no specifics on which points he had revised. But, to answer Silverlock's query, I haven't seen anyone publicly complaining that Gore distorted their views. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #283,088
4/25/07 7:57:16 PM
|
two lazy to look, now explain different sized co2 molecules
man made and natural.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,095
4/25/07 8:31:28 PM
5/7/07 8:21:36 PM
|
Carbon has several isotopes.
[link|http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/life/carbon.htm|Carbon] has 3 common isotopes that differ in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom. Carbon 14 is radioactive - it decays into lighter elements over time, with an accurately known rate. By comparing the ratio of isotopes of carbon in a formerly living material, you can get information about how long ago it died - that's the basis of "carbon dating".
Carbon 12 and Carbon 13 are both stable isotopes of carbon. Since Carbon 13 is heavier than Carbon 12, it behaves slightly differently in plants. And one can get information about the [link|http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home00/feb00/fossil.html|CO2 in the atmosphere] during the time the plants were alive.
CO2 from burning ancient coal or oil is going to have carbon isotope ratios different from CO2 from forest fires or from other natural sources.
That's my understanding of the issue. Corrections welcome.
HTH a bit.
[edit:] RealClimate has an article that addresses [link|http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87|how we know that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man].
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #283,110
4/25/07 9:59:19 PM
|
so co2 from cars is much more dangerous than bbqing?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,125
4/25/07 11:09:54 PM
|
No.
(I haven't seen the Gore comment you're referring to, so I'm just trying to address what I think you're writing about.)
If you think of the Earth as a sealed terrarium, then there's some equilibrium concentration of water vapor, oxygen, CO2, etc., in the air and in the soil that will depend on (among other things) how much plant and animal life is there. If you dig up some deep coal and burn it, you're going to quickly change the amount of CO2 in the air and it can't easily be absorbed by the water or the plants (because the system has developed under a lower concentration).
Burning wood isn't as bad as burning coal, because the CO2 in trees is part of the carbon that rapidly gets recycled between the air, water, and plant life. And that's why just planting billions of trees isn't going to quickly solve the CO2 problem introduced by our burning of ancient coal and oil. When most trees die, their carbon will just get released back into the carbon cycle in a relatively short period of time (say a few hundred years). It takes a very long time for plant life to significantly change the CO2 concentration. Carbon in deep coal and oil is locked up and is no longer part of the natural cycle - until we dig it up and burn it.
That's what's bad about adding vast amounts of ancient carbon to the air - it's not that it's "more dangerous" than burning wood, it's that it is driving the atmosphere and the carbon cycle out of equilibrium on a very short time scale (compared to the millions of years that it took to lock the carbon up in the Earth).
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #283,146
4/26/07 7:35:10 AM
|
"Burning wood isn't as bad as burning coal"
did you think before you posted?
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #283,147
4/26/07 7:36:34 AM
|
Yes. Did I say something you disagree with?
|
