Hi kingofgix - thanks for you comments. The "miniscule" argument / throwing the system out of balance may or may not be bogus. I understand and recognize that your point may be valid. Time will tell. In the meantime, consider this: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html Here are some links: Regarding 4 (co2 lagging, not leading temperature) see: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...V8/N48/EDIT.jsp Again - I want to emphasize this does not in my view invalidate GW theory - but raises a question regarding what force is driving temp. increases in the first place and if we can't identify it, raises a question about how well we actually understand factors affecting climate change today. 5- regarding geometric rise in carbon emmissions vs. linear rise in atmospheric concentrations, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_...ion_by_Type.png (scroll down to "Related Figures", click on the 1st and 4th images). Note the 1st image is on a logarithmic scale, the 4th on a linear. According to the first, CO2 emmissions have gone from somewhere around 1000 metric tons/yr in 1950 to approaching 10,000 metric tons/yr (remember this is ANNUALLY). That approaches a 10x increase in ANNUAL emmissions. Cumulative atmospheric co2 in image 4 is nowhere near 10x (goes from 320 - 380 from 1960 - 2000, which is 1.19x). And - it remains surprisingly linear over the past 40 years despite rapidly escalating co2 levels. Again - why? Natural carbon sinks? Perhaps. But why is the rate of increase so nealy linear given emmissions are so strikingly non-linear? 9- regarding rapid temp. changes - I don't disagree that rapid changes provide less time for adaption. However, I disagree that fairly rapid change has not occured in the past (little ice age, medieval warm period). 10 - maybe it's a few degrees, maybe not - most models I have seen suggest 2-4 degrees C. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_...Predictions.png Regarding the "concluding comments" - glad we can agree, mostly. Regarding #6 (over-selling climate change), consider this, from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm Thanks!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 13 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]285890[/snapback]</div> You shouldn't. You should use it as a starting point for your own education. I'm sure (based on some of what I have read of the movie and know of Gore and his arguments) there is some good information in there. There is also some hype. For instance - you state: "what all the data is indicating is the thawing of the arctic, antarctic and greenland ice shelves". THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ACCURATE: On Greenland you can see there has been a recent net accumulation of ice: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogra...tract_55692.htm On the antartic you can also see that it is increasing: http://munews.missouri.edu/NewsBureauSingl...cfm?newsid=4882 What Gore showed (I imagine) was the Larsen ice shelf (in west Antartica) breaking up, but this is by no means nearly all of the ice in the antarctic nor should it be used to imply that it is. In the artic, the ice extent has decreased but sea level are FALLING - but nobody knows why: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm And you make it sound like complete melt of the ice sheets is inevitable. The reality is it is nowhere close to inevitable. It is far, far, far beyond the range of even the most aggressive climate modeling. See this from the IPCC 2001: "Thresholds for total disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20ºC, a situation that has not occurred for at least 15 million years and which is far more than predicted by any scenario of climate change currently under consideration." http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session17/Doc.%203a,%20Add.%201.pdf So consider what Gore has presented. Then go validate for yourself. The issue is far, far, more complex than most people assume. Then participate in discussions and help others to learn the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak - always with a mind toward realistic solutions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 12 2006, 11:53 AM) [snapback]284984[/snapback]</div> If you had seen the movie, you would know that he is donating the profits. He stated "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming."
TimBikes: Your last link proves Gore's presentation is right on the money. Did I read the same report you did? Every single major point that Gore states in his movie is validated in the report you just shared with us here. I have included page numbers so you can verify it for yourself. This is scary stuff in this report. But so was Gore's movie. But I am now even more convinced Gore is exactly on target. I am astounded you were able to come to conclusions 180 degrees from what Gores has been stating given this research. The paper from the IPCC 2001 states on page 20: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm5 in 1750 to 367 ppm in 1999 (31%, Table 1). Today’s CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years (Figure 10). The CO2 isotopic composition and the observed decrease in Oxygen (O2) demonstrates that the observed increase in CO2 is predominately due to the oxidation of organic carbon by fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. An expanding set of palaeo-atmospheric data from air trapped in ice over hundreds of millennia provide a context for the increase in CO2 concentrations during the Industrial Era (Figure 10). Compared to the relatively stable CO2 concentrations (280 ± 10 ppm) of the preceding several thousand years, the increase during the Industrial Era is dramatic. The average rate of increase since 1980 is 0.4%/yr. The increase is a consequence of CO2 emissions. Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation. As shown in Figure 9, CO2 is the dominant human-influenced greenhouse gas, with a current radiative forcing of 1.46 Wm−2, being 60% of the total from the changes in concentrations of all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases." Also, the report went on to say: "This is an important point to address. The SAR concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climateâ€. on page 40: "It is very likely that the 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice." page 42: "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." page 48: "Climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C. This estimate is unchanged from the first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990 and the SAR." Gore stated between 2 and 4 degrees. also on page 48: "It is very likely that nearly all land areas will warm more rapidly than the global average, particularly those at northern high latitudes in the cold season." page 50: "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 22(a)) over the period 1990 to 2100." also on page 50: "The projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years, based on palaeoclimate data." page 53 to 54: "Projections of Future Changes in Extreme Events It is only recently that changes in extremes of weather and climate observed to date have been compared to changes projected by models (Table 4). More hot days and heat waves are very likely over nearly all land areas. These increases are projected to be largest mainly in areas where soil moisture decreases occur. Increases in daily minimum temperature are projected to occur over nearly all land areas and are generally larger where snow and ice retreat. Frost days and cold waves are very likely to become fewer. The changes in surface air temperature and surface absolute humidity are projected to result in increases in the heat index (which is a measure of the combined effects of temperature and moisture). The increases in surface air temperature are also projected to result in an increase in the “cooling degree days†(which is a measure of the amount of cooling required on a given day once the temperature exceeds a given threshold) and a decrease in “heating degree daysâ€. Precipitation extremes are projected to increase more than the mean and the intensity of precipitation events are projected to increase. The frequency of extreme precipitation events is projected to increase almost everywhere. There is projected to be a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer. (what are the farmers gonna think about that?) page 54: "Glaciers and ice caps will continue their widespread retreat during the 21st century and Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea ice are projected to decrease further." page 55: "The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to gain mass because of greater precipitation, while the Greenland ice sheet is likely to lose mass because the increase in runoff will exceed the precipitation increase. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has attracted special attention because it contains enough ice to raise sea level by 6 m and because of suggestions that instabilities associated with its being grounded below sea level may result in rapid ice discharge when the surrounding ice shelves are weakened." page 56: "It can be expected that by 2100, many regions currently experiencing relative sea level fall will instead have a rising relative sea level. Lastly, extreme high water levels will occur with increasing frequency as a result of mean sea level rise. Their frequency may be further increased if storms become more frequent or severe as a result of climate change." page 57: "Global mean temperature continues to increase for hundreds of years at a rate of a few tenths of a degree per century after concentrations of CO2 have been stabilised, due to long time-scales in the ocean. The temperature implications of CO2 concentration profiles leading to stabilisation from 450 ppm to 1,000 ppm were studied using a simple climate model tuned to seven AOGCMs with a mean climate sensitivity of 2.8°C. For all the pathways leading to stabilisation, the climate system shows considerable warming during the 21st century and beyond" page 58: (eye popping info here) If greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised (even at present levels), sea level would nonetheless continue to rise for hundreds of years. After 500 years, sea level rise from thermal expansion may have reached only half of its eventual level, which models suggest may lie within a range of 0.5 to 2.0 m and 1 to 4 m for CO2 levels of twice and four times preindustrial, respectively. The long time-scale is characteristic of the weak diffusion and slow circulation processes that transport heat into the deep ocean. The loss of a substantial fraction of the total glacier mass is likely. Areas that are currently marginally glaciated are most likely to become ice-free. Ice sheets will continue to react to climatic change during the next several thousand years, even if the climate is stabilised. Together, the present Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain enough water to raise sea level by almost 70 m if they were to melt, so that only a small fractional change in their volume would have a significant effect. Models project that a local annual average warming of larger than 3°C, sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a reulting sea level rise of about 7 m. (That is a 20 foot rise in sea level and is EXACTLY what Gore's movie said it would be. WOW) I don't think I have to say another word other than how do we fix this? Can we now agree we have a major problem?
Good 360guy! However, it misses my main point and you obviously haven't read my posts too closely if you think I'm 180 degrees from you/Gore. I'm alaready on record saying co2 is rising and is contributing to rising temperatures. And I concur with the IPCC report and am already on record here as saying the temperature change is likely to be "several degrees" and have listed a link to a jpg of several models with a range of 2-5 degrees C. And I am not (on balance) disputing the IPCC. It is an imperfect process but the best we have - though some of the findings have since been thrown into question and some were not adequately supported in the first place. What I disputed in my last post was your specific comment "what all the data is indicating is the thawing of the arctic, antarctic and greenland ice shelves". As I noted with references, this is not accurate and if Gore said it (as you implied) it is not accurate either. But all this is not my main point. My main point, as highlighted in bold in my original post was: We will need a technological solution - which is something the global warming movement has in large measure failed to accept. So the since the discussion has come full circle, I suggest you return to the Samuelson article on the first page of postings and reconsider his (my) perspective on that point. Since now you are more convinced than ever of the problem, you should be more convinced than ever we need a discussion of realistic solutions, as Samuelson suggests. Cheers!
Using just common sense, global warming and cooling cyles have been going on for 4 billion years. There is no stasis for planet earth so what is "normal" ? The human impact on a volatile process like global warming is too complex to measure and fortunately the killer experiment to prove it or disprove it can't be done. How is the average global surface temperature measured ? A bucket is tossed over the side of a ship, water is brought up and a thermometer is stuck in it to measure the temperature. How crude is that ? Even using a satelite, measurements and trends are probably not significant because they are within the margin error. Before satelites in the 1960s, there were fewer hurricanes because we could not see them. New Orleans has been regularily wiped out for centuries. Houston exists because Galveston was wiped out regularly. Just because we collect more data because we have more technology over a short time frame does not mean we know more. Beware of the environmental-industrial complex much like the military-indutrial complex. Needs a crisis to thrive. ...oh yeah, what is the killer experiment to prove or disprove the human impact ? ...simple, the experiment needed is to compare the planet as it is today to the same planet without humans. Otherwise we each can only have the belief or not that there is a trend and that humans have an impact. By the way, my belief is that since it is an unknown, we should reasonably try to minimize factors we can control and therefore reduce possible human impact.
Before proceeding to the next phase let me tie one very important loose end up. TimBikes you had an issue with my specific comment "what all the data is indicating is the thawing of the arctic, antarctic and greenland ice shelves" is not accurate and yet I attempted to show you from your own data where the paper from the IPCC 2001 states precisely this and did not get any acknowledgement. It states: "Together, the present Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain enough water to raise sea level by almost 70 m if they were to melt, so that only a small fractional change in their volume would have a significant effect. Models project that a local annual average warming of larger than 3°C, sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a reulting sea level rise of about 7 m." Further it stated: "The loss of a substantial fraction of the total glacier mass is likely. Areas that are currently marginally glaciated are most likely to become ice-free." The reason I must get an acknowledgement from you on this was your statement that "The reality is it is nowhere close to inevitable. It is far, far, far beyond the range of even the most aggressive climate modeling." Again, we must have consensus about what we agree on is the problem before any meaningful discussion occurs concerning any solution. Do you now acknowledge the catastrophic issue of sea level rise as the result of global warming which earlier you had indicated would not be so catastrophic? This question I am asking refers directly to your first post in this thread when you stated "For those who believe we are headed for catastrophe, no realistically attainable CO2 reductions are going to make a significant difference in global temperature." The question really goes to what you really think TimBikes. I believe co2 levels will increase earth temperatures to the point of melting large ice areas of the earth which will flood very large areas of land mass. In plain english I am reading you do not believe that. It goes to the heart of this discussion. If you now say you believe this then we can move on and start from a significant point of agreement and start talking about solutions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 13 2006, 11:49 PM) [snapback]286121[/snapback]</div> Think about it - WARMING OF 3°C SUSTAINED FOR A MILLENNIA. Do you really think that is a realistic scenario? I don't. And neither does the IPCC. IPCC is telling us what a model of total melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet would look like. It is not making a prediction that this will happen. Do you understand the distinction? The IPCC prediction is in the range of 4 to 35 inches. That is a far cry from 7 meters.
I did a search in the IPCC report for 35 inches and it came up with nothing found. TimBikes, why are you dwelling on "WARMING OF 3°C SUSTAINED FOR A MILLENNIA. Do you really think that is a realistic scenario? I don't. And neither does the IPCC." Al Gore's conclusions as well as the IPCC are global warming exists, is getting worse and sadly our country has no official plan to deal with the the catastrophic consequencies of global warming which is the result of increased ocean sea levels from the melting of ice. The report is very clear: On page 50 the IPCC report does predict the following: "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C" and as stated in my last post (page 50): "The projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years, based on palaeoclimate data." To me this says that increases in earth temperature will be more than at any previous time for at least the last 10,000 years. So, my conclusion having read that is there will be substantial warming. Certainly enough to warm the ice regions of the earth whether they be glaciers, ice packs, the arctic and/or the antarctic. This conclusion is substantiated on page 54: "Glaciers and ice caps will continue their widespread retreat during the 21st century and Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea ice are projected to decrease further." So whether I quoted the "WARMING OF 3°C SUSTAINED FOR A MILLENNIA" or something else, the report does predict global warming and the consequence of melted ice. This is the focal point of Gore's movie. They are in the report you provided to everyone here and almost word for word is the same as the Gore presentation. If you personally have a problem accepting the conclusions then fine but the overwhelming majority of scientists now accept the conclusion of Gore's presentation. Politics or not!! That is the bottom line for me. So, are we in agreement now? If so, let me hear some of your solutions.
Who said this? "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (It wasn't Ray Charles, I think.) Logic fails in this thread. Prejudice means to pre judge, the conclusion is stated before the facts leading to it. All the normal arguments have been answered, such as the increased snow fall in polar areas. But some folks will ignore these answers and pretend they have never been addressed, marching as lemmings toward the cliff. And they can be smug in their arrogance, knowing that, in the course of our lives the disaster will not hit. It will all come later and our children and theirs will have to pay for their ignorant smirks, much as they will also have to pay the bills we have run up today. It used to be said that liberals were the party of "tax and spend." But they at least taxed to pay for their spending. Today's group just spends. Money that they never intend to repay or natural resources that are running short. We used to hear greed expressed in the phrase, "I got mine, **** you!" Trouble is, they've got MINE too. I had bought my Prius the night before I saw this movie. I wanted to stand up and urge everybody to do something, no matter how small. I restrained myself, but not today.
I had the honor of seeing the movie last night, and I must say that it really opened my eyes up to the reality of global warming. I never really thought about it much with the exception of hearing all about the political debates regarding GW and whether or not it even existed (um, it does!), but actually seeing photographic evidence of glaciers melting/receding in short time spans, and seeing all the graphs and charts backed up by years of scientific research and facts really made me see what's going on. It was definitely alarming, to say the least. I also visited the climatecrisis.net website and did the 'footprint' test by calculating my personal impact, and my result was 'smaller than average' which is good but it could be better. I'm going to be looking into what else I can do to help reduce my impact on the earth negatively as a result of seeing this movie. It really lit a fire under me, so to speak.
Jennifer: I looked for the footprint test on climatecrisis.net but couldn't find it. Am I going blind? Can you provide a link please? Glad you had a chance to see the movie. Hope others get a chance to see it too.
From the main page of www.climatecrisis.net, click on "Take Action" over on the right. Then on the page that opens up, click on the Calculate Your Personal Impact link in red. Then fill in the blanks and it will show you your results...
from treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/ai...bon_neutral.php There was a comment above that it's all about the money.. I think it's mostly about getting the message out any way possible. I'm sure someone's making some money, too, someone always does. But movie + book + continued roadshow + 'powerpoint missionaries'? I think someone actually believes getting the message out will help. FWIW, I saw the movie a week or so ago. I don't know the science, so the data aspects were compelling (assuming they are true, and I know there are debates about the correlations). I thought the interstitial Gore history stuff was tiresome but I also understand why it was included. I drove home in the Prius and changed most of the lightbulbs to compact fluorescents that I had picked up after reading this link: http://www.kottke.org/remainder/06/06/11288.html Basically, awareness is good, and people need to start changing energy habits whether the problem is CO2 or something else. More thoughts on thinking about where you live and what it means (the Big Here): http://www.kottke.org/06/07/the-big-here --foo
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jul 12 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]284979[/snapback]</div> this is a ridiculous argument. gore isn't a scientist. he doesn't pretend to be one. the sole purpose of this documentary was to bring the gw theory and probable causes to the masses. i believe it's one of the highest grossing documentaries so i guess it's serving that purpose. until gw gets recognized as a potential serious problem and people start demanding that something is done about it, nothing will get done. hopefully this will be the catalyst.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 14 2006, 06:20 PM) [snapback]286435[/snapback]</div> Agree. I totally applaud Gore for this movie and his efforts. I believe he is one of the most forward thinking and well meaning polititians alive today. In response to TimBikes request for solutions. I'm sure the actual specifics of solutions could be quite comples, but I have a few that actions that I think would be completely apprropriate for the US and other nations to take: 1. Increase research on nuclear energy and implement more nuclear energy. I don't exactly love nuclear, but until we have better options, we need to pursue it vigorously. 2. Increase vehicle mpg. Exactly how to do this is complex and multifaceted. But I would suggest a few approaches. a) Increase gasoline taxes by say $0.10 per quarter for 5 years, resulting in a $2.00 per gallon increase in the end of 5 years. Use the proceeds from this tax to fund research into alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, etc. this probably isn't politically feasible, but it would be if we had a strong leader with a strong vision. B) Implement a "zero net tax" system on new vehicle sales that would work simplistically something like this. Tax vehicles that get less than 20 mpg at $2500. Tax vehicles that get 20-30 mpg $1000. Rebate vehciels that get 30-40 mpg $1000. Rebate vehicles that get >40 mpg $4000. The goal would be to structure the tax system such that there is no net tax. The government doesn't "pay for the program". The result of the above 2b would be to strongly incent vehicle manufacturers to come up with more fuel efficient vehicles. However, they wouldn't be forced to do anything, and they wouldn't be prevented from doing anything. The program could also include a category for EV's with a very high rebate to encourage their development. 3) Whatever money we are wasting on "hydrogen ecomomy" research or ethanol programs now, stop it completely and divert that money to actual, meaningful programs. Both hydrogen and ethanol (just about the only programs talked about in our current "energy plan") are innapropriate paths to pursue, but that is probably for another thread. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Jul 14 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]286464[/snapback]</div> Sorry if I lost anyone with the above, because what I typed in as B) showed up as a B), because I capitalize the b. Interesting.... Dang it, did it again. you can't type b ) withouut the spaces becuse you get B)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 14 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]286259[/snapback]</div> You have to convert to meters. IPCC says: "Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 metres between 1990 and 2100, for the full range of SRES scenarios. This is due primarily to thermal expansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice caps (Figure 5e). The range of sea level rise presented in the SAR was 0.13 to 0.94 metres based on the IS92 scenarios. Despite the higher temperature change projections in this assessment, the sea level projections are slightly lower, primarily due to the use of improved models, which give a smaller contribution from glaciers and ice sheets." Again - a far cry from the 7 meters you say Gore laid out. As for solutions - I already posted a long list in an earlier posting. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Jul 14 2006, 04:30 PM) [snapback]286464[/snapback]</div> Your list sounds OK to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 14 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]286435[/snapback]</div> OK - I retract the comment that the movie serves no real purpose. That was ill-considered. For ME, it serves no real purpose (ok - I could learn a few things) but honestly don't trust the message too much. Gore is well known for hyperbole. I would have much rather had a group of respected scientists, or somebody famous but with no agenda, to present a balanced perspective. But, Gore does have star power and that counts for many folks. However, on the flip side it is a detriment to the message since those who reject him will now reject the message. The ones who like Gore and go see the movie are likely already persuaded. The ones who don't like him will likely distrust the whole GW argument even more now. As I have said, the likely IPCC scenarios (2-4 degrees C temp rise) are something worthy of considering and acting upon - in a reasoned manner. But with claims of 20 foot sea level rises it is easy to disregard the entire message as overblown. I say present people with the facts as best we understand them - don't hyperbolize the threat - otherwise it becomes one in a litany of crises that people either don't believe or simply feel they can't affect the outcome of anyway. Just my opinion.
TimBikes: Thanks for coming clean that you don't trust who is giving the message even though your own document served exactly the same information. But then how can anyone trust anything without being exposed to the content of the message? By the way the 20 foot rise in sea levels stated by Gore was ironically again, a conversion from meters to feet from the IPCC report (Page 57). The report said 7 meters or 21 feet. I suspect Gore rounded down. But again, the report said the same thing as Gore did. (or was it the other way around?) Gore did present the facts and in no way did he hyperbolize them. I know if he did hyperbolize them there would be a number of people here to correct me by those who saw the film. So when you state that Gore is known for hyperbole you again do yourself a dis-service because the movie did none of that. You pre-judged. I still think you would enjoy the film, TimBikes. Go see it. As you have heard, others have found it enlightning.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globa...k=netmain_feat1 "Global Warming: What You Need to Know, with Tom Brokaw" JUL 16 2006 @ 09:00 PM JUL 17 2006 @ 01:00 AM JUL 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM JUL 23 2006 @ 12:00 AM JUL 29 2006 @ 02:00 PM JUL 30 2006 @ 10:00 AM "Discovery Channel visits global warming tipping points across the planet, talks to the world’s leading experts, and examines the latest evidence about global warming in GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. Produced by Discovery Channel, the BBC and NBC News Productions, and hosted by award-winning journalist Tom Brokaw, the two-hour special presents the facts and leaves it up to viewers to determine their own opinion about global warming. GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW premieres Sunday, July 16, at 9 p.m. ET." "The two-hour special will decode the buzzwords and arm viewers with an arsenal of clear definitions and visual depictions to explain the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide emissions, CFCs, effects on weather and rising sea levels. CGI and cutting-edge climate computer models will help viewers see into the future at a world significantly changed by unchecked global warming." "GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW will take viewers to global warming hot spots where the planet is most affected by climate change - into rushing subterranean rivers deep in Patagonian glaciers, into the drought-stricken Amazon, on coral reefs ravaged by rising ocean temperatures, into a massive Chinese coal mine, and many more." "The international team of experts, including NASA’s top climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, and Princeton University professors Michael Oppenheimer and Stephen Pacala, will discuss the current realities of global warming and predict the future of the planet. Many of the experts will address natural warming and cooling cycles going back 600,000 years, and discuss if the present warming trend is unnatural." "GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW will demonstrate how much carbon dioxide the average American family produces and present a graphical timeline of global warming throughout history. Finally, the special will look at technical solutions, both great and small, from giant gas injection rigs in the ocean, to more efficient architecture in cities, to what the average American family can do to slow global warming. Join legendary news anchor Tom Brokaw for a programming event that promises to be thought-provoking, visceral and empowering." SPREAD THE WORD!!
