for over 20 years, the Bob Rivers show has been the best thing in Pacific Northwest early morning radio... their show is awesome, if you can, download their podcasts and try out a dozen shows... i can guarantee you will be hooked. if you can see Spike and the Inpalers, do so, its well worth the money (most of their proceeds go to charity)
Al Gore burns more oil than 150 of us put together. GO GORE!!! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Jun 11 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]459773[/snapback]</div> Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide as "global warming pollution" when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball. The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that -- an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting. In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise -- by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history. Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT KIDDIES The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning. *laughs*
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Jun 11 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]459773[/snapback]</div> Well, if that's true, then in 200 years from now (not counting what we've already contributed) we will have more or less *doubled* the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...? In 100 years we will increase the atmosphere's CO2 content by 50%...? In 50 years, by 25%...? This is a rapid and significant change. While the effects (if any) remain to be seen, it does appear that the amount of CO2 we're discussing is somewhat more than trifling...and the effects of its addition to the atmosphere, at least worthy of consideration.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ Jun 11 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]459773[/snapback]</div> You are embarrassing yourself again. I know your science education is nil, but try this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
