An Inconvenient Truth

As a research climatologist with a doctorate in the subject, there are a few points I'd like to make here:

1) One does not need to have seen the movie in order to be able to intelligently discuss the issues of global warming, its impacts, or mitigation strategies. I have not seen the movie myself yet. Do I plan to? Yes. Do I think it will provide me with a lot of information I didn't previously know? Probably not. If TimBikes had commented on the cinematography of the movie without seeing it, attacking him would be justifiable, but there are other (and better - i.e. more thorough) means by which to become "enlightened" on the subject of global warming.

2) Samuelson's (and, I think, TimBikes') position that "the trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem" is a good point. As a society, we have spent the last 2-3 decades debating whether global warming is happening, and if so, whether human influences are responsible. We are already committed to a large degree of human-caused warming, and we desperately need to focus on solutions to limit that warming as much as possible. It's time to end the debate, and start working on the problem.

3) Unfortunately, our society (at least in the U.S.) is not yet to the point where we can focus on global warming simply as an "engineering problem" to which we need to find a solution. Such solutions require massive amounts of money for R & D. No private company, environmental group, etc. has the ability to fund such a large-scale undertaking. Thus, the government must step in, and provide significant money - think space race. Not that government agencies would do all of the work, but they are, and will continue to be, the MAJOR source of funding for global warming research. As such, Congress must be convinced of the need. Congress is convinced when their constituents are convinced. Consequently, the "moral crusade" must continue, because there is still a large section of the voting population that does not want their tax dollars spent on global warming issues. It is only once a majority of the population realizes that this is a serious problem that requires serious effort towards a serious solution that we can really move forward and start doing something about it.

4) This movie is not likely to change the minds of the "deniers," but hopefully it will help raise awareness in those that are ambivalent towards global warming.

 

It's a good movie, eye opening and certainly worth watching. Ironically enough I watched the night I got my Prius (no this wasn't planned or anything like that).

I do think it's a political movie though and that Gore is positioning himself for 08 (not that that is a bad thing).

 

Technolgy can sove the problem, but why are all the best energy saving technologies coming from Japan and Europe right now? The main push for Hybrids is from Japan. I am an Energy Engineer and when I look for new applications to save energy in the chemical plant I work for, they are coming from Japan or Europe. If Congress and the President really wanted to get out of the fossil fuel trap, they would put in a program similar the the race to the moon, and we could be energy independent in ten years. Gore is right to get upset about nothing happening in Washigton, I just wish the American people would.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Three60guy @ Jul 12 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]285004[/snapback]</div>

Exactly... You help me make my point...

If your child needs heart surgery to live, you probably sell everything you have to make that happen. A living child without your money and stuff is a success. You invested everything into what you believe in.

Al claims that his planet is in big trouble, so I'm asking what his committment is to making a change and getting the planet the help it needs. Apparently, his committment is to squirt out some movie that few will see. If he was dead seriously committed to this cause, he'd bankroll the production and distribution to get the movie in front of the masses in order to try to institute change in the masses. If he's broke when it's over, then he's given his everything in an attempt to make a real difference in the cause he believes in.

Is that what is happening?

Nope.. As you mention, he is working a business plan. A business plan that is hoping for a profit, and a business plan that hopes to recoup MONEY... It's about money... that's been my point the whole time, it's still my point.

I'm not against him doing it for money. I just think we should call it what it is... A business trying to make money. Saving the planet is a secondary issue. do you think the investor group gets together to ask how the CO2 levels are... Any progress, are they going down? Or, do you think they are talking about the box office receipts and if they are going up?

IT IS ABOUT MONEY... that's it..

 

I suspect there are a huge number of people who frequent PriusChat who have not seen An Inconvenient Truth. To continue a discussion with TimBikes would only fuel others who have not seen the movie to take a side without seeing the movie. If that conclusion was not obvious then I apologize. My intent is to base discussion on the content of the movie. Isn't that the title of this thread? To do otherwise will only create an atmosphere where it becomes a free for all like in congress. I'm a republican so I am going to argue this point of view while the democrats do the same but opposite point of view instead of discussion about the merits of a specific piece of content, namely in this case, An Inconvenient Truth.

I feel, given those constraints, people here on PriusChat "could" step up to the plate and keep the conversation on a level playing field. But I also know (Fred's House of Pancakes) that it can get easily out of control. Because of the subject matter, I felt it would be much more productive to call for comments from those who saw the movie. It deserves feedback but not the kind which would start it sliding down hill like it does in Fred's House of Pancakes so often.

I hope you all understand my honest reasons why I reacted to TimBikes the way I did now. And hope by sharing this perspective we can comment on the content of that movie. Tim, it was not a personal attack. It was an attempt to limit comments from less informed people than you from commenting when they too haven't seen the movie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 12 2006, 11:51 AM) [snapback]285101[/snapback]</div>

Your post indicated a couple of things, tho not acutally stated they are understood by your logic...You don't believe in altruism. I've never met a conservative who does, so you are not alone.

You indicate if Gore really believed in what he says he would finance his message himself. I find this arguement very disingenous. There is a total disconnect between your message and the reality of our society. I don't know anyone who voluntarily pays for something when they can get someone else to pay for it...in this case they are called investors.

Your post falls into the same argument that some on this board make when they ramble on giving personal opinions then challange someone to 'prove' they are incorrect by demanding 'proof' against their personal opinons. Most people ignore such posts since the poster appears irrational.

You state "IT IS ABOUT MONEY... that's it..". OK, your personal opinion and that's ok, but not my conclusion. I don't adhere to your opinion this time around. Again, that's a conservative argument...that is, the deeds one does are motovated by money. Completely true to many conservatives, but not so completely true to those who believe in altruism. If you don't believe in altruism for altruism's sake then you are left with no other choice than "it's about the money", but if you do believe in altruism then you have another motivating factor to consider.

Although you are capable of reading my words, if you come from a totally different frame of mind you can't necessarily understand my meaning, nor do I expect you to do so. I am just trying to point out that there are other ways of percieving how the world works and other motovating factors which you may have no frame of refrence to understand.

Another way to understand what is behind my post...
We both believe in A
I also believe in B but you don't
if I say A+B=C
you can't believe in C because you can't get there from A
but because I believe in A & B I COULD believe in C

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 12 2006, 03:28 PM) [snapback]285123[/snapback]</div>

Great Post!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(climateguy @ Jul 12 2006, 09:45 AM) [snapback]285033[/snapback]</div>

Climate Guy - I of course have to agree with most of your post. Also, I'm intrigued by your background. What particular area of climatology do you specialize in?

Regarding 360 guy - no offense taken - but I still stand by my comments (no - those last few words were absolutely not meant as a provocation). I just think it is a fascinating topic and there are many, many areas of interesting discussion - from the science itself, the findings, the models, the uncertainties, the potential for catastrophic change, the political angles, the economics of the problem and solution, discussion of other highly potent greenhouse gases (CH4, and others that are rarely mentioned), mitigation and sequestration strategies, and so on. The intent of my original post was only meant to broaden the discussion - in particular - in the direction of solutions. After all, I should think that is a key objective of Gore's movie - i.e., to get people talking.

 

TimBikes and everyone else,

When a person sees the Gore presentation you will feel a sense to do something meaningful. And because this thread showed up within a couple of hours after seeing the movie I was being very protective of it. I felt the information contained in that movie will ultimately touch everyone of us and our heirs. I also felt that the time had come where consensus must prevail. To do otherwise risks that our children and their children will pay consequences the likes we all have never seen before. Consensus must start someplace. I say.....why not here? I can not think of a better group of people.....people who understand how changing to a slightly different way of transportation has helped not only their wallets but also the effect on the environment. What if PriusChat members saw this movie and talked it up here and with their friends? Who better to explain this movie?

You certainly have the right to stand by your comments Tim but I still would love you to see this well produced and thoughtful presentation. But you are a couple years already down the path that mainstream people need to travel. That can set up a public discussion like this for failure when you have people who do not have the advantage of at least seeing a well thought out presentation.

Tim, you certainly are right that we need solutions. But you are already in grad school in your level of understanding. This country is still in grade school. That is why it is so important that any discussion bring the knowledge level up at a reasoned rate so we can have begin to arrive at a consensus as what those solutions are. How can we have solutions if we can not agree that we even have a problem?

I think if you were to agree to see the movie it would inspire many others here on PriusChat to see it and then to engage in meaningful conversation about it. What do you say? Do you understand the picture I am trying to paint here?

I hope the silence this thread received today will stop and we find people who will take a few hours to look at this movie. Just give it a chance and see what you think after you see it. I found it an eye popping experience. Someone else I spoke with said "they were glued to the screen". And for those two hours forget the politics. Forget the money thing. You don't even have to promise me you will agree with Gore. Just hear him out. I think you will come out saying this is damn important.

Then let's all talk about it.

(I'm crossing my fingers)

 

Looks like I have to bump this post by shift. Third shift isn't so good for responders.

Is anyone else going to see the movie?

 

Can we please keep the Al Gore bashing out of this forum?

 

My hope is we can make this discussion as non-partisan as possible. I think it can be done if we focus on global warming.

 

If you have 4 minutes and have Adobe Flash installed take a peek at this:

A film by Leonardo DiCaprio

It is part of a larger website I just discovered:

Stop Global Warming

Consider joining the virtual walk where over 400,000 others have. I just did. Lots of neat stuff to check out there if you have any interest in saving our planet.

Don't think our planet is in trouble? Watch that 4 minute movie by Leonardo.

Feel free to comment afterwards.

Cheers

 

OK 360guy - watched the DiCaprio piece. Interesting, but nothing new (for me). There are some accurate comments, some inaccurate ones (debatable points being that increased storm frequency and intensity are linked to global warming and that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the past 1000 years) and some misleading ones (700 billion tons of anthropogenic co2 sounds like a lot but is is a miniscule fraction of naturally occuring Green House Gases - GHGs).


That said, after much research and study on my own, here is my take - not a comprehensive list or even the most important - just top of mind. Please read the whole list before reacting.

1 - co2 is not an "evil"gas. We breath it out; it provides a significant boost to plant growth when concentrations are increased, it has no known negative health effects on plant or humans in the concentrations we are talking about.
2 - humans have increased atmospheric co2 since the dawn of the industrial era
3 - co2 without question has the capacity to increase global temperatures - as do increased concentrations of any of the GHGs
4 - however, proxy data suggest that historically (over the past several million years) co2 has lagged temp. increases, not led them. This does not invalidate GW theory, but suggests other (unknown) factors may have a greater role in climate change than is recognized.
5 - despite a rapid, goemetric run-up in industrial-era co2 emmissions, atmospheric co2 concentrations have increased at a very predictable linear rate. Why?
6 - many, many observations that are casually linked to "global warming" are equally or more likely attributable to a host of other factors (other forms of environmental degradation, decadal timescale climate changes - NSO, NAO/AO, PDO that we do not fully understand, and even longer scale, naturally driven climate changes)
7 - predictions of global temperature increases are based on computer models - garbage in, garbage out. Some of the models may be decent, but some also have some pretty unrealistic assumptions.
8 - despite flaws in the models, uncertainty of the science, etc. I believe that on current course we are likely to experience a several degree C increase in global average surface temps. by 2100. But this is only a belief - all of the scenarios are in essence beliefs - and the disaster scenarios are no more or less valid than my belief (though statistically speaking, they are much less probable).
9 - there is no "right" temperature for the planet. Temps have always fluctuated and always will. Today's temperature is no more "right" for the planet than the temp. 200 years ago or 200 years hence. The only thing "wrong" about current temp. fluctuations as opposed to those in the past is that humans are presumed to be the cause.
10 - A couple of degree increase in temps will not be catastrophic, though it will cause regional problems (some even being serious). The flip side is, many regions will also experience benefits due to altered climate.


Some conclusions:
1 - anything we can do (at reasonable or little cost) to reduce co2 and other GHGs should be pursued vigorously.
2 - some GHG reductions can pay for themselves (methane capture, some co2 sequestration schemes, and of course, conservation)
3 - alternate energy sources will have to be part of the formula - including a very aggressive adoption of nuclear power
4 - There may be many other mechnisms for reducing atmospheric co2 such as restoring ocean plankton levels via iron fertilization, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet via upper atmospheric particulate, crop/tree plantings to help lock up co2, or other possible engineering schemes.
5 - Kyoto-like protocols will utterly fail to address the issue because: a) they become politcal tools (google on how Russia was compelled to join Kyoto in order to get European approval to join the WTO); b ) they are prohibitively expensive; c) they do not solve the problem (Kyoto if fully in force would cause an immeasurable reduction in global temps); d) they make everyone "feel good" and thus dangerously divert attention from real solutions; e) even the Kyoto signatories are finding it very tough to comply.
6 - The Gore and DiCaprio piece might help make more people aware, but Gore lends an indisputable political element which may turn many people off to the message. In addition, by overstating the claims they help feed a "crisis mentality", which is a sub-optimal means to solve problems, in my opinion. Balanced , reasoned discussion in my view, would be more helpful.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soylent @ Jul 13 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]285712[/snapback]</div>

ManBearPig!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jul 13 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]285805[/snapback]</div>

I'm not 360 guy, but I would like to respond:

First, I am generally in agreement with you TimBikes, but have the following comments:

When you say that "700 billion tons of co2 sounds like alot but it is a miniscule fraction...." you are missing one key point. There is (or ideally should be) a carbon BALANCE, and it doesn't necessarily take a lot to throw things out of BALANCE. If your 100 gallon bathtub is simulaneously filling and draining at a rate of 1 gallon per minute, it is in balance. If it is filling at a rate of 1.1 gal per minute and draining at a rate of 1 gal per minute, you will will have 144 galoons of water on your bathroom floor at the end of the day. It doesn't take a lot to throw a large system out of balance, and I beleive the "miniscule fraction" argument is completely bogus.

Regarding item 4 and 5. I would like to see where you got that info. I have seen info to the contrary, and I don't think you statements can be taken as "fact".

Regarding 7. Your "garbage in barbage out" statement shows undue bias on your part. The computer models have been around long enough now that we can and have actually "modeled history". For instance, the models have been used to "predict" what would happen in the 1990's if CO2 level rose by the amount they actually rose. The model results UNDERPREDICT the temperature rise that actually happened, indicating that the model predictions may be less alarming than reality.

Regarding 9. You are falling into another common trap, or using another common tactic of the unscientific "naysayers" here. Sure the temperature of the earth has fluctuated all over the place historically, but generally over geologic time. It is the potential for humans to impact on a HUMAN timescale that is the issue. Natural temperture fluctuations typically take many thoudands of years. If huumans cause say 100,000 years of temperture fluccuation in say 100 years, it could be catastophic for humans and much of the other life on the planet. There is definitely data to suggest that this is happening, and it is the RATE of fluccuation, not the magnitude, that is at issue.

Regarding 10. Maybe its a couple of degrees and maybe it ain't.

Regarding conclusion 1. Strongly agree, and this is my big beef with the U.S. right now. We should be doing many CO2 reducing things for national security, economic and global warming reasons, and the first two reasons aught to suffice for many things that we should and could do now.
I agree with conclusions 2-5.
Disagree with conclusion 6. Global warming has been a real issue for going on 2 decades now, and there is some very strong and wrong opposion to it. That opposion is way to vocal, and has swayed policy in a potentially disastrous direction for far to long. I like Gores approach to the issue, because there is so much total BS floating around that someone needs to push back hard. Our national policy and national understanding of global warming are skewed WAY to far in the "don't worry about it" direction. There is too much at stake for that to go on any longer.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion.

 

I have plans to see the movie after work today. I just happened to be checking the movie listings for the local $2 theatre and noticed it was on the list and it's been on my "must see" list for a couple weeks now. There happens to be a showing today at 5pm, perfect for just after work. Looking forward to it.

 

Thanks to both TimBikes and kingofgix for your input.

I won't be as technical in my response but that is not meant to say it will be political either.

Your comment Tim about co2 being evil is well taken. BUT, the time scale of your comment indicates you are comparing only a time scale back into our Industrial era. This is but a sliver of time compared to geo scales. If you go see the Gore movie you will see a chart made from data which shows the amount of co2 back over 600,000 years. I think you will agree this is a bit further back than our Industrial era. :lol: Earth left to its own cyclic patterns were clearly shown on the chart to be very stable within a narrow range UNTIL our Industrial era when it has consistantly gone up well beyond anything mother earth was capable of doing by herself.

The result is inescapable. The amount of increase in co2 we are seeing today is out of control. And even though it is not an evil gas it does have this interesting capability to reflect heat back to earth that would normally escape out to space. In 600,000 years mother earth did not have the capability to create the levels of co2 we now see. This is upsetting a very critical balance. This is what makes it troublesome to a very serious degree. The earth is warming up. But TimBikes states "A couple of degree increase in temps will not be catastrophic". From my reading that I have come across the difference between the last ice age and today is only a 4 degree difference in earth's average temperature. So, if an ice age can morph to what we have today with only a 4 degree warming, what can we expect with an additional 2 to 4 degrees?

What all the data is indicating is the thawing of the arctic, antarctic and greenland ice shelves. There is enough ice, when melted, to change what earth maps look like. A small example is Florida. As everyone knows Florida doesn't have land which is much above sea level. The Gore movie shows how Florida would look like if the ice shelves were to melt. I would call that catastrophic when half of Florida is under water. But the presentation goes much further and goes to show the sea shores of the entire planet would be redrawn as well. A billion people would be effected. If this isn't a problem that needs attention, what is?

This, in a nutshell, is why those who have seen the Gore movie simply can not understand why this isn't getting more attention by our govenment.

I agree if you had not seen Gores movie you would be sharing information you have received from other sources. But if you realize what is at stake is nothing less than the ultimate catastrophic event then why would anyone argue against working to stop it from happening? That is what frustrates those of us who see how clearly this will occur given our current states of policy. And we are supposed to be the world leader?

TimBikes, please lead me through why I should completely throw out Gore's message. And for those who "spin" that this is nothing but political then I ask what would have to happen to agree that the message was right? Do people really want to gamble this ultimate catastrophic event over the "policies" of a political party?

Maybe now you can see why your call for solutions is not timely when there is disagreement as to what the problem really is.

Please feel free to share your comments Rancid13.