Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

LOL. You have to be kidding.

Here are the 9 errors that even a judge said have to be disclaimed if schools in the UK choose to show his movie.

 

Check this out! Satellite data from the GRACE satellite! More proof.

Measuring impact of climate change from space: Gravity measurements shed light on key questions

 

Looks like a very steady trend to me since at least 1920, except more recently where sea level rise has slowed:

 

Where are the errors in the satellite data? There aren't any. It is data! Wow, mass loss right where the ice and glaciers are (I mean were.).
Here is the link to the GRACE spacecraft so that you can see that it is real.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/spacecraft/config.html

 

Would you PLEASE stop posting this thoroughly debunked chart?

 

Speaking of LOL! Are you meaning to imply that a British Court judge is (or should be) the final, ultimate arbiter of whether or not the facts in a movie are true or not?

 

Sea level could rise from 0.75 to 1.9 meters this century

More scientific proof of the Al Gore prophecy! Please read if you have any doubts of global warmings catastrophic effects.

 

See this post by TimBikes.

 

And Algore should? That's even more hilarious - the guy thinks the interior of the earth is several million degrees:

People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..

What a dumba$$.

 

Yes. Negative Population Growth (NPG), conservation, efficiency, long-term thinking & action, and getting off fossil fuels.

 

Remember, Gore claimed a 20 foot sea level rise.

Even the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report"]IPCC report[/ame] says it is more likely in the range of 7 - 23 inches for the 21st century.

By way of comparison, the sea level rise from 1900 - 1950 (before any significant anthropogenic effect could be attributed) was only 10 inches. That is a rate of 20 inches per century.

So basically, after all of the global warming hoopla and doom and gloom by Algore et al, we see that the IPCC's expected level of sea level rise (under the upper end of their most pessimistic scenario) for the 21st century is right in line with the rate of sea level rise for the first half of the 20th century before man could have substantially affected things.

 

I would rather err on the side of the environment not big business.

 

Glad you agree Algore is in the same league as Palin and Quayle. For a minute there I thought you were suggesting he was smart.

 

"Environment" has become big business. Who do you think is going to make all the billions from the Enron inspired cap and trade program?

 

Well I guess he did invent the internet, right?

 

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2009) — A new scientific study warns that sea level could rise much faster than previously expected. By the year 2100, global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimetres, according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
See Also:
Earth & Climate

• Global Warming
• Climate
• Floods
• El Nino and La Nina
• Oceanography
• Geography

Reference

• Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
• Greenland ice sheet
• Sea level
• Instrumental temperature record

The authors, Martin Vermeer of Helsinki University of Technology in Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, based their analysis on measurements of sea level and temperature taken over the past 130 years. In those data they identified a strong link between the rate of sea level rise and global temperature.
"Since 1990 sea level has been rising at 3.4 millimetres per year, twice as fast as on average over the 20th Century," says Stefan Rahmstorf. Even if that rate just remained steady, this would already lead to 34 centimetres rise in the 21st century. "But the data show us clearly: the warmer it gets, the faster sea level rises. If we want to prevent a galloping sea level rise, we should stop global warming as soon as possible," adds Rahmstorf.

 

49 million cubic metres of ice lost
Researchers at the University of Zurich carried out a corresponding campaign in October of this year with a high-resolution laser scanner at the Findel Glacier close to Zermatt. The surface model that was created was compared with the results of a first flight over the glacier in the year 2005 and now enables a conclusion on the changes in thickness and volume of the entire glacier. In those four years, the Findel Glacier has lost almost 3.5 metres of average ice thickness, and as much as 25 to 30 metres at its tongue. Overall, the glacier has lost around 49 million cubic metres of ice. If that volume of ice were melted and emptied into the Lake of Zurich, the water level of the lake would rise by about half a metre.

 

Please remind me,,,have you ever misspoke?

Personally, I misspeak quite often, but that in and of itself doesn't mean I'm a dumb nice person. One is a dumb nice person if one uses people's mistakes as evidence of their intelligence.
Quick, with out looking, what is the estimated temperature of the core????







(~9000f)

 

Except that sea level rise is cyclical and has recently slowed. And that temperatures have not been rising since at least 2002.

So yes, if temperatures increase dramatically rates of sea level rise could increase. But so far temperatures are not cooperating and neither is the sea level.

 

As opposed to the billions currently being made by big oil/big coal/big utility?

One can certainly argue with some assurance, that the environmental movement has done more to help the planet and the people on it than big energy. The clean air act alone, along with a push from CARB has decreased air pollution from cars by over 90% since the 1970's.

Remember the Cuyahoga River on fire? With out the clean water act do you think you could find eatable fish there now?

I have few nice things to say about Richard Nixon, but he did start the EPA! (Despite subsequent efforts to eviscerate it!)

It is interesting, I have just finished reading Timothy Egan's "The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the fire that saved America". The parallels between the first decade of the 20th century and now are startling. The ability of big business, (big railway/big coal/big timber/big mining) to manipulate the civic agenda, buy policy and politicians, all for short term private profit at the expense of long term civic good. (It was not only proposed, but pushed by Senator Heyburn (Idaho) that the entire national forest service should be given to big business because they "knew how to profit from it").

Thank god we had visionary leader like TR who could see past the next quarters profit to preserve for future generations, public lands/resources for public benefit. Not only that but the Joe the Plumbers of the day, weren't brain washed by talk radio/media.


PS I personally agree that cap and trade is a bad idea. Where I (suspect) I diverge from your opinion however, is that I think we need to A: be aware of the complete environmental cost of our energy choices, and B: those costs should be charged up front. (Through a carbon tax!)

Only when we begin to pay the real costs of our choices, will alternatives become truly economically competitive. Being a PV solar consultant, I know a bit of what I speak. Pv solar IS competitive today given proper metering strategies. If we were paying the environmental cost of coal/gas/nuke fired plant, Pv solar becomes cheaper by a huge factor.