Two things.

The Al Gore CO2 alarmists don't know everything. Consider this report on unexpected carbon uptake in desert areas

Will we run out of fossil fuels, in our lifetimes or our children's? The amount of oil discussed is generally in terms of "proven reserves", which means that which has been found and somehow measured. What about that which hasn't been discovered or exploited yet? And further, there are theories that contradict the standard origin of oil as remnants of the dinosaurs (which would be a finite resource) - that hydrocarbon fuels are originating from deep in the earth - so how much might there be over time?

@zeroth

>logically flawed
really? how do you know that. have you got a degree in philosophy or something or is this just your own conjecture

>one year how can they predict 100 years

this truly shows your ignorance. clearly you have not heard of chaos theory even though it has been with us for some decades now.

>most of the world will not take aprt in the action

this is one place where we agree. it helps nothing if the developed world takes action on its own. but that does not justify taking a "china does not do anything so it does not exist" mindset.

there are many ways in which action can be taken. the easiest that comes to mind is simple trade restrictions. i am sure that if the citizens of any country insists that their politicians do something about global warming then they will have little problem not buying something that caused masive amounts of CO2 to be released in the atmosphere. unless of course they are uninformed or just plain greedy for the cheap bargain. most of these developing countries focus on export heavily so refusing to buy their stuff if it was not produced in an environmentally friendly way is one way of forcing them to take action too.

the point is not to point fingers like a bunch of school kids but taking responsibility together.

@jwentig
>better informed than you are

really? i have read much of what you had to say on this topic in this and many other threads. as far as i can tell you dont even understand the whole process. i doubt if you know what is going on. nor do you even understand the quantities involved.

to make just one example. have you even looked at one graph that display the levels of CO2 for the past 300 years? even if you doubt them have you even looked?

and if you doubt them do you understand how scientists get them? what are your reasons for doubting?

the point is at some point in the past you have decided that global warming does not exist and instead of listening to what others say you insist on your point of view. i am not saying that you have to believe what others say but at least you should know what they say. for example galileo understand the geocentric solar system model so well he could explain it better than all of those who believed in it. just read "on the two chief world systems". if you seek to disprove something you should first know what it is about. otherwise you are grasping at straws.

>al gore
get one thing straight. i am not an american and american politicians dont mean any more to me than vercingetorix means to you. every single piece of info i have on global warming comes from my own interest on the subject. i have only seen a small piece of his video(i dont even know if there is more than one). i cant even remember much of it except for the melting arctic ice cap.

besides your attitude reeks of bush's attitude a few years back(perhaps i should call you bushee) when he too insisted that it is not happening. now he is pointing fingers which means he is believing but is looking for a convenient excuse to not do anything. do you even know that bush has changed his stance by the way?

>ice caps are growing rapidly

thats why i said i hope you are sarcastic because unless al core shot that video in some studio or on some other planet at another star you must be going blind.

dont your eyes see? or dont you know whether to disbelieve your own eyes or to believe that the entire world has fallen for a giant computer animation scam.

>The Al Gore CO2 alarmists don't know everything. Consider this report on unexpected carbon uptake in desert areas


good article. i must admit that i myself did not know about deserts absorbing CO2. two things however.

First. much research must still be done on this. We need to know where the CO2 is going. whether we can be sure that it will go there permanently. and how it goes there. especially the last point. if we can figure out the how and the why then perhaps chemical engineers can replicate the process in some other way.

second.

it is not exactly the thing that will end the CO2 build up. as you can see in the article itself and by looking at a CO2 build up graph. it just does not absorb enough.

my answer is the attached graph which represent the FACTS (that's something that Mr. Gore, et al, seem to ignore) Earth has gotten hotter with more CO2 for the last 18K years or so, coinciding with end of ice age warming. There's more interesting data here, I'll leave their discovery to you.

zeroth

This constant back and forth about whether global warming is a myth or not is really getting old (a little mean spirited too). If being right is so important to you, I recommend you resolve to the following:

1. Stop arguing.

2. Wait for a few days/months/years according to whatever timeline you are measuring by. You'll see who is right.

3. Brag. (although, for those in favor of global warming this might be a bit...well...)

@ zeroth

obviously you havent taken a good look at your own graph or else you would have seen the very point that environmentalists are trying to make. the point is that higher levels of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. did you see the co-relation?

something else that you have missed.

the sharpest rise in CO2 which lead to the sharpest rise in temperature(some say it is the other way around but they cant say why they are saying that... in fact your graph clearly shows that rising temperatures lags behind rising CO2 levels!) took part over a period of 25 thousand years. currently we are experiencing that kind of rise but instead of thousands of years we are talking about hundreds of years. that is what has environmentalists worried. not al gore.

with humans releasing tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that rate at which CO2 are rising is what has us worried.

also you seems to forget that even though nature too has CO2 emmisions they are not even a hundredth of what humans are emitting. a simple search of wikipedia will show you how much CO2 vulcanoes emits vs how much humans emits. that CO2 that mother nature release can be removed from the atmosphere by various means(did you notice the subsiding levels following the sharp release 150 000 years ago). the same is not true for humans since each day we have more cars and coal fired power stations.

i am sure that you have some interpretation for that spike of 150000 years ago that lasted for 25 000 years but as you can see from the graph that spike was an anomality. or perhaps you are saying that such spikes are the norm and occur every 150000 years. in that case you should have posted a graph spanning millions of years. or at least show a graph which shows a number of such spikes which cannot be linked to some explaned event(such as an industrial revolution for example). twice can be a co-incidence. many many many times? less likely so.

anyway. enough of pointing out that you did not analyse your own graph. better would be to ask where you got that graph. you should also post your sources so that i can go verify for myself. so please post some kind of reference so that i can go look at the original study. i want to hear what the original researcher had to say as well as who they were and when that study was done.

the reason why i am asking this is because many people convolute a good piece of work. a good work will always look at all sides of an argument and seek to explain or disprove things for both sides. some people take one small part, which an origonal researcher explains easily enough, and then make it off as his whole truth.

not that i am accusing you of being one of those who cherry-pick a good work but it is always good to say where you get your data from.

one last thing. please try not to misquote me. you copied part of a sentence of what i said to jwentig and twisted it out of proportion. anyone who read the original paragraph that that sentence was a part of will see that i was trying to make a specific point and that no part of your entire post had any bearing on that specific paragraph or its point.

Sorry, guy, you proved my point for me. As plainly titled, the graph and info came from NOAA. Who can't read? And for your "attack" on me, I didn't say anything, just posted the graph.

As I stated in the first post, global warming, within the context of this thread, does not exist. The earth has been warming as the result of an inter-glacial period for about 15-18K years, as shown on the graph. Are we contributin to CO2? Yes, no question. You can see that in the graphs.

So now, what is the temperature doing? It's cooling. There's a good explanation for this...

Just an observation:

This thread seems to be a lot more about Mr. Al Gore than one should expect.

yes, i agree, al gore is but a miniscule part of large ongoing argument about global warming.

although, you do have to hand it to him, he braught the stink back into the air.

what point? that i did not know what noaa was? did you not read me telling jwentig that i am not american? how in the name of the devil are non-americans on this planet supposed to know what noaa is? granted some do know but you do of course realise that most of us dont. i did not even know what the abreviation stands for.

anyway. i have found their website and i am going to take a look at them. will be back to you shortly after that.

as for the temperature cooling... i will have to take a look at that as well. maybe you would be so kind as to tell me how you have came to that conclusion.