deleted thread al gore

[Trim50]

As long as I get in at least 1 circumnavigation, I'll be happy.

[cooper]

....do you have kids ?......

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by cooper

....do you have kids ?......

None of my making. Lori has 3 and they are all now able to take care of themselves (for the most part). I'll probably take one along as crew when we go. He thinks IPCC is a international UN conspiracy...he'll make good crew.

[livingstone]

I just wanted to express my condolences to those that did not make it onto the Nobel Peace Prize committee this year, and were thus chagrinned that their selections for nominees and winners were ignored.

The NOBEL PEOPLE pick who they give the award to. Just like I decide when I want to give my employee a raise or give my kid a gold star. I am grateful that they don't come to my house and argue that there were other kids on the other side of town that deserved the star more. It's just how it is.

As for Al Gore flying, driving, or taking a donkey: I don't think he invented our transportation system. He merely is dependent on it to move about and spread the word of the problems it causes. YES, that is ironic. I'm sure the irony of this situation is not lost on him. Don't pretend he has such a big choice in transportation methods though. It's a weak and silly assertion. It makes the speaker seem petty, vindictive, and illogical when people say that. Like they don't care about the truth of the matter.

People that hate logic like that are misologists. Like the people who tried to discredit him with the lie that he "said he invented the internet." He actually said he created a bill to fund it, which he did. That's true. Yet the people who wanted to see someone else win the election lied, distorted the truth purposefully to win. At the expense of their own integrity. Shame on them.

And then he says "to hell with it," and tries to raise awareness of a REAL problem and quits politics. And these conniving opportunists just can't believe there's not an ulterior motive, because that's what they have. It's just a mind blower that someone can give a damn. Maybe to them it is.

As far as global warming goes: most animals are smart enough to limit their population by not removing all of their natural selection processes;
not artificially increasing their food supply by destroying things that compete with their food source for space;
and not joining all of their brothers and sisters in shitting where they eat,sleep, and breathe.

Unfortunately, our species is "clever" enough to outwit nature.When this occurs, eventually, there's a built in lesson: if we pollute our nest long enough, we die. And the planet balances itself once again.

It was our western religions that first offered the absurd (obscene) concept that the earth was for us to hold dominion over, and so we've exercised that dominion by turning it into a toilet we swim in together, and then complain about because it's dirty. And hot. (Incidentally: "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn is an excellent book on this subject.)

So we debate whether the sky is blue, while we try to deny global warming. Our labels of "orange" don't make the sky any less blue. We can all pretend the emperor wears clothes if we like. It doesn't make it less absurd.

Do you ever notice how passionate the people are that try to decry global warming? Like the Rush Limbaughs, and some here even? It's almost like they felt personally threatened, like someone was offering them ONLY the criticism that we ALL need to share. These people don't need to get hysterical. It's not a personal attack. It's about logic, and survival. Don't get so scared, people. We can do this. Together.

I think there's two attitudes/people at work: Those that invest their beliefs with emotion AFTER they come to logical conclusions, and those that base their beliefs on their guts, and then try to scramble to justify their positions when they are shown to be dubious. They believe first, then try to summon facts to support where they're at. The people that are so invested in WHAT IS, that they are terrified that anyone should question WHAT IS, and offer that maybe, collectively, WE need to do something differently.

Yeah, scary concept, I know. Growth is painful stuff. But it's time we did some of it. ALL OF US. Me too, and Al Gore with his jetsetting. I think Al would agree with that. I think that's his whole point.

[Trim50]

Livingstone...they gave him the Nobel PEACE Prize for God's sake!

That is like giving Spielberg the Nobel Peace Prize for Amistad...or ET.

[planetoftheapes]

I believe those standing against the GW propaganda machine are passionate because we recognize this pattern. Problem-Reaction-Solution. Those in power create a problem, they mobilize the population to call for a solution, then offer the solution they planned before the problem was even generated.

This GW situation smells like the same old same game. Each time this game is played we lose freedom and submit to taxation without representation. Historically, problems we charge the government to solve, only become worse. Big oil has a major impact on government policy. It is childish to believe that handing government, which is controlled by big oil, extra taxes will benefit the environment.

GW taxes and regulations will likely be twisted to benefit those already profiting from GW. Many of us are aware and tired of these scams. Regardless of the true level of crisis, the solution smacks of manipulation and fraud.

[Trim50]

Personally I don't think Big Oil is behind this, however they are poised to benefit the most and therefore aren't putting-up any fight. They must be thinking in their board rooms “how great is this!”

[David M]

Very interesting Capct....temperature leads CO2 levels. Meaning temperature changes are the possible cause of changing CO2 levels and not the opposite.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by David M

Very interesting Capct....temperature leads CO2 levels. Meaning temperature changes are the possible cause of changing CO2 levels and not the opposite.

Atmospheric gases are always in a solubility equilibrium with the oceans. Henry's Law, 1st year Chem 101, no theory needed. It's a law now after all.
Henry's Law
The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas. The most common solvent is water.

As the temperature of the ocean increases, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise...FACT.

[David M]

I had Chem101 as well and remember that. The solubility of gas into water with temperature though is not the only factor. For example, fish can suffocate as the result of water O2 depleted water that becomes too warm. The total amount of biomass..some absorbing O2 to produce CO2 and some doing just the opposite (photosynthesis) is also an enormous factor. The total amount of 02 and CO2 on this planet has never been constant...nor has been the ratio between the two been constant. Bottom line, there is no such thing as a normal amount of CO2 given it has always been in a state of change. Our time frame on Earth since we have been able to measure such things is nothing compared to the amount of time this planet has been in existence. Even the much smaller time frame of CO2 absorbing/oxygen producing plant life has been on this planet. Sure man creates CO2 by the burning of carbon based fuels...that is indisputable. But the effects as a result are still very much in dispute. I am not denying anything. I am saying that we do not know anything with certainty.

[Trim50]

Yeah, but I would argue (without actually doing the calculation) that the carbon dioxide exchange between the volumes of the oceans and atmosphere dwarf any biological respiration.

[delmarrey]

It should also be noted the Henry's Law is a limiting law that only applies for dilute enough solutions. The range of concentrations in which it applies becomes narrower the more the system diverges from non-ideal behavior. Roughly speaking, that is the more chemically different the solute is from the solvent.
It also only applies for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which rapidly forms hydrated carbon dioxide and then carbonic acid (H2CO3) with water.

Because solubility of gases is decreasing with increasing temperature, the partial pressure a given gas concentration has in liquid must increase. While heating water (saturated with nitrogen) from 25°C to 95°C the solubility will decrease to about 43% of its initial value. This can be verified when heating water in a pot. Small bubbles evolve and rise, long before the water reaches boiling temperature. Similarly, carbon dioxide from a carbonated drink escapes much faster when the drink is not cooled because of the increased partial pressure of CO2 in higher temperatures. Partial pressure of CO2 in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

[Trim50]

Yes carbon dioxide does react with the water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3; however, most (as much as 99%) remains as dissolved molecular CO2.

[Alan Wheeler]

Another view I look from is, the earth is a "closed loop" system. Co2 doesn't get "created from nothing". There is a finite amount of O2 and a finite amount of Carbon and so on. Fossil fuels have simply locked up the Co2 that they once breathed all those millions of years ago. So releasing it only releases what was once there anyway. As the Co2 is released, living organisms breath it back in and turn it back into other carbon based elements to be locked up again. It's a cycle. There maybe fluctuations in the cycle as release and uptake balance themselves, but it is all a "global breathing" cycle. The unbalance comes from industry producing quantities of Co2 faster than can be re-uptaken, but eventually it will once again be absorbed back into the system.
The part that really worries me however, are the chemicals being released that were never meant to be. Chemicals Man has synthisised or created that were never meant to be in those quantites and concentrations and then dumped on land or sea or evaporated into the air.

[blove8]

Originally Posted by planetoftheapes

I believe those standing against the GW propaganda machine are passionate because we recognize this pattern. Problem-Reaction-Solution. Those in power create a problem, they mobilize the population to call for a solution, then offer the solution they planned before the problem was even generated.

This GW situation smells like the same old same game. Each time this game is played we lose freedom and submit to taxation without representation. Historically, problems we charge the government to solve, only become worse. Big oil has a major impact on government policy. It is childish to believe that handing government, which is controlled by big oil, extra taxes will benefit the environment.

GW taxes and regulations will likely be twisted to benefit those already profiting from GW. Many of us are aware and tired of these scams. Regardless of the true level of crisis, the solution smacks of manipulation and fraud.

Yup, you got it planetoftheapes, I'm tired of the scams, tired of the problem-reaction-solution paradigm (Hegelian dialectic)... there seems to be no shortage of these scams. I am tired of the manipulation of the masses with nefarious techniques. My only disagreement with you on your statement is that I don't think the U.S. government is controlled by big oil... as much as you may think.

The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.

It's good to see this discussion happening here. Thanks for allowing it mods.