24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is a subject you can find whatever point, report, scientist, whatever, you're looking for to support your personsl view.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Al Gore has been scaring people since the late 1990s and becoming multi-millionaire by doing so.

The two things are not necessarily related.

Fourteen years later, he made an estimated $100 million in a single month. In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million. After debt, he grossed an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake, according to people familiar with the transaction.

Two weeks later, Gore exercised options, at $7.48 a share, on 59,000 shares of Apple Inc. stock that he’d been granted for serving on the Cupertino, California-based company’s board since 2003. On paper, it was about a $30 million payday based on the company’s share price on the day he claimed the options.

www.bloomberg.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The only thing I can remember in terms of numbers was the claim of doubling and am certain it was not 10 years, much longer.

Since CO2 concentrations would be based on the use of fossil fuels, that's not entirely unreasonable. But allowances for variation in either direction should have been accounted for. Worst case/best case. Perhaps your correct that only the worst case had been presented. But we won't know for a while.

My main doubt about the doubling claim on CO2 is that its only gone up 4% or so in the 9-10 years since I heard him speak. I get that any model may factor in an acceleration, but given the longer term trend, say the last 50 years, any such model would need to have some fairly significant factors beyond known historical correlations - some compounding effect. I sure would like to know the details of the input variables being used at the time.

I am not a CC skeptic at all actually, as I can see that levels today are higher than they have been in a long long time - maybe over a million years. There is still the possibility that the cycles are actually that long and this is normal, but given the apparent uniquness of a level over 400 ppm right now, compared to our history, it makes sense to address it - if we can.

I guess it is all about some ones interpretation of what Al Gore Said.

I agree that over all CO2 has remained relatively the same it increased in the past and decreased in the past if the ball still spins then the cycle will most likely continue. Is man responsible? we don't know. could polluting less help? of course it would. Is carbon taxing or regulation a good thing? we don't know but the US has dropped its manufacturing industry to record lows that basically nothing is manufactured entirely in the US.

Should the US pay more UN carbon tax than China? No. but Chinese businesses need to pay more. If it was solely a US based company maybe the company should pay more but why take it out on the people anywhere.

Is Climate change happening? Has been and always will as long as this planet spins.

I hear so much more from the Climate Change gurus that is why I put up Watts article. Not that I fully agree but from the way people interpreted Al Gore ten to fifteen years ago they were left with the understanding that is ten years irreversible damage would be done. So whether he said it that way or not it is what the people walked away with. and that is what counts overall.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'm tired of control freaks too - ironically it brings out a certain amount of pedantry in me

You can't control the order of things as they happen - or the meaning of words:

You reject his point that Al Gore said in his speech that carbon emissions that cause global warming will have caused "irretrievable damage' by now.

Your words

That isn't what he said. And he may not be wrong. Have you poked your head outside lately?

a reply to: Phage

In my reading, Gore went with Al Jazerra because they had the strongest support of global warming and environmental factors.

I guess if I had a passion for something, I'd want to pass my "legacy" on to someone who felt the same way.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

I agree that over all CO2 has remained relatively the same it increased in the past and decreased in the past if the ball still spins then the cycle will most likely continue.

Well, it hasn't really stayed relatively the same as far as I am aware. The last I read on this subject, we're over a level now, by some distance, that has not been reached ever in our records taking into account several recorded cycles... and the nature of this is that even slight variations can have a significant impact.

As I mentioned above it may be that there is a dominant cycle beyond the time our measurements can go back and this may just be 'normal' every million years or so. Even so, it still means some fairly signifcant challenges lay ahead whether we are causing it or not and the question, I think would remain the same; what can we do about it if anything?

a reply to: Annee

The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate change) represents the entire side of the global warming theory. It isn't "some" study. Its supposed to be the latest and greatest science on climate change representing the entire scientific community.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: UKTruth
One more question.
Was he speaking of CO2 emissions, or CO2 atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The reason I ask is because IPCC 4 (2007), did indeed project a doubling of emissions. But that does not imply a doubling of concentration.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

This is an El Nino year. As a matter of fact, it was predicted to be an amazingly strong El Nino year.

Besides, if you haven't been listening to Phage, climate change is not weather (unless the weather is currently supporting the theory of climate changes.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth
One more question.
Was he speaking of CO2 emissions, or CO2 atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The reason I ask is because IPCC 4 (2007), did indeed project a doubling of emissions. But that does not imply a doubling of concentration.

Hmm - I do not recall the exact measurement metric he was using, I must admit.

What I use now to determine the 4% increase is 'parts per million' atmospheric concentration.

It may well be he was using emissions which would explain the disconnect

a reply to: Phage

Read the entire article.

Tired of Control Freaks

24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’

Does that mean that slimy child whisperer (you know things your parents don't know) unca Al won't return after that date?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Annee

The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate change) represents the entire side of the global warming theory. It isn't "some" study. Its supposed to be the latest and greatest science on climate change representing the entire scientific community.

Tired of Control Freaks

You mean the IPCC?

a reply to: UKTruth

I am sorry but I forgot which conference you were attending? Pehaps we will find his notes on the web>

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Annee

Yes I am sorry - I meant the IPCC. I do read both sides of the issue.

Tired of Control freaks

Video of this Grima Wormtongue for children in action:

While they attracts attention from the general public, the IPCC reports are really intended for policymakers.

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
IPCC 4:

This ‘best estimate’ assumption shows that the most stringent (category I) scenarios could limit global mean temperature increases to 2°C–2.4°C above pre-industrial levels, at equilibrium, requiring emissions to peak within 10 years.

By comparison, using the same ‘best estimate’ assumptions, category II scenarios could limit the increase to 2.8°C–3.2°C above pre-industrial levels at equilibrium, requiring emissions to peak within the next 25 years, whilst category IV scenarios could limit the increase to 3.2°C–4°C above pre-industrial at equilibrium requiring emissions to peak within the next 55 years.

www.ipcc.ch...

And, once again, it should be pointed out what Gore actually said, lest people start making stuff up about it again.

Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization.

a reply to: Annee

Are you saying that the information in the IPCC 2007 report that tipping points have not been identified is for polcy makers only and NOT for public consumption?

Are you saying is OK to tell the public we are at "several tipping points" when it is a lie?????

Tired of Control Freaks