Defending the Truth

So just how exactly does "geocraft.com" translate into NOVA?

When you buy a hybrid and have driven it for a while, the battery will no longer hold a charge. The cost of replacing the battery will be so high that it would not be worth the expense. Your car is in essence, TOTALED

Some of these things are good to do but there is no global warming effect

Actually, this is what that the author(s) of that article concluded:

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Now, you might conclude that "0.2% - 0.3%" means that "man did not cause the warming."

But this isn't, in a more exacting sense, what the author(s) actually concluded.

And, in my mind, if they were to reach the same exact conclusion that you you just did, then they would undoubtedly have to conclude that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas in the first place...something which I seriously doubt that they would do.

Well, regarding a newer Toyota Prius, this conclusion might not be true.

Read on:

HybridCars.com - Battery Replacement Costs

(And, battery technology is currently evolving...possibly leading to lower battery initial and replacement costs and longer battery lifespans for future hybrids.)


Saving $'s long-term is good to do, no?...regardless if there is no effect on global warming?

(Personally speaking, I just don't understand why we, the US population as a whole, wouldn't want to actively save a few bucks long-term...no matter what their stance is on global warming,)

Al Gore said that the sea level would rise by 20' ( twenty feet), however the United Nations said that the worst case scenario was a rise in sea
level of 17" (seventeen INCHES)

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We need greenhouse gasses to keep from freezing to death. Most CO2 occurs naturally. Man's contribution is almost non-existent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmeyers1944 Al Gore said that the sea level would rise by 20' ( twenty feet), however the United Nations said that the worst case scenario was a rise in sea level of 17" (seventeen INCHES)

Actually, here is what I believe Al Gore said in An Inconvenient Truth:

"If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences. ... Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide."

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

And, here is a citation from the article that Al Gore used as a reference for that statement:

"Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html


Now, what the UN’s February 2007 IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” report stated was that there is a projected sea level rise of from 7.08” to 23.2” (coverted from meters) which would be measured between 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999 sea levels, which is a “model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.”

And they add, later in the report, that “dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise.” And, “understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude.”

They also note in the IPCC report that, “contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.”

And the IPCC report continues by saying, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance." And the report states, "both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf


So, if you ask me, and if one reads the details in these two documents (the Washington Post article and the IPCC report), I’d say that Al Gore’s assessment could be correct…if the IPCC’s complete assessment is correct.

And, if you ask me, the remaining unknown shared by both Al Gore’s assessment and the IPCC’s assessment is if and, thus, when there would be rapid ice discharge (rapid ice mass flow) in Greenland and/or Antarctica due to increasing global surface temperatures…regardless if global warming is “man-made” or not.

Then...ummmm...why was the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 (379 ppm) greater, by far, than the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm), as determined from ice cores?


(Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)