it's official, we're all gonna die!!!
yo, sonia and i watched "an inconvenient truth" this weekend. it's a film by al gore laying out a case for global warming that is both fascinating and disturbing. there are things in life that you just cannot argue with.anyways, al lays out the most logical and scientifically sound argument in defense of global warming that i have ever heard (not that i've really searched out this info much before). he proves it with many many years of scientific data, especially trends in temperature and their direct corrolation to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. it's astonishing and completely irrefutable.
what remains to be seen is the lasting impact of such a predicament, but from what i see, the outcome is not very good. perhaps this is what the bible speaks about when it says that there will be an increase in natural phenomenon when the end is near. maybe i should build a CO2 making machine or breathe deeper to speed his coming! LOL, just kidding.
so the problem is evident. our systemic CO2 creation around the world, particularly in the United States, is causing us some serious ecological problems. the gradual increase in temperature worldwide causes problems like glacier melting in the ice caps, which could cause a 20 foot increase in the worldwide water level placing large parts of india, shanghai, and the united states under water (buh-bye world trade center memorial). it causes more frequent and more powerful storms, especially hurricanes (can you say katrina?) since more melting+hotter earth=more evaporation and warmer waters=more fuel for hurricanes=...whatevers you get the point.
the point is that we are in for some rough times. we are exhausting and abusing our earth, and nature can only bend so far for the un-natural.
so now what? should we all trade in our gas vehicles for horse drawn carriages? should we forego our heaters and get naked and snuggle for warmth?
perhaps we should. but we also cannot avoid recognizing the largest contributors to the problem that if regulated, would make a much larger impact worldwide than me being on foot patrol.
our corporations are allowed to contaminate our earth with very little regulation. maybe we should do something about that. i understand that the cost of those things are going to be passed down to the consumer level. it's a price we as a people need to weigh and decide if we are willing to pay.
these companies make billions upon billions (some of them at least). they should spend a little of that cash making their processes more environmentally friendly.
i fear that gabriel will be my age someday and the great barrier reef will be dead. the ice caps will be melted. hundreds of species of animals will be extinct, the fat cat being one of them since we all know they can't fend for themselves (sorry bob).
it's sad. seriously, it is.
the first time i dove a reef in cozumel, i looked at sonia and tried to communicate to her that i was experiencing something spiritual. it was beautiful, serene, foreign. the creation of god is so beautiful and it reminded me that god is great and his power is beyond comprehension. it reminded me that god's great compassion goes beyond us as humans and extends to even the ray's and little fishies 80 feet below sea level for which god created an incredibly intricate and complicated ecosystem from which to feed them with. god's creation was good.
but not for long...thanks to all of us.


17 Comments:
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
trazomfreak said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
Anonymous said...
-
-
At ,
Unknown said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
Post a CommentGranted, we need to be more responsible in our stewardship of creation. But you might want to consider these issues from another perspective than Al Gore's.
A few things to consider from The Real 'Inconvenient Truth':
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
And a few things to keep in mind about Mr. Gore:
He claimed on March 9, 1999, in a CNN interview, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The Inconvenient Truth is that the Internet is an outgrowth of a Pentagon program established in 1969. But yes, in the 1980s, Mr. Gore supported legislation considered favorable to the Internet's development.
On February 16, 1992 on C-SPAN's Booknotes, Mr. Gore said his sister was "the very first volunteer for the Peace Corps." The Inconvenient Truth is Nancy Gore Hunger was a paid employee at Peace Corps headquarters, 1961-64.
In an ad in 1988, Mr. Gore said, "I'm Al Gore. I grew up on a farm," and "growing up in Carthage, Tennessee, I learned our bedrock values...." The Inconvenient Truth is Mr. Gore, the son of a senator, grew up primarily at the Fairfax Hotel in Washington, D.C., in a suite of rooms overlooking Embassy Row. He graduated from the ritzy St. Albans National Cathedral School, also in the capital.
On October 17, 2000, during the third presidential debate, Mr. Gore said, "The big drug companies...are now spending more money on advertising and promotion — you see all these ads — than they are on research and development." The Inconvenient Truth, according to CBS News, is that drug companies spent between $5.8 billion and $8.3 billion on marketing and $21 billion on research in 1998.
There are many more of his "inaccuracies" on record, and easily found on the internet he created.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time trusting what Mr. Gore says. Speaking only for myself, I certainly would want to check the veracity of his assertions regarding the environment before I swallow it...hook, line, and sinker.
I don't trust what Al Gore says as well. He's no scientist. It's like getting your scientific weather information from Al Jazeera.
What about the fact that there is one polar ice cap actually growing instead of shrinking?
And what happened in the supposed last global warming phase millions of years ago? Did the "SUV's" and "corporations" back then cause this? I'd say it is a natural occurance.
But yes, we do have more cars on the road and more cows releasing gasses into the atmosphere. But the sun has an 11 year (sunspot/activity) cycle. That has a lot to do with it.
Was the movie at least entertaining?
Pablo I know we have an agreement but if you permit me this one comment to say this,
"Man, I love my wife."
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
according to a separate documentary i watched on the reefs, a temperature change of less than 2 degrees can completely kill a reef. that has significant effects on the underwater ecosystem, which eventually trickles down to us since we like to eat fishies too.
At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
true. but we are seeing the CO2 emissions grow exponentially in the last 50 years as well. if most of the temp change has taken place in that previous time, we are really in trouble now that our range is spiking. check the image on the main post to see how we are growing at a much greater rate now than ever before. this point is in defense of what i am saying, thanks!
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
true, CO2 is vital to the life of most plants. The problem is abundance and what problems that causes when the plants are unable to absorb those gases. what happens when humans inhale too much CO2? WE DIE.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The DVD adresses this. It has to do with the rotation of the sun. We see alternating spikes and drops based on what region of the world is in winter and summer respectively. since most land and CO2 over-production is taking place in the northern hemisphere, the rise is happening during the same times as our summers, and the decline during our winters. hard to type that response, but it is in the DVD.
It's like getting your scientific weather information from Al Jazeera.
this is a bad example. if you wanted to say something about getting info on foreign policy or inside secrets of the US from Al Jazeera, that would make sense. but I'm sure that even the most impoverished and pathetic nations of the world understand weather patters by now. shoot, if al jazeera (or al roker for that matter) wanted to tell me that it was gonna rain tomorrow, i would accept that. chances are that i'd walk outside and see the clouds.
What about the fact that there is one polar ice cap actually growing instead of shrinking?
Also addressed in the DVD. Concentrations of CO2 vary by locations based on a variety of different criteria. Even though global warming causes hurricanes stuff, it also causes drought. The imbalance is the problem, not the end result. An ice cap growing while others shrinking is not outside of the science presented.
And what happened in the supposed last global warming phase millions of years ago? Did the "SUV's" and "corporations" back then cause this? I'd say it is a natural occurance.
Most likely a true statement. But that's like saying it can't snow in Riverside because it didn't snow last winter. But as we all know from the news, it did in fact snow in Riverside in January even though it did not snow last winter. The cause of the last warming is unknown. but the cause (or at the very least a large contributor cause) of this one can be scientifically proven.
But yes, we do have more cars on the road and more cows releasing gasses into the atmosphere. But the sun has an 11 year (sunspot/activity) cycle. That has a lot to do with it.
I don't know much about this cycle. I should look that up.
Was the movie at least entertaining?
Yes it was. AND very imformative as you can see by my response.
you two really should watch it before you throw the baby out with the bathwater...i didn't buy it when al gore said the presidential race was fixed, but he's right this time.
anything else? LOL - just kidding)
i love your wife too. :)
amanda - your sunspot comment. can you elaborate. i realized as i went to look it up on al gore's internet that i didn't even know what to look for.
thanks.
>"according to a separate documentary i watched on the reefs, a temperature change of less than 2 degrees can completely kill a reef."
El Niño/La Niña is a NATURALLY occurring 2-7 year cycle of the ocean-atmosphere system in the Tropical Pacific having important consequences for weather and climate around the globe. It has been documented that regular and NATURALLY occurring El Niño cycles have increased water temperature over 5°C.
According to this NASA kids' science website, "Coral reefs are sensitive ecosystems, they are a home to many plants and fish. The rise in sea temperature caused by El Niño and exposure to the Sun combine to destroy algae that protects the coral, which then bleaches white and dies. Destruction of coral from the effects of El Niño can be extensive. Recovery of the reefs may take a very long time." So recovery takes a long time, but it does happen. God actually created a very resilient planet, and a rehabilitating ecosystem. Nevertheless, it should not be carelessly and needlessly abused.
And according to John L. Daly, "the Southern Oscillation [El Niño/La Niña] is shown to be the primary driver of global temperature changes, not greenhouse gases."
Because of a current El Niño cycle, "Climate change scientists predict that 2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998." I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Al Gore to say, "Don't panic. This year's global temperature increase is not evidence of global warming. It is simply part of the REGULAR, NATURALLY OCCURRING El Niño cycle." (LOL)!
Hey, Pablo, should I expect you to start driving a REVA? Should we open the first REVA dealership in America? (LOL) I think it would be a winner here in California.
Pablo, if you'll read The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', I'll read the manuscript of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, if you can find it. I can read faster than either I or Al Gore talk. (LOL)
Dang pablo!!! You definately made SURE you dotted your i's and crossed your t's. Do you guys still have the movie? Is it cool if I stop by and watch it B 4 you guys return it.
You had an answer for everything. We're trying to teach the students where I work how to support their statments just as you did in this blog.
God did create a resilient planet but that does not mean we can treat it in the manner that we are.
Plus, it's hard to make those lifestyle changes. It's a process.
Also, I have a question, to think that the earth is here for our disposal, is that way of thinking a sin? For example, We know Jesus is coming back anyway, so who cares about Global Warming. I was just wondering. This is an honest question.
One other thought...all of the global warming predictions are based on hypotheses, which, by definition are unproved theories, propositions or suggestions. These hypotheses include the biases of the people that came up with them.
They can be compared to the weather forecasters reporting our daily weather predictions. Weather forecasters do their best to predict the weather based on past data and computer generated models. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they don't. (How many times have you expected rain and it didn't come; wore a coat when you should have left it at home; or went out of the house with only your I-refuse-to-call-it-a-wife-beater shirt on and you wished you had that sweat shirt?) And how long have the weather forecasters been testing and refining their models in daily, real world situations?
Maybe the global warming forecasters are right. But let's at least be honest that An Inconvenient Truth really should be titled An Inconvenient Hypothesis.
all of the global warming predictions are based on hypotheses, which, by definition are unproved theories, propositions or suggestions. These hypotheses include the biases of the people that came up with them.
truth. but that is all of science. we don't really know for sure unless 1) we can recreate it or 2) it happens again.
i will def. read that site info too steve.
also, about el nino, you are right there again. when sonia and i were in cozumel, we just missed a major hurricane. there was natural damage to the reefs that we could see. those reefs will rebuild over time (thousands of years) if allowed to. but perhaps the combo of natural and un-natural phenomenon will prove to be overwheliming to the reefs. maybe this will turn out to be the agent that makes the reef unable to regerate fast enough to keep up as it has for as long as the earth
has been around. who knows?
i'm not saying that i believe everything that al gore says outright, but the science is strong in defense of his hypothesis. i am not saying that i like al jazzera or that i think they are a great source of truth either (amanda).
what i am saying is that the scientific evidence is very very strong here. we should pay attention.
-- scientist pablo (i am a scientist you know? my degree says so! computer scientist, but scientist nonetheless!!)
Teresa,
I think I addressed your questions in my previous comments.
Granted, we need to be more responsible in our stewardship of creation.
God actually created a very resilient planet, and a rehabilitating ecosystem. Nevertheless, it should not be carelessly and needlessly abused.
Yes, poor stewardship of God's creation is sin.
to think that the earth is here for our disposal, is that way of thinking a sin
the earth IS at our disposal. but that doesn't mean that we should abuse it. god gave us this earth, he made it for us.
there is a balance here that we need to remember. every time i turn on an appliance, use my cell phone, turn on a light, take a shower, perform my daily duties at work even, i am depleting some resource from the earth. that's okay.
if we burn trash for fun and take the mufflers off of our cars, leave the water running when we brush our teeth or whatever, we are being bad stewards of what god has given us.
but there is a balance. the total left approach would be to live in a cave with candles and eat only non-living things. the extreme right would say shine it all, this is here for me!
somewhere in the middle (as usual) is the truth. we must obey our consciences when it somes to this stuff.
and yes, to echo a sentiment of steve's (and one my lovely wife voiced to me), we cannot immediately believe everything we hear and read.
haha, Pablo is a scientist. That's funny...LOL!!!
Dr. Tim Ball has some interesting things to say about the effects about Global Warming and how CO2 contributes/does not contribute towards it.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
I work on a project , (http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/), that studies climatology, and have discussed this with some of the guys on there, and have been surprised to hear that there is not much scientific fact that supports this Global Warming thing.
The warming and cooling trends are just that, trends.....
We/scientists are just trying to figure out why these trends exist...Some beleive it's due to the amounts of CO2... most don't.
Global warming is very politically based, more political than scientific in my opinion. A good friend of mine, and a certfied genius, thinks that the Global Warming craze is very faith based, and not fact based....
Steve has said some things about this that are dead on, so I won't duplicate what he has said.
-Frank Loaiza
why is that funny? it's truth!
<< Home