I lived through many hurricanes and have notice that the storms look different and of course are stronger than betsy and the other ones.they use to pass over quicker.is this a global warming thing or natural cycle?
Why don't the scientist explain to the public just what a 1 deg F rise in the surface temp of the ocean means? Temperature tells us the intensity, BTUs, tells us the quantity, ie the additional heat contained. 1 deg F sounds so insignificant; trillions of BTUs would give a more meaningful indication of the amount of aditional heat that needs to escape back into the atmosphere. Edward
Do we know that we are not coming out of an Ice age currently? (In other words Natural causes of global warming ie... Volcanoes spewing forth Billions of tons of gasses & debris)?
Do correlation Studies pareto Global warming Cause & effect by percentage? Show me the data? Make me a believer that Human Causes are the major contributing factor.
I want to believe Global warming is caused by Human beings! Because if it is natural we are more or less powerless!
Many of the models I have read about seem to assume a straight line or smooth curving increase in global warming temperatures.
As I understand it, the amount of methane gas trapped in very shallow accumulations of frozen arctic tundra is massive.
Can you address the possible effects of a sudden release of large quantities of methane gas into the atmosphere if we reach a temperature "tipping point" in the arctic? What might the temperature tipping point be? When might we reach it? If it happens is there any possibility of reversing the effects?
Why do I never hear anything about the heat that contributes to Man Made Climate change that comes from millions of autos, and trucks, planes, boats, trains, buses, factorys and power companies exhaust that goes on day after day, year after year, decade after decade? Cool intake goes in poluted hot air goes out. In the Nova Special "Dimming Sun" there is a satalite image from above India that shows the poluted air rising and covering half of the Maldives. Obviously it has risen due to it being warmer than normal and with that happening in a number of places around the world daily, wouldn't you think that is a factor in heating the globe too?
I have recently found out about the effects of global warming. I would like to know what I can do at my work and home to do my part. I am also a pre K tacher and this is something I would like to teach my children in the classroom. Do you have any suggestions. (I am sorry for the previous mistakes I was typind is a hurry :">
I have had unpleasant response from people who think Al Gore's movie and book are untrue and political. They will not even try to find out if there is a crisis at hand. How can I respond to these close minded people who just do not want to see beyond the name of Al Gore?
Dr. Oppenheimer, 1. Can you offer an opinion about the ten year window of opportunity outlined by Mr. Gore? Is it not true that an objective reading of current climatic events shows that we have already entered a new period; one that will most probably be characterized by much more dramatic oscillations in our weather patterns ? 2 With respect to the changes that we have already seen in the northern Atlantic, in particular the changes that have impacted the gulf stream and possibly the global oceanic conveyor, can you offer a vision of the patterns of circulation that will exist when the system finds the next state of stabilization? 3 Are you optimistic about the possibility of humankind finding ways to further modify our environment to mitigate the effect of prior modifications (pollution)? RK
Dr. Oppenheimer, what is the current output of the U.S. nuclear and coal-fired generating plants, in megawatts? How many megawatts of solar generating capacity are manufactured in the U.S. each year? What are the respective costs to generate electricity under each method?
DR.O My first question is why is the media blowing this issue so out of proportion esp. when we are talking about minute amounts of temperature and carbon dioxide? Second, what is the down side to a little more carbon dioxide when it is neccesary for trees to convert it to oxygen? Third, are these "scientific" test truly acurate? Because the first tests were done on big and small cities where there could have been urban warming from the concrete and asphalt. Fourth, after the ice age doesnt it make sense that the world would get warmer naturaly? Fith, we know that the world has been warming ever since the extinction of the dinosuars so how much, if any of this, is humanities fault and how can you acurately say we have had any negative impact on a global scale? The last thing that puzzles me is that some areas around the world get warmer while other areas stay virtualy the same tempertature. how does this happen and are we sure it is global warming not local climate changes?
On July 3, 2006, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal basically debunking your work along with Al Gore's movie "An Inconvient Truth" by saying that
1) "...Claims concerning storms, floods, droughts, disease, climate ‘surprises’ (whatever they may be) are so speculative that we do not know if emissions controls are likely to help or harm. In point of fact, we do know that the emission controls, arrived at in Kyoto, however costly, and even if globally implemented, would have little real effect on climate no matter what one believes..."
2) "..there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky." This program and your Q&A here is an example of the "Perpetual Repetition" of this debate. Basically, If you keep saying "The sky is falling", you will eventually convince everyone that the "Sky is indeed falling" even if physical evidance say's otherwise.
3) That if you are a Scientist who Dissents in the "World is Flat" argument of the "Global Warmist" theory of the world, then you are to be judged as noninformed and people like Al Gore and others will disregard these Scientific Arguements. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
4) There are more politics in the debate on "Global Warming" then there is actual science. There is a misunderstanding of the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism.
Why has the "Global Warming" community ignored scientific studies of warming caused by changes in the Solar winds and Solar Intensity, but have instead focused their so called "Studies" on possible man-made causes, when in the past when these same global changes happened, there were no Humans or their emmisions in existance?
I also understand that for 20 years, you worked for "Environmental Defense Fund", which is a NeoLiberal Organization founded by Left-Wing Lawyers with no popular base. This Enviromental Organization basically sues anyone who does not conform to the Liberal Enviromental policies beginning with the "DDT" litigation in 1967. How can you be a voice of "Moderation" in this debate when you are obviously biased in your opinions and who else in this program is to offset your obvious biases and propaganda in this online debate??
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rudeseal,
Could the followup video Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change be aired after your special? More information on this video can be viewed at http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
Facts: If every vehicle in America was converted to run on Hydrogen, the amount of fossil fuels used in the US would triple.
Electricity from wind energy uses the greatest amount of copper as compared to other forms of electric generation.
Any hybrid vehicle contains more copper than a Cadallic Esclade.
A 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant can fit on a square mile of land. One-thousand megawatts of wind power can fit on 116 square miles of land.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: wyomingmining,
In response to Matt's claims on land areas required for different forms of energy production. When the windmills are erected, they will require zero input of external energy(on the part of the operators)until they are removed from service. The coal fired plant may require a open pit mine of a number of square miles to produce its fuel, the railroads that haul the coal will also require space, and the acid rain produced by older plants' exhausts will acidify the soil for hundreds of square miles. I say, take the choice away from the producers and give it to the consumers, where it belongs. If I don't mind paying a few extra cents for clean energy, I should have the option of doing so.
1. What about the show on Discovery or History that says we are coming out of the "Little Ice Age"?
2. I have seen way too many shows on the effects of global warming, and in those shows, it is taken for granted that global warming is occurring. But where is the proof that global warming is in fact occurring? Nobody has a show about that.
3. How much of this is really just scare tactics by the Democrat party in an attempt to cheat to win the next Presidential election?
4. How much of the "1 degree rise" is attributed to the fact that most temperature measurements are made at airports, which increasingly have paved runways?
5. How much of the "rise in CO2" is based on a "control level" taken from measurements of trapped air in arctic ice? Remember that the water in ice provides a transport mechanism to remove CO2 from trapped air and release it to the ocean.
6. If Mars is also experiencing global warming, doen't that implicate the sun? Or are they blaming it on Mars Rover emissions?
7. How much of the political drive to "do something" about Global Warming is based on actual science, how much is based on fear, and how much is based on earth worship religions?
8. Too many of these shows use testimony of self-proclaimed "experts" ("Take my word, it's happening!") without going into the actual science used to get the results.
9. How much of this is based on atmospheric simulations in computers? And how accurate are the simulations?
10. If Tom Brokaw is running the show, it has to be slanted to the liberal side of the debate. For some unknown reason, most journalists are liberals.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: larryrobinson,
recommend eliminating meat comsumption entirely by adopting a vegetarian diet and lifestyle - stating that we can do more to reduce GHGs by eliminating meat consumption, than by any other action we can take.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do any of the other actions to reduce GHGs - we should be doing all of them - what I'm saying is, if adopting a meat-free lifestyle is so critical - then why is vegetarianism - as a valuable climate-saving, environment-saving action - overlooked and underpromoted by many climate change and environmental organizations???
Forums 
