Need a response to this video

[BlueStateModerate]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

A friend sent me this after I asked him to watch Gore's movie. I'm not really sure how to debunk it after watching it. Anyone have any ideas?

[Lerkfish]

1. here's my idea

tell your friend to shove off.

99.9% of all the world scientists confirm global warming. The only ones who do not are employed by the oil companies.

Occam's Razor.

[Monkeyman]

2. Yep

[Bluedogvoter]

4. The video doesn't dispute global warming

[Xithras]

6. Three separate issues.

1) Is global warming real?

2) Is global warming caused by humans?

3) Is global warming caused by CO2?

Three separate issues.

1) Yes. 95%+ of scientists agree that the world is warming.

2) Jury is still out. Just about every analysis declares that human pollution certainly contributes to the issue, but the number of analyses that lay the blame completely at the feet of humanity are actually quite few. Even the IPCC dodged the issue until their fourth report, and now will only classify human causes as a "likely source" of the warming. Even that claim is tempered by a limitation that only warming of the past 50 years is human induced, and that the previous 150 years of temperature increases were unexplainable. Most other scientific bodies won't even go that far, and simply list us as a contributing factor.

3) As the linked video readly explains, there is a LOT of debate on this issue. What the video DOESN'T mention is that most of the alternatives are ALSO human induced. Could it be CO2? Yes, the theory fits. Could it be global deforestation? Again, the theory fits. Could it be increased particulate pollution? Yes, once again a strong case can be made. Of course, there are also claims of everything from solar variability (a hotly contested issue with conflicting "facts" being presented from both camps) to natural variations in oceanic currents. Contrary to what Al Gore would have us believe, the exact mechanism for Global Warming is still a much discussed topic in scientific circles. Even among scientists who believe beyond a doubt that we're causing it, there is disagreement about exactly which human activities are creating the problem.

[Bluedogvoter]

3. I don't know how to either.

Honestly, alot of the stuff in there was very compelling. I know I won't be popular saying that, but it was.

I think both sides should watch both President Gores and this video.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Know What Would Be Cool To Do Just ONCE?

Just once I'd like someone to spend the money and time to photocopy/print EVERY SINGLE peer reviewed scientific article proposing the Global Warming crisis; EVERY SINGLE ONE. Then pile em in box after box and ship them on 18 wheelers to a non-believers house. Then simply leave a message on delivery of "Ok, you're turn".

[tabatha]

7. Here is a response to a friend who summarized some of the key points

If you can listen to Thom Hartmann's show of Mar 22, there is someone who debunks this film.
Gore debunked some of this in his hearing the other day:

Here is the text written from someone - with my response after each point.

Point: They also pointed out that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and that water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas and that the oceans are the engine for water vapor in the atmosphere.

Response:
Water vapor has always been in the atmosphere - long before man started pumping additional CO2 into the air. Why was there no global warming before?

Point: They also stated that the oceans are a major producer of CO2 and their contribution exceeds man's contribution. They also pointed out that during a typical year, volcanic action and animals also exceed man as CO2 engines.

Response:
CO2 content in the air was below 300ppm before the industrial revolution. It is now closing on 400ppm. The figure before the industrial revolution is from natural sources - so one could say that man's contribution is less. However, man's contribution is putting the natural balance out of whack to the point where it is affecting climate - even if it is only a 1/3 contribution.

The oceans are NOT a major producer of CO2 - they are a major dissolver of CO2. This process makes the ocean more acidic - which is harmful to marine life and corals. The Ocean acts as a carbon-pump - dissolving CO2 under most circumstances, and sometimes releasing CO2. Global warming has been MITIGATED by the fact that oceans dissolve CO2 (not going into the air), but the oceans are reaching a saturation point with respect to dissolving CO2.

Because the Oceans dissolve CO2 - man's contribution to CO2 is probably higher than 100ppm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6369401.stm


Point: Finally they stated that a major climate study that compared the record of sun spot activity over the past several hundred years with temperatures on Earth showed a direct correlation between increased sun spot activity and temperature rise.

Response:
This has been debunked.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Shifts_And_The_Probability_Of_Randomness_999.html

~~~~~~~~~

Gore debunked this better. The outer layer of the earth's atmosphere is not warming - in fact it is cooling. If the warmth was from the sun, then the outer layer would warm as well. Sun spot activity has not increased over the last 30 years - it has remained stable.

Also, the fact that mankind has contributed only 100ppm of the 380ppm of the current CO2 content can be likened to that of baking a cake - say to 350, when it turns out perfectly. But add just another 50 degrees of heat (less than 350), the cake will burn.

However, with global warming it will not just stop at a convenient point where we no longer have to wear jackets - it will keep on going.

[Bluedogvoter]

8. I'll respond, but I'm still undetermined.

Point: They also pointed out that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and that water vapor is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas and that the oceans are the engine for water vapor in the atmosphere.

Response:
Water vapor has always been in the atmosphere - long before man started pumping additional CO2 into the air. Why was there no global warming before?

Its been several weeks since I watched the video, but I don't recall them discussing water vapor. Although even from watching Gores doc it shows global warming and cooling have occured naturally over the course of the Earths history.

Point: They also stated that the oceans are a major producer of CO2 and their contribution exceeds man's contribution. They also pointed out that during a typical year, volcanic action and animals also exceed man as CO2 engines.

Response:
CO2 content in the air was below 300ppm before the industrial revolution. It is now closing on 400ppm. The figure before the industrial revolution is from natural sources - so one could say that man's contribution is less. However, man's contribution is putting the natural balance out of whack to the point where it is affecting climate - even if it is only a 1/3 contribution.

They did say this, but you may be leading to a different conclusion than the one they were making. They used it to illustrate a the amount of CO2 put off by each respectivaly in current time. It was simply an illustration.

Your response is illogical for many reasons. The most glaring of which is you are going by the assumption man is responsible for the 100ppm increase. That is simply an assumption with no supporting evidence.

The scientist in the video don't dispute CO2 rises as temperature rises, but illustrate CO2 rises only after temperature rises leading to the conclusion CO2 levels rise are a product of global warming and not vice versa.

The oceans are NOT a major producer of CO2 - they are a major dissolver of CO2. This process makes the ocean more acidic - which is harmful to marine life and corals. The Ocean acts as a carbon-pump - dissolving CO2 under most circumstances, and sometimes releasing CO2. Global warming has been MITIGATED by the fact that oceans dissolve CO2 (not going into the air), but the oceans are reaching a saturation point with respect to dissolving CO2.

Because the Oceans dissolve CO2 - man's contribution to CO2 is probably higher than 100ppm.

The oceans are indeed a carbon-pump. It does indeed dissolve and release CO2. However, this process is reflective of temperature change. It dissolves more the colder the ocean becomes and releases more as it warms.

The process isn't effected by CO2 levels especially when in a warming trend so no mitigation should be occuring. And again, you display that 100ppm assumption and go a step further and suggest the assumption is on the consevative side.


Point: Finally they stated that a major climate study that compared the record of sun spot activity over the past several hundred years with temperatures on Earth showed a direct correlation between increased sun spot activity and temperature rise.

Response:
This has been debunked.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Shifts_And_Th...

~~~~~~~~~

Gore debunked this better. The outer layer of the earth's atmosphere is not warming - in fact it is cooling. If the warmth was from the sun, then the outer layer would warm as well. Sun spot activity has not increased over the last 30 years - it has remained stable.

The theory of Sun spot activity wouldn't show increased temperature in the upper atmosphere during a warming period, it would indicate a stable or lowering temperature.

The Sun spot theory says that the increased magnetic activity of Sun spots will interfere with the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. Less cosmic rays mean less cloud formations. With less clouds during increased Sun activity you have more direct sunlight hitting the Earth instead of being bounced back out of the atmosphere, thus raising temperature.

[tabatha]

9. Gore's testimony

Your response is illogical for many reasons. The most glaring of which is you are going by the assumption man is responsible for the 100ppm increase. That is simply an assumption with no supporting evidence.

I wrote this before I saw Gore's testimony - and he said exactly what I did - even used the 100ppm figure as man's contribution. Please view Gore's testimony and you will see that it is not illogical. There is plenty of supporting evidence that man is indeed responsible for the rise in CO2.

Gore also pointed out that sometimes in historical times CO2 led temperature and sometimes followed - but in the last couple centuries it has tracked with temperature.

Less cosmic rays mean less cloud formations.
Really?

See Gore's testimony!!!!!

[Bluedogvoter]

10. I've watched it many times

I wrote this before I saw Gore's testimony - and he said exactly what I did - even used the 100ppm figure as man's contribution. Please view Gore's testimony and you will see that it is not illogical. There is plenty of supporting evidence that man is indeed responsible for the rise in CO2.

Gore also pointed out that sometimes in historical times CO2 led temperature and sometimes followed - but in the last couple centuries it has tracked with temperature.

No, he is leading people to conclusions not showing evidence man is causing it. If he was accurate we could measure the output and estimates of what man is producing and it would match his data of saying man is outputing 1/3 of the worlds CO2.

He is also misconstruing the CO2 leading temperature change. The only time it did this was when the temperature dipped and CO2 hadn't caught up with the sudden dip. This is something you will always observe when something is lagging behind a fluctuation.

In the last couple of centuries it does track and it lags behind. Look at the graphs, plot them yourself.


Less cosmic rays mean less cloud formations.
Really?

See Gore's testimony!!!!!

I've watched his testimony many times and the more I watch the more I'm convinced he is leading people to conclusions that don't seem logical.

I still think man produced CO2 needs to be lowered, but I'm becoming less convinced that Global Warming is caused by man, especially to the degree Al Gore is claiming.

[tabatha]

14. I was an industrial chemist

and measured CO2 in the atmosphere in the late 70s - and the ppm was lower than it is now. In that job I also learned that the 21% of O2 in the air is there because of biological processes and hence am very concerned about anything that would alter either CO2 or O2. Hence Gore's explanations made sense to me.

[Bluedogvoter]

11. btw

I appreciate your civil manner and good conversation.

Its been a pleasure discussing this with you and hope I don't come across bad in my posts. That isn't my intention.

[greyl]

12. This link should help you:

Previous thread where this crap video has been debunked.

[tabatha]

13. Thanks very much for that link. nt.

[ends_dont_justify]

15. It seems like a slippery slope to me -- they seem to justify their numbers on disagreements...

It more or less seems like they try to justify global warming is not man made because some scientists don't agree. It does debunk a lot of political commentary about how people feel about it -- but the science is all there. Human beings have radically changed the face of the world and now the world is getting sick; we're forced with a conclusion of changing how badly we have affected the world or to suffer with its collapse. The insects are coming out when they aren't supposed to and now the bees are dropping dead as well as other pollinators. Global warming is the canary in the coalmine...destruction is the real results of what has happened.

It makes more sense to me that since it has been proven that holes exist in the ozone layer due to the results of pollution, that the ozone layer keeping out the ultraviolet rays which cause greenhouse emmissions is the key to stopping global warming. This has never been as highly refuted as it has now when americans have started to accept it and pay attention to it. Where was the science some 20 years ago when global warming was just about sunburn? I believe the biggest way to debunk this film is that it is based on new science, whereas it is now popular to find ways to not believe mankind takes any credit for this. Whereas it was as clear as daylight in the past to anyone who paid attention to it.

edit: grammar