Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy [barf alert]
AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/27/06 | SETH BORENSTEIN

Posted on 06/27/2006 11:32:51 AM PDT by T. P. Pole

WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; bs; climatechange; excelsior; globalhotair; globalwarming; gore; inconvenienttruth; manbearpig; serial; superserial; totalbs; totallyserial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Just a simple question - if out of 100 scientists contacted, only 19 had seen it, which type of folks do you suspect the 19 are? Gore fans or not Gore fans?
1 posted on 06/27/2006 11:32:55 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

Our local weather man does not like Gore and just thought his first book was total bunk. However, he said that a good portion of this movie is based on fact. I was really surprised.


2 posted on 06/27/2006 11:34:38 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
The nation's top climate scientists

Define: top climate scientists

Apparently, those whom agree with Gore.

3 posted on 06/27/2006 11:35:42 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

Science co-opted by political whim is doomed. I'd like to see a complete list of these so-called "top climate scientists", who they get their grant money from and who they gave political donantions to in the last five years.


4 posted on 06/27/2006 11:35:53 AM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

Apparently the AP is getting even more lax in trying to come up with facts to support their case.

I would've expected something more like "All scientists that responded to the AP poll agreed the science was mostly accurate." And leave out the fact that only 19 of 100 responded, and that all of them had to have seen the movie for it to be counted as a response.


5 posted on 06/27/2006 11:36:17 AM PDT by faloi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory

Really? So vocal as to have NEVER been heard on any MSM outlet.

6 posted on 06/27/2006 11:36:54 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
The headline should read

"Only 19% of Climate Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy."

7 posted on 06/27/2006 11:37:11 AM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said.

And, you're afraid to speak it, loser.

8 posted on 06/27/2006 11:37:59 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory

Among those contacted, but certainly not among those that saw the film and gave it the thumbs up.

9 posted on 06/27/2006 11:38:15 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Just a simple question - if out of 100 scientists contacted, only 19 had seen it, which type of folks do you suspect the 19 are? Gore fans or not Gore fans?

This is pretty much how political "polls" seem to be conducted. The NYT probably calls people on their subscription list when doing their polls, which means they are all baised from the start.

10 posted on 06/27/2006 11:39:56 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs

What I've seen of the trailers peaks my curiosity. I'm not adverse to seeing this side of the story, even though I won't be around to see much more progressive damage to the environment.


11 posted on 06/27/2006 11:41:33 AM PDT by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

Why isn't the headline "Only 20% of US Climate Scientists Believe Algor"?

And if the movie presents an optimistic view, are we making plans to evacuate the portions of the planet that will be underwater when all of the ice melts? Or merely trying to change the global economy?


12 posted on 06/27/2006 11:41:42 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Good point! Who are they?


13 posted on 06/27/2006 11:43:06 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Related Thread:

Gore's Bad Science--Scientists respond to Al's An Inconvenient Truth

 

14 posted on 06/27/2006 11:45:49 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.

And this guy was a Kerry campaign contributor. I really trust his judgement.

15 posted on 06/27/2006 11:47:38 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book. But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly

In other news, most scientists have not attended an "Institute for Creation Research" meeting. Those who have attended have the same general impression: Evolution is bunk.

16 posted on 06/27/2006 11:47:49 AM PDT by steve-b (Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

More than 80% of Nations Top Climatologists Withhold Support for Gore's Movie


17 posted on 06/27/2006 11:49:01 AM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Exactly. Nobody who is on one-side of a scientific issue would go see an obviously biased presentation by a political non-scientist which has already been factually discredited.

It's like asking one hundred people of all ages if they thought the new Pokemon cartoon was as good as "Citizen Kane", and announcing that one hundred percent (the three kids in the survey) of those who saw the cartoon believed it was even better.

18 posted on 06/27/2006 11:50:57 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b


Those who went to see the movie agreed...because they agree with Algores groupthink junk science...anyway...

Agenda driven article that finds the "truth" inconvenient.


19 posted on 06/27/2006 11:52:17 AM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

You can find a few "scientists" to support any theory!


20 posted on 06/27/2006 11:53:44 AM PDT by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ

"You can find a few "scientists" to support any theory!"

That is because most science is junk science. Many in society want to fool everyone into thinking science is very accurate, when just the opposite is true. Most science is junk.


21 posted on 06/27/2006 11:56:23 AM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

I wonder if the majority of Algore's stock portfolio is still invested in oil.


22 posted on 06/27/2006 11:57:35 AM PDT by American Quilter (Equal laws protecting equal rights...the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country. -- Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

Yea they self selected the Gorites by making the reponding subset only those who actually paidgood money and went to the limited release propaganda movie!!

What a crock!!

Must have done the poll from the AP's new office (was it?) in North Korea or was it Mogandishu?


23 posted on 06/27/2006 11:58:58 AM PDT by rod1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
The nation's top climate scientists, selected by a panel of their mothers,...
24 posted on 06/27/2006 12:00:08 PM PDT by American Quilter (Equal laws protecting equal rights...the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country. -- Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
2004 , Gore - coldest day in a long time..


25 posted on 06/27/2006 12:03:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Help the "Pendleton 8' and their families --- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

More than likely.


26 posted on 06/27/2006 12:06:39 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole; All

"I shall not be snickered upon by simpled minded FReepers!

I was almost President, and people like me, damn it!"


27 posted on 06/27/2006 12:08:50 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

In a file photo former Vice President Al Gore makes talks to the media as he walks into a screening of the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' in Boston Tuesday, April 25, 2006. The nation's top climate scientists give the movie based on Al Gore's book, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' five stars for accuracy. He mostly got the science right, say 19 climate experts who had seen the moive or read the book. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)


28 posted on 06/27/2006 12:11:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Help the "Pendleton 8' and their families --- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away ..."

... to which Al replied, "Corell, blow this!"
29 posted on 06/27/2006 12:21:28 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

17,000 scientists dispute Gore's assertion that global warming is human-inducted. They also mention that global warming is just one of many cycles the earth goes through.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654996/posts


30 posted on 06/27/2006 12:26:24 PM PDT by Peach (Iraq/AlQaeda relationship http://markeichenlaub.blogspot.com/2006/06/strategic-relationship-between.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
"Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release.."

Iow, Most scientists had not seen the movie, but it's not the movie's fault. Bias so unsophisticated. Like Jerry Springer "guests". Same level. Journalist trash.


31 posted on 06/27/2006 12:34:43 PM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

And since there are more than 20,000 scientists who have reviewed the issue, how did they decide on these?


32 posted on 06/27/2006 12:38:29 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

I looked him up. He is NOT a climate scientist. He's a bio chemist!

William H. Schlesinger
James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry
and Dean of the Nicholas School
Earth and Ocean Sciences Division
AB, Dartmouth College, 1972
PhD, Cornell University, 1976
Primary area of expertise: Biogeochemistry

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

Corell is not even a scientist. He has a PhD in Engineering from Case Institute and then worked in ocean engineering before becoming a government bureaucrat and now the head of a "non-profit" (LOL) lobbying group.

Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

Wigley PhD in mathematics, albeit he has also worked as a meteorologist (which is not climate science, but weather forecasting).

There are a number of Climate Scientists who have seen the movie and reviewed it and they all said it's junk. But AP couldn't seem to find any of them. They only found 3 non- climate scientists to interview, then falsely identify them as climate scientists.

So typical of the Associated Propagandists.

33 posted on 06/27/2006 12:39:44 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
100 top climate researchers

I thought they said "scientists". Climatology is the short bus of science.

34 posted on 06/27/2006 12:41:50 PM PDT by AmishDude (I am the King Nut.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs
Our local weather man does not like Gore and just thought his first book was total bunk. However, he said that a good portion of this movie is based on fact. I was really surprised.

You can have your facts correct and still come to wrong conclusions.

35 posted on 06/27/2006 12:45:38 PM PDT by CedarDave (When a soldier dies, a protester gloats, a family cries, an Iraqi votes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Michelle Malkin - Stupid global warming tricks
36 posted on 06/27/2006 12:47:46 PM PDT by CedarDave (When a soldier dies, a protester gloats, a family cries, an Iraqi votes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

37 posted on 06/27/2006 12:56:48 PM PDT by texas_mrs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

That may well be the case here.


38 posted on 06/27/2006 12:58:43 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

www.oism.org website has a list of 17000+ scientists who are in disagreement with Gore. Over 2600 are directly involved in climate and closely related fields. Projection is not prediction.


39 posted on 06/27/2006 1:04:48 PM PDT by orchid (Defeat is worse than death, you have to LIVE with defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: orchid

Yes. I'm one of them.


40 posted on 06/27/2006 1:09:49 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Correction: Scientists in AP reporter's rolodex OK Gore's movie for accuracy.,
41 posted on 06/27/2006 1:14:56 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
AP contacting anyone considered top in their field is suspect since anything AP reports on is suspect.
42 posted on 06/27/2006 1:16:14 PM PDT by b4its2late (John Kerry changes positions more often than a Nevada prostitute!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion.

Oh, really? Do they have names?

43 posted on 06/27/2006 1:20:53 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Gore's Scientists Gather for the Meeting


44 posted on 06/27/2006 1:22:02 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

When ole tubby gives up his jets and cars for a horse and buckboard, I may, that is MAY, take him seriously.


45 posted on 06/27/2006 1:26:56 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite

If Albert's tie was black he'd look just like a Shinner.

46 posted on 06/27/2006 1:29:46 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jla

He's a DemocRAT - it's the same thing as a Shinner (except without a terrorist wing...). ;)


47 posted on 06/27/2006 1:32:39 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

To simplify:

"Accelerated Global Warming and Atmospheric CO2 Emissions

An assessment of the likely increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to climate change and if the Amazon Rainforest ceases to be a CO2 sink.
The C02 content of the atmosphere is usually expressed in parts per million (ppm) by weight and the use of fossil fuels is expressed as so many tons of carbon burned per year. At present the burning of fossil fuels releases 7 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year in the form of carbon dioxide gas, C02.

C02 weighs 44 / 12 times the weight of carbon. This is derived from the atomic weights
of carbon, 12, and oxygen, 16. The molecular weight (MW) of C02 is 12 + (2 x 16) = 44 and the MW of carbon is 12. So C02 is 44/12 = 3.67 times heavier than carbon per molecule.

Therefore burning one billion tons of carbon produces 3.67 billion tons of C02.

(A) and so burning 7 billion tons of carbon will produce 26.7 billion tons of C02

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere can be calculated as follows. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is on average 14.5 pounds per square inch = 10 tons per square metre. This pressure is due to the weight of atmosphere above an area at sea level of one square metre.

The radius of the Earth "r" is 5,925 km and so the surface area of the Earth (land and ocean) is 4 x "pie" x "r" squared = 4 x 3.142 x 5925 x 5925 = 441 million square kilometres = 441,000 billion square metres.

Therefore the weight of the Earth's atmosphere is 441,000 billion x 10 = 4.41 million billion tons.

Now 26.7 billion (the weight in tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, see (A) above), divided by 4.41 million billion gives the fraction 6 /one million which means that the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels is equal to 6 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere by weight. (6 millionths)

It can be seen therefore that burning 7 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels is now dumping 6 ppm per year of C02 into the atmosphere.

(B) Pro-rata, burning one billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels dumps 6 / 7 = 0.85 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere.

As explained in the above Article 1, the Amazon rainforest is probably absorbing 2 billion tons of carbon per year. Removing this amount of carbon reduces the C02 content of the atmosphere by 2 x 0.85 = 1.7 ppm. per year.

So the Amazon rain forest is absorbing 1.7 ppm of the 6 ppm of the total C02 being emitted by fossil fuel burning.

The current understanding is that at the present level of concentration of C02 in the atmosphere C02 is being absorbed by natural processes, of which the Amazon rainforest is a major component, at the rate of 3 ppm, i.e. one half of 6 ppm rate at which CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. If C02 emissions are rising this will mean that year on year the C02 content of the atmosphere will rise by at least one half the previous year's rate of emission.

Therefore at present C02 is increasing by 3 ppm each year (i.e. 6 - 3 = 3 ppm). If the level of fossil fuel burning rises by say only 25% (a much bigger rise is predicted) and if natural processes do not increase their rate of absorption then the rate of increase will become 3 + 25% of 6 = 4.5 ppm per year and if by 2050 we loose the absorption by the Amazon rainforest the rate of increase becomes 4.5 + 1.7 = 6.2 ppm per year, twice the current level. At this rate C02 levels would increase by 50 x 6 = 300 ppm during the 50 years from 2050 to the end of the century.

The increase in C02 at today's rate over the 50 years from now to 2050 gives a further increase of 50 x 3 = 150 ppm.

So the C02 content of the atmosphere by 2050 and 2100 could be as follows:

Today's level in say year 2,000

Increase at today's rate up to 2050 = 50 years x 3 ppm

Increase from 2050 to 2100 assuming 25% growth
in fossil fuel use and the Amazon rainforest
ceasing to be a C02 sink = 50 years x 6 ppm


Therefore total C02 in the atmosphere at 2100
= 350 ppm

= 150 ppm



= 300 ppm



= 800 ppm


This total does not include C02 from Amazon rainforest fires, however no doubt other forests will expand elsewhere in the world as their conditions become more favourable so release of carbon by forest fires in the Amazon rainforest will be offset by new trees elsewhere but there will be a time lag. Also non-tropical forests only absorb CO2 during the spring and summer growing season whereas tropical forests grow all the year round and tropical forests grow at a faster rate and so absorb more CO2 than temperate forests.

If 10 years' growth of the Amazon rainforest were released in one year's fires this would add an additional 10 x 1.7 = 17 ppm C02 into the atmosphere in that year.

If the Amazon rainforest becomes savannah then 90% of the carbon currently locked up in bio-mass would be released. Can we estimate how much carbon this represents?

Assume trees at 20 metre spacing, therefore 5 x 5 = 25 trees per hectare. (100m x 100m)
Assume 10 tons of carbon per tree, therefore 25 x 10 = 250 tons of carbon per hectare.

1 square km = 100 hectares. Therefore weight of carbon = 25,000 tons / sq. km.

The total area of the Amazon rainforest = 4,000,000 sq. kms. approx.

Therefore weight of carbon in trees = 25,000 x 4,000,000 = 100 billion tons

If 90% of this carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2 this would increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.9 x 100 x 0.85 (see (B) above) = 76 ppm.

The increases in atmospheric CO2 levels described above are significant increases when compared to historic levels (280 ppm in 1850 and 170ppm.in the recent geological past) and also the rate of change is accelerating. We are entering unknown territory. However we can project what might happen on the basis of what we do know and the possibilities are awesome. These possibilities will be described in future articles to be published soon."

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm


48 posted on 06/27/2006 1:38:30 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
lf the earth is warming due to human activity, why is the measured temperature on mars and the moon also going up proportionately?

lf the temperature now is higher than it has been for 2000 years, what made it so warm 20 centuries ago?

49 posted on 06/27/2006 2:03:36 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole

What sort of PT Barnum piece of journalistic horse manure is this?

You contact 100 people and 19 give it a ringing endorsement therefore "The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy?"

What braindead idiot could conceive of any statistical stretch other than someone whose math skills are akin to my cat's.

The deluded media has forgotten (and this is why people are forgetting them) that they are there to report facts, not to make up stories and not to promote a personal viewpoint.


50 posted on 06/27/2006 2:07:34 PM PDT by OpusatFR ( ALEA IACTA EST. We have just crossed the Rubicon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson