Oscar time for Al Gore's movie
If you haven't seen Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", it's time you watched this important film. The movie took home the Oscar award for best documentary feature of 2006 at last night's Academy Awards, and also won an Oscar for best original song, singer Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up." As I wrote in a movie review last year, Gore does a good job educating the non-scientist about the science of climate change and the dangers it poses. The only major flaw scientifically in the movie is the unwarranted connections he makes between climate change and severe weather events such as Hurricane Katrina and the record number of tornadoes in 2004. I gave his science a "B" overall. I thought the movie was a bit too long and was excessively political, but definitely worth seeing (2.5 stars out of four). It is difficult to make a scientifically accurate movie about climate change that will also be interesting enough to do well at the theaters; an "An Inconvenient Truth", while admittedly imperfect, does a respectable job educating us about climate change and the challenges and dangers it poses.
Should "An Inconvenient Truth" be shown in schools?
According to a recent blog posted at realclimate.org, "An Inconvenient Truth" has a become a required part of the science curriculum in some countries. One of the producers of the film, Laurie David, recently offered 50,000 free copies of the $19.99 DVD to National Science Teachers' Association (NSTA) for use in U.S. classrooms. The NSTA turned down the offer on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against "product endorsement", and a fear that distributing the film would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." Realclimate.org points out that one of these targeted supporters is oil giant ExxonMobil, and questions whether concern about losing funding from ExxonMobil influenced the decision not to take the free movies. I don't have a problem with the NSTA rejecting the free movies on the grounds that Al Gore's presentation is politicized. However, as pointed out in the realclimate.org post, NSTA does not offer much content on climate change in their list of recommended materials. One of the recommended books, "Global Warming: Understanding the Debate", has no business being on their recommended reading list. This book is written by Kenneth Green, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). This fossil-fuel funded think tank recently offered $10,000 to scientists willing to criticize the recent landmark 2007 Summary of Policy Makers climate change report issued by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI offered to award the money to scientists who would "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs", as explained in an article in the UK Guardian. Given the lack of quality climate change education material it offers to teachers, NSTA needs to seriously rethink their recommended offerings on this important subject. If they are going to continue to recommend a book written by the fossil fuel industry-funded American Enterprise Institute, they should recommend Al Gore's movie as well. The two best books for teaching about climate change are missing from the NSTA's recommendations: Robert Henson's excellent Rough Guide to Climate Change (high school level) and The North Pole Was Here (grades 6-9), by New York Times climate change writer Andrew Revkin.
I'll be back Wednesday with a look at the weather of January 2007--the warmest January on record, globally.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
04:21 GMT le 28 février 2007
Tirador2 has had comment privileges removed for this blog. Thanks for flagging everybody.
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."
After much school board debate teachers in that district can show it but they have to show the opposing view as well.
And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short
I just wanted to point out that I hear this comment frequently here....
This statement in bold was taken right from the I.P.C.C. report. I think they knew this view was going to cdome up just like they said that the Atlantic hurricanes ARE being influenced by global warming.
Also I want to apoligize to anyone I might have offended last nite with my comments to our temporary Troll visitor. Like I tried to point out last nite it was IGNORANT people like him that results in the slightly tarnished reputation we have in the world right now. This is the greatest country on the face of this planet, just to be able to express our views so openly is evidence enough!
I hold that at any given time it is the marginal effect of adding or subtracting a component to the atmosphere is what we are talking about. In business terms, ROI (Return on investment). Adding a pound of CO2 has far less effect than adding a pound of CH4. Adding a pound of H2O like wise has a far greater effect. If you look at the contribution of all that C02 to actual energy retention it is only about three times that of the small amount of CH4 currently in the atmosphere.
The overall effect of global warming may not be what everyone thinks. If you look at the average temperature over the entire surface of the planet and you think about raising that average there are two extremes of how that average can increase. In one extreme of looking at it is that the average temperature at the equator increases and the average temperature at the poles increases. In other words for the sake of argument the average in Kenya and the average at the poles both increase could be one scenario in which the average increases. The other scenario is that the average at the pole increases while the averages around the equator remain roughly the same and the averages in deserts like the Sahara actually go down (as they did this winter). I think greenhouse gases will push things according to the second scenario.
Living in the midwest I see the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere on warming all the time. It is very apparent and very strong. This time of year, when there is no cloud cover ice will form on my windshield even when the ambient temperature is above freezing. If there is cloud cover and the temperature is below freezing there will be no ice. Once big difference between the effect of CO2 and CH4 is that they don't travel in localized features like H20 does.
Finally, at some time in the past the levels of CO2 must have been much higher than today. Ask yourself where all the carbon once was that is now locked in petroleum deposits like coal and many oil deposits. It had to be the atmosphere and it was distributed all over the planet from the equator (Nigeria, Mexico, Saudi, Russia, Siberia, Canada) to near the poles. They can look at the ice record all they want, but the petoleum record should not be overlooked.
Liberals: feel free to use it to promote environmental concerns.
Rightwingers: feel free to use it to promote achieving energy independence for America.
Depending on the source/company involved, 4 - 37 cents of every dollar spent on filling up your car leaves the country and/or goes to regimes who are actively or passively anti-American.
The politicians who paint this as a Liberal Concern tend, for the most part, to be funded or invested heavily in Big Oil. Big Oil is NOT necessarily part of being conservative.
Now I think there are others on this blog that owe some apologies for the acidic response to my post.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html
There was a time in America, the time when great and very pretty bridges and dams were built by a progressive people, a people going somewhere. Many worked on those projects to feed themselves and their families. Many worked vigorously because they were glad to be a part of something bigger than themselves, something for everybody.
It would take those people to fix the levees. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be around anymore.
now....regardless of co2 output..a great reason america needs to look at alternative fuels..
SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- The pristine Southern Ocean, which swirls around the Antarctic and absorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is slowly losing a fight against industrial gases responsible for global warming, scientists say.
The Southern Ocean's unique wind and storm conditions make it the world's greatest carbon "sink"; the earth's oceans absorb a third of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the Southern Ocean absorbs a third of that.
But the waters that surround Antarctica are becoming more acidic as they absorb increasing amounts of carbon dioxide produced by nations burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.
Deforestation and slash-and-burn farming also releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide stored in timber or peat bogs.
The more acidic an ocean gets, the less carbon dioxide it can soak up.
"It is becoming more difficult for the Southern Ocean to absorb the excess carbon dioxide," said Dr Will Howard of Australia's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.
Howard has just returned to the Australian Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research Program's base in southern Tasmania state after leading a team of 60 international scientists on a five-week expedition to gather evidence on how ocean systems are struggling to cope with the build-up of greenhouse gases.
"I would not say it's being killed," Howard said in a telephone interview. But it is being changed. "And once the system is altered ... it's going to be a different ecosystem," he said.
Rising acidification of the Southern Ocean has already begun to affect the ability of plankton -- microscopic marine plants, animals and bacteria -- to absorb carbon dioxide, scientists have found.
In the sea as on land, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Oceans soak up carbon dioxide from the air and sink it to the depths.
musterion~ There is an award out for anyone that can get something published questioning these models, to the tune of $10000. Beyond that What is written there about how these models work just isn't true. Not suprised they offered no links to how these models work & are tested. Check out the IPCC link up there Dr Masters left, there is accurate model info in there. There is factors that throw the models a little, we can't predict everything, true. The trend has been though that the models say it will get hot quick & the ice is going to melt quick & then it gets hotter & melt occurs faster than the models said. The last few years changes occured faster than the worse of the gloom & doom models had predicted.
TugHillTina1~ As for this being a punishment for western civilization~ I've begun to live a greener life. Changed my lightbulbs, added some insulation, caulked the house. All the apliance upgrades have payed for themselves in the energy they saved...It's like getting fancy new appliances that do their job better for free. We switched out the cars. One of them has payed for itself & payed us back in the amount it has saved us on gas. Growing a few veggies instead of flowers has tasted so much better. My standard of living is no less than before it's better with fancy appliances, better cars, I just save a few grand a year more than i did & eat healthier, better tasting veggies.
I am concerned about the rising La Nina. Wonder how this will potentially effect our summer . . .don't think the el Nina / la Nina is a result of GW . . just the way the earth is trending right now.
saw this and thought i would say howdy!
"Forecasters warned Tuesday that a La Nina weather pattern - the nasty flip side of El Nino - is brewing, bringing with it the threat of more hurricanes for the Atlantic."
Looks like the relative calm of last year will come to an end, and a return to a "more active" atlantic hurricane season seems to be on the horizon!
Look forward to studying and tracking "blobs" this year! :)
Looking forward to following the blobs myself thel!
it IS possible to sustainably log and in some areas it has been practiced for hundreds of years. Unfortunately in many areas, including most of the western US and Canada, unsustainable logging is occurring. In most cases, clear cutting is not sustainable within century-length timescales because it causes severe damage to the soil and type conversion of habitats. (in a few tree types such as red fir, small clear cuts are more effective and sustainable than selective logging - it depends on natural disturbance regimes).
as for co2 sequestering using trees, it only works if you bury the trees in a bog or hole. Where did the trees go that were cut out of thye old growth forest? They largely went into paper or firewood (remember only the main trunk of the tree is usable for construction.) Even wood frame buildings are short term. Also, when you clear cut a forest, much of the detritus in the soil breaks down into CO2, and often times there is as much CO2 down there as there is in the trees.
So logging forests faster won't help in any way. IT will also increase some of the ill effects of greenhouse warming such as erosion.
More info can be found here or at noaa's page.
modified in response to my good buddies modification and a wonderfull button this mod button is......
I still remember how NOAA last year made a call claiming la nina was back and we saw how everything turned out.Much is still unknown about this phenomena.
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index