Al Gore hypocrisy

statistics wrote:

True, but 98% of the world's ice is grounded, not floating. At least according to this guy:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

I don't know if this is a reputable source, just something I found on Google.

That's true, but the guy I was replying to was specifically talking about icebergs.

The water line doesn't change. I could explain it, but I'll take the "a picture is worth 1000 words" route instead. Watch this youtube video starting at about the 25 second mark (when the ice cubes are no longer supported by the bottom of the glass) and pay close attention to the water line.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IUvd44xLAeA

If 98% of the ice in on land... our debate about icebergs does matter...

The scary thing is that I had always thought of icebergs and global warming impacting the water level... if 98% of ice is on land than it is a lot more frightening because it would have a greater impact on the current water level.

not a moron wrote:

The water line doesn't change. I could explain it, but I'll take the "a picture is worth 1000 words" route instead. Watch this youtube video starting at about the 25 second mark (when the ice cubes are no longer supported by the bottom of the glass) and pay close attention to the water line.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IUvd44xLAeA

Good video. You're right, from the 25 second mark on the water line doesn't change. Ice already floating in water does not seem to make the water level rise.

I think the rising seas argument comes from looking at the ice/water combination at 12 seconds. That's your grounded iceberg, and when that melts, the water level does rise.

Ice floats on water because it's less dense than the water. The mass of the floating ice is equal to the mass of the water it displaces. When the ice melts, the volume of the ice is reduced as it condenses to the density of the water. Since the mass of the ice and the mass of the water it displaced were equal, the volume of water from the melted ice is now equal to the "underwater" volume of the floating ice. Thus the ice can melt without raising the overall level of the water.

This is high school chemistry, some of you need to pay better attention in class.

High School Chemistry was over 20 years ago...

I have packed more things on my brain since than... ;-)

clot it up wrote:

In the video, a protester held a sign that read "Cap Government; not CO"

Isn't that what this all boils down to? More government interference based on the impending doom of global warming.

You're 100% correct. This is no more than a grab for power. My dad believes in global warming, and he hates Al Gore. Hopefully, he'll see the error in all his paranoia, though.

Methuselah wrote:

run run run wrote:

thank heaven theres the antarctic as someone else mentioned early...

thank you nasa...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Yes, thank you NASA for that 2005 report.

Now, for this year's news, we go back to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313264.stm

i was just replying to the 2005 report that the other guy posted...

fun video but not exactly my point and i'd say its alittle tough any exact amounts. i'm saying take glass cyclinder and fill it with water, let it freeze and draw a line on the glass where the top is then let it melt and then see where the water level would be relative to the ice level. i don't know for sure but like i said before i'm just thinking back to filling a bottle with water and letting it freeze and seeing what happens to the bottle. so i'm trying to think about this in reverse and its something you could actually test...i'll try tonight.

Go Josh...

What do you do for a living? How much science have you studied?

Water vapor persists in the atmosphere for days. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is difficult to determine with precision, but it is very long. Decades to centuries. That is why there is a build up in the atmosphere. There would be no build up of water vapor because it dissipates quickly.

Hydrogen is usually produced from water through electrolysis. It certainly does take energy to produce hydrogen. Most of that energy currently comes from the grid (coal, natural gas, renewables).

It can be done. With a combination of renewables and conservation, Americans can cut their energy consumption by half with real conservation measures. How? Just ask the Japanese how. They consume about half the energy per capita than Americans do. And they live very well.

In any event, peak oil will bring about this transition whether we like it or not. Why not take this on before the oil shocks destroy our economy and make it impossible to put any money into energy transition.

When the ice on the top melts, it becomes water which takes up less space because it is more dense, therefore, I don't see how it could significantly impact the sea level, at least not nearly as much as Al Gore says it would.

Freshman in college... so sue me, I took a lot of science in high school and I had a very good teacher. I've done some studying on my own, but I'm just not getting very involved in this thread, who cares?

If 98% of the ice in on land, then it will significantly impact the sea level...

run for the sun wrote:

In any event, peak oil will bring about this transition whether we like it or not. Why not take this on before the oil shocks destroy our economy and make it impossible to put any money into energy transition.

Speaking of peak oil, I'm one of the guys who would rather see it come sooner rather than later. If peak oil comes by the end of the decade, oil production will likely decline slowly, giving us time to transition to smaller vehicles that run on alternative energy. On the other hand, using aggressive methods to temporarily increase oil production (seawater injection, nitrogen injetion, etc) will make oil production fall off a cliff once it inevitably peaks. In that case, we really are screwed. Just look at this oilfield as an example:

2.2 million barrels/day in December 2003, and only 1.0 million barrels/day in May 2008. Ouch.

If you've ever spent a summer in the southeast you'd know that water vapor constantly added to the atmosphere can heat things up for months. And that's whithout any contribution from fuel cell powered vehicles. Go to rural Alabama and walk outside at night in July - or even better - go for a run. It's hot! Many days it's early morning before the temp gets below 80. Next go outside in Los Angeles on a July night. What a difference, it's actually pleasant because the temp is 10 to 15 degrees cooler compared to Alabama, despite having the same daytime temperature. How can this be? There's a lot more CO2 emitted in Los Angeles in a day, shouldn't it be warmer? It's because water vapor from the Gulf of Mexico blankets Alabama for several months each year, trapping the heat. Water vapor = trapped solar radiation. CO2 not so much. It doesn't matter how long the water vapor persists if you're constantly adding to it.

As far as creating H2 from water, this is one of the least efficient ways (with current technology) to manufacture it. The most efficient methods require petroleum. As far as I'm aware no process for mass production exists where you get more energy from the hydrogen than is required to make it. Making hydrogen for fuel cells is very energy inefficient.

Finally, how do you plan to store the hydrogen in your car? Gaseous hydrogen is very explosive, so you'd have to make it a liquid. That means insulated and refrigerated fuel tanks, another hurdle to overcome.

You can argue that most of these problems can be overcome with technology - and you'd be right. But there are much easier, more practical solutions that will achieve the same end using electricity, natural gas, gas from coal, bio-fuels, etc. Why waste time and money on such a difficult and impractical solution?

I do not know why I am even responding, but here it goes:

The contribution of water vapor from fuel cells is the same as the water vapor generated from combustion engines.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/did_you_know.html

Thus, there would be no difference at all in the amount of water vapor produced by a switch to fuel cells. Furthermore, the contribution of water vapor from either cars or fuel cells is not atmospherically significant because it goes away after a few days and does not accumulate in the atmosphere like CO2.

The temp difference between LA and Alabama is because dry air heats and cools faster than humid air. Local CO2 emmissions have no effect on local temps. co2 accumulates in the upper atmosphere and has no effect on local temps. The problem with CO2 is that it accumulates. The more CO2 we emit, the more there is in the atmosphere. Water vapor goes away after a few days and does not accumulate unless you emit more and more every day.

Yes, producing hydrogen through electrolysis is less efficient than extracting it chemically from petroleum. But using renewables to generate the energy, the process is 100% pollution free and CO2 free. And when peak oil hits, it may be the only game around. I never said that a transition to renewables and hydrogen fuel cells would be easy. Conservation is the future as much as renewables and fuel cells.

Finally, hydrogen is explosive, but there already are crash proof tanks designed for cars. Gasoline is plenty explosive too.

Frankly, electronic batteries work better for passenger cars. Fuel cells and hydrogen are needed for transport and heavy equipment. The original post on fuel cells and hydrogen was in response to a post claiming that there was no replacement for petroleum to power heavy machinery and transport needed to maintain our food supply.

Gore????? wrote:

Just that you took the time to respond with such details shows you don't know what you're talking about. Who cares about freak storms in Missouri? It wasn't a freak storm. Did a little deeper and enlighten yourself, you may actually learn something.

Gore????? Give it a rest about the snow storms in Missouri. THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN! QUIT IT. QUIT IT. QUIT IT.

And you STILL haven't added anything constructive to the debate. You constantly refer to this anecdotal evidence that is just plain wrong. I get just as upset when someone talks about the unseasonably warm weather in their particular town as being proof of global warming. I think you are both idiots.

Besides, don't you think that (assuming your claims are actually correct) that these freakish winters in the Midwest suggest some sort of climate shift? So are you suggesting that more precipitation is actually a result of some sort of global cooling?

Whatever your career is, I certainly feel sorry for your employers.

Eric, they have medication for your disorder, I believe. If not, good luck with the logical side of your brain, because you obviously are absent of one. It would not be an over the counter medicine, that I am sure. You might want to look up stupidity and go from there. I'm sure you'll find some medication.