Where is Al Gores global warming theory going these last several months ?

Question

Where is Al Gores global warming theory going these last several months ?

Answer 1

He would say its right in line.  The extreme weather showing up in winter like this is part of what he is talking about.  They say things will be more severe as far as weather goes, not necessarily that it will always be warmer but things will become more out of whack and unstable.

Answer 2

Out the window, where it belongs.

Answer 3

in the trash where it belongs

Answer 4

IT'S NOT HIS THEORY, PROPAGANDIST!!!! Do you people have some fetish with him?

Answer 5

What do you mean  "several months". There has been no warming trend for the last 9 years.

Answer 6

He's still counting all the cash he made off selling the junk.  Funny, now a ton of experts are finally done with REAL science and figuring out it is a load of BS.

Answer 7

Sorry, "Al Gores theory"?! Al Gore did not discover the theory of global warming, its been around for decades.

The majority of scientists believe we are in a period of warming, and research is consistantly going on to understand more about the climate. (While people argue about it over the internet, for some reason).

Answer 8

The theory you are talking about is not Al Gore's as you imply.  Al Gore is a statesman and spokesman who is concerned enough to use his standing in the world to educate on this important issue, the most important issue man has ever faced.  

Editor@b  Very informative answer.  However, I would not want the argument for stopping deforestation to take our eye off the ball on ending our oil dependency.   Oil has become an albatross around the neck of our economy.  As I have said in other answers, the hidden costs of oil are bankrupting our economy.  Estimates of up to $800 billion annually, much larger than our defense budget, cannot be healthy.

  

Your comments, about produce shipped from other countries sometimes being cheaper than produce trucked shorter distances, are an eye opener.  I think this is a good argument for more reliance on rail for freight, as it is much more efficient than trucking in many cases.

  There's a book called "Good News for a Change, How Everyday People are Helping the Planet"     by David Suzuki and Holly Dressel

This is a book that is not gloom and doom but shows how simple local actions are often more sustainable and more effective at solving problems than large projects and initiatives like those that the World Bank might propose, for instance.   Like third world farmers who got more productivity and improved local economy by reverting to traditional organic farming, than if they had used western chemical heavy intensive farming that is not sustainable.

  If the question is about how it is, that it is cold in the winter, well....

  The IPCC only says worldwide temps have increased .6C in the last century on average, how do skeptics rationalize, that that means winter where they live will be cancelled this year.  The IPCC clearly doesn't claim that winter will be less severe or warmer in any given year,  month or locallity.  So why do you keep asking such ridiculous questions?

Answer 9

to warmer weather

Answer 10

It's the explination why the U.S still has winter in march. ;l

Answer 11

down the s*****r

Answer 12

Weather factors can overcome global warming for a short time.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

there's a reason this is not front page news, and it's not some imaginary "conspiracy".

Answer 13

Out of his mouth and now back up his ***. If there is any difference between them.

Answer 14

It's gone viral! All the smart people in the world are working to solve the problem.  Check it out:

Greenhouse-gas emissions have risen rapidly in the past two centuries, and levels today are higher than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. In 1995, each of the six billion people on earth was responsible, on average, for one ton of carbon emissions. Oceans and forests can absorb about half that amount. Although specific estimates vary, scientists and policy officials increasingly agree that allowing emissions to continue at the current rate would induce dramatic changes in the global climate system. To avoid the most catastrophic effects of those changes, we will have to hold emissions steady in the next decade, then reduce them by at least 60-80 per cent by the middle of the century. (A delay of just 10 years in stopping the increase would require double the reductions.) Yet, even if all carbon emissions stopped today, the earth would continue to warm for at least another century. ...

A person's carbon footprint is simply a measure of his contribution to global warming. (CO2 is the best known of the gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, but others - including water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide - also play a role.) Virtually every human activity - from watching television ot buying a quart of milk - has some carbon cost associated with it. We all consume electricity generated by burning fossil fuels; most people rely on petroleum for transportation and heat. Emissions from those activities are not hard to quantify. Watching a plasma television for three hours every day contributes two hundred and fifty kilograms of carbon to the atmosphere each year; an LCD is responsible for less than half that number. Yet the calculations required to assess the full environmental impact of how we live can be dazzlingly complex. ... A few months ago, scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute reported that the carbon footprint of Christmas - including food, travel, lighting, and gifts - was 650 kg per person. That is as much, they estimated, as the weight of "one thousand Christmas puddings" for every resident of England. ...

Many factors influence the carbon footprint of a product: water use, cultivation and harvesting methods, quantity and type of fertilizer, even the type of fuel used to make the package. Sea-freight emissions are less than a 60th of those associated with airplanes, and you don't have to build highways to berth a ship. Last year, a study of the carbon cost of the global wine trade found that is actually more "green" for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. The study found that "the efficiencies of shipping drive a 'green line' all the way to Columbus, Ohio, the point where a wine from Bordeaux and Napa has the same carbon intensity."

The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised fifty miles away. "In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the UlK, which helps productivity," (Adrian) Williams (agriculture researcher at the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, in England) explained. That means the yield of New Zealand apples far exceeds the yield of those grown in northern climates, so the energy required for farmers to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. It also helps that the electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable sources, none of which emit large amounts of CO2. Researchers at Loncoln University in Christchurch, found that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to England produced 688 kg of carbon-dioxide emissions per ton, about a fourth of the amount produced by British lamb. In part, that is because pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britain (or in many parts of the U.S.). Similarly, importing beans from Uganda or Kenya - where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure - tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems. ...

... We are going to have to reduce our carbon footprint rapidly, and we can do that only by limiting the amount of fossil fuels released into the atmosphere. ... Each time we drive a car, use electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, or heat our homes with gas or oil, carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases escape into the air. We can use longer-lasting light bulbs, lower the termostat (and the air-conditioning), drive less, and buy more fuel-efficient cars. That will help, and so will switching to cleaner sources of energy. Flying has also emerged as a major carbon don't - with some reason, since airplanes at high altitudes release at least 10 times as many greenhouse gases per mile as trains do. Yet neither transportation - which accounts for 15 per cent of greenhouse gases - nor industrial activity (another 15 per cent) presents the most efficient way to shrink the carbon footprint of the globe. ...

(John O.) Niles, the chief science and policy officer for the environmental group Carbon Conservation, argues that spending $5 billion a year to prevent deforestation in countries like Indonesia would be one of the best investments the world could ever make. "The value of that land is seen as consisting only of the value of its lumber," he said. A logging company comes along and offers to strip the forest to make some trivial wooden product, or a palm-oil plantation. The governments in these places have no cash. They are sitting on this resource that is doing nothing for their economy. So when a guy says, 'I will give you a few hundred dollars if you let me cut down these trees,' it's not easy to turn your nose up at that. Those are dollars people can spend on shcools and hospitals."

... According to the latest figures, deforestation pushes nearly six billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That amounts to 30 million acreas - an area half the size of the UK - chopped down every year. Put another way, according to one recent calculation, during the next 24 hours the effect of losing forests in Brazil and Indonesia will be the same if 8 million people boarded airplanes at Heathrow Airport and flew en masse to New York.

... From both a political and economic perspective, it would be easier and cheaper to reduce the rate of deforestation than to cut back significantly on air travel. It would also have a far greater impact on climate change and on social welfare in the developing world. Possessing rights to carbon would grant new power to farmers who, for the first time, would be paid to preserve their forests rather than destroy them. Unfortunately, such plans are seen by many people as morally unattractive. "The whole issue is tied up with the misconceived notion of 'carbon colonialism," Niles told me. "Some activists do not want the Third World to have to alter their behavior, because the problem was largely caused by us in the West."

More short, easily-digested, fully cited excerpts here http://www.pokerpulse.com/gogreen.php.

As you can see from the good blue bits at the link, scientists have since at least 1958 predicted global warming. It was a primary force thanks to Al behind Bill Clinton's fast-tracking of the much maligned World Trade Organization. He understood that the free market was the best way to determine price, which is invariably based on production costs. It makes no sense for cooler climates to spend carbon to grow food and so on when there are climates better suited to the task. That's why all these 'BUY LOCAL' initiatives though well meaning may be misguided. It's not always cheaper to grow your own. The market will work it out - IF imperialists like the U.S. will only adhere to trade panel rulings even when it goes against them.

This is important in a free market. When the U.S. decided to change the terms of the agmt rather than comply with a ruling over Internet gambling, of all things, favoring Antigua, Antigua lost a valuable service industry that gave a lot of people clean, respectful employment and a real chance at financial independence. Between the unconscionable eco-cost of air travel and the volatility of weather, tourism is an unreliable economic base.

So Al is still out there acting as a harbinger, helping to put science and industry together to solve the problem. And the smart people are joining in.

Answer 15

oh you mean like winter? it gets cold in the winter.

Answer 16

We are all going to die.

Answer 17

down the toilet :)