To a Brit, this is like choosing 9th September.

Ahem… Al … I hate to bring this up, but the earth’s heat cannot dissipate into space, heat requires a conductor and space is a vacuum.

Maxx on February 15, 2007 at 10:25 PM

That’s not true. There are three ways to lose heat/energy; conduction, convection and radiation. The last works quite well in a vacuum.

taznar on February 16, 2007 at 9:51 AM

taznar, you are correct, Infrared/radiated heat will transfer through a vacuum, I touched on that in a prior post. But the amount of heat transferred from the earth by that mode is not significant compared to the rate at which the sun warms the planet. I think Al Gore wants us to believe that the primary means for cooling the planet is heat drifting out into space. But of course the vast majority of the earth’s heat is not in the form of IR and cannot dissipate into space because there is no conductor. My statement was made from a practical standpoint since IR transfer is insignificant in the scheme of cooling the planet.

What really cools the earth is water and the evaporative process. The sun heats the water and the air. Water evaporates to make water vapor which forms clouds. Clouds move over land and the vapor condenses once the right atmospheric conditions are met, which causes rain. That’s how we get an endless supply of fresh water. The water eventually flows back to the ocean and the process begins again. The heat is used-up in this process, it takes an enormous amount of heat to expand the water molecules to change it from a liquid into a gas. This is not the only way the planet is cooled but it is the primary way.

But knowing this takes the drama out of space fiction showing people freezing instantly when exposed to space. Since the only way they can lose heat is via radiation, it actually takes a veeery loooong time to freeze.

Yes, but the rupturing of the eyes, ears, brain, skin and other vital organs due to extreme pressure differential wouldn’t give you time to freeze, unfortunately.

If these morons would put half as much effort into fighting islamic terrorism (the REAL threat) as they do with “global warming” we could have this thing over and done with before my daughter is old enough to wear a burqa.

Tony737 on February 16, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Never gonna happen tony they have thier agenda and the dummies are stickin to it, LOL

his widely celebrated role as a prophet of global warming

Gore is a religious leader now, we should all bow our heads in reverence.

I wonder, Al, if you would use a backdrop of one of the Great Lakes when discussing the lack of fresh water in America?

BTW Al, do you plan on being “carbon-neutral” by swimming back from Antarctica when you’re finished there?

Putz.

Freelancer on February 16, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Thanks for that. I’ve been saying all along that if it gets too hot we should nuke Mt. Rainier-problem solved!

I’ve also wondered how 4 or 5 suitcase nukes set off by Jihadis would affect the earth’s temperature, let alone ecosystems.

Damn and I like the RHCPs, too. Why do all the musicians have to be so stupid as to get involved in politics? I doubt Flea or any of the band members have Bachelors of Science degrees and I wonder if they can even outline the scientific method.

This is good news. It will take this stupid issue out of the public eye and stick it back in the eco-nut fringes where it belongs.

Just as Live 8 finally made the world sick to death of hearing the constant liberal Africa guilt trip.

Just as Fahrenheit 9/11 pulled the plug on the popular anti-war movement.

People can only take so much whining and moaning.

[If there isn't a group that certifies products "green", the way that produce is certified "organic", well there ought to be. (Sounds like an opportunity calling!)]

Then there’s the stage, lighting, amplification, media and all the performers themselves.

More likely, the vast majority of those attending will get there in environmentally destructive vehicles, powered by non-renewable energy sources. They won’t care and in fact, neither does Al Gore.

He’s already blown it.

What a hypocrite.

BTW – I hope the bands all have Tipper’s PMRC stamp of approval.

It kills me that Bon Jovi gets involved with this crap, if I burn all of my Bon Jovi CDs, will it contribute to global warming?

Yes, Mt. Pinatubo put more crap in the air in one day than Man EVER has. Also, when the Left’s favorite dictator, Saddam, set fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil wells, that put tons of raw, burnt oil pollution up there too. I remember libs predicting a “black ring around the earth for a thousand years” caused by this buring oil. Once again, the lefty loons predict rubbish and once again it doesn’t come true.

If these morons would put half as much effort into fighting islamic terrorism (the REAL threat) as they do with “global warming” we could have this thing over and done with before my daughter is old enough to wear a burqa.

Ahem… Al … I hate to bring this up, but the earth’s heat cannot dissipate into space, heat requires a conductor and space is a vacuum.

That’s not true. There are three ways to lose heat/energy; conduction, convection and radiation. The last works quite well in a vacuum.

But knowing this takes the drama out of space fiction showing people freezing instantly when exposed to space. Since the only way they can lose heat is via radiation, it actually takes a veeery loooong time to freeze.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

Exit question: with Dems already pushing Gore to run and the concert set to blow his profile sky high, if Hillary looks weak come September, will he make his move?

Does a polar bear crap on the melting ice caps? Hell yeah Don Goreleone’s making a run. Gore/Obama 08; KFB called it first.

Rick on February 16, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Yeah, I read that “hottest january” article too, though it’s again based on just over a century of records and if we want to be real about it, and why don’t we talk about November-December 2000 being the coldest November-December period on record in the United States?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsfri10.htm

Bottom line: You know how we get “average” temperatures? By seasons of higher and by seasons of lower temperatures.

Gore added that the campaign even plans to stage the first-ever rock concert on Antarctica.

Just when I think his intelligence has hit rock bottom, he pulls out a jackhammer. . .

Wasn’t there something like this in Revelations?

Should I be concerned?

I’m thinking you mean Revelation 3:9-11…

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness

That’s not global warming. That’s global disintegration. God promised Noah that he would never again destroy the world with a flood. And for anyone thinking that man will cause that with a nuclear holocaust, we’re just not that “bad”. The peak eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 generated more destructive force than 35,000 Hiroshima bombs. One expert estimated that the pollutants ejected into the atmosphere on that day were greater than every vehicle in California running 24/7 for 15 years. The Al Gores of those days were warning us that a doubling of the prevailing air pollution over North America would mean the end of life on the West Coast. Mount St. Helens was more on the order of 7 times the air pollution, and we’re still here. But that was a pop-gun compared to Pinatubo.

The peak eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991 lasted nearly nine hours. As much as 30 million tons of sulphur dioxide gas was emitted in that time. Think for a moment about the VOLUME of gas required to weigh 30 million tons (60 billion pounds).

To get back on topic, here’s the money quote from the Pinatubo page, regarding an eruption 10 times more polluting than Mt. St. Helens…

The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992.

More pollution than all of mankind could generate in a decade, in just nine hours, covering the entire planet with a blanketing atmospheric layer, and 0.73 degrees reduction in mean temperature two years later was the maximum effect.

Meanwhile, we have an uptick in global temperatures during a 17-year sun-spot cycle peak of activity, and it must be man’s decadence destroying the Earth.