Posted on 01/24/2006 12:29:59 PM PST by Mogengator
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's second book about global warming will be published in April with the title "An Inconvenient Truth," his publisher Rodale Books said on Tuesday.
Gore, the Democrat who lost to George W. Bush in the disputed 2000 presidential election, has been a long-standing campaigner on environmental issues.
The book is tied to a documentary of the same title about Gore's environmental campaigning which was shown at the Sundance Film Festival on Tuesday. It follows up on Gore's successful 1992 book "Earth in The Balance."
Many scientists say global warming is melting glaciers, raising sea levels and will cause more intense storms, droughts and floods. Current levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, research from Antarctic ice cores shows.
However some have questioned whether climate change is the result of human activity and the United States has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, claiming its mandatory cuts would threaten economic growth.
"In the film, Mr. Gore guides audiences through indisputable evidence of the environmental impact of global warming," Rodale said in a statement.
"In the book, the former U.S. Vice President writes about global warming and shares his personal story about how the issue became of urgent importance to him."
Gore served two terms as vice president under President Bill Clinton before losing to Bush in the 2000 election despite winning the popular vote.
Al Bore is still worried about global warming, while I and many other Americans are worried about another terrorist attack. Gore ought to get important priorities in order. God sure shed his grace on America when we did not vote this nitwit as President.
Make the $ Store an offer like 15 for $9. Donate them to the next book fair you see, book fair gets 10¢ ea. for them, buyer "donates" them to local library, which looks one over and writes a letter to the pub. requesting a partial refund on the retail value of the books. Bingo! All is well.
"An inconvenient truth" could explain the recent findings of Canadian scientists.......
Plants cause global warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc
Like an April fool's joke, and the fool who wrote it, it would be fitting to have the book come out on April 1st.
The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm.
The current rate of warming is projected to be 1.8 degrees Celsius this century -- more if fossil fuel burning increases.
Volcanoes do not emit more CO2 than man's activities; in an average year, the C02 emission from human activities is about 150 times more than volcanic CO2 emissions.
That seems to be showing co2 flow but if it shows energy absorption and the delta between estimated co2 levels in the past versus today's, I'm not seeing it. But thanks for the post.
I'm not sure what you're looking for. You said the difference between 70 and 40 ppm CO2, and I pointed out that the atmospheric concentration is 380 ppm. You asked how much more CO2 the oceans might take up if CO2 increases; the diagram addresses that question; however, increasing CO2 does not necessarily mean an increase in uptake rate, which depends both on surface biological activity (phytoplankton) and the actual CO2 flux into surface ocean waters.
Well thanks for your patience. I read, quite a while ago, that atmospheric concentration is 70ppm, so the 380 is a new number for me. But either way, they are supposed to have a way of estimating what co2 concentration was 100 years ago and it is supposed to be less, on the order of 2/3 as much.
So I'm wondering how many more units of heat are stored in a given volume of "atmosphere" at the two different co2 concentrations. Presumable the additional co2 doesn't cause the atmosphere to store more heat but to trap more heat as in a terrarium. I'm sure the specific heat of the atmosphere is not impacted by a tiny bit of co2. So how much more EMR at what frequency is trapped by CO2? How is this maintained in the atmosphere?
The other question pertains to what I believe would be a feed back loop/self healing effect. If the earth warms up than there should be an increase in the number of plants that are converting co2 back to carbon. I'm more into physics than chemistry so I'm not concerned with the actual conversion nomenclature.
At least he is consistant!
"Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different outcome!" Albert Einstein
Yes, he is consistently insane.....
Good idea! Thanks! Everyonce in a while wikipedia is pretty useful.
This statement seems to be about the atmosphere in general.
"Between the absorptions of water vapor and those of carbon dioxide, there is an atmospheric window where, prior to the industrial era, no infrared radiation was trapped, lying between 8 and 15 micrometres"
This statement contradicts it and is probably in error.
The graph says co2 causes absorption at 4.3 microns which is a pretty tight piece of the bandwidth, therefore very little energy.
Still looking for a power in watts quantification though, but this is a pretty good start.
Book burning? Are you sure you want to go there?
Conservatives win when we have a better argument, not when we copy the tactics of the left.
Conservatives win when we have a better argument, not when we copy the tactics of the left.
Agrred, but taking that one sentence, without putting it into the context of the satire that made up my whole post, is not a Conservative tactic either.
He must have pre-ordered.
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.