Question about the movie "The inconvenient truth".

Discussion in 'Environment' started by DeeJ1971, Jul 16, 2008.

1. Offline

DeeJ1971Rookie

Joined:
Jul 16, 2008
Messages:
17
2
Trophy Points:
1
Ratings:
+2
Hi,
This is my first post on this forum. I've watched both Al Gore's movie and "The great global warming swindle" and there is something Al Gore said that I did not see challenged in the video made that is a counter argument. Here it is:

Al Gore references a set of line charts which depict global temperature(Blue) and global CO2 levels (red) one above another for the past 650,000 years. His first point is that they parallel closely thereby showing the direct relation between them. His next point is a relationship shown during the recent (last ice age until present day) portion of the chart. He points to the high peak at the end of the temperature line and says it would indicate a pleasant day. He then points to the low point in temperature and say this would be a place where you would have a mile of Ice over your head. At this point he moves up to the CO2 line and the chart animates forward in time to the present day. The CO2 for present day is a nearly vertical line with about double the length of the CO2 change shown from mile of ice to pleasant day. Here is where the problem arises. If I am to believe Als first assertion that the CO2 and temp are directly related (and the lines do indeed show almost identical changes in direction and magnitude), and I ascribe a reasonable temperature difference to the unit Mile of Ice to Pleasant day like 80 degrees F, then the present day temp For places like Detroit and Cleveland would have to be 240 degrees F (80 + 2 X 80). Al then goes on to show the predictions for the next 50 years on the CO2 line, about another 2 of my units. This would mean that the corresponding temperature would have to be 400 degrees (240 +2 X 80).

There a couple of inconvenient truths left out in the movie at this point.
1) The temperature scale is never continued to present day because it would have shown a gross flattening not corresponding to the CO2 line (Weather channel showing significantly below 240 this time of year).

2) Since the graph is on the 650,000 year scale it fails to show the 100-200 year nuance that temperature precedes CO2 levels indicating increased CO2 is a result not a cause of naturally caused global climate change.

2. Offline

DeeJ1971Rookie

Joined:
Jul 16, 2008
Messages:
17
2
Trophy Points:
1
Ratings:
+2
I searched for a message board about global warming after I saw "The inconvenient truth" because I noticed something about the graph and this is one of the forums that came up that looked interesting.

Anyways, I posted my question and it's on the environment board if anybody is interested. What I noticed basically is that he never gave a current temp graph to correspond with his CO2 graph because to do so would show a gross flattening of temp. This is based on his unit of measurement of "pleasant day on the high side of temp and "buried beneath a mile of ice" for the low temp. Using this unit of measurement and ascribing the unit of 80 degrees as a typical "pleasant day", it would have to be 240 degrees at this time of year in our northern cities that he is speaking of if it is to correspond to his CO2 line for this time. Up until this point, he shows a correlation between the two lines.

I've watched several videos countering the theory that GW is being caused by humans spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and I cannot find this particular error in his graph being discussed. It's not in anything I've read yet either.

3. Offline

mattySUMbodyweedemOUT

Joined:
Jun 17, 2008
Messages:
610
23
Trophy Points:
16
Ratings:
+23
and CO2 Because to put them together in one, it clearly illustrates your #2, here.

Kudos

Title
Replies Views
Last Message

Replies:
740
Views:
5,346

Replies:
12
Views:
102

Replies:
112
Views:
1,188

Replies:
12
Views:
85

Replies:
67
Views:
461