| Author | Message | ||
     Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1999 Registered: 11-2004  |
The Soulful Mrs. T and I went to Town Hall on 43rd Street last night to attend "A WiReD Town Hall on the Climate Crisis," sponsored by WIRED magazine. We thought that the evening would include a screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," the new movie starring Al Gore and his famous global warming presentation. However the film was NOT shown. Instead, there was a panel of experts and producers discussing the issues and answering questions submitted by the audience. MY FREE-ASSOCIATIVE (but not non-partisan) IMPRESSIONS: Before the panel discussion, Al Gore came out and stood at stage center and spoke for about 20 minutes. He got a very enthusiastic standing ovation. He introduced himself and his wife, mentioned that his daughter and SIL and granddaughter live nearby in NYC, introduced other notables in the audience including Chelsea Clinton. He talked about the issue at hand and described how the evening's discussion would proceed. He was charming, relaxed, funny, NOT AT ALL the stiff, nervous Al Gore we remember. Obviously he's given this short version of the presentation a zillion times before but he was sharp as a tack and funny. He joked about NYC, and indirectly about GW Bush ("political will is a renewable resource.") and of course, about himself. He congratulated Hilary Clinton on her "very important speech" on global warming. I was very impressed with how comfortable he was with himself, with his material, with the audience. I said to myself "this guy can WIN in 2008! How can he not impress?? He's so smart, so clever, so reasonable! So cool! As I said, I'm not non-partisan. There wasn't a non-white face in the house. Al needs to lose about 30 pounds. Then, the panel sat down, moderated by John Hockenberry. James Hansen, a scientist, was neither slick nor toeing a party line. He was very impressive because of his government wonk style and honesty and aw, shucks, ma'am presentation of the science. He and Al summarized the science of global warming with just a few charts and slides. (Al said at one point that he doesn't use Power Point - he uses something called Keynote.) Al spoke passionately about the issue and that in tens years, we'll reach a point of no return, when carbon dioxide emissions will have done damage that cannot be reversed. He spoke of "carbon dioxide neutral" alternatives and how we can change our policies and our lives without major sacrifices and remain profitable doing so. As an example he (and Dr Hansen) described the effort 2 decades ago to decrease our use of CFCs and how successful that has been and how it didn't negatively impact the economy - in fact, companies did very well developing alternatives. More topics and points and alternatives were mentioned than I can type here but it was compelling. Questions were read from the audience, mostly softballs right down the middle for the team to swing at. Al was sincere, passionate and energetic, incredibly well-informed (duh...) and (did I say this yet?) NOT AT ALL stiff or boring. Lawrence Bender and Laurie David, the Hollywood producers of the movie were onstage but added nothing at all. Who needs Hollywood money people up there? Laurie David is Larry David's wife. So what. They were a negative presence. I was amazed when Laurie David said, "I'm surprised no one has asked about Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm." Hockenberry quickly said, "the organizers INSISTED that it not come up!" At one point, Bender, the other Hollywood groove merchant was asked, "if the message of this movie is so important, why not distribute the movie for free to schools, libraries, community groups and for downloading on the web?" His answer was not satisfying in the least. He said that once the film was released commercially nationwide, it would be available to everyone, on DVD and on television. I wanted to ask how the hell was that any different from how "Mission Impossible 3” was distributed? I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I can't imagine it cost $100 million to make. I think Al's gotten much more [Bill] Clinton-like in his presentation style. Clever banter, comfort with the audience, etc. I was very impressed and moved, since I have been talking up Al Gore big-time as an alternative to Hilary. When the other panelists tried to answer a challenging question, Al was the only one with hard-hitting, direct and relevant answers. He didn’t shy away from negative or self-deprecating answers. He was the man, the go-to guy for answers. Since you asked, a letter I recently wrote to the Times said: [Columnist] Bob Herbert is correct that Hilary Clinton may be unelectable (column, May 18). Ergo, Senator Hilary Clinton is doing the Democratic Party significant harm by not removing herself officially and explicitly from the race. The longer she dances around her possible candidacy, the more difficult she makes it for a more viable candidate to win the nomination and the general election. As well, she's collecting boatloads of money that would better serve a candidate who can win. For the good of the party and our nation's future, she must step aside now and throw her support behind a candidate capable of winning the general election. Senator Clinton's narcissistic grandstanding must stop if the Democrats want to win back the White House in 2008. THE LAST QUESTION ASKED was about Al's plans to run for President in 2008. He said that he knew a lot of people wanted him to run (applause! whistles!) but the political process was "toxic" and he's been very happy to not be part of it. He wasn't sure he could have the impact as President that he could have as a private activist. I was very disappointed in that answer. However, perhaps it's part of a strategy to wait until the right moment (when Hilary crashes and burns) to enter the race. My concern is that a one-issue candidate does no one any good. Unless he begins to speak about Iraq, gas prices, disaster preparedness, corruption, i.e, issues other than global warming, etc., I'm afraid he won't run. Thanks for reading this. I'm very interested in seeing the movie. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3324 Registered: 5-2001  |
Thanks for the report! I would have loved to go, but will have to be satisfied with seeing the movie this weekend. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1442 Registered: 9-2004 |
Thanks for this post. I am planning to go to the CLaridge in Montclair to see the movie, June 2nd. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3534 Registered: 3-2004  |
I think that idea about when to jump into the race is a good one. | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2006 Registered: 11-2004 |
FROM Sunday New York Times... May 28, 2006 Political Memo Back in the Limelight, Gore Insists He's Over Politics By ADAM NAGOURNEY WASHINGTON, May 27 — "I wanted it, and it was not to be," said Al Gore, the former vice president and two-time presidential candidate. "I am not pursuing it. I have been there, and I have done that." Mr. Gore was on the telephone from New York, taking a break from promoting his book and documentary about global warming, to dismiss — with a combination of weariness and wariness, but with something approaching finality — speculation that his rising profile should be interpreted as the first stirrings of another bid for the White House. "Why should I run for office?" Mr. Gore asked, the impatience evident in his voice. "I have no interest in running for office. I have run for office. I have run four national campaigns. I have found other ways to serve my country, and I am enjoying them." After a period in which he had worn out his welcome in some quarters, these have been days of some vindication for Mr. Gore, the Tennessee Democrat who likes to introduce himself as "the man who used to be the next president of the United States," a melancholy reference to his defeat — a characterization he might be inclined to dispute — by President Bush in 2000. The warnings of global warming that led former President George Bush to mock Mr. Gore as "Ozone Man" in 1992 hardly seem far-fetched in these days of melting ice caps and toasty winters. Mr. Gore's tough condemnation of the war in Iraq, once derided by the White House as evidence of Mr. Gore's extremism, seems positively mainstream today. He and his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," have been celebrated from Cannes to Hollywood — "Even Bill O'Reilly liked it!" Mr. Gore said — as he has become the toast of the Democratic left and the blogosphere. With some Democrats recoiling at the prospect of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as their party's nominee, there is entirely plausible speculation of how Mr. Gore could beat her and capture the Democratic presidential nomination, should he choose to do that. Yet if Mr. Gore has any annoyance these days, it is at the suggestion that "An Inconvenient Truth" was nothing more than the calculated first stirrings of a campaign for president by a man who has spent most of his life practicing politics and is no stranger to its manipulations and machinations. "I am not trying to feed that or stimulate that," he said. When Mr. Gore started promoting the movie, he methodically sought out environmental reporters rather than political reporters, an aide said, to head off the very kind of is-he-running stories that his friends insist offended him, even as they helped draw attention to his movie. What Mr. Gore wanted to talk about in a call from New York the other night, as he waited for his daughter to arrive with his grandchildren, was the threat facing Planet Earth. "My whole objective is to change the mind of the American public so all the presidential candidates in both parties will want to talk about global warming," he said. But in a feisty and frequently argumentative telephone conversation, Mr. Gore brimmed with disdain at the state of American politics and political journalism, urging his interviewer to quit a career of covering politics to turn to matters of real consequence. "Stop covering politics; cover the climate crisis. It is not too late!" he said, with a boom of laughter. "Have you read my book?" he asked a moment later. "Have you seen the movie?" Mr. Gore cluck-clucked at the "not yet but I will" response. To hear Mr. Gore talk about the state of politics and journalism today — this from a man who has a history in both professions — it is hard to imagine him ever running for office again. Politics, he said, has become a game of meaningless, mindless battles, conducted by unscrupulous methods and people, designed to transform even the most serious policy debates into sport. His documentary, he said, was trying to break through that. "We need to shift gears in corporate America and in our politics and in our economy and in our culture," he said. "Most of all, political scribes have to take off their cynical lenses through which they view every moral challenge as political spin." "It's getting a really good response," Mr. Gore said of the movie. "And people see it outside of a partisan context. Now, I know you will not see anything outside of the political context." He laughed. Mr. Gore's statement that he had no interest in running in 2008, if not the kind of ironclad assurance politicians and the journalists who cover them tend to demand, came about as close to approaching finality as any he has made. It is not that Mr. Gore does not want to be president, as several of his friends said. When asked whether he thought he would have more influence fighting global warming in the White House or making movies, he responded instantly. "I am under no illusions," he said. "There's no position anywhere equal to the president of the United States in terms of one's ability to influence policy." Yet Mr. Gore has told friends that as much as he wants to be president, his pride, image and legacy — think the defining first clause in his eventual biography — could not absorb another race in which he lost again, or really lost. What that means is that Mr. Gore would only run, his associates said, if he was absolutely confident that he could win. Mr. Gore is nothing if not a realist, not lured by this interlude in which he is more Democratic hero than goat, his friends said. If Mr. Gore, who is 58, wanted to run, he would have no trouble enlisting the resources. Several analysts said Mr. Gore could bide his time before entering the race, confident that the power of the Internet would permit him to raise the kind of money almost instantly that once would have taken months of travel. Several of his advisers said that if asked, they would join a Gore campaign for president, and his support from groups like MoveOn.org and with many bloggers is hardly incidental. The praise from the left suggests there is a ready-made base just waiting for him. "Our members are tremendously excited about him because at a time when politics is dominated by tactical sound-bite politics, here is someone who is a statesman who speaks with intelligence about much bigger issues," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group that has sponsored a series of speeches by Mr. Gore. Mr. Pariser's remarks also suggest that Mr. Gore had managed to shed much of his political baggage from 2000, when he was derided precisely for being a sound-bite candidate, captive of his consultants. In that campaign, Mr. Gore rarely, if ever, talked about global warming, notwithstanding the fact that he had written a book on the subject, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit," published in 1992. And to Mr. Gore's benefit, the concern among some Democrats about the state of their field is certainly acute. The speculation about a Gore presidential bid was echoed this week by speculation, albeit softer, about the presidential ambitions of another Democrat, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who says he has no interest in running this time. Still, the man who used to be the next president of the United States says he wants the world to know that he wants none of that. "That was not to be," Mr. Gore said. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3332 Registered: 5-2001 |
Saw the movie yesterday. Really well done. He took a lot of technical material and explained it so clearly and cogently that even some of MOL's most dunderheaded might be able to understand it. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7282 Registered: 10-2001  |
"some of MOL's most dunderheaded might be able to understand it." In other words, you understood the film. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3333 Registered: 5-2001 |
There he is! It's just like Pavlov's dogs!  | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 14539 Registered: 1-2003  |
Terry Gross had a wonderful interview of Gore on Fresh Air yesterday. Listen to it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439305 | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2013 Registered: 11-2004 |
Thanks, Tom, I'll check it out. There was an unbelievably snarky anti-GORE essay in the WSJ today about Gore. It wasn't about science, it wasn't about policy, it was character assasination. What is it with these Republicans? They can't say "I just don't agree." They have to belittle and insult and exaggerate and lie and turn good deeds and motivations against their perpetrators. I fear that the GOP has drawn the battlefield over the past 8 years and Democrats will have to take off the gloves and be as nasty and insulting and dishonest as their opponents. Not sure that they can do that! I dont have acess to the WSJ on the web but if anyone does and can post the piece called "Warmed Over." by Holman J. Jenkins, Jr., it would be appreciated. Of course, *I* wouldn't read it again, but others might find it edifying. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3362 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anybody able to post the WSJ essay? It'll annoy me, but I'd like to see what they're saying about him. | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2014 Registered: 11-2004 |
"Annoy" is putting it mildly. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14546 Registered: 1-2003 |
I guess cheap shots work. Attack the messenger rather than his message. But are you actually advocating that the Democrats ratchet up this practice? | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1538 Registered: 10-2005 |
notey- Here is an early holiday gift for you... xoxoxo -SLK Warmed Over Al Gore's new movie is the feel-good hit of the summer--but not much more. BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR. Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT It's only been out a week, but audiences seem not to have poured forth from Al Gore's movie and, in an unprecedented reversal of political polarity, demanded higher gasoline prices. This is bad news for Republicans, who will bear the burden of high gas prices to the polls in November. Not that Mr. Gore's movie advocates higher gasoline prices. It reportedly doesn't advocate any policy that would actually relieve the fears of climate worriers. When he last sought the White House in 2000, recall, it was Mr. Gore who persuaded President Clinton to open up the strategic reserve to provide consumers with cheaper gas, harm to the climate be darned. Here's a test. What if science showed conclusively that global warming is produced by natural forces, with all the same theorized ill effects for humanity, but that human action could forestall natural change? Or what if man-made warming were real, but offsetting the arrival of a natural ice age? Would Mr. Gore tell us meekly to submit to whatever nature metes out because it's "natural"? Mr. Gore's next movie should be about the urge to propitiate the gods with sacrifices, a ritual whose appeal did not go out with the Aztecs. Yes, Al, let us give billions to alternative energy bureaucrats and emissions regulators. This we do as a tribute to your shamanism, although it will make little appreciable difference to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That said, a valid service is performed in satisfying the eternal human appetite for gloom and doom (and no virgins were sacrificed), distracting people from the reality of life, which is that we all are doomed, while the universe, the Earth and all that environmentalists hold dear will go remorselessly on and on without us. In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth. How much more securing, in a way, to believe we are ruining the planet than the planet just does not care about us, and will run rampant with life long after we are dust. And how pleasant to be able to transmute our fury over our fate into incoherent feelings of self-heroism against our present "enemies." Thus Washington Post columnist, and future dust, Sebastian Mallaby: "By their contempt for expert opinion on everything from Iraqi reconstruction to the cost of their tax cuts, Republicans have turned [Al Gore] into a hero. By their serial dishonesty, Republicans have created a market for 'An Inconvenient Truth.' " That felt good, didn't it? That satisfied a need. But we digress. A remarkable and improbable thing is that, despite presumably devoting decades of study to the subject of global warming, nothing Al Gore has learned leads him to say anything that would strike the least informed, most dogmatic "green" as politically incorrect. He doesn't discover virtues in nuclear power. He doesn't note the cost-benefit advantages of strategies that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rather than those that would stop its creation. Anybody who deeply searches into any subject of popular debate inevitably comes back with views and judgments to shock the casual thinker. Mr. Gore utterly fails to vouchsafe this reliable telltale of seriousness. That man-made carbon dioxide has a net planetary warming effect is an important hypothesis, one that science can make stronger or weaker, but can't prove. It may be true, but a layperson only has to look into the antecedents of today's "consensus" to realize it wouldn't be too surprising if tomorrow's consensus were that CO2 is cooling, or neutral, or warming here and cooling there. And evidence of warming is not evidence of carbon-driven warming. These are different things, at least until scientists can be reasonably certain they've eliminated other factors and interrelationships that contribute to climate variability. But scientists are not close to understanding or even knowing all the factors that play into "climate change," a process that might as well be called "climate," since climate is always changing. Finally, warming and what might cause warming are subjects entirely separable from the urge to gather up all the most dire and extreme speculation about what a warming earth would be like for humans and present it as scientific "truth." Mr. Gore's narrative isn't science, but science fiction. It also contains a large element of political fiction, relying on the hack theme of good guys versus bad guys. Hint to filmmakers: An honest policy argument usually takes the form of one of two questions: "Whose rights trump?" and "What's welfare maximizing?" Mr. Gore did not discover global warming and hasn't been a voice in the wilderness. Our political system has looked at the question closely, in a way Mr. Gore's film doesn't, and repeatedly concluded that the cost of action is greater than the known or surmised risks. That's all it can do. Thus the Senate and Presidents Clinton and Bush all made clear that they wouldn't sign up for a Kyoto gesture that imposes real costs with no real benefits. This argument will come back again and again, as it must. As for the auteur, where many politicians seem like overhungry adolescents, Mr. Gore seems like a stifled 9-year-old--by turns spoiled and bullied, unwilling fully to meet expectations but unwilling also to take his own path. So what about gas prices? He needs to decide: Does he want to be a presidential contender or does he want to be the deliverer of "inconvenient truths" about climate change? Mr. Jenkins is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal on Wednesdays. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1927 Registered: 7-2004  |
So he refutes the premise of the movie (and global warming) with a simple, "well, in a million years who gives a •••• anyway because we'll all be dead." Typical Republican. (I think "Republican" should replace "lawyer" in all those lawyer jokes. For instance (and it sounds so right): What do you call 50,000 REPUBLICANS at the bottom of the ocean?) | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1540 Registered: 10-2005 |
RL, Of course that is all you got out of it and of course it is the Republican's fault. This is one of my favorite lines, my emphasis in bold. "In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth." So true so true... -SLK | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1929 Registered: 7-2004 |
Of course that's your favorite line because it allows you and other republicans to whatever the f-ck you feel like all the time no matter the immediate consequences. How can you tell when a Republican is lying? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14548 Registered: 1-2003 |
I find flaws in that WSJ piece. Here's a test. What if science showed conclusively that global warming is produced by natural forces, with all the same theorized ill effects for humanity, but that human action could forestall natural change? Or what if man-made warming were real, but offsetting the arrival of a natural ice age? Would Mr. Gore tell us meekly to submit to whatever nature metes out because it's "natural"? Discrediting the man by theorizing what he would do in a hypothetical situation is worse than useless. Science has not shown that global warming has occurred independent of human activity. Science has shown that there is likely to be a correlation. What would this journalist do if the sky were orange? Who knows, and who cares? Mr. Gore's narrative isn't science, but science fiction. Who decides that? I don't think Jenkins is qualified to do so. All independent science journals agree that global warming is occurring. All disagreement comes from non-scientific, political sources. Jenkins accuses Gore of being political. Well, just who has an interest in denying the effects of global warming? Jenkins doesn't seem to understand the scientific process. Like creation education advocates, he doesn't accept the body of knowledge because it isn't proven in the way one can prove that the sum of angles of all triangles equals 180 degrees. No scientific theory is proven that way. He has a lot of nerve to accuse Gore of being political, given how he is shoving his fingers in his own ears and shouting LA LA LA. | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2015 Registered: 11-2004 |
Nicely put, Tom. No insults, no swearing, just quiet analysis. You d'man. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14549 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thanks, Vincent the Dog. If we are supposed to be people of ideas, let's look at the ideas for their merits, not who utters them. SLK, maybe I shouldn't bother to save for my kids' college, because their educations won't bear fruit until after I'm gone. Waddya think? | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2016 Registered: 11-2004 |
You can call me Mr T. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3365 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks, SLK. I appreciate it. There are a lot of huge flaws in the piece, but one that is particularly glaring is this: "And evidence of warming is not evidence of carbon-driven warming." One might have thought that Jenkins would have viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" before writing his article, because Gore discusses that very point, but that statement alone shows that this couldn't possibly be the case. The relationship between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate science. If you look at charts of global temperatures and CO2 concentrations (which is something the deniers don't seem to think is worth doing) you'll see that they are almost exactly the same shape. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3366 Registered: 5-2001 |
By the way, if global warming deniers require such an extreme level of proof before they accept predictions about the next hundred years, then what on earth are they doing making sweeping predictions about will occur a million years from now? A thousand years ago our scientific knowledge was virtually nil. It is growing at an ever-increasing pace. There is absolutely no reason to assume that, barring a massive setback to civilization, we will not gain mastery over virtually every process in the cosmos and be spread throughout the galaxy in a few thousand more. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1541 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ahhh, the Pascalian Wager has reared its funny looking head again I see.... God forbid you question GW. So much for diversity of thought. -SLK | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14552 Registered: 1-2003 |
Go ahead, question it. We look forward to your results. Please notify us when they are in. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3368 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh, here we go again... SLicK, like Tom Reingold said, please feel free to question whatever you want. If your arguments against anthropogenic global warming can't be soundly defeated, then they won't be. Go for it. But don't go complaining that "diversity of thought" is disallowed. | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2017 Registered: 11-2004 |
Snark, snark, snark. Why so sarcastic and mean-spirited, SLK? How does that help you make an intellectual or political point? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1100 Registered: 2-2004 |
Vincent says - "What is it with these Republicans? They can't say "I just don't agree." They have to belittle and insult and exaggerate and lie and turn good deeds and motivations against their perpetrators." It's worked pretty good for you Dems since 2000 so we are simply trying it out. I think it's a viable strategy and since it is election year it is time to put it into practice. As for this topic about Gore - who cares. Hillary isn't going to let him run and if he does run, Hillary will destroy him from behind the scenes. Gore's best chance is to let her run, have her lose and then run himself in 2012. I think this is what he will do (early prediction). | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2732 Registered: 6-2002 |
As for this topic about Gore - who cares. Hillary isn't going to let him run and if he does run, Hillary will destroy him from behind the scenes. Gore's best chance is to let her run, have her lose and then run himself in 2012. I think this is what he will do (early prediction). How about the opposite? What if Hillary lets Al run and lose and then she runs in "12 or even "16? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2733 Registered: 6-2002 |
May be Al Gore's "comeback" is just a set-up by the Clintons. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1544 Registered: 10-2005 |
Yep, maybe we blame all the SUVs driving around back then... June 1, 2006 Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past By ANDREW C. REVKIN The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees. The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic. Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming. "Something extra happens when you push the world into a warmer world, and we just don't understand what it is," said one lead author, Henk Brinkhuis, an expert on ancient Arctic ecology at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. The studies draw on the work of a pioneering 2004 expedition that defied the Arctic Ocean ice and pulled the first significant samples from the ancient layered seabed 150 miles from the North Pole: 1,400 feet of slender shafts of muck, fossils of ancient organisms and rock representing a climate history that dates back 56 million years. While there is ample fossil evidence around the edges of the Arctic Ocean showing great past swings in climate, until now the sediment samples from the undersea depths had gone back less than 400,000 years. The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests. The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, with many ups and downs, that the researchers say began about 45 million years ago and led to the cycles of ice ages and brief warm spells of the last several million years. Experts not connected with the studies say they support the idea that heat-trapping gases — not slight variations in Earth's orbit — largely determine warming and cooling. "The new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University. The $12.5 million Arctic Coring Expedition, run by a consortium called the International Ocean Drilling Program, was the first to drill deep into the layers of sediment deposited over millions of years in the Arctic. The samples were gathered late in the summer of 2004 as two icebreakers shattered huge drifting floes so that a third ship could hold its position and bore for core samples. Estimates of the prevailing temperatures in the different eras represented by the sediments were made in part by tracking the comings and goings of certain algae called dinoflagellates that typically indicate subtropical or tropical conditions. Because the samples lacked remains of shell-bearing plankton that are usually relied on to provide temperature records, the researchers used a newer method for approximating past temperatures: gauging changes in the chemical composition of the remains of a primitive phylum of microbes called Crenarchaeota. Some scientists familiar with the research said that while there were still questions about the precision of this method at temperatures like those in the ancient Arctic Ocean, it was clear that the area was warm. The temperatures recorded in the samples, right through the peak of warming 55 million years ago, were consistently about 18 degrees higher than those projected by computer models trying to "backcast" what the Arctic was like at the time, according to one of the papers. Another significant discovery came in layers from 49 million years ago, where conditions suddenly fostered the summertime growth of vast mats of an ancient cousin of the Azolla duckweed that now cloaks suburban ponds. The researchers propose that this occurred when straits closed between the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The flow of water from precipitation and rivers created a great pool of fresh water, but about 800,000 years after the blossoming of duckweed began, it ended with a sudden warming of a few additional degrees. The researchers suggest that this signaled when shifting land formations reconnected the Arctic with the Atlantic, allowing salty, warmer water to flow in, killing off the weed. The researchers said the sediments held hints that Earth's long slide to colder conditions, and the recent cycle of ice ages and brief thaws, began quite soon after the hothouse conditions 50 million years ago. A centerpiece of their argument is a single pebble, about the size of a chickpea, found in a layer created 45 million years ago. The stone could have been deposited on the raised undersea ridge only if it had been carried overhead in ice, said Kathryn Moran, a chief scientist on the drilling project, who teaches at the University of Rhode Island. The stone was probably embedded in an iceberg or perhaps a plate of sea ice that tore free from a gravelly shore. It sank as the ice melted or broke apart, Dr. Moran proposed. Such "dropstones" have long been used to date when an oceanic region has been ice covered or ice free. The amount of ice-carried debris in the sediment layers began to increase about 14 million years ago, the scientists said. That is also about when the great ice sheet that now weighs down eastern Antarctica originated, Dr. Moran noted. In general, the results from the Arctic drilling project suggest that the cooling and ice buildup at both poles happened in relative lockstep. This simultaneity tends to support the idea that the cooling was caused by a drop in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which mix uniformly in the global atmosphere, said Dr. Moran and other members of the team. Julie Brigham-Grette of the University of Massachusetts, an expert in past Arctic climates who was not connected with the new studies, cautioned against giving too much significance to the single sample, and particularly the single stone from 45 million years ago. Dr. Brigham-Grette said it was vital to try to mesh the new core results with data gathered around Arctic coasts, where there is plenty of evidence for warm conditions in at least some places as recently as 2.4 million years ago. Despite her doubts, she said, the project was a stunning achievement. "It's all very, very exciting to me, because now we can start to rewrite the history of the Arctic," Dr. Brigham-Grette said. "It's like working a giant landscape puzzle of 500 pieces. For a while we only had 100 pieces. Now we have 100 more, and the picture is getting clearer." And this particular passage really slays me: The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests. Ok, you don't know what caused "heat-trapping" back then but you are certain "smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests" are causing it today? Give me a break. Just for the fact that the NP was a "tropical paradise" 55 million years ago shows me that their is a possbility we may not be correct in our assumptions about climate change today. -SLK | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1106 Registered: 2-2004 |
Because, Hillary knows Gore could actually win in 2008. With a 50/50 split (minus the polls for you poll loving libs) all it takes for Diebold to screw up in a few electorally rich states to see a Pres. Gore. Hillary understands this and won't allow him to get that close again. And I think Hillary's viability is slipping with each passing year. By 2016 we will be long past the Clinton years and she isn't going to age gracefully. Let's face it, looks matter and I hate to think what she will look like in 2016. I know that may be harsh and I normally don't make statements like that but looks absolutely matter in politics. Hillary's only shot is in 2008 which kicks Gore to the curb although I believe Gore has a much better chance at winning than Hillary against a Repub. This will be fun to watch unfold. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14558 Registered: 1-2003 |
SLK wrote: Ok, you don't know what caused "heat-trapping" back then but you are certain "smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests" are causing it today? I think it's a decent theory. The way science works, believing the theory makes sense until a more plausible one replaces it. We can estimate how much we are releasing, and we can estimate how much is there. If the numbers are close, then yes, what is there is closely related to what we release. Easy enough for me. What's your counterproposal? | ||
| Vincent the Dog Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2019 Registered: 11-2004 |
I'm not fully comfortable with the Hilary-better-run-now-before-she-loses-body-and-facial-tone analysis but I think it's VERY early to predict how Gore and Clinton will fare against each other, even if they run against each other in the primaries. The discussion is fascinating, though, as it shows what people are thnking. Also, I think you'll see wave upon wave of people realizing that Al Gore is a viable candidiate over the next 12 months. (Als' OVEREXPOSURE during the last few weeks is starting to get on my nerves. What talk show, radio program, movie show, news program, newspaper, magazine, etc. has he NOT been in? Is it possible for your PR team to over-do their job?) For myself, I'm trying to decide which would be better for the Demos chances in 2008: a rough-and-tumble primary fight, starting in NH and Iowa twixt Al and Hil (who, by trying to differentiate themselves from each other, could harm the ultimate candidate's chances), or, a candidate determined well before the conventon. Any thoughts? And Southerner, for me, it won't be "fun to watch." It will be nerve-racking and scary. My persoanl feeling is that it's critical that the Dems regain the White House and/or Congress or else we're in big trouble. That's my feeling. And if Jeb is seen anywhere near the GOP race, I'll be joining the crowds at our northern borders. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1547 Registered: 10-2005 |
Reingold: My point was in the next line: Just for the fact that the NP was a "tropical paradise" 55 million years ago shows me that their is a possbility we may not be correct in our assumptions about climate change today. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3370 Registered: 5-2001 |
SLK, we don't yet know what caused the CO2 spike at that ancient time because nobody was around at that time to record what was happening. We need more data to come up with a theory we can be confident in. But that has no bearing on today's situation. We absolutely DO know what is causing the spike now -- we are pumping it into the atmosphere. As I read it, the point of the article is that a CO2 spike will result in a profoundly changed planet, which underscores the urgency of addressing the problem of greenhouse gases. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1550 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead, Points taken and taken well, but isn't the fact that we don't know what caused them back then raises legitimate questions on our thought process on the matter today? -SLK | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5458 Registered: 10-1999  |
We know why we don't know what happened 55 million years ago - there was no way to make direct observations. Today, we can take measurements, and have more data to use in order to draw conclusions. We know more now, about what is happening now, than we do about what caused the climate conditions 55 million years ago. In addition to whatever emissions from underground there may have been, it's also the case that 55 million years ago the continents were in different shapes, and the oceans and ocean currents were in different places. How all of this worked together, to produce the conditions back then, is something that scientists have to puzzle out - from a distance, and not from direct observation. So, that's why a lack of information, about what happened 55 million years ago, doesn't really tell us much about the accuracy of today's conclusions. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3373 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks, Nohero. Well put. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14560 Registered: 1-2003 |
Right. The fact that we don't know enough about the past is no proof whatsoever that today's observations are useless. If you want to prove today's assertions false, you have to compile observations and make your own conclusions. Ready, set, go. (I.e. you haven't begun.) |
