Only Jack Bauer could take on Global Warming single-handedly...AND WIN!

;-)

Uh-oh, maybe the deniers will boycott this show now because they're not promoting the status quo? LOL.

Keifer Sutherland, who plays the invincible Jack Bauer plans to do a series of public service announcements on energy conservation. Maybe this will mean that we will see a lot less explosions in the new season.......yea right!

REPLY: And the hypocrisy continues from the elites in Hollywood. You must conserve engergy, but we are going continue to blow things up for our show. I wonder if old Keifer Sutherland is going to curb his lifestyle? yea right!...;-D...

Hooray! I was just about to quit watching. Brett, which GHG? Water vapor? It is the most powerful GHG. It is the most abundant GHG. And highly concentrated you can keep it in liquid form at room temperature. No costly storage :)

In other Hollywood News. The Carbon Credit Scam has begun!

I think I'll get into the carbon offset business. Seems like the perfect scam.

For only $10/ton/year, I'll plant weeds in my backyard to offset your carbon usage so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy. Of course, I will have to bushhog them once a year so that they can be sequestered into the soil. Then you will have to pay me again next year for those warm and fuzzies.

Uh..just chalk this one up to the CEO thread we had some time ago. Do whatever you can to stay in the news on the seemingly "important" issue of the day. Remember, 24 was created to be in the forefront of the issue at the time Terrorism. Since it seems that the country has forgotten about that concern, they have moved on as best they can to encompass the "hot" button issue of GW. Can't blame them makes good business sense.

For those who are interested, a newspaper strip cartoon called Shermans Lagoon has been running a series on the scam that is the carbon offsets. Interesting that it is a hermit crab that is bilking the other characters.

Check the science behind any claims that water vapor is the most powerful CHG:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Because of it's interaction with aerosals, water vapor ends up producing more clouds and cooling than actual warming.

While water vapor has increased, the result is increased precipitation especially in the northern hemisphere and especially during the winter.

Yes; water vapor does reflect infared energy. However, cooling (during the day) from the increased amount of clouds more than offsets that.

It's one reason why global warming is primarly noticed in winter and nighttime lows not being as high. Daytime highs are kept in check by the increased cloud cover.

I realize this is a complicated subject, but jumping to simplistic conclusions will not lead to enlightment or change the science.

Andrew,

We thought there for a bit that maybe, just maybe, you were starting to be weened off that IPCC report you hold so dearly. But alas, I'm afraid all is for naught. You have once again succumbed to its evil spell.

Resist, Andrew, come away from the Dark Side. See the light. We will not hold your past against you.

Andrew,

Which section are you talking about in your link?

One way to easily determine that H2O vapor is a more powerful GHG than CO2 is to observe that at night in arid areas temps will drop sharply while in humid areas it will not as much.

Take a look at http:/www.biocab.org if you have a moment. There are several sections that actually have the math behind the scientific laws. If you can find anything in error, please let me know, I would be curious to see.

Folks who would rather be lazy and not question political or religious dogma and without reluctance deliver their wallets are free to do so, what you are not free to do is volunteer my wallet as well.

Regards,

Steve

"they have moved on as best they can to encompass the "hot" button issue of GW. Can't blame them makes good business sense."

Right. I'm sure lots of people who have never watched '24' before are now going to start watching because the show is now "green." That's ridiculous.

They're doing it because Hollywood usually takes the lead in the social and environmental issues of the day.

Andrew,

Thanks for the link. I suspect the masses here will automatically dismiss it because they think the IPCC really stands for the USSR, and that the only real science comes out of junkscience.com.

>> water vapor ends up producing more clouds and cooling than actual warming....Yes; water vapor does reflect infared energy. However, cooling (during the day) from the increased amount of clouds more than offsets that.

See, this is what I mean about critical thinking skills. Look, it's true that the water cycle has powerful feedback effects which mitigate it's own greenhouse attributes. But this doesn't change the fact that it has a GH effect, and that it's orders of magnitude more important than C02, a trace gas.

Your faulty reasoning seems to be:

premise: only man can cause global warming
premise: man produces C02
premise: water vapor is not produced by man

invalid conclusion: water vapor is not a powerful GHG, C02 is a powerful GHG

The reality is that increasing the C02 from .033 to .038 can only increase the GH effect by a very small amount. Just imagine radiation bouncing back and easily missing the C02. At .038% of the atmosphere, it's a rare thing. However, any warming of the earth will increase the water cycle (clouds, precipitation, etc), and this will cool the climate. Consistent with millenia of observation, the system is stable.

I realize this is a complicated subject, but jumping to simplistic conclusions will not lead to enlightment or change the science.

Andrew - there goes one of the dreaded "feedbacks" the predictions of AGW-induced warming depend upon!

Seriously, the effect of water vapor on climate is complex and anyone who tells you they understand it is fibbing. This is an area of active research.

Andrew - if you could point out to us some long-running data series for aerosols and water vapor, you may have a leg to stand on. Oh, and don't forget to account for the solar effect on cloud formation.

I'll grant you that it is ridiculous that people will start watching the show who had never watched it before. I mean seriously, those they are apparently trying to attract are the same ones who don't buy into the main premise of the show.

BUT, on the other hand, why would they even announce their intentions of going "green" if it were not for the sole purpose of the positive press and potential business gain somehow?

Me, I never bought into it anyhow. And sure ain't gonna at this point.

"The reality is that increasing the C02 from .033 to .038 can only increase the GH effect by a very small amount. Just imagine radiation bouncing back and easily missing the C02."

Decreasing CO2 from .033 to .015 would result in a very frigid -- almost uninhabitable -- climate.

That "trace gas" must be pretty important, huh Gunnar?

Just got another e-mail from the Gore campaign. I honestly can't see why he would be so passionate about this unless Global Warming is his religion or he stands to make a tremendous financial gain from his carbon offset schemes. I think it's a combination of both. Well read below to see what I mean.

In order to ultimately force our leaders to take action to solve the climate crisis, we have to use every medium -- including television, radio, and the Internet -- to build public support. And that's just what the Alliance for Climate Protection will do.

The Alliance is a three-year campaign that will push the climate crisis to the top of the nation's agenda using a combination of paid advertising, public service announcements, and grassroots power.

Your voices have carried our movement this far. So as we begin to create our media campaigns, I didn't want to only turn to an advertising firm -- I wanted to turn to you.

If you had 60 seconds to convince all of your friends that they needed to take action to stop the climate crisis, what would you say? How would you get the attention of millions of people all over the world?

Well, now you have the chance! Current TV and the Alliance for Climate Protection have teamed up to sponsor 60 Seconds to Save the Earth.

The premise is simple: make the best 15, 30, or 60-second ad showcasing how you or someone you know is taking action to alleviate the climate crisis -- or create an original, persuasive message that will open eyes, inspire change and empower your audience.

Get the details and create your ad by visiting:

http://www.current.tv/ecospotcontest

After you submit your ad, our panel of celebrity judges will narrow the field to 20 finalists. Then you will be able to help pick the winner through an online vote. The top ads will be aired internationally on Current TV, featured in the Alliance's national campaign, and showcased on MySpace's Impact channel.

In addition, the grand-prize winner will receive a Toyota hybrid car, while three finalists will win Sony electronic products, and 16 semi-finalists will receive T-Mobile Sidekicks.

So get started -- in 60 seconds you can save the planet. Learn about this incredible contest and submit your ad today by visiting:

http://www.current.tv/ecospotcontest

Thank you,

Al Gore

(Sorry I stole your name other Darren)

Wow, reducing CO2 emissions from 24 is really going to help out a lot! NOT NOT NOT...

I hate this. It seems as if Gore just brain washed most of the world into the belief of CO2 global warming. They think they are doing good for the environment and saving the world but all its going to do is waste money.

I swear, when I get out of college I'm going to make a movie called The Convenient Lie. That will take Gores MONEY making movie and flush it down the potty while exposing him for the fraud he is.

Perhaps we should make an attempt to find out why our planet and the OTHERS are warming? The sun which is hot enough to turn helium in hydrogen? Maybe the precession of the earth? Maybe our galactic position in the milky way? Maybe even things are unknown to us, I'm sure we don't even know half about what causes climate change, maybe even less than that. That is what we should focus on, but its not like we could do anything about it anyway!

Darren:

No sweat, just wanted to keep things straight. I'd hate for you to get blamed for my boneheaded comments. But seeing as you are probably younger than I (you being in college, me well removed from college, but still young at heart), I would like to take the convention of not included last initial if it is OK with you. I have older fingers to type with. LOL

I like your thinking for being in college. Your right on the money, pardon the pun with the Goreacle.

You make your movie and I will be a carbon offset load or two of tickets. Just make sure the theaters are heated using coal fired boilers without scrubbers.

Wow. I made a big MISTAKE above. I said "The sun which is hot enough to turn helium in hydrogen?" Yeah, thats wrong, it turns hydrogen into helium, how the heck do I make a big mistake like that?

No problem Darren C, I'm now known as Darren M. And as for being young I am only 18 years old, don't let that fool you. I have done my research on this stuff, I live for it! And living in North West NJ at an elevation of 1,010 feet I get all the weather I want.

They're doing it because Hollywood usually takes the lead in the social and environmental issues of the day.

REPLY: Yeah, while they fly around in their private jets and ride around town in their gas guzzling limousines, right Marky???

. I suspect the masses here will automatically dismiss it because they think the IPCC really stands for the USSR, and that the only real science comes out of junkscience.com

REPLY: Yeah, because the IPCC is so open to listening to opinions that don't agree with them. Spare me the sarcasm and your covering up of your friends at the New World Order and MoveOn.org, Marko!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Decreasing CO2 from .033 to .015 would result in a very frigid -- almost uninhabitable -- climate.

BS, your eyes are turning brown. Just where did you get that crap from? We know that levels were at 180 ppm during the height of the last ice age. This is due to Henry's Law and a great deal of CO2 being sequestered in the ice. The last ice age was not caused by CO2 levels, it caused them.

So you're telling us that 150 ppm would be almost inhabitable? Millions of species thrived during the ice age. Like the soccer mom with the crappy player often yells, "Good almost kick Johnny".

AGW motto "Doesn't matter if you lie or not, just as long as you have someone to believe you."

So, Steve, now are you going to argue how humans will thrive in an ice age? LOL. Spare us the nonsense. You're losing the argument and your desperation is showing.

Oh yeah, and here's a link that completely destroys your assertion, Steve. You need to keep up to date with science.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

Hopefully Professor Saltzman compares his finding with those of paleontologists. If an ice age occured 10 million years earlier than once thought what caused the Ordivician mass extinction and when was it really? Someone has some splainin to do Lucy.

>> Oh yeah, and here's a link that completely destroys your assertion

Mark, I read your link, and I encourage everyone else to do so as well. The so called "scientific evidence" is very weak. It's really tenuous. Some limestone was exposed? How do they know when it formed? How can they tell that it was above water, since wethering occurs below water as well. In fact, that's how sand is normally formed. Even if it was, plate tectonics are the most likely cause. The tops of Norwegian mountains and Hawaii were once underwater. Does that indicate an ice age, based on frozen water? No, it's because the norwegian mountains are rising.

Completely destroys? Harldy, the fact that they say:

"Though scientists know with a great degree of certainty that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate change"

Which is impossible, says it all. No evidence whatsoever, contradicts known science and direct observation.

Btw, this argument is extra weak, since frozen ice at the north pole does not change sea levels at all. Ice, displaces its weight in water. In addition, on longer time scales, even ice on land masses doesn't affect sea levels much steady state, since Ice on land, pushes the land into the water, raising the sea level. For example, when you get on a boat, you just displaced your weight in sea water.

A friend of mine once didn't believe this simple factoid, because of the incessant AGW propoganda. so I had to demonstrate: I took a glass and filled it with ice and water. The water came right up to the brim. Then we put the glass in the microwave and turned it on. Of course, elementary science, the ice melted, and the water level stayed exactly at the brim. I encourage everyone to try it, and the fog of AGW will start to lift.

"I took a glass and filled it with ice and water. The water came right up to the brim. Then we put the glass in the microwave and turned it on."

Floating pieces of ice do not raise sea level. everyone knows that. however, melting ice sheets will. your claim that melting ice on land will not raise sea levels is absolutely ridiculous.

You and Darren using microwave ovens to "disprove" AGW is silly. They should give you guys Ph.Ds for that. I mean, just skip the dissertation. If I was a climatologist, I'd just have to laugh.

>> Floating pieces of ice do not raise sea level. everyone knows that.

You thought lots of rain would raise the sea level. And no, many people don't know that, and you AGWers play on that ignorance all the time. My friend was a highly educated and intelligent financial analyst. If he needed proof, what does the average person think? I have never heard AGWers explain that a melting north pole happens on a periodic basis, and does not in any way threaten sea level rise. Why the deception?

>> however, melting ice sheets will. your claim that melting ice on land will not raise sea levels is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. I said steady state, which was appropriate in the context of your link which talked about millions of years. Norway's mountains are currently rising after being unburdened after the last ice age.

1) All the ice on Greenland is significantly pushing the land down

2) All land, ie crust material, is floating in a liquid ocean of magma.

3) The earth is one entity, like a balloon, so that when you press in on one part, something else squishes out

4) In steady state, Sea level is not affected by Ice, since it displaces its weight in water.

5) Steady state Sea level is really only determined by plate tectonics and geological formations, ie, how much land is protruding from the sphere. (this is obvious to anyone who has taken a bath)

Conclusion: If Greenlands ice were to melt, the land currently underneath all that ice would bounce up, with a co