An Inconvenient Truth - Off to a Good Start [UPDATED]

I long for the day when ANY program on the Science Channel (http://science.discovery.com) gets better ratings in America than American Idol. That's the kind of America I wish my children would grow up in. My hat's off to you Mr. Gore, you truely are spending your earned "captial" in the most wisest way possible, in spite of so many others...

Okay, I understand that this is a big issue, and I agree that something has to be done, but how are we supposed to stop it. There is no form of energy that we can use to combat any sort of global warming. You look at fuel-cell technology, even that will create pollution. Actually, hydrogen powered cars would do more damage than internal combustion when talking about global warming. All of the water vapor you would put into the air would affect the climate more than CO2. What about hybrids? The increase in power, the more power a power plant has to produce, the more a power plant has to produce, the more polution is put into the atmosphere. Thus, there is no way to solve your problem.. if you think that the world is going to change their habits in just a few decades, you are nuts, there is no way to cut back, and go forward at the same time.

Jay, I think you're being a bit fatalistic here. "No form of energy that we can use to combat any sort of global warming?" How about solar, wind, or even nuclear energy, to name a few. The prices per kilowatt for solar panels has been continually dropping every year. Not to mention, how long ago was it inconceivable to think the U.S. public would every use a hybrid or any attempt at alternative energy usage? Today energy research is a major interest for most people that have an energy bill to pay. I believe that energy innovation is going to rank up there with medicine and computers as the industry of the future. Heck, If I was to go back to school, I'd expect this type of science to be new booming career of choice. Most people seem to forget that technology is on an exponential curve... technology is changing far faster than any time in history... and we're just getting started.

I agree with a previous post. Lets just keep going and see what happens. Maybe humans can adapt to breath under water ... !! ? or withstand hurricanes ...
The simplest thing to do is to do nothing, but unfortunately its not going to do us much good.

"there is no way to cut back, and go forward at the same time." - so maybe its worth to stop for a second and figure out a better way to go forward ??

Actually there are many ways to solve the problem. Carbon sequestration is one, increasing fuel efficiency is another, decreasing demand for carbon based fuels is another, alternative energy is another, installing smoke stack scrubbers is another, treating the coal prior to its use as a fuel is another. Increasing fuel efficiency by just a few gallons would drastically decrease both emissions and fuel demand.

There are market-based solutions to the problem. Evidence can be found in the Sox and Nox cap and trade schemes that were successful in recent decades in the U.S., as well as cap and trade schemes occurring in Europe. Granted, the European programs are still in their infancy but they are learning and are proving successful (though arguably they set the initial baseline a little too high).

There are solutions to the problem and they aren't even difficult solutions.

We could even spend 20 billion and build that space elevator I keep reading about and send nuclear waste fuel to the sun. Hell, if we went so far as to build a space elevator we could probably use it to build some sort of power plant in space.

Let's think for a moment about the failure modes of a space elevator... Can you visualize a hypersonic bullwhip wrapping around the planet several times?

Not a good plan, given our current level of technology and our abysmal risk management capabilities.

dices=verb, "to dice into bits"

die= singular noun "roll the die", or "cast-iron die".

dice= plural noun "roll the dice'

/grammarnazi™

Mike:
"How about solar, wind, or even nuclear energy"
- Solar and wind, while being very clean, and for the most part, inexpensive; would not be a viable choice, as it would take up too much space. Americans want a lot of power with very little sacrifice, if there is a very calm day, or a very cloudy one, people will experience brownouts. Not something that people would want their tax dollars going toward. Nuclear, while being very clean, also pollutes in its own way. As I said, with fuel-cell technology, you have a lot of pollution in the form of water vapor, this is also the case with a Nuclear power plant. (If you don't know, this is how it works) There are a lot of people that do not know how a nuclear power plant works. It uses the same basis as all forms of power plants (all except for fusion and solar) Something, in this case, the radioactive rods, heat up water. The steam rising turns turbines, and escapes through the ventilation towers. Thus, nuclear power does pollute, but only in a different way.

When I was saying that we need to pollute to move forward, I meant that you need to manufacture clean ways of doing things. For instance, I mentioned in the last paragraph Fusion. There are scientists researching fusion for a super clean form of power without the small side effect of poisoning future generations for the next hundred thousand years. But to get the process started on a small scale, it requires a LOT of power.

Pollution is something that you can't shake your finger at, and then wonder why we are not getting anywhere.

Clean energies will have to be combined with efficiency gains (the easiest way to produce massive amounts of "new" power), and it is definitely not true that they would take "too much space". Solar panels can be incorporated into structures we already have, so can small wind turbines. Bigger ones can be built offshore and on farmland ($ for farmers), wave-energy and geothermal can be used pretty much everywhere (where there's water, for the former).

If you think in terms of "centralized" production like we're doing now, and if you think the future will be as inefficient as the present, then sure, things can look bad. But just wait until there's no cheap fossil fuels around and you'll see (hopefully) things change.

Can anyone point me to articles where scientists say it's not a natural cycle? That at least part of the warming or dimming is because we are still heading "away" from the last ice age?

Not saying that our current oil, coal, and such isn't doing anything. With the research I've seen, I'm sure it is, but the question is, how much blame does it get versus natural climate shifting?

I think one thing we need to point out to the opponents to alternative forms of power generation is that it won't be simply ONE form of generation. It won't be JUST solar or just wind or just wave action; it's going to be all of them at once! Our current major means of generating electricity are coal, gas, nuclear and hydro, yet I never hear/see any of those proponents saying we must rely on just one of those choices.

So long as the Earth spins, so long as the Moon exists, so long as we both go around Sol, none of the alternatives will ever not be there to be tapped into. We already know (mostly) how limited oil, gas, coal and nuclear are on the planet, and yet we resist tapping into the sources of energy that are almost limitless. If I had the means (and mechanical ability) I'd get rid of the engine on my Civic and replace it with an electric motor and a vanadium redox battery system. But, I'm also limited by the infrastructure not wanting to change to these better sources of energy. I don't look forward to the crisis we are likely to go through in the future. It's not going to be fun :|

Another note on Jay's comment - this film itself addresses this issue, the "what can we do?" issue, nicely and simply. Gore posts a graph showing how a myriad of small changes (increased MPG ratings on all US cars, increased use of Energy Star ratings, etc) can, along with new energy technologies, combine to make a HUGE difference.

Don't give up hope Jay! Go see the movie!

Michael, when quoting, remember to add the source.

This post by Don Quixotech is an accurate depiction of how well An Inconvenient Truth did...I fear Atrios wrongly portrayed some pertinent information.

-----
Jaclyn, if you look at the post, you'll see that the source is cited. Granted, it's not quite as visible as it usually is because of the pic of Earth, but we usually put the links at the end and that's what I did.

As for Atrios' quote, well, the movie was number 11 at the time he checked, if only briefly. -Michael G.R.

Scott, I recommend that you head over to RealClimate.org and read their archives, follow their links.. If after that you still have questions, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to help you.

Mike, ever the diplomat, huh? what a nice kind answer to troll-bait....

just curious as from which Ice Age we are still heading "away" ? the 3D animation with John Goodman? Surely not the one that ended 12,000 years ago (and don't even strat with that Milankovitch krapp)

(CO2 spikes before glacial eras commence)

Michael, please just kindly refer below, since your post was conveniently updated following this entry.

from Oolongo.com:

During my travels through blogland this morning I noticed the following misleading headline on treehugger.com regarding box office revenue for Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”: Inconvenient Truth #11 at Box Office despite being in only 4 theaters

The article included the following unattributed quote in the first paragraph:

“On Wednesday an inconvenient truth was the #11 movie in the country despite being in only 4 theaters, earning $78,994 ($19,749/theater). The #10 movie was showing at 1,265 theaters, earning 117,000, or $92/theater.”

After a quick search in Technorati, it turns out that the source was a post from last Friday by well-known lefty blogger Atrios that was quoted ad infinitum on green/left blogs. While I have no problem with enthusiasm, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend is a bit early to go crazy over a film that opened in four theaters only two days earlier. Opening weekend box office is the most important gauge of a film’s success, particularly when it is being rolled out in a limited release pattern (See Moviemaker Magazine for a primer on film distribution patterns). Total gross is good for grabbing headlines, but exhibitors usually look more closely at the per-theater averages to determine what earning potential a film has per screen.

That said, let’s see how “An Inconvenient Truth” stacked up in its opening weekend. Below are its most basic weekend numbers (minus the Monday holiday) compared to the other films in the field:

X-Men: The Last Stand
Weekend gross: $103,125,000
Rank: 1
Number of theaters: 3,690
Per theater weekend average: $27,947

The Da Vinci code
Weekend gross: $34,000,000
Rank: 2
Number of theaters: 3,754
Per theater weekend average: $9,057

An Inconvenient Truth
Weekend gross: $282,000
Rank: 19
Number of theaters: 4
Per theater weekend average: $70,500

Top Ten Films
Aggregate weekend gross: $186,286,000
Aggregate number of theaters: 24,719
Per theater average for all top ten films: $7,536

[Source: Box Office Mojo]

So the bad news is that Atrios’ claim and the ensuing headlines are a bit misleading: “An Inconvenient Truth” was briefly the #11 movie in America, but a more realistic statement would be that it is the #19 movie in America. That said, its per theater average is nearly ten times the per theater average of the top ten films. It’s probably too early to make any predictions, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those numbers (when combined with the hilariously shrill hype machine chiming in from both sides of the political aisle) garner the film a much wider release and decent profits for its investors.

Where Atrios got the numbers for the #10 film that earned only $92/screen is beyond me. I can’t imagine any theater owner continuing to run such a film.

---
Jaclyn, the quote was always attributed to Atrios. Not my fault of that person (you?) failed to see the link. Atrios never claimed it was a weekend boxoffice, just that when he checked it was #11. As for the update, it has nothing to do with Oolongo (never heard of that place before); I found the Boxofficemojo link on Think Progress. --Michael

Trollbait? It was a legitimate question... I think... :(