dsdsdk

What do you guys think?

Ever since the debate really sparked, i've been a critic of the man made global warming idea..

Today I bumped into a danish blog with a video from Channel 4 (british).
It's a really interesting program.. so watch it and spill your thoughts
I'm guessing a lot of you have already seen Al Gore's electricity bi.. i mean Inconvenient truth..

Just click play.. (the video is also on "normal" google-video, but it's scaled up so quality is really bad).
http://analysator.blogspot.com/2007/...g-swindle.html
(first 40min is where the relevant stuff is.. it's all good though)

__________________
No more Kitty!

Sandok

As much as I love discussing this subject, it really belong in the politcal debate forum, given that debates usually go on in there

Moved.

cozumel

I saw that documentary and very interesting it was too.

The problem I have is that opposing scientific theories are just that - hypothesis. I therefore have an open mind but believe that we cannot take the chance. Either way, I do believe that emmissions are having a negative effect on the world in which we live. I do not understand the causes of the hole in the ozone. If we are pumping incerasing amounts of CO2s into the atmosphere we cannot be helping the situation.

__________________

dsdsdk

The hole in the ozone layer is something totally different...

Anyways.
"The problem I have is that opposing scientific theories are just that - hypothesis".
They're all theories.. agreed. But this documetary presents theory based on data collected and events from the past, so not an hypothesis - there is no "if"-case. Globalwarming theory is trying to predict future by using "if"-case hypothesis base on 30 years data..

Does all the "if" make sense?

Even a Greenpeace co-founder has had it (and left GP), due to politics taking over.. there has got to be something wrong right?

You'd rather spend billions of dollars than take a chance? Money dont just come from nothing.. so is it meaningful to spend them or is it waste?
Remember all the asteroid hype around year 2000? Deep impact, armageddon.. I'm kinda glad the world didnt waste money on a misile-shield... <- it sounds stupid right, but imagine year 2000, it wouldnt have been all that dumb back then.

__________________
No more Kitty!

OmegaRED

I still haven't watched the Documentary by Al Gore even though I've had it for a while. All this politicizing about it kinda turned me off the issue completely. Obviously, that's the goal of the corporate interests that contribute to global warming so I feel even worse having played into their hands and would rather ignore the issue completely.

If NASA scientists have said it's real that's good enough for me.

__________________

ronnn

Global warming is real. Discredit Al Gore if you like, doesn't change the reality of situation. Be ready for more drought and disasterous storms.

Sandok

First of all, Al Gore's electricity bill HAS to be big people, he's rich, he's cruising the world to give his speach and he's a politician. Honestly, saying that just because he did the Inconveniant Truth and that me must set the bar is sorta lame.

As for the whole Global Warming aspect, you have reputed scientists one side saying it exists and then, you got great scientists on the other side saying it's irrelevant. I'm a confused soul now I dunno what to believe anymore (though leaning for irrelevant after this documentary )

If ever Ronn, this documentary (if you watched it) doesn't say the Earth isn't warming up, it is... It just says we aren't the cause and in a way, it's quite correct. I had heard years and years ago that Volcano's for example spew out 4 times more CO2 than humans but you just don't hear that anymore in the media, do you?

ronnn

I find it hard to believe that on a tech site, the science of global warming is doubted. Just some sort of left wing conspiracy I guess. The north of canada is much different now. Glaciers are melting away and the North Pole is melting. Half the forests in British Columbia are dead from pine beetle. Winters have been too warm for many years and they have bred to the point of killing their hosts. Europe has little ski season.

Doubting this is silly. The cost of being wrong is a cleaner environment. The cost of doing nothing could lead to disaster.

Sandok

Are you reading my posts?

Firstly, doubting is a good thing, because the moment you take anything for fact means monopolization is in the house, which is never good. And as I said, I agree, the world is warming up and the video agrees also, they do agree, the world is heating up.

They are discussing the CAUSE, which they say, is more natural than the media makes us think. The ski season has been horrible here so trust me, I don't doubt a global warm up but they just don't agree on the CO2 aspect and more on the Solar aspect.

ronnn

A solar aspect that just happened at the same time and at the same rate as our use of fossil fuels? The greenhouse effect and the balance being upset by human activity is well documented. Going against accepted science is very risky, especially for peoples that live in areas that are prone to drought.

mkk

One can't seriously have this "IF" debate in the year of 2007. Scientifically it was pretty much settled in the 90's and even the Bush administration has had to submit to the plain data years ago.

Sandok

I'm just going to ask if you watched the vid because I'm not going to point out all these aspects that were covered in it... Did ya watch it?

dsdsdk

"Doubting this is silly."

In the early 70s the world feared an iceage coming, why, because of 40 years of it getting colder. Silly? Yes. 30 years later we fear the warmt, silly? No... wait what now?
Post war industial boom, starting 1945, tons and tons of more CO2 year by year, but colder temperature.. hmm

Edit. the more you travel, the less your house electricitybill will be.. Let's say Al Gore needs two of everything (turned on), computer, tv, washer, vacuumclear, lamp, stereo.. this would double his electricity bill, agreed? How come it is 10 times the average. I dont have anything againt Al, but preaching something and doing the opposite is plain wrong.

PS. Ronnn, watch the vid. You dont have to believe it, but maybe start regarding data with criticism....

__________________
No more Kitty!

Dowaco

This movie says what I have been saying from the beginning.

"The sun drives climate. (Man made) CO2 is irrelevant"

It makes more sense that CO2 rises as a result of higher temperatures not the other way around.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Sandok

He's a politician for christ's sake... And he bloody rich! Of course he's gonna have huge expenditures and consumption.

I think in his case it's more important to spread the word than lead by example. People shouldn't copy stupidly what one man does but learn what he has to say.

Dowaco

Because so many people will not watch the whole movie, there are some important things you need to know.

Global warming "science" is actually politics. Specifically anti-Capitalism.

There is NO CORRELATION between CO2 and warming. In fact, there is strong correlation between warming due to sunspots and increased CO2 levels due to liberation of the gas from the oceans.

Man made CO2 is an insignificant part of the total CO2 which is an insignificant part of the total greenhouse gas mix. (water vapor is the most important).

There is an 800 year delay from the time warming of the Earth results in changes in CO2 and we cannot control the warming from the sun.

Global Warming, however it happens, may not be catastophic at all. The most productive times in Human history have occured when temperatures were higher than they are today.

Don't just believe in Global Warming because your favorite politician says so. Look at the facts. The hysteria is driven by money and politics, not science.

Finally, third world countries will suffer from Global Warming policies not because of the climate, but because they will be denied access to coal and oil, keeping them in poverty. Its not the big corporations holding them down and dooming them through economic oppression, its the very same people who claim to be their saviors. Al Gore and his ilk are out of control.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Matth

According to historical graphs, the atmosphere is actually "CO2 weak" at the moment. But then, all we have at the moment is statistics that can be made to mean anything, speculation and opinionated pseudoscience.

There is a more compelling reason than the uncertain theory of global warming, to reduces net CO2 emissions, as such emissions stem from use of non-renewable fossil fuels, a path that ultimately leads nowhere.

The only truly sane way to meet energy needs is close to 100% renewable, or sources that are as close to limitless as makes no difference.

__________________
Mary had a little lamb,
Her father shot it dead
Now Mary takes her lamb to school,
Between two crusts of bread

Zelig

No correlation?


Sources:
(blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
(green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
(red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.


Sources:
(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956
(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617
(light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208
(yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
(orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.


Sources:
(orange) Vostok temperature data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...ok/deutnat.txt
(light blue) Vostok CO2 data:ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...tok/co2nat.txt
(red) EPICA DomeC temperature data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...mec/edc_dd.txt
(blue) EPICA DomeC CO2 data:ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...-650k-390k.txt
Current CO2 level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_..._in_atmosphere

When has either human production or average global temperature been higher than they currently are?

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if we ran out of fossil fuels to burn before we're able to pump enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to significantly change our lifestyles.

__________________
--

Sandok

The correlation in the vid is the opposite, where temperature and CO2 play the opposite roles of what we believe today in the general media.

Temperature rise causes CO2 rise, not CO2 rise causes Temperature rise. And to be honest, it isn't THAT farfetched...

Zelig

What? Look at the graphs I posted, CO2 change precedes change precedes temperature change for the vast majority of the data.

And if increased temperature caused CO2 levels to rise, where was the significantly large temperature increase causing the drastic levels of CO2 increase since the start of the industrial revolution?

__________________
--

Sandok

Watch the video, their graphics contradict yours... And then, tell me why post WW2 when idustries were making the most CO2 emmisions since history began did the temperatures drop? There are wierd glitches everywhere

You know, this is a complicated field none of us can really explain...

cozumel

Just wanted to add that IMO an argument posted here is invalidated if both theories and all the evidence is not examined first. I remember in detail watching the news 30 yrs and being shown the 'evidence' and being told by scientists that we were about to enter an ice age. So please study all the evidence available.

I definitely think that emissions of increasing and vast amounts of CO2s into the atmosphere is definitely unhealthy and cannot help the situation. 100% clean energy is the way to go - even if the only reason was to reduce respiratory illness and to promote healthier lifestyles. The evidence in the video only talks about and studies what happens when the planet 'exhales' its own CO2 and doesn't look at what our additional emissions could mean. However, the data connecting solar acitivity and global climates is compelling. Neither theory is conclusive.

On a lighter note:
I recollect when I used to travel all day in the city on my bike when I was in my early 20s and had my long hair etc. The water would drip black when washing my hair in the evening. Emissions are bad for hair so I now use Loreal. 'Cos I'm worth it.

__________________

dsdsdk

Lol mate. look at your graphs. Medieval warm period is below average? Why was it a "warm" period then? The entire graph is below average (except for the period when politics came into play)... Those graphs are (sry) just plain dumb (and rigged).

Yes, the tempature is above average now. +0.6c above average <- this number is widely used, even by "environmetalists".

Every 100000 year we have an iceage.. so no need to worry about it getting too warm..

Look at this graph: wow it has shot thru the roof!



Now look at the big picture. I'll even plot todays temperature in the next graph..



Here:


(Here’s a graph of estimated global temperature for the past 425,000 years. This temperature record was computed from analysis of the Vostock ice core; a 3,623-meter-long sample pulled from the ice sheet at a Russian research base in Antarctica. Ice at the bottom of this ice sheet has been undisturbed for about half a million years. During this time there have been four ice ages.)

__________________
No more Kitty!

dsdsdk

High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Geosciences Research Division, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0220, USA.

Can we agree that CO2 levels lag behind temperature and not the other way around? It's kinda of fact, so it should be hard to deny....

__________________
No more Kitty!

Dowaco

Zelig, look at your thrid graph again. CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature. So when temperature goes up, CO2 levels rise. This is because warm water can dissolve less CO2 than cold water. The temperature of the Earth is controlled by the sun, not CO2 levels.

There is a high correlation between sunspot activity and the gobal temperature. The correlation is so high that long term weather can be predicted by analyzing sunspots with more accuracy then any other method.

This graph shows temperatures over the last 2000 years.
In medieval times (1100-1300 AD) temperatures were higher than today. That is the time when all those great cathedrals were built in Europe.



That is what we are trying to get you to see. CO2 levels do not have anything to do with changing the temperature. So CO2 can rise or fall with no impact on global temperature. On the other hand, if the temperature goes up then CO2 levels must follow.
There is no arguement that man has caused CO2 levels to rise. The point is that the rise in CO2 has zero impact on temperature.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

dsdsdk

Facts are: (quote the line if i'm wrong).
The industrial boom started after the war 1945. right?
In 1971 the world feared an iceage. right?
Why, due to 3 decades of colder temperature. right?

If CO2 emmision affects temperature, the temp would have rissen from 1945.. hmmm it fell?

---------------------
I really like this one! Lets incorporate the culprit into the graph.. Then it's a really serious graph. You could also replace "The industrial revolution" with "Al Gore", if you are a rightwing.. Or "Cow farting" would make it really serious. sry

__________________
No more Kitty!

cozumel

I have seen these graphs and accept that the theoretical conclusion is highly plausable.

Could someone post any equally good graphs or links that demonstrate the 'greenhouse' theory pls. After all, the evidence for 'solar connection' is very precise in this thread and no-one has made any arguments that have been justified with quality data in response.

__________________

Dowaco

95% of the effect of greenhouse gases is due to water vapor. A fact that is always ommited from global warming data. The proponants of glabal warming talk about anthropogenic gases of which CO2 is the most abundant.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Even if you consider CO2 levels as important (which I do not) Man's contribution is tiny compared to the total produced fron natural sources.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Zelig

Not interested, if it was a real high-res production, I might... I haven't watched An Inconveniant Truth either, they're both videos trying to convince people of something, not presenting facts in an unbiased fasion.

There is no "average" global temperature except for a given instant or segment of time. The graph is just centered around "0" for ease of use, and the differences show variance in temperature.

The graphs you posted specify what the "average" is, which makes them easier to interpret. Can you post the sources for your graphs?

Industrial revolution started in the 1800's... production and emissions increased greatly after the war, but nearly been doing the same since then.

There are various articles from the past 50 years referencing global warming, it's only in the past decade or so that it's become a generally accepted theory.

From the sources on that page, I couldn't find how greenhouse gas additions were measured to be specifically manmade or natural in origion. In any case, although human impact on total greenhouse gases may be fraction of percents, so too are the associated changes in temperature levels.

Erm... don't know how I missed that... I'll have to go do some reading about this, I'll get back to this thread though.

__________________
--

cozumel

Source: The Observer

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

__________________