quote:

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Well, for example, in the vid they say that humans only contribute "single digits" CO2 percentage wise. But they went no further.

First off, what percentage? 9 percent? 1 percent?

This is what I mean, both sides are nothing more than propaganda.

%wise remember that CO2 is a very minor component of the atmosphere (%wise), around 0.03% before industrial revolution closer to 0.04% now.

As to propagana well yes both 'side' are but there is real science there beneath the BS.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Mankind doesn`t know what`s doing anyway. Next they`ll be another docu saying it`s all the Aliens fault.

+1

quote:

Just take note on what people like NASA and various meteorlogical institutions have to say. Reports from Havard, Stanford, Oxford etc all tend to be good and well balanced as well.

That's my point... Earth is way too complex for us humans to understand... no matter how many 'smart' ppl look at it...

quote:

Originally posted by FoolTrottel:

quote:

Just take note on what people like NASA and various meteorlogical institutions have to say. Reports from Havard, Stanford, Oxford etc all tend to be good and well balanced as well.

That's my point... Earth is way too complex for us humans to understand... no matter how many 'smart' ppl look at it...

Thats a pretty ****ing lame attempt to try to justify being lazy about it and not attempting to understand our surroundings.

You'd be suprised what 'smart' people can work out. Science isnt about one smart person with theories its about data. That data is taken repeatedly hundreds of times, from every possible angle. Then all that data is put together from many different institutions and put into a working model. Sure it's not always perfect but someone always manages to perfect the models. Its all about practice, repeat and improve, same goes for F1 same goes for designing fighter aircraft.

May I add, long term (macro) changes or trends are a hell of a lot easier to understand than what the weather is going be like in 5 days (short term or mico scale)

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by FoolTrottel:

quote:

Just take note on what people like NASA and various meteorlogical institutions have to say. Reports from Havard, Stanford, Oxford etc all tend to be good and well balanced as well.

That's my point... Earth is way too complex for us humans to understand... no matter how many 'smart' ppl look at it...

Thats a pretty ****ing lame attempt to try to justify being lazy about it and not attempting to try

quote:

That data is taken repeatedly hundreds of times, from every possible angle.

Yep.
And time and again, new data is being found.
New angles are found.
New Wisdom...

There's no end to it.
It's never perfect.
We are too stupid to figure it out.
If we were smart enough, F1 would not even exist anymore....

quote:

May I add, long term (macro) changes or trends are a hell of a lot easier to understand than what the weather is going be like in 5 days (short term or mico scale)

Shirley, you may.

Which leads me back to my initial point:
It cannot be a good thing for mankind to burn all those fossile fuels Earth has been gathering/creating for many millions of years, in just a few centuries...

quote:

Originally posted by FoolTrottel:

quote:

That data is taken repeatedly hundreds of times, from every possible angle.

Yep.
And time and again, new data is being found.
New angles are found.
New Wisdom...

There's no end to it.
It's never perfect.
We are too stupid to figure it out.
If we were smart enough, F1 would not even exist anymore....

quote:

May I add, long term (macro) changes or trends are a hell of a lot easier to understand than what the weather is going be like in 5 days (short term or mico scale)

Shirley, you may.

Which leads me back to my initial point:
It cannot be a good thing for mankind to burn all those fossile fuels Earth has been gathering/creating for many millions of years, in just a few centuries...

Your irritatingly contradictory

Still the first point you make is a moot one, progress is progressive. Perfection takes practice.

quote:

Perfection takes practice.

Sure.

But, me thinks we'll never get there!

We get smarter and smarter... but, will there be enought time left?
The Sun's life's only limited you know....

Oh dear, me being contradictory again... how could we know for sure?

Yeah, like said, we dunno nothin' ... really...

quote:

Originally posted by FoolTrottel:

quote:

Perfection takes practice.

Sure.

But, me thinks we'll never get there!

We get smarter and smarter... but, will there be enought time left?
The Sun's life's only limited you know....

Oh dear, me being contradictory again... how could we know for sure?

Yeah, like said, we dunno nothin' ... really...

Look where we've got in 100 years. We have at least 2 billion years before the Sun swallows earth. Plenty of time

Computers are beggining to help as well, with computers running algorithims consantly to find more out about proteins and quantum physics etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by idonno:
Here are the facts.

1. All the hysteria is over a rise in average temperature of less than 1 degree over a period of decades. Chart

2. The average temperature has been warmer than it is now for the great majority of the last several thousand years. Chart

3. Rising average temperatures precede rising CO2 levels, meaning the temperature increases cause rising CO2 levels, not the other way around. Chart

4. There is a direct correlation between solar activity, cosmic rays, and temperature. Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 3 Chart 4

What is so hard to understand?

1) 1 degree rise in Sea temperatures = you and me ****ed

2) Wrong, firstly that charts dodgey. All though temperatures were warmer this is only part of the truth. The rest of the truth is that the variation of 1.1 degrees since the hotest period took a lot longer to develop and a lot longer to cool down. What is significat is that we're on course to attain the same temperature in a much much shorter time.

Nasa on the subject

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

3) Those Icecores have been correlated with other geological data samples showing that something else caused the initial warming, which had the effect of increasing Co2 levels which in turn increased temperature even more. A runaway effect

4) Thats bull**** hahah, they've just shown that to be completely and utterly wrong.

Seriously. Keep up with mainstream science instead of fringe idiots. Even septics in the mainstream arnt arguing from these points. I cant be bothered to go and dig up all the various publications and counter arguments. Do it for yourself and do some research before saying "look prooofs" to anything you find vaguely backs up your point of view.

1. The issue is not, what the effect of increasing temperatures might be, but whether or not we are causing the increase. When you look at the fluctuations of temperature throughout the history of the planet it's ridicules to assume that a small increase is somehow an indication that we are doing something to affect the climate.

2. The fluctuations have never occurred at the same rate. There is nothing surprising or alarming about the fact that it's happening a little faster at this time. The rate of change does absolutely nothing to prove that the increase is anything other than a natural occurrence.

3. First off, you restated the point that increasing temperatures cause increasing CO2 levels. Thank you. Second, if what you then stated is true then we would have all been under water a long time ago. Run away effects don't turn around and come back, but as the numbers show, the temperature did not continue to rise.

Runaway Effect -
increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = increasing CO2 = increasing temps = Water World

4. Who are “they”, and how did they show that to be "completely and utterly wrong"?

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.

What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured.

So why has Earth regularly switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods in the past million years? It has long been thought that this is due to variations in Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. These change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. However, the correlation is not perfect and the heating or cooling effect of these orbital variations is small. It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the dramatic temperature switches between ice ages and interglacials.

So if orbital changes did cause the recent ice ages to come and go, there must also have been some kind of feedback effect that amplified the changes in temperatures they produced. Ice is one contender: as the great ice sheets that covered large areas of the planet during the ice ages melted, less of the Sun's energy would have been reflected back into space, accelerating the warming. But the melting of ice lags behind the beginning of interglacial periods by far more than the rises in CO2.

World warmer
Another feedback contender, suggested over a century ago, is CO2. In the past decade, detailed studies of ice cores have shown there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half million years (see Vostok ice cores show constant CO2 as temperatures fell).

It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.

What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.

Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down precisely.

Biological activity
The source of this extra carbon was the oceans, but why did they release CO2 as the planet began to warm? Many factors played a role and the details are still far from clear.

CO2 is less soluble in warmer water, but its release as a result of warming seawater can explain only part of the increase in CO2. And the reduction in salinity as ice melted would have partly counteracted this effect.

A reduction in biological activity may have played a bigger role. Tropical oceans tend to release CO2, while cooler seas soak up CO2 from the atmosphere as phytoplankton grow and fall to the ocean floor. Changes in factors such as winds, ice cover and salinity would have cut productivity, leading to a rise in CO2.

Runaway prevention
The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?).

Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention.

quote:

4. Who are “they”, and how did they show that to be "completely and utterly wrong"?

Read some balanced journals ands youd know

I watched the vid again. The first time I watched it, it was short and only the first part before the politics. The second time, the whole thing loaded.

Ok, the science part was very weak and biased, but the politics part was really good and seemed unbiased.

You know, it isn't industry general that is the main cause of pollution. It is cars and the industry specifically related to cars. Think about what this industry is worth? This is why GW is being blamed on industry in general. People are taught that owning a car is synonymous with freedom. In this way, the auto industry is safe while the truth is owning a car is as far from freedom as one can get without being incarcerated. I also agree with the vid in that the politics for GW are also meant to keep developing countries down.

They also mentioned the ill effects of burning wood for heat in African homes. This is interesting because while I living in China for 7 years I often pointed at coal brickettes as the major source of Beijing's pollution. People have small stoves for burning coal in order to cook their food. These don't burn hot enough and therefore put a lot of sulfur, among other pollutants, in the air. On many occasions I've awoken early in the morning because my sinuses felt like they were burning.

Another major cause of pollution in Beijing is the cars. As the number of cars have skyrocketed, so has the pollution.

Another interesting thought that occurred to me is how lucky I am I don't own a TV. Through watching this movie I could see just how much the media controls the general public and their thinking. I'm amazed that there are people who actually believe that GW is a direct result of CO2 emissions. It just boggles the mind.

One human brain has an almost infinite amount of possibilities but collectively they can hardly tie a shoe.

quote:

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I watched the vid again. The first time I watched it, it was short and only the first part before the politics. The second time, the whole thing loaded.

Ok, the science part was very weak and biased, but the politics part was really good and seemed unbiased.

You know, it isn't industry general that is the main cause of pollution. It is cars and the industry specifically related to cars. Think about what this industry is worth? This is why GW is being blamed on industry in general. People are taught that owning a car is synonymous with freedom. In this way, the auto industry is safe while the truth is owning a car is as far from freedom as one can get without being incarcerated. I also agree with the vid in that the politics for GW are also meant to keep developing countries down.

They also mentioned the ill effects of burning wood for heat in African homes. This is interesting because while I living in China for 7 years I often pointed at coal brickettes as the major source of Beijing's pollution. People have small stoves for burning coal in order to cook their food. These don't burn hot enough and therefore put a lot of sulfur, among other pollutants, in the air. On many occasions I've awoken early in the morning because my sinuses felt like they were burning.

Another major cause of pollution in Beijing is the cars. As the number of cars have skyrocketed, so has the pollution.

Another interesting thought that occurred to me is how lucky I am I don't own a TV. Through watching this movie I could see just how much the media controls the general public and their thinking. I'm amazed that there are people who actually believe that GW is a direct result of CO2 emissions. It just boggles the mind.

One human brain has an almost infinite amount of possibilities but collectively they can hardly tie a shoe.

No one is really arguing that GW is a direct result of CO2, the current thought is that we are speeding up or exagerating a natural process.

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:
Computers are beggining to help as well, with computers running algorithims consantly to find more out about proteins and quantum physics etc.

But the results are limited by the computers that are limited to the data input and that data input is limited by scientist who is limited by the funding from the contributor who is limited by his/her own agenda.