Channel 4 global warming!

[Djmiles]

That was ripped to shreads as a piece of eveidence! it wasnt by americans british scientests were also trying to explain there theroys! aswell as the co founder of green peace!

what they said about the graph there was that the more the suns rays get though the warmer the world is which in turn warms the sea up with me? the oceans let off the most co2 the amount of co2 we use isnt even compareable! when the seas warm it creates more co2 but when the weather is cold is absourbes more which shows on the graph as tempreture falls so does the co2 as thereis less co2 given off by the sea! the sea also takes hundreds of years to warm and cool down i obviously cant explain it very well as its all making not alot of sense unless you see the figures so you proberly gunna just say thats aload of bollocks

But the strength of the sun doesn't change within 200 years. It takes around 21,000 years AT LEAST.

If you take a look at the diagram in my previous post, you can see temperatures were constant up until the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels.

Just going with what I've been taught!

 

[Munkfish]

The present date on that graph shows up until 1950

from the 1940s for 4 decades tempretures dropped and scientits were predicting the new ice age then for the next 3 decades tempretures rise! i dont belive we arnt effecting the plant we are! but the media report every storm to be linked with global worming but storms are created when theres a greater diffrence in heat in the tropics than the the ice caps so surly if global warming was happeing at this super fast speed that its ment to be happing storms should become less frequent and less common

 

[Hilton]

The strength of solar activity has only really been measured for the last 30ish years, so basing an arguement on the last millions of years worth of changes on something that you can't measure is hopeless. And anyway, solar flares and the like have minimal impacts on cloud formation and weather patterns - as matey in the program tried to blame on causing global warming. Also, the variations in solar strength in the time period its been measured over haven't shown nearly enough evidence of changes to correlate with the observed warming.

Right, next thing. He blames anyone who thinks that climate change is caused by CO2 is working with the agenda that "development in the 3rd world must be stopped". Errrr, no. Surely anyone who comes out with statements like this should be ignored immediately.

Of course there are links between the atmosphere, the ocean and changes in the CO2 levels. Nearly all of the CO2 that is produced goes into the ocean, is stored (primarily as a solid, forming chalk eventually). The solid CO2 can't come out again. The increases in CO2 observed can't be explained by release from the sea of CO2. The changes in acidity and structure within oceanic processes that would be required to increase it by that much simply haven't happened.

How can you believe someone who claims that the observed increases in CO2 and other emissions aren't related to all of the increases in fossil fuel use and other polluting activities.

 

[Hilton]

The present date on that graph shows up until 1950

from the 1940s for 4 decades tempretures dropped and scientits were predicting the new ice age then for the next 3 decades tempretures rise! i dont belive we arnt effecting the plant we are! but the media report every storm to be linked with global worming but storms are created when theres a greater diffrence in heat in the tropics than the the ice caps so surly if global warming was happeing at this super fast speed that its ment to be happing storms should become less frequent and less common

Ignore the media, they don't have a clue (and by the way, punctuation is REALLY cool these days, try it).

When we have strong storms, yes they say "oooh, global warming global warming". But that's not based on anything scientific, its just to grab the headlines. Increased temps, lead to higher sea temps (ssts), more evaporation, more energy in the atmosphere, more storms.

Thats only one way it works. The cyclones we have here are fuelled (in part) by the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, but so many other factors are involved then you simply cannot say that, right that thermal gradient has gone, then all storms will stop. Besides, global temps are rising, not just values at the poles. The temperature gradient is still huge, and more than sufficient to initiate cyclones. Add in factors such as sst gradients, and the hugely complex and chaotic interactions between the atmospheric processes - and you can't just come to simple conclusions like you've done there.

 

[Munkfish]

Ignore the media, they don't have a clue (and by the way, punctuation is REALLY cool these days, try it)..

no need really is there?

 

[Djmiles]

I suggest watching Al Gore's film on global warming. Repeated a lot of things I knew already, but for someone who doesn't study climate change it could be very interesting.

 

[Spunk Bubble]

Apparently cows farting has a lot to do with the state of the environment. Bloody funny though when they let one go !!!

 

[Cian]

temperatures were constant up until the industrial revolution

Aherm, Ice Age anyone?

 

[eastlondonseagull]

has anyone just watched this program? one of the most intresting and thought provocing programs i have watched! Good work!

Absolutely. Thought it was excellent - even got Mrs ELS thinking about it, and she's very environmentalist

Good to see the founder of Greenpeace commenting openly about it, too.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Not really worth the risk though, is it? Relax our attitude as it may or may not be just a natural cycle of the earths existence...?

 

[Nibble]

Seeing as the planet is supposed to be destroyed in 2012 I am organising a mass cluster-f*** at the new falmer stadium for NY eve 2011. The girls from the "Oh so sexy and dirty" modelling agency are all signed up. Bring a bottle!

 

[Silent Bob]

Not really worth the risk though, is it? Relax our attitude as it may or may not be just a natural cycle of the earths existence...?

Indeed, and even if the wonky science in this show was correct, we'd still have to change at some point, relying so heavily on fossil fuels is unsustainable in the long term.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

I suggest watching Al Gore's film on global warming. Repeated a lot of things I knew already, but for someone who doesn't study climate change it could be very interesting.

Have not seen it yet, but really want to. But there are holes in his stuff, too, according to this programme.

I do believe that climate change is inevitable. We all know, after all, that the Sun will one day destroy this planet.

I'm gonna still recycle, turn off standby, use more sustainable forms of transport etc, BUT I do believe that there is an environmental conspiracy by the environmentalists, and I feel these programme makers were brave to breach the subject. Because we are being bull-dozed into believing this 'CO2 causes global warming' theory. As they said last night, if you admit to doubting the theory, you're immediately shunned or attacked as an evil bastard.

There are 'facts' and scientific evidence to back up every single argument. And sadly, the layperson will be bullied into believing one or the other.

I forgot about the global cooling fear in the seventies, btw - was funny hearing about that last night.

 

[Djmiles]

Aherm, Ice Age anyone?

I meant on the whole, there are bound to be little fluctuations such as the Little Ice Age.

 

[tedebear]

I get annoyed by conflicting stories, and by people writing documents and then I find that its an oil company funding the research blah blah blah...

So I recyle, compost, walk as much as I can, have a wormery, use farmers markets, and all sorts of green things, as it makes me feel good and I'm sure that our congestion, massive cars, air conditioning etc. isn't good for the environment....

 

[readingstockport]

Posted this on the lower thread, didn't see this one until now. Also if anyone has a list of these experts could they pass it on to me. You see almost every time you look into the background of the climate change deniers you find lurking in the background the looming figure of Exxon funding their 'research'.

"The program was produced by a 'director' called Martin Durkin. Here is some information about Mr Durkin from George Monbiot's blog.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/

Now I know Monbiot has an axe to grind as he is an environmentalist but considering these are pretty serious allegations he has made I'm utterly amazed Durkin hasn't sued to have them removed - unless of course they have an element of truth in them.

This one from the independent quotes the fact that of 928 published peer reviewed papers not one doubted man's influence ion climate change.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

Channel 4 in fact had to apologise for the distortion Durkin introduced into his previous program Against Nature due to his selective editing and misleading of interviewees. You chose, a proven liar and disembler and those he selectively interviews against 99% of the global scientific population."

 

[Cian]

I get annoyed by conflicting stories, and by people writing documents and then I find that its an oil company funding the research blah blah blah...

So I recyle, compost, walk as much as I can, have a wormery, use farmers markets, and all sorts of green things, as it makes me feel good and I'm sure that our congestion, massive cars, air conditioning etc. isn't good for the environment....

DIRTY SMELLY HIPPY

 

[tedebear]

DIRTY SMELLY HIPPY

Humpf

 

[beorhthelm]

The strength of solar activity has only really been measured for the last 30ish years

not so. sun spot activity has been recorded for a couple of hundred years. from more carefull monitoring over more recent times, we have an understanding of the implications or this. when applied retrospectivly to the sun spot record, a fairly close correllation to temperature is evident.

But the strength of the sun doesn't change within 200 years. It takes around 21,000 years AT LEAST.

its not about the "strength" of the sun, but the x-ray radiaton and magnetic pulse activity that effects our atmosphere and the interaction of other sources of radition with our atmosphere. individual events can have measurable effects over weeks and even days, so prolonged trends or periods of activity can easily be an influence over decades and centuries.



i thought it was a brilliant program, as someone who was convinced by the CO2 = global warming, i found it cleared up some stuff that didnt make sence to me (ie why wasn't there any effect from the sun on global warming).
First off, the program in no way attempted to say global warming isnt happening: it provided a sound alternative explanation, not without problems or foolproof, but credible. it also showed how there are problems with the commonly known CO2 theory: that when examined more closely, the CO2 graph follows the temperature graph; and the drop in world temperatures in the 1945-75 period when industrial activity really ramped up. given that both sides are using the same data, thats pretty significant.
I have read about the sun activity before and its pretty compeling. And how do you argue with the credentials of the founder of Greenpeace?

somthing struck me about the CO2 theory - we want to believe it becuase it makes us master of the environment around us. There is also a powerful imperitive to force non-use of carbon based fuels on the developing world. I am left with the opinion that we would be better off reducing reliance on fossil fuels for general environmental concerns in our immediate proximity (ie air quality), rather than forcing the rest of the world to stay in the dark ages.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Posted this on the lower thread, didn't see this one until now. Also if anyone has a list of these experts could they pass it on to me. You see almost every time you look into the background of the climate change deniers you find lurking in the background the looming figure of Exxon funding their 'research'.

"The program was produced by a 'director' called Martin Durkin. Here is some information about Mr Durkin from George Monbiot's blog.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/

Now I know Monbiot has an axe to grind as he is an environmentalist but considering these are pretty serious allegations he has made I'm utterly amazed Durkin hasn't sued to have them removed - unless of course they have an element of truth in them.

This one from the independent quotes the fact that of 928 published peer reviewed papers not one doubted man's influence ion climate change.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece

Channel 4 in fact had to apologise for the distortion Durkin introduced into his previous program Against Nature due to his selective editing and misleading of interviewees. You chose, a proven liar and disembler and those he selectively interviews against 99% of the global scientific population."

Very interesting.