Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-06-06 12:25:36
topal63
. . .
+533|7164
I've never seen Al Gore's movie and I wont; nor "do I need to." I only read scientific journals; magazines; periodicals; etc. I am also reasonably well versed in semantics and philosophy: iamangry, and you are simply being confused over the concept of: confidence (why I understand the process to be a fact). If you don't know enough about something then, well, you cannot understand it. Seriously, in that frame of mind, you could not call any process a fact if you do not understand the process. Normally one would like to call data - "facts," or evidence - "facts," or empirical observation - "fact." And, then call the description of the process - "a theory." And within the scientific method (it's philosophical paradigm) "a theory" is never proved - it is merely not falsified. But, the process is also a fact, regardless of it being a theory. It is conceivable that as "a whole" any theory is not precise to 100% mathematical accuracy or certainty, in fact many theories are not perfect, but that does not change the fact - that the process is a fact of reality/nature/or more or less correct, whether it be (a theory of): gravity, evolution, chemistry, plate tectonics, radiative forcing (anthropomorphic CO2 as the cause; known for more than 20 years now - and as a science it is solid as rock and only accumulating evidence [facts] in favor of it - not against it); etc.

Anyways, I am just more confident (than you, based upon my personal knowledge-base) that the process has been established as "a fact" beyond any reasonable doubt.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-06 12:27:15)

2007-06-06 20:05:50
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6993|the best galaxy
1. Kyoto is a waste of good money that could be used to give ppl clean water, eradicate deseices...
2. CO2 goes up when the the climate gets warmer NOT the other way around.
But that's an inconvenient truth to the enviromentalists who just loves to hate big cars and industry.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2007-06-06 20:09:52
Snowmanimal
Not so unique forum title
+30|6989|My head
better late than never for bush.  ha.
2007-06-06 20:52:23
iamangry
Member
+59|7091|The United States of America

Freke1 wrote:

1. Kyoto is a waste of good money that could be used to give ppl clean water, eradicate deseices...
2. CO2 goes up when the the climate gets warmer NOT the other way around.
But that's an inconvenient truth to the enviromentalists who just loves to hate big cars and industry.
I'm sorry, but thats almost completely implausible. 

Please explain to us how the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases with increased temperature.
2007-06-06 21:25:51
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6993|the best galaxy
The warmer oceans emits more CO2 - the delay is about 800 years. This is seen when comparing the graphs of the temperature and the CO2 concentration. Also the manmade % of CO2 is less than 1% if I remember correctly. The biggest greenhousegas by far is watervapor.

It's all in the videos:
The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2478442170
Doomsday called off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … called+off

PS: I don't like pollution. But the effect of Kyoto is a delay (only a delay) by 6 years. These billiards of $ can be use better when ppl are dying of AIDS, malaria and can't read, write etc. This offcause puts the enviromentalists out off a job.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2007-06-06 21:43:27
Mr.Dooomed
Find your center.
+752|6774

AIDS...? Governments don't try to cure things THEY created. I can say that much from what I've been told.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
2007-06-06 21:52:00
Liberal-Sl@yer
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|6902|The edge of sanity

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1268452,00.html

President Bush has called on 15 major countries to agree strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.
Didn't anyone tell him about the Kyoto Treaty? Wow.
didnt anyone tell you the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol
2007-06-06 21:53:36
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6893|Chicago, IL

Freke1 wrote:

The warmer oceans emits more CO2 - the delay is about 800 years. This is seen when comparing the graphs of the temperature and the CO2 concentration. Also the manmade % of CO2 is less than 1% if I remember correctly. The biggest greenhousegas by far is watervapor.

It's all in the videos:
The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2478442170
Doomsday called off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … called+off

PS: I don't like pollution. But the effect of Kyoto is a delay (only a delay) by 6 years. These billiards of $ can be use better when ppl are dying of AIDS, malaria and can't read, write etc. This offcause puts the enviromentalists out off a job.
Wouldn't warmer water be capable of dissolving more CO2?
2007-06-06 21:55:08
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6993|the best galaxy
@ S.Lythberg: in the videos the say warmer oceans emits more CO2.

@ Im_Dooomed: I've heard that teory also - but I don't know if it's true yet. From a docu I saw AIDS originated from a experiment gone wrong in Africa by some controversial doctor if I remember correctly. But You could be right.

Last edited by Freke1 (2007-06-06 21:58:39)

https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2007-06-07 01:46:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7121|Canberra, AUS

Freke1 wrote:

The warmer oceans emits more CO2 - the delay is about 800 years. This is seen when comparing the graphs of the temperature and the CO2 concentration. Also the manmade % of CO2 is less than 1% if I remember correctly. The biggest greenhousegas by far is watervapor.

It's all in the videos:
The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2478442170
Doomsday called off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … called+off

PS: I don't like pollution. But the effect of Kyoto is a delay (only a delay) by 6 years. These billiards of $ can be use better when ppl are dying of AIDS, malaria and can't read, write etc. This offcause puts the enviromentalists out off a job.
That's a fair enough argument, but you also have to allocate some funds to stopping 60% of the world's species dying and humanity being thrown into the stone age (according to Tim Flannery)

As for your claims.

Oceans emit CO2 - true. But ALL that CO2 comes from the biosphere or the atmosphere - the ocean itself cannot create CO2. A good deal of it is stored in the ocean floor, too. So therefore, overall, oceans REDUCE CO2 levels

Manmade CO2 less than 1%? Where did you get that figure from?! Riiiiiight.

Water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas, yes. But it is far more effective as a global dimmer. Use your logic - cloudy days are generally not as hot as sunny days, right? Cloudy NIGHTS are warmer because the clouds act as a greenhouse agent, but in the day the cloud stops light getting to the surface. Please, use your common sense.

Finally - the solar warming theory. Paradoxically one of the things that we've done that has slowed global warming is the amount of non-greenhouse pollutants we put into the air - esp. SO2 and others. These caused the phenomenon of global dimming, and as a result THE AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT REACHING THE EARTH'S SURFACE HAS DECREASED OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS. I don't give two shits how much the sun is putting out - the important figure is how much actually reaches the earth's surface.

I suggest you all read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. An excellent read - much more scientifically sound and logical than the Inconvenient Truth can ever be.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-06-07 02:06:25
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

Freke1 wrote:

The warmer oceans emits more CO2 - the delay is about 800 years. This is seen when comparing the graphs of the temperature and the CO2 concentration. Also the manmade % of CO2 is less than 1% if I remember correctly. The biggest greenhousegas by far is watervapor.

It's all in the videos:
The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2478442170
Doomsday called off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … called+off

PS: I don't like pollution. But the effect of Kyoto is a delay (only a delay) by 6 years. These billiards of $ can be use better when ppl are dying of AIDS, malaria and can't read, write etc. This offcause puts the enviromentalists out off a job.
The great global warming swindle has all ready been demoted to being a swindle itself and using that as a source for your view on climate change just shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.

I have not seen the other one.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-06-07 02:50:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

Freke1 wrote:

The warmer oceans emits more CO2 - the delay is about 800 years. This is seen when comparing the graphs of the temperature and the CO2 concentration. Also the manmade % of CO2 is less than 1% if I remember correctly. The biggest greenhousegas by far is watervapor.

It's all in the videos:
The great global warming swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2478442170
Doomsday called off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … called+off

PS: I don't like pollution. But the effect of Kyoto is a delay (only a delay) by 6 years. These billiards of $ can be use better when ppl are dying of AIDS, malaria and can't read, write etc. This offcause puts the enviromentalists out off a job.
Warmer oceans emitting more CO2 is bad. It acts as yet another feedback mechanism that increases the effects of global warming. Since warmer oceans emit more CO2, as the oceans warm more CO2 is released, speeding up the warming process.

The idea that CO2 triggers climate change is not a part of mainstream theories on climate change. It does not. No one is suggesting it is, apart perhaps from the great global warming swindle, which is targeted at peoples perceptions of global warming and not the facts. It is well accepted that ice age cycles are triggered by something else, not carbon. Once one of these cycles is underway, carbon levels rise which amplifies the warming. It is thought that carbon is responsible for about 50% of the temperature increase in a glacial-interglacial period (which is about 5000 years, the first 800 years of which carbon levels are not responsible for the warming - hence the 800 year lag).
This has been a part of climate change theory since the establishment of the IPCC. Every model on climate change has taken this into account.

Water vapour is not a true greenhouse gas. It is a feedback mechanism, much like the role of oceans and thawing ice. It does not have a forcing effect. Yes, water does absorb long wave radidiation, but the prevalence of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature, since levels adjust to provide consistent relative humidity. This means that water vapour is not responsible for warming, it merely speeds up the process as it occurs.

Manmade CO2 is currently around 3-4% of the total atmospheric levels. This figure is deceptive, since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Post-industrial era, we are responsible for more than 30% of the total additions to CO2 in the atmosphere.
2007-06-08 02:02:08
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6993|the best galaxy
ok, to my knowledge what I've said is true. I've also seen Al Gore film and read Bjorn Lomborg's book "The sceptical enviromentalist" but I'm not an expert.

I do know that if You plot the solar spot activity against the earth temperature they match VERY well. How can this be:
1. The amount of clouds determine the earth surface temperature (kinda logic no?).
2. The amount of cosmic radiation determine the amount of clouds (hitting particles in the air and forming clouds)
3. The amount of the sun's electromagnetic radiation govern the amount of cosmic radiation that hits the earth (acts as a shield).
4. The amount of sun spots determines the amount of electromagnetic radiation the sun sends out.

So basicly the sun spots determines the earth temperature how unlikely that may seems to us all.

Offcause once in a while an asteroid hits (every 70.000-100.000 years), a supervolcano erupts (1 equals 500 big volcanos, there's one in central US), the pole start drifting etc ets. Climate change is a natural process (a 1000 years ago it was warmer than today). And we pollute much much less than 50 or 100 years ago when ppl where spraying DDT everywhere and the energy came from coal plants and there were no waste processing plants.

The world is actually a cleaner place, ppl better educated, ppl healthier, there's more forrest, fewer die from deceises than 50 or 100 years ago.
Don't believe IPCC, Greenpeace, Kyoto ppl - they all have agenda's. Bad news sells and gives them funding.
And animals don't dissapear in a alarmingly rate (Lomborg sais).

Again I DON'T like pollution - but Kyoto is a waste of good money and an insult to starving or sick undeveloped ppl. The Africans don't like rich white enviromentalists because they won't allow them to develop industry. But EU has cut its own forrest and polluted to get rich. Double standard.

This is the truth as I know it so far, correct me if I'm wrong pls.

And offcause the next Olympic games is held in China - a dictatureship.

And in 1947 the base commander (a US admiral) near Roswell stated that they had captured an alien spacecraft (this was retracted the day after).

And there's most likely 10.000 civilisations in our galaxy, the science guys predicts.

But most likely no "God"...because the earth is not 6000 years old...and the bible is full of crap like "You can sell Your daughter to slavery" and there's no archiologic evidence of "Moses" or the 40 year long "trek" through the desert.

Science RULES no?

Last edited by Freke1 (2007-06-08 02:35:27)

https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2007-06-08 02:30:28
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

Freke1 wrote:

The world is actually a cleaner place, ppl better educated, ppl healthier, there's more forrest, fewer die from deceises than 50 or 100 years ago.
Don't believe IPCC, Greenpeace, Kyoto ppl - they all have agenda's. Bad news sells and gives them funding.
Hm ... the world is actually not a cleaner place, a small amount of the worlds population is better educated, a small amount of the worlds population is healthier, there is less rainforest's and less forest in Africa, and more people in the third world die from deceases so you could not be more wrong my friend.

Nobody doubts that the sun is heating the globe, it is in fact crucial for our survival that it does - it`s the lack of reflective material like ice that makes the oceans heat a tad extra and it`s the high amount of climate gases in the atmosphere that makes the sun rays bounce between it and earth several times that contributes the extra warming we don`t want.

  • So fewer sun rays gets reflected from the lack of ice
  • Deforestation causes less CO2 to be rinsed by nature
  • Excess CO2 is stored in the atmosphere causing the sun rays to bounce back and forth rather than just bounce off
  • Oceans heating causes more water vapor that releases additional unwanted CO2
  • Ice melts more rapid and is in danger of disappearing because of the bouncing rays and increasing water temperature


It is a domino effect where one leads to the other and back again making each of the worse, and all this again leading to less diversity of both plants and animals that will be the real threat to come.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-06-08 03:12:07
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7228

Freke1 wrote:

ok, to my knowledge what I've said is true. I've also seen Al Gore film and read Bjorn Lomborg's book "The sceptical enviromentalist" but I'm not an expert.

I do know that if You plot the solar spot activity against the earth temperature they match VERY well. How can this be:
1. The amount of clouds determine the earth surface temperature (kinda logic no?).
2. The amount of cosmic radiation determine the amount of clouds (hitting particles in the air and forming clouds)
3. The amount of the sun's electromagnetic radiation govern the amount of cosmic radiation that hits the earth (acts as a shield).
4. The amount of sun spots determines the amount of electromagnetic radiation the sun sends out.

So basicly the sun spots determines the earth temperature how unlikely that may seems to us all.
also, CO2 increase has about a 800 year lag behind temperature increase.  so basically in those graphs that show correlation between CO2 and temperature, if you look closely you will see that temperature starts to rise first and then about 800 years later the CO2 levels begin to rise also.

this is addressed by climate scientists but to me the explanation is very very weak.  here is the www.realclimate.org explanation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

realclimate wrote:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warming, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.
So according to this some unknown thing causes warming to start.  The warming causes release of CO2 from oceans (outgasing).  Then the CO2 starts doing its job and causes further warming.

Problems:
1) there's no explanation for what starts the warming.
2) once all that CO2 is released into the atmosphere, you'd think that it would keep warming or remain warm because of all the CO2, but at some point the temperature comes back down regardless of CO2 in atmosphere.  in other words, CO2 is unable to keep the earth warm once it gets warm.  something causes the cooling in spite of the CO2 doing the whole greenhouse gas thing.
3) there is no way to account for how much of an effect CO2 is actually having on the cycle.

I ask you, isn't it more logical that large natural phenomenon such as solar cycles dictate the warming and cooling of the planet?  CO2 is released (outgasing) from oceans when it gets hot (hence the 800 year lag) and absorbed into oceans when it gets colder.  The greenhouse effect exists but it plays a support role. Also consider that CO2 represent 0.12% of the entire atmosphere which is 12 parts per 10,000.  I've read alot on this and I think the CO2 role in global warming is exaggerated.
2007-06-08 03:35:38
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

Exaggerated no Gemi considering the extra amount of released CO2 is the factor that tips the scale in our disfavor.

That is the simple explanation, not that we have CO2 emissions because most CO2 is in the natural cycle, it`s the little to much that are the issue and the fact is we can reduce that factor so we again are inside natures own cycle.

And there is a very viable and thrust-worthy assumption of what is causing the problems.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-06-08 04:26:21
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6993|the best galaxy
do You want to spend billions and billions of money on something that is not the cause of the temperature rise and where the effect is only a delay of 6 years and is based on computermodels with 500 variables (many assumed)? I don't.

Here's why I think the world is a better place (graphs from Lomborg's book):
http://www.surf.wep.dk/MIS/BF2Sforum/graphs.htm
https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2007-06-08 04:42:15
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7256|Nårvei

Doesn`t really matter if the climate change is man made or not, spending billions on cleaning up and reducing emissions is a great health benefit any witch way you choose to look at it and will be good economics in the long run.

Think outside the box Freke, if we never did we would still struggle making fire!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2007-06-08 11:37:12
topal63
. . .
+533|7164

superfly_cox wrote:

... 800 year lag ...

And

... I've read alot on this and I think the CO2 role in global warming is exaggerated.
Ok, then read.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications … ermIII.pdf

P.S. The past is not the present. Global Climate can refer to the multitude of: past climate changes, all mechanisms, etc that contribute to the totality of the Earth's dynamic Climate system. Global Warming, basically, or generally refers to the recent trend, that is different from any naturally occurring trend.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 07:34:06)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard