Occam. - 27 December 2010 07:47 PM

I would say, as you should know with a BSc in physics, is that almost all real systems are affected by a great many inputs.  Your body’s temperature is thought to be relatively constant, however, if you’ve just eaten a meal, if you have an infection, if you are stanidintg the sun, if you check it in the morning as you awaken, just after you’ve exercised, when you go to bed at night, you’ll see that it varies significantly.  When Krakatoa erupted in the 19th century, the earth’s temperature dropped significantly for a few years, no matter whether or not there were sunspots.  Now that we’ve introduced large amounts of fluorocarbons (not ever naturally produced) into the atmosphere, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased (again, nothing to do with sunspots).  This last has already tended to kill algae at the ocean’s surface down about one or two centimeters.  That means that this major source of carbon dioxide absorption isn’t quite as efficient as it used to be.  And more freons are still being added to the atmosphere. 

So, sure, I can accept that sunspots are one of the myriad factors that affect earth temperature, but one cannot ignore all the others.  The problem isn’t that a huge amount of the meteorilogical environment is part of a natural system.  That’s not going to change, but if humans add a small new factor, it can cause the whole system to shift significantly.

Consider that for millions of years organic material sank to the bottom of the oceans, got covered over and compressed, and slowly turned to oil and coal.  In the last two hundred years we have unearthed an unbelievable amount of those, burned them and dumped the CO2 into the atmosphere.  At the same time, we’ve been chopping down forests to build cities and farms, so we have been reducing the earth’s ability to convert the CO2 back into organics.

Occam

as a BSc in physics i know that our bodies are not closed nor isolated systems but thanks for reminding me of Thermodynamics ,however i’ve read about the Krakatoa volcano and it’s true that the average global temperature dropped by 1.2 C and didn’t return to normal until 1888, In addition I can accept that we have been releasing huge amounts of CO2 ( a greenhouse gas ) into the atmosphere but how can someone be sure that the sunspots isn’t the main driving force behind climate change and not CO2 , that’s to say the CO2 is just a secondary and less influential cause

dougsmith - 27 December 2010 08:09 PM

Excuse me, that’s a silly argument. And no, I didn’t miss that link. It’s completely irrelevant. There are scientists who deny that the speed of light is a constant. There are scientists who deny evolution.

Given any established scientific fact, there will be some fringe scientist who denies it. If you look to fringe scientists to tell you what to believe, you are a crank. And in this case you are looking generally to people being paid by oil companies.

And BTW, no scientists are paid to ‘say global warming is true’. There’s no money in that. There are no huge companies paying out tens of millions of dollars a year to corrupt scientists into asserting falsehoods about global warming. The UN certainly doesn’t.

maybe the fringe scientists are denying it based on scientific data ,in almost all the scientific issues we are facing we have two sides and each side claims it has the scientific proof to support their claim , but having read this article makes me believe you more .

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/globalwarmingad.htm

however it’s true that there are a lot of money being put in the global warming basket

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/obama-spending-increase-global-warming-research/

asanta - 27 December 2010 08:50 PM

So… did you wander over to this forum to inform us that AGW is a hoax??

No I wandered to this forum to read your pointless and utterly stupid(no offense) post ,which i just did

psikeyhackr - 27 December 2010 11:28 PM

This has been my favorite scary climate change video for some time.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382#

I watched that swindle show a long time ago.  I am not in the mood to watch it again to point out obvious flaws in their so called reasoning.  But you can forget about PROOF on the global warming issue.  There is no PROOF about this as in mathematics.  This is about probabilities involving billions of people and ONE PLANET and there is no spare planet.

That is the REAL PROBLEM right there.  This is something that we cannot afford to get wrong.  But it is obvious that there are too many STUPID people for it to possibly be gotten right.

psik

that was an amazing documentary , i never knew about this “Global Dimming” thing

thank you

Phi- - 28 December 2010 10:34 AM

as a BSc in physics i know that our bodies are not closed nor isolated systems but thanks for reminding me of Thermodynamics ,however i’ve read about the Krakatoa volcano and it’s true that the average global temperature dropped by 1.2 C and didn’t return to normal until 1888, In addition I can accept that we have been releasing huge amounts of CO2 ( a greenhouse gas ) into the atmosphere but how can someone be sure that the sunspots isn’t the main driving force behind climate change and not CO2 , that’s to say the CO2 is just a secondary and less influential cause

The Sun is definitely the main driving force behind Earth’s climate.  But the Sun is extremely stable.  Sunspots come and go, and the average solar output over the course of multiple cycles doesn’t change.  However, small changes in atmospheric gas concentrations have changed due to human influence.  It’s just a matter of counting up the total effect of the changes, not the total energy in the system.

Phi- - 28 December 2010 10:34 AM

... how can someone be sure that the sunspots isn’t the main driving force behind climate change and not CO2 , that’s to say the CO2 is just a secondary and less influential cause

Well, go to the people who study these things.  A good place to start on the issue of the Sun’s influence is with the essays cited HERE.

Phi- - 27 December 2010 03:53 PM

a couple of months ago i saw a very interesting documentary about global warming, but unlike any documentary about GW i’ve ever seen , it’s called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” .

http://stagevu.com/video/nhljdfsznpkc

simply global warming is overrated by the world media , it has no scientific evidence and developed countries such as USA is using the global warming propaganda to keep the undeveloped countries (especially in Africa) from using their natural resources .

here is another link

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

so in my humble opinion I don’t think Global Warming exists at all !

As a non-scientist, but still a skeptic in general, in looking into the available information I think the position of man caused global warming is a reasonable one to have.

However I don’t know that we have enough knowledge to accurately predict what the future holds. And, even if we accept the argument of man caused global warming I don’t see any real answers in dealing with the cause or at least nothing that shows anything we do do is going to have a particular desired effect.

It’s good to discuss it though and remain skeptical until you are satisfied with understanding how the process works for yourself.

If you do come to accept the existence of AGW (man cause global warming) the next argument is what realistically can be done about it. We start messing around with a process we don’t fully understand we might just make things worse.

Here is a link for the explanation of how excessive Co2 is a cause of global warming….

http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters).  The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers.  Carbon dioxide doesn’t absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth.  When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state.  It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed.  Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn’t let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.

Just to add here is an interesting essay on the history of global warming….

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Phi- - 28 December 2010 10:34 AM

however it’s true that there are a lot of money being put in the global warming basket

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/obama-spending-increase-global-warming-research/

I see Bill Sammon did his work right. Never thought I’d see a ‘Fox News’ link put up as authoritative on a site like this! 

Phi- - 28 December 2010 10:34 AM

asanta - 27 December 2010 08:50 PM

So… did you wander over to this forum to inform us that AGW is a hoax??

No I wandered to this forum to read your pointless and utterly stupid(no offense) post ,which i just did

Not a pointless nor stupid question at all ( by the way, just putting ‘no offence’ at the end of a juvenile rude remark does not remove the offence). It’s been apparent to myself that someone pretending to be someone they are not and putting on very’ weak links’  is just attempting to stir the pot.

The quality of bait has sadly gone done since I was last at a forum.

Man is the only living thing on earth that can actually alter the environment. The natural world is a balanced ecosystem, except for man. Human action on this planet is no longer part of the natural cycle. (paradise lost), and our impact on nature in general is obvious and well recorded.  Pollution of the air, seas, and raping of forests is causing manmade extinctions of thousands of species each day, resulting in a domino effect of destruction of the whole natural environment. Especially the forests. As human population increases, we cut down forests (the lungs of the earth) at an ever increasing rate and thus we negatively affect our environment in an exponential way.
Before we start arguing if GCC, let us first admit that our uses of non renewable resources is excessive and irresponsible. Once we do that, we can look at GCC in a more objective way.
Sun spots are the least of our worries, until our endeavors begin to interfere with the earths magnetic field. After that it will be a matter of time before we are toast. An example here is the use of fluor carbons. They destroy the ozone layer which protects us from radiation which bombards the earth constantly. At least we did recognize the immediate danger that posed.

In the the coming congress, watch Fred Upton (allied with Tim Phillips). There goes any hope for reversing this mindless race to the cliff of irreversible climate change.

Oh heck looks like I missed out on the fun.  That’s what I get for two timing over at Skeptic, but I’ve been spending a bunch of time looking up and reading extinction stuff for another grand little reference packed post.

Phi- - 27 December 2010 03:53 PM

a couple of months ago i saw a very interesting documentary about global warming, but unlike any documentary about GW i’ve ever seen , it’s called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” .

I must wonder if Phi just bought Durkin’s story line because of the slick production?  Did he spend any time wondering about any of the claims?  Did he take a moment to give this political theater any critical consideration?  For instance, Bill Butler has put together a wonderful point by point, Science Based run down of the smoke’n mirrors used in this video.  I wonder if Phi could thoughtfully read through that detailed, well sourced, expose and what he would think of it?

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle by Bill Butler
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
  “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.

  “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience.

And Bill’s got the evidence to back up his words!

citizenschallenge.pm - 29 December 2010 11:25 PM

Oh heck looks like I missed out on the fun.

It’s about TIME you showed up! We’ve been looking high and low for you!!

citizenschallenge.pm - 29 December 2010 11:25 PM

Oh heck looks like I missed out on the fun.

asanta - 30 December 2010 09:43 AM

It’s about TIME you showed up! We’ve been looking high and low for you!!

Thanks for the smile.

Phi you start this thread with a pretty upfront confident statement:

Phi- - 27 December 2010 03:53 PM

a couple of months ago i saw a very interesting documentary about global warming, but unlike any documentary about GW i’ve ever seen , it’s called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” .
Simply global warming is overrated by the world media , it has no scientific evidence and developed countries such as USA is using the global warming propaganda to keep the undeveloped countries (especially in Africa) from using their natural resources.

I’m wondering if you’re willing to add any substance behind the above soundbite?

For instance, what did you find so compelling as opposed to the other documentaries you say you’ve seen?

Have you taken any time to review the critiques the film has received?
If you have, what do think of the various complaints regarding the voracity of the film?

I’m simply curious about how you have developed your above stated conviction?  And would enjoy having a civil dialogue… if you should be so inclined.

citizenschallenge.pm - 29 December 2010 11:25 PM

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle by Bill Butler
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
  “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.

  “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience.

And Bill’s got the evidence to back up his words!

Wow, damming stuff!

You know phi,
I been surfing a little looking at what various people have to say about this film you were bragging on.  This is typical for “supporters” of the film:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/the-great-global-warming-swindle-part-1/
As Part 1 points out, the religion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become the “new morality” of a politically correct age. No dissent will be tolerated, and is even viewed as dangerous by its acolytes.

This video pulls no punches when it says that despite the fact that “experts” like Al Gore tell us AGW is “settled science,”

Now I ask you is that anyway to conduct what is supposed to be an assessment of climate science?
Come’on, it’s all emotionalism and religion in itself?  Why the need for the below the belt name calling?  If the Climate Science is so supposedly hollow, why not use science to defeat science rather than the emotionalism of a school yard showdown?

Oh and when did Gore become an “expert” he’s a politician who produced a documentary where he tried to the best of his ability to explain the state of climate science.  He is not the science or a scientist and it is another dishonest denier trick every time AGWHoaxers try to portray him as such.

Have any explanation to share?

citizenschallenge.pm - 30 December 2010 11:17 AM

citizenschallenge.pm - 29 December 2010 11:25 PM

Oh heck looks like I missed out on the fun.

asanta - 30 December 2010 09:43 AM

It’s about TIME you showed up! We’ve been looking high and low for you!!

Thanks for the smile.

now where’s phi?

well occam,
  I was nice and polite this time… wasn’t I?
where’s phi