Climate change??

 
@Paella
I have watched the documentary and most of it is bunk. If you want to see what the response from the majority of the scientific community is read the Wikipedia page. Furthermore this Youtuber has a great series on climate change which you (and everyone else) should watch.
 
Most of the rebuttals I put here can be seen in potholer54's videos.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
Click to expand...
The graph Martin Durkin used to make that assumption in the film was a gross misrepresentation of the temperature readings. Here's the actual graph:
global_temp1.jpg


Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Click to expand...
Water vapour absorbs a smaller range of the IR spectrum released by Earth compared to carbon dioxide. Furthermore water vapour has a short lifespan in the sky.

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming.
Click to expand...
Well first of all:
(Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[15])
Click to expand...
So point on volcanoes is moot. On the minuscule amount, concentration does not equal potency. Would you care to have a tiny amount of snake venom into your blood? Only 1 ml will do.
While decomposition releases carbon dioxide, it is part of the carbon cycle which later get reabsorbed with each new growth (although we are disrupting that cycle with deforestation). The carbon dioxide we are producing has been stored away for years and as such is not part of the carbon cycle.
On the oceans, well I'll just quote Carl Wunsch:
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."
Click to expand...

Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[16] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Click to expand...
Except he forgot to mention that he cut that graph after 1980 when solar activity and temperature diverged.
Temp-sunspot-co2.svg


Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.
Click to expand...
Past activity is not necessarily an indication of current activity. Yes there were warm periods back then due to natural cycles but there were also giant reptilian like animals in the past. That does not mean we expect them now.
 
Bookworm616 said:
You all should read Michael Crichton's book: State of Fear.

I'm not so sure that global warming is in fact "real". The Earth has gone through ice ages and warming trends for millions of years. We could be just on the warming trend of it.

However, like I told my friends after I read the book, whether or not global warming exists, it doesn't change the fact that recycling and finding better, cleaner ways to manufacture things and make cars run are still great ideas.

:smt023
Click to expand...

I think that it is all a natural cycle too. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was fear about a new ice age. In the 1950s, there were global warming fears. In the 1940s, the fear was colder weather. The 1930s featured the Dust Bowl. Summer temperatures were extremely hot all across the US during that decade, and the fear of that time was global warming. It is likely that within a decade, scientists will start fearing the return of the ice age again.
 
madscientist said:
I think that it is all a natural cycle too. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was fear about a new ice age. In the 1950s, there were global warming fears. In the 1940s, the fear was colder weather. The 1930s featured the Dust Bowl. Summer temperatures were extremely hot all across the US during that decade, and the fear of that time was global warming. It is likely that within a decade, scientists will start fearing the return of the ice age again.
Click to expand...

It's hotter now than it's ever been because of the world population.

6 billion people is enough to warm the hell out of neptune.
 
flaminghetero said:
It's hotter now than it's ever been because of the world population.
6 billion people is enough to warm the hell out of neptune.
Click to expand...
lol - you must like Astrophysics. All these scientists are tossing data back and forth - like lawyers tossing papers in a courtroom. One thing that can't be argued with is Biology. That is - when the Polar Bears become extinct, there will be very little room to say, "oh, it's just part of a cycle..."
 
Anten7 said:
lol - you must like Astrophysics. All these scientists are tossing data back and forth - like lawyers tossing papers in a courtroom. One thing that can't be argued with is Biology. That is - when the Polar Bears become extinct, there will be very little room to say, "oh, it's just part of a cycle..."
Click to expand...

Some people won't care until they're on the rooftop waving for a rescue helicopter.
 
madscientist said:
I think that it is all a natural cycle too. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was fear about a new ice age. In the 1950s, there were global warming fears. In the 1940s, the fear was colder weather. The 1930s featured the Dust Bowl. Summer temperatures were extremely hot all across the US during that decade, and the fear of that time was global warming. It is likely that within a decade, scientists will start fearing the return of the ice age again.
Click to expand...

[YOUTUBE]w5hs4KVeiAU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]EU_AtHkB4Ms[/YOUTUBE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom