Andy and Bes (7 Viewers)

Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#6
Mar 16, 2004
115,912
#6
Interesting piece, I must say. I have only heard of a couple scientists within that film, including one who has written one of my meteorology textbooks. The meteorology presented was pretty much spot on to my knowledge, but I'm not entirely sure about the atmospheric chemistry or paleo-climatology facts, so it's hard to say.

The one piece of evidence the film did not present was the effects of Methane on the Ozone layer. Methane is a far more harmful Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide, and the gas is emitted into the atmosphere from landfills, energy production, waste treatment, and of course livestock. The rise in atmospheric Methane levels has been increasing in a similar fashion to Carbon Dioxide levels, so one should take into mind this harmful player while discussing possible climate change. Personally, I don't really have much knowledge in this area either.

This film seems to be quite the "Gore debunker", and while I haven't seen Gore's piece, this probably has more scientific backing. But it is very hard to discern what goes into some of these studies, how much editing has a play, or why they didn't discuss the more harmful player in the atmosphere.

What is for certain, though, is that those who believe that many of the current world crises are manufactured for one purpose or another now have even more evidence to back their claims. I'm not sure how much possible Global Warming discussion goes into limiting the growth of Africa, and they don't give much evidence behind their claims, so who knows. But those who thoroughly believe in the NWO... they'll go nuts over this film.

It could just be about science we do not understand yet.
 
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Thread Starter #7
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #7
    Are you persuaded that CO2, which is the big media buzzword, misses the point though?
     
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    #8
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    #8
    Hard to say. The difference between history and today is that today cannot be explained by history due to the rise in industry. There really is no litmus test to conclude that humans are not in some way shaping how the atmospheric balance is constructed. The lag of the CO2 changes in relation to temperature was explained, but the funny thing about their message is that they appeared to be promoting pollution! Setting health concerns aside, if one disturbs the natural habitat of any living thing, changes/adaptation have been proven to occur. So, if we believe that the earth is akin to a living and breathing thing (which in some ways it is considering radiative transfer and energy balances keep the planet going), one should believe human interference could make the Earth adapt to it's new environment as well.

    But I don't know. There is so much we don't know about how the atmosphere works it's not even funny. If forecasting day to day weather is sometimes a struggle, figuring out long term climate changes is an impossible task.
     
    OP
    Martin

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Thread Starter #9
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #9
    I the rationale was that a) man made CO2 emissions are a tiny portion of CO2 emissions as a whole and b) if global warming is not man made then our emissions don't have anything to do with warming whatever policy we institute.

    Beyond that, the reality that fossil fuels will run out still stands.
     
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    #10
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    #10
    Martin said:
    I the rationale was that a) man made CO2 emissions are a tiny portion of CO2 emissions as a whole and b) if global warming is not man made then our emissions don't have anything to do with warming whatever policy we institute.

    Beyond that, the reality that fossil fuels will run out still stands.
    Click to expand...
    Man made emissions are indeed a small portion as a whole, so I think methane is the more problematic gas we might want to investigate.

    Running out of fossil fuels is certainly a possibility, but methane and subsequently natural gas will probably not run out due to farming and major advancements in new technology.

    So to answer your question... I don't know lol.
     
    Enron

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    #13
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,658
    #13
    Martin said:
    I the rationale was that a) man made CO2 emissions are a tiny portion of CO2 emissions as a whole and b) if global warming is not man made then our emissions don't have anything to do with warming whatever policy we institute.

    Beyond that, the reality that fossil fuels will run out still stands.
    Click to expand...
    Well that is pretty much BS a) and b). Anyone who believes we shouldn't limit the amount of noxious gas we release into the air is a bafoon. Be it global warming, water quality, or human health, there are plenty of reasons to limit our emissions.
     
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    #14
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    #14
    Aaron said:
    Well that is pretty much BS a) and b). Anyone who believes we shouldn't limit the amount of noxious gas we release into the air is a bafoon. Be it global warming, water quality, or human health, there are plenty of reasons to limit our emissions.
    Click to expand...
    But if the amount we generate is negligible in terms of the composition of the atmosphere, what's the difference?

    Our health concerns are more problematic "apparently".
     
    Enron

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    #15
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,658
    #15
    LetsBrushYourTeeth said:
    But if the amount we generate is negligible in terms of the composition of the atmosphere, what's the difference?

    Our health concerns are more problematic "apparently".
    Click to expand...
    Um the amount of emissions generated by humans is pretty undisputed. Not matter how many Bjorn Lomborg-esq crackpot theorists try to tell you that cosmic rays, increased ozone, or whatever is causing the planet's climate to change there are more than enough reasons to reduces emissions on a worldwide scale. If human health is one of those reasons, even though we would like people to want to reduce emissions for the good of the planet, then that is fine with me because its causing the world to want to "do something" about the issue.
     
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    #16
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    #16
    Aaron said:
    Um the amount of emissions generated by humans is pretty undisputed. Not matter how many Bjorn Lomborg-esq crackpot theorists try to tell you that cosmic rays, increased ozone, or whatever is causing the planet's climate to change there are more than enough reasons to reduces emissions on a worldwide scale. If human health is one of those reasons, even though we would like people to want to reduce emissions for the good of the planet, then that is fine with me because its causing the world to want to "do something" about the issue.
    Click to expand...
    Like I said earlier, methane is the more potent gas that threatens the Ozone Layer. Increasing carbon dioxide emission, exponential increase or not, may or may not be problematic to the atmosphere. But as we all know, pollution is a problem for our lungs, so that's why I frown upon the message in that Channel 4 film that Martin posted that essentially roots on polluting. That was just absurd.

    But the main issue here is the exponential increase in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as methane. The latter is an atmospheric terrorist. We don't know how much it affects the system.
     
    swag

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    #17
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,749
    #17
    Given my status as the solar system's fifth gas giant, I can attest from personal experience that methane is a bitch.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 7)