The great lie about global warming - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 07-10-2007, 12:09 AM

The global warming is not caused by the amount of CO2 in the air, it's the other way around : as temperature rises oceans release more CO2, then as temperature falls oceans absorb more CO2
Ice samples prove this. But because oceans take a long time to warm or to cool there is a 800 year delay between a temperature increase and the level of CO2 released, so if the oceans release CO2 now it may be because of some warm period in the past.
In the past there were some warm periods, look at the medieval warm period or look at the time when trees were growing in Greenland
Our current warming started around 1800 when there was not much industry. After 1940 there was even a cooling period of 20 years, even if industrial production was booming, people feared another ice age, those were the news at that time
Did you know that the biggest producers of CO2 are in this order :
1- Oceans which release CO2 when they warm up
2 - Plants when they die in the autumn
3 - Animals and bacteria
4 - Volcanoes
5 - Humans with all their cars and their factories

I am not writing this because I like cars and factories, I hate them , besides CO2 they produce a lot of poisonous stuff, I just want to say that CO 2 is not to blame for global warming, it is a product of it - released by the oceans, not the cause

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
Documentary : " The Great Global Warming Swindle" it can be found on google video

Climate change is caused by the sun, the movie above explains this very well. In the past 200 years there was an increase in solar activity - measured by the number of sunspots, the more sunspots there are,the more active the sun is
But people like the sun to be stable and constant, they hold to this belief almost like a religion, because they know that if the sun is to blame then there is nothing that they can do about it, and that scares them

All this mass media stuff about global warming being caused by us humans it's done because they want us to use less oil, because we're running out of it. A lie with a good purpose but a lie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6283992.stm

longbough · 07-10-2007, 03:14 AM

to add:

Quote:

Sun to Blame for Global Warming

by John Carlisle

Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.

The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.

That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.

The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2° F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.

The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.

There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5° F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04° F since 1979.

Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.

# # #

John K. Carlisle is the Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to JCarlisle@nationalcenter.org.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

JustJess · 07-10-2007, 03:40 AM

So assuming that THESE scientific studies are definitely truth, and this is really what's happening - what does that mean for us? What should we do to manage the coming temperature changes and the effects of those changes? Should we do anything at all? It seems that if we are to face another major cooling period, that would adversely affect the world's food supplies, etc.

How do you choose which studies you'll believe and follow?

Just as a side note... I don't actually care if humans are the cause or not. I still want us independent of oil and searching for alternative sustainable energy sources, and living more responsibly.

tecoyah · 07-10-2007, 03:46 AM

So, in the OP we see that CO2 is a primary factor in climate change. It is noted the release of this CO2 is directly tied to solar cycles, and we have no control over such changes. I would ask, what of the CO2 we add to the cycle daily? Does it differ in some way from ocean released gases, thus making it irrelevant?

The topic of climate shift is far too complex for a meaningful debate in this type of forum structure, and likely very few climate scientists fully understand the issue, let alone the rest of us. We are then left to simply understand it is happening, and try to deal with the consequences.

JustJess · 07-10-2007, 03:55 AM

Actually, tec, in the OP, he's just arguing that we aren't the largest source of CO2. He doesn't actually get into what's causing the temperature change. Concievably, longbough's post is supporting the OP, saying that the changes in sun radiance is causing the temp changes... which changes the ocean... which changes the CO2 output.

longbough · 07-10-2007, 04:30 AM

I'd direct y'all to take a look at the OP's reference to the BBC documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
Documentary : " The Great Global Warming Swindle"

it's actually a pretty good treatment on the subject.

One notable fact is that, while the trends in global temperature and CO2 content in ice core samples closely match, it's the CO2 that LAGS the temperature change by hundreds of years.
CO2 (which comes mostly from the oceans) changes in response to global temperature - NOT the other way around.

Cynthetiq · 07-10-2007, 05:23 AM

I can only recall what I remember in my short lifetime.

In the 70's all the books I read in school and the library said, we are nearing a new Ice Age. Evidence was being gathered supporting that.

In the 90's it was all global warming. Again, evidence was being gathered supporting that.

I was told by some European friends that it is a trend in science to sway back and forth hot/cold (no data to back this up that I can find), could that be the same as the sunspot cycles since they can vary from shortest 9 years to longest 14 years, with the average 11 years?

but yes, I agree that volcanoes can offset all the savings we do in one eruption.

seretogis · 07-10-2007, 05:59 AM

The moral of the story is that the wondrous planet Earth has little concern with what we do while we are on it. Rabid "environmentalism" is a religion -- a cult. While it is appropriate for us to prepare for what it may throw our way, that is not what environmentalism is about, and Reverend Al Gore is leading his flock astray.

Mister Coaster · 07-10-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

Did you know that the biggest producers of CO2 are in this order :
1- Oceans which release CO2 when they warm up
2 - Plants when they die in the autumn
3 - Animals and bacteria
4 - Volcanoes
5 - Humans with all their cars and their factories

Why isn't Rosie O'Donell on this list? Can't we all just blame Rosie and call it a day?

loganmule · 07-10-2007, 08:22 AM

So if I'm reading the OP correctly, human activity is a lesser factor in global warming. Does that mean we may not materially affect the timing of the next Ice Age, and do we have any clue when that is expected to occur?

Cynthetiq · 07-10-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loganmule

So if I'm reading the OP correctly, human activity is a lesser factor in global warming. Does that mean we may not materially affect the timing of the next Ice Age, and do we have any clue when that is expected to occur?

depends on which calendar you follow, julian, gregorian, aztec, mayan, egyptian, jewish...

DDDDave · 07-10-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

The moral of the story is that the wondrous planet Earth has little concern with what we do while we are on it.

AMEN. At least one other person gets it.

But Dave, think of the big picture..... OK, how about this. We, (humans) currently reside on a ball of molten iron. This ball of molten iron with a thin skin is currently spinning at 1,000mph on its axis while rotating at 65,000mph in an orbit around a degrading star. This has been going on for somewhere between 4,000,000,000 and 5,000,000,000 years. (Zeros shown for emphasis

) We humans (in our present intelligence) have been on this ball of iron for somewhere around 15,000 years. To think that we (all of mankind from beginning to now) somehow control or affect what goes on on this planet is ludicrous. One huge forest fire in the tiaga region of Siberia would cause more CO2 than has been produced by all of mankind ever. Remember when the Kuwaiti oil fields were set on fire during the 1st Gulf War? OMG, the world is coming to an end, darkness and noxious gas will poison us all forever. No, not so much. In fact, not at all. We put the fires out. The earth just shrugged. When are these clowns leaving anyway?

I think the whole 'Global Warming', 'Climate Crisis' BS can be distilled down to one thing........PRESUMPTUOUSNESS. Why do some people somehow think we are in control of anything. We are blobs of carbon-based neurons reacting to stimuli like bacteria in a dish. Do the bacteria think- hey, I can control what happens in this dish? Similarly, do celebrities think that because of their self-professed importance that they somehow have some control over this planet? No, but they certainly have the highest level of presumtuousness. Oh, but Dave, if we bacteria poison the agar in the dish other bacteria will not be able to survive. So what....we are dead, they never were alive.

This is my rant and I can go on as long as I want

. But I won't because it is pointless. There are so many arguments it is silly. (How about the surface of the planet is 75% water and we have no idea why the oceans get hotter and colder.) We cannot predict what the weather will be on Friday. Why would we think we can predict what will happen in 10, 100, 1000 years?

Strange Famous · 07-10-2007, 10:50 AM

What you say is a theory that has some credibility and is held by some people... but it is far from being universally accepted or held as proven, or even the most likely theory in the consensus of educated opinion.

For you to portray it is absolute fact is surely at very least as much of a lie and the lies you talk of being told?

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

The moral of the story is that the wondrous planet Earth has little concern with what we do while we are on it. Rabid "environmentalism" is a religion -- a cult. While it is appropriate for us to prepare for what it may throw our way, that is not what environmentalism is about, and Reverend Al Gore is leading his flock astray.

The world may care very little about us, but we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves.

tenniels · 07-10-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

Just as a side note... I don't actually care if humans are the cause or not. I still want us independent of oil and searching for alternative sustainable energy sources, and living more responsibly.

That is exactly how I feel. I want to be as responsible as I possibly can, period. I mean, if I can switch lightbulbs and use more energy efficient ones, why wouldn't I? I mean, there is no harm in trying to be as environmentally responsible as possible. That being said, I don't really want to get into the debate of it all. Very well put though JustJess

World's King · 07-10-2007, 07:47 PM

We were put on this earth to use it.

When we are done. We die.

Get it?

Martian · 07-10-2007, 09:15 PM

The beauty of global warming... no, the sheer, sublime genius of global warming as an issue is the time scale of it.

Think back to Y2K. Woe betide the politician who campaigned on the issue of Y2K, because it was an issue with a timer. There was the same doomsayers telling us that the world was going to end, except they were pinning it to a specific time, down to the second. And yeah, some people bought it, while the IT sector as a whole quietly laughed at them. And then, a few patches later, the big event came and went. Nothing happened, we collectively shrugged our shoulders and moved on; in five years, nobody will even remember the term anymore.

So imagine, now, that you're a politician. You need an issue to champion. It has to be something that will get people riled up, something that you can ideally use against your opponents. It also has to be feasible; you need to be able to advance an agenda in support of your issue and it shouldn't be something with a best before date. Global warming fits all of the criteria and it works perfectly from all angles. If my party decides to campaign on global warming, I can trot out a bunch of scientific-looking figures and charts and say, 'this is what we need to do now! Not for us, or our children, but our children's chlidren!' In ten years if things get worse, I (or my party, by that point) can change stance a bit and claim that 'we need to do more! Children's grandchildren, dammit!' If, on the other hand, things get better, we can say 'look at our legacy, and what we've left for our uncle's niece's children!'

I'm not saying that global warming isn't a legitimate issue. It's just that it's one that we know very little about. Most of our really solid information comes from the last century or so, which in terms of a geological timescale is less than the blink of an eye. How can we hope to pull any truly meaningful information regarding global climate trends out of that?

Personally, if I ever have an opportunity to get my hands on a '74 'Cuda, I'm not going to stop a single picosecond to consider global warming. I'm going to buy the damn car and drive it and love it and not care a bit that it farts out more carbon oxides than all the Priuses of the world put together. But that's just me.

snowy · 07-10-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

depends on which calendar you follow, julian, gregorian, aztec, mayan, egyptian, jewish...

I believe the world will end December 21st, 2012...

Rekna · 07-11-2007, 08:08 AM

Can someone please explain scientifically why increased temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2? I can see where more O2 would come from (the evaporation of water) but where would the added carbon come from? There isn't some huge abundance of carbon atoms in the air. Until someone explains why this is scientifically I don't think we should be so easy to accept the claim that increased temperature=oceans producing co2.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 08:19 AM

I believe is is more a matter of limited capability within the Oceans to absorb excessive CO2, not that they will release stored Carbon from the depths (though technically they do so continuously). The biosphere that converts CO2 (microorganisms primarily) into energy or waste products,may become incapable of keeping up with a dramatic rise in emissions, which simply means the CO2 has nowhere to go, this may seem like an oceanic release but is actually a mere limitation on the system.

kutulu · 07-11-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mai

Did you know that the biggest producers of CO2 are in this order :
1- Oceans which release CO2 when they warm up
2 - Plants when they die in the autumn
3 - Animals and bacteria
4 - Volcanoes
5 - Humans with all their cars and their factories

You do realize that all of those sources (except for #5) have natural sinks associated with them, right?

Oceans are also the largest CO2 sink. Depending on the temperature of the ocean it will absorb or release CO2.

The amount of CO2 released by volcanoes is about equal to the amount of CO2 taken in by silicate weathering. By the way, humans emit more than 100 times as much CO2 than volcanoes do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDDDave

To think that we (all of mankind from beginning to now) somehow control or affect what goes on on this planet is ludicrous.

Yes we are totally insignificant and can't do any harm to the environment

Quote:

We cannot predict what the weather will be on Friday. Why would we think we can predict what will happen in 10, 100, 1000 years?

Please familiarize yourself with the differences between climate and weather.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You do realize that all of those sources (except for #5) have natural sinks associated with them, right?

Oceans are also the largest CO2 sink. Depending on the temperature of the ocean it will absorb or release CO2.

The amount of CO2 released by volcanoes is about equal to the amount of CO2 taken in by silicate weathering. By the way, humans emit more than 100 times as much CO2 than volcanoes do.

Yes we are totally insignificant and can't do any harm to the environment

Please familiarize yourself with the differences between climate and weather.

uh.....ouch....that stings

Blackarican · 07-11-2007, 03:41 PM

Everyday, factories run and people drive their cars. While one person and their car may be minuscule enough not to draw attention but what about the other couple of hundred million that run across America? Not even counting the other nations. I have no idea how much carbon a volcano releases (it probably is an immense amount) but how often does a volcano erupt? Yes the plants use up the carbon dioxide we release but aren't we still expanding and developing land?
I kinda like polar bears and think that while the planet has taken care of itself for the past couple of hundred million years some human activity has still made some small change if any in its short amount of time present. BTW, how do plants dying in the Autumn affect CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

Climate change is caused by the sun, the movie above explains this very well. In the past 200 years there was an increase in solar activity - measured by the number of sunspots, the more sunspots there are,the more active the sun is
But people like the sun to be stable and constant, they hold to this belief almost like a religion, because they know that if the sun is to blame then there is nothing that they can do about it, and that scares them

All this mass media stuff about global warming being caused by us humans it's done because they want us to use less oil, because we're running out of it. A lie with a good purpose but a lie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6283992.stm

Oh...I almost forgot:

Quote:

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

Graphs of cosmic ray activity and temperature
Temperatures have continued rising irrespective of cosmic ray flux
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/n...290228.stm?sun

care to revise your OP....just slightly?

ngdawg · 07-11-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackarican

Everyday, factories run and people drive their cars. While one person and their car may be minuscule enough not to draw attention but what about the other couple of hundred million that run across America? Not even counting the other nations. I have no idea how much carbon a volcano releases (it probably is an immense amount) but how often does a volcano erupt? Yes the plants use up the carbon dioxide we release but aren't we still expanding and developing land?

Land can't be expanded by humans. What's here is here. If landmass increases, it's due to shrinking water tables and/or rising volcanic action.
Development takes away what land we alread have and farming depletes the soil of nutrients in addition to introducing non-native plantings to regional areas, further taking away natural plant growth. The destruction of rainforests for the purpose of farming is a well known example of abusing the land we have. Add to that strip-mining, expanding cities and old-growth wood 'harvesting'. Plants take in carbon dioxide, but we're losing plantlife at an alarmingly rapid rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackarican

I kinda like polar bears and think that while the planet has taken care of itself for the past couple of hundred million years some human activity has still made some small change if any in its short amount of time present. BTW, how do plants dying in the Autumn affect CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Anything that decomposes gives off gases, plants and trees are no exception.

longbough · 07-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

By the way, humans emit more than 100 times as much CO2 than volcanoes do.

no we don't

Organic life and decay
150 gigatons of CO2 per year

Volcanoes
165 gigatons of CO2 per year

Human activity
6.5 gigatons of CO2 per year

also of note:

Rekna · 07-11-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbough

no we don't

Organic life and decay
150 gigatons of CO2 per year

Volcanoes
165 gigatons of CO2 per year

Human activity
6.5 gigatons of CO2 per year

also of note:

Please cite a source when presenting stats and graphs like these. Without a source your post carries no weight as anyone could just make these figures up.

spindles · 07-11-2007, 09:45 PM

Heads up for the Aussies - this documentary is on ABC (in Australia) tonight, with a followup discussion with the doc maker and several 'experts' (none of which I could pick from a lineup - maybe says more about me than anything else

)

I was planning to tune in.

longbough · 07-12-2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Please cite a source when presenting stats and graphs like these. Without a source your post carries no weight as anyone could just make these figures up.

the OP's reference
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
The above BBC documentary also explains your question about the temperature-related CO2 emissions from oceans.

It's ironic it hasn't occurred to you to ask for the same proof from folks who don't support the OP.

kutulu · 07-12-2007, 01:43 PM

longbaugh,

The statement that CO2 emissions from volcanic activity is greater than human-caused CO2 emissions is a flat out lie. Durkin, the film's creator even admitted it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18307782/

Quote:

Ward said the film's director, Mark Durkin, made a "long catalog of fundamental and profound mistakes" — including the claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, and that the Earth's atmosphere was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today.

Quote:

Durkin acknowledged two of the errors highlighted by the scientists — including the claim about volcanic emissions — but he described those changes as minor and said they would be corrected in the expanded DVD release.

"They're trying to go through with a sort of nit-comb and trying desperately to find stuff they can sling at the film," he said. "They have no impact on the substance of the argument at all."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_ba...ory.php?id=178

Quote:

A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.

Furthermore, your chart is highly misleading. One more time: The differences in the amounts of CO2 emitted from natural and man-made sources DO NOT MATTER. Natural sources have sinks and when averaged over long periods of time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not change that much. There is no natural sink for human caused CO2, therefore it will accumulate and continue to accumulate.

To put it another way. Say you have a 10 million gallon water tank. You are constantly draining 1 million gallons per hour away from it and constantly adding 1,000,001 gph to it. What is going to happen to the tank?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

longbough · 07-12-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

The statement that CO2 emissions from volcanic activity is greater than human-caused CO2 emissions is a flat out lie. Durkin, the film's creator even admitted it.

When a documentary makes an error in the facts that's one thing. It's a complete fabrication on your part to say it was admitted to be a "flat out lie" - even in your reference doesn't dare say that.

It's easy for Ward to say Durkin presents a "long catalog of fundamental and profound mistakes" but only two errors were agreed upon and no other was mentioned in the article.

For the record Durkin also says regarding Ward's letter "This is a contemptible, weasel-worded attempt to gag scientific criticism, and it won't work," he said. "I don't believe they're interested in quality control when it comes to the reporting of science — so long as it's on their side."

Durkin's statement is no differently qualified than Ward's.

So if you want to introduce references to counter the statement about volcanic activity then I will hear them and stand corrected on the facts. But the issue of volcanic emissions aren't even the core of the argument - so that hardly breaks the thesis of the documentary.

Have all the omissions and misrepresentations of fact taken away from anybody's reverence for "An Inconvenient Truth"? I doubt if many have even ventured to question it. Have you?

kutulu · 07-12-2007, 02:48 PM

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

Quote:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006]) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

spindles · 07-12-2007, 02:56 PM

Well, I watched the doco last night and the interview with Durkin afterwards and also the panel discussion. There really was not a lot of support for Durkin, especially after the presenter asked him about discrepancies in the graphs that he had used, which did not contain newer data. They had a member of the IPCC on the panel who was quite eloquent in his criticism.

Anyway - seems like a swindle might have been done, but maybe more likely by this doco producer...

edit: a link to the site from the host broadecaster in Oz
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

tecoyah · 07-12-2007, 03:04 PM

OK...so we pretty much discounted the solar cycle, cosmic rays, and volcanism as the primary sources of increased CO2 in the atmosphere....shall we try Cow Farts?

kutulu · 07-12-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

OK...so we pretty much discounted the solar cycle, cosmic rays, and volcanism as the primary sources of increased CO2 in the atmosphere....shall we try Cow Farts?

Actually, cow farts are a very significant source of methane emissions. Control methods are being developed, including feed that causes them to fart less.

Humans are responsible for the cow farts because we wouldn't have so many cows if they weren't so tasty.

MSD · 07-12-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Humans are responsible for the cow farts because we wouldn't have so many cows if they weren't so tasty.

Cows wouldn't be able to emit so much methane during their lives if we ate more veal.

kutulu · 07-12-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Cows wouldn't be able to emit so much methane during their lives if we ate more veal.

Now THAT is a real solution! Since they are smaller, there would be less of a footprint as well.

Rekna · 07-12-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longbough

the OP's reference
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2
The above BBC documentary also explains your question about the temperature-related CO2 emissions from oceans.

It's ironic it hasn't occurred to you to ask for the same proof from folks who don't support the OP.

I don't take documentaries as a valid source as they are usually full of inaccuracies and many times contain an agenda. Now if you post the sources for the documentary then you may have a valid source. When I say cite a source (for these scientific "facts") I mean a peer reviewed journal paper (or something based off said paper). The reason I haven't asked anyone else is because I didn't see anyone else making outrageous claims that go against the current belief in the scientific community.

Nimetic · 07-15-2007, 02:55 AM

Since you have just solved the puzzle - why not post it to a journal on atmosphere science. They've been trying to figure this stuff out for decades.

We could just eat less cows in that case. Simple.

Actually... I seem to recall that most of the gas from cows comes out their mouths. Probably something to do with all their stomachs.

Anyways... it's interesting eh. The same might be said for humans.

tecoyah · 07-15-2007, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Sacramento, CA.
71007- BCC
Frank Lee D'sturbed

In a move expected to create dissent in an already taxed legislature, Gov. Arnold schwartzineger has put forth legislation to make flatulence illegal, punishable by $100 fines per infraction, and 30 days in jail. The fart credit legislation is expected to be brought up in the legislative agenda at the next meeting, and will be allowed a public forum within 14 days. The ACLU has already placed a team of lawyers, as well as several sufferers of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and three lactose intolerant PHD holders to rebutt the proposed law before committee.

Finally...someone takes serious action.

jorgelito · 07-15-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Finally...someone takes serious action.

Did you get this from the Onion or the Daily Show? I think this report is suspect.

07-10-2007, 12:09 AM	#1 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	The lie about the global warming The global warming is not caused by the amount of CO2 in the air, it's the other way around : as temperature rises oceans release more CO2, then as temperature falls oceans absorb more CO2 Ice samples prove this. But because oceans take a long time to warm or to cool there is a 800 year delay between a temperature increase and the level of CO2 released, so if the oceans release CO2 now it may be because of some warm period in the past. In the past there were some warm periods, look at the medieval warm period or look at the time when trees were growing in Greenland Our current warming started around 1800 when there was not much industry. After 1940 there was even a cooling period of 20 years, even if industrial production was booming, people feared another ice age, those were the news at that time Did you know that the biggest producers of CO2 are in this order : 1- Oceans which release CO2 when they warm up 2 - Plants when they die in the autumn 3 - Animals and bacteria 4 - Volcanoes 5 - Humans with all their cars and their factories I am not writing this because I like cars and factories, I hate them , besides CO2 they produce a lot of poisonous stuff, I just want to say that CO 2 is not to blame for global warming, it is a product of it - released by the oceans, not the cause http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2 Documentary : " The Great Global Warming Swindle" it can be found on google video Climate change is caused by the sun, the movie above explains this very well. In the past 200 years there was an increase in solar activity - measured by the number of sunspots, the more sunspots there are,the more active the sun is But people like the sun to be stable and constant, they hold to this belief almost like a religion, because they know that if the sun is to blame then there is nothing that they can do about it, and that scares them All this mass media stuff about global warming being caused by us humans it's done because they want us to use less oil, because we're running out of it. A lie with a good purpose but a lie http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6283992.stm Last edited by pai mei; 07-10-2007 at 12:28 AM..

07-10-2007, 03:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	So assuming that THESE scientific studies are definitely truth, and this is really what's happening - what does that mean for us? What should we do to manage the coming temperature changes and the effects of those changes? Should we do anything at all? It seems that if we are to face another major cooling period, that would adversely affect the world's food supplies, etc. How do you choose which studies you'll believe and follow? Just as a side note... I don't actually care if humans are the cause or not. I still want us independent of oil and searching for alternative sustainable energy sources, and living more responsibly. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

07-10-2007, 03:55 AM	#5 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Actually, tec, in the OP, he's just arguing that we aren't the largest source of CO2. He doesn't actually get into what's causing the temperature change. Concievably, longbough's post is supporting the OP, saying that the changes in sun radiance is causing the temp changes... which changes the ocean... which changes the CO2 output. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

07-10-2007, 04:30 AM	#6 (permalink)
longbough Soylent Green is people. Location: Northern California	I'd direct y'all to take a look at the OP's reference to the BBC documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2 Documentary : " The Great Global Warming Swindle" it's actually a pretty good treatment on the subject. One notable fact is that, while the trends in global temperature and CO2 content in ice core samples closely match, it's the CO2 that LAGS the temperature change by hundreds of years. *CO2 (which comes mostly from the oceans) changes in response to global temperature - NOT the other way around.* __________________ "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." - Mahatma Ghandi Last edited by longbough; 07-10-2007 at 04:47 AM..

07-10-2007, 05:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I can only recall what I remember in my short lifetime. In the 70's all the books I read in school and the library said, we are nearing a new Ice Age. Evidence was being gathered supporting that. In the 90's it was all global warming. Again, evidence was being gathered supporting that. I was told by some European friends that it is a trend in science to sway back and forth hot/cold (no data to back this up that I can find), could that be the same as the sunspot cycles since they can vary from shortest 9 years to longest 14 years, with the average 11 years? but yes, I agree that volcanoes can offset all the savings we do in one eruption. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-10-2007, 03:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	So, in the OP we see that CO2 is a primary factor in climate change. It is noted the release of this CO2 is directly tied to solar cycles, and we have no control over such changes. I would ask, what of the CO2 we add to the cycle daily? Does it differ in some way from ocean released gases, thus making it irrelevant? The topic of climate shift is far too complex for a meaningful debate in this type of forum structure, and likely very few climate scientists fully understand the issue, let alone the rest of us. We are then left to simply understand it is happening, and try to deal with the consequences.

07-10-2007, 05:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	The moral of the story is that the wondrous planet Earth has little concern with what we do while we are on it. Rabid "environmentalism" is a religion -- a cult. While it is appropriate for us to prepare for what it may throw our way, that is not what environmentalism is about, and Reverend Al Gore is leading his flock astray. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-10-2007, 08:22 AM	#10 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	So if I'm reading the OP correctly, human activity is a lesser factor in global warming. Does that mean we may not materially affect the timing of the next Ice Age, and do we have any clue when that is expected to occur?

07-10-2007, 07:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	We were put on this earth to use it. When we are done. We die. Get it? __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

07-10-2007, 09:15 PM	#16 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	The beauty of global warming... no, the sheer, sublime genius of global warming as an issue is the time scale of it. Think back to Y2K. Woe betide the politician who campaigned on the issue of Y2K, because it was an issue with a timer. There was the same doomsayers telling us that the world was going to end, except they were pinning it to a specific time, down to the second. And yeah, some people bought it, while the IT sector as a whole quietly laughed at them. And then, a few patches later, the big event came and went. Nothing happened, we collectively shrugged our shoulders and moved on; in five years, nobody will even remember the term anymore. So imagine, now, that you're a politician. You need an issue to champion. It has to be something that will get people riled up, something that you can ideally use against your opponents. It also has to be feasible; you need to be able to advance an agenda in support of your issue and it shouldn't be something with a best before date. Global warming fits all of the criteria and it works perfectly from all angles. If my party decides to campaign on global warming, I can trot out a bunch of scientific-looking figures and charts and say, 'this is what we need to do now! Not for us, or our children, but our children's chlidren!' In ten years if things get worse, I (or my party, by that point) can change stance a bit and claim that 'we need to do more! Children's grandchildren, dammit!' If, on the other hand, things get better, we can say 'look at our legacy, and what we've left for our uncle's niece's children!' I'm not saying that global warming isn't a legitimate issue. It's just that it's one that we know very little about. Most of our really solid information comes from the last century or so, which in terms of a geological timescale is less than the blink of an eye. How can we hope to pull any truly meaningful information regarding global climate trends out of that? Personally, if I ever have an opportunity to get my hands on a '74 'Cuda, I'm not going to stop a single picosecond to consider global warming. I'm going to buy the damn car and drive it and love it and not care a bit that it farts out more carbon oxides than all the Priuses of the world put together. But that's just me. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

07-11-2007, 08:08 AM	#18 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Can someone please explain scientifically why increased temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2? I can see where more O2 would come from (the evaporation of water) but where would the added carbon come from? There isn't some huge abundance of carbon atoms in the air. Until someone explains why this is scientifically I don't think we should be so easy to accept the claim that increased temperature=oceans producing co2.

07-11-2007, 08:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I believe is is more a matter of limited capability within the Oceans to absorb excessive CO2, not that they will release stored Carbon from the depths (though technically they do so continuously). The biosphere that converts CO2 (microorganisms primarily) into energy or waste products,may become incapable of keeping up with a dramatic rise in emissions, which simply means the CO2 has nowhere to go, this may seem like an oceanic release but is actually a mere limitation on the system.

07-11-2007, 03:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
Blackarican Upright	Everyday, factories run and people drive their cars. While one person and their car may be minuscule enough not to draw attention but what about the other couple of hundred million that run across America? Not even counting the other nations. I have no idea how much carbon a volcano releases (it probably is an immense amount) but how often does a volcano erupt? Yes the plants use up the carbon dioxide we release but aren't we still expanding and developing land? I kinda like polar bears and think that while the planet has taken care of itself for the past couple of hundred million years some human activity has still made some small change if any in its short amount of time present. BTW, how do plants dying in the Autumn affect CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

07-11-2007, 09:45 PM	#27 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Heads up for the Aussies - this documentary is on ABC (in Australia) tonight, with a followup discussion with the doc maker and several 'experts' (none of which I could pick from a lineup - maybe says more about me than anything else ) I was planning to tune in. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

07-12-2007, 02:56 PM	#32 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	Well, I watched the doco last night and the interview with Durkin afterwards and also the panel discussion. There really was not a lot of support for Durkin, especially after the presenter asked him about discrepancies in the graphs that he had used, which did not contain newer data. They had a member of the IPCC on the panel who was quite eloquent in his criticism. Anyway - seems like a swindle might have been done, but maybe more likely by this doco producer... edit: a link to the site from the host broadecaster in Oz http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/ __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

07-12-2007, 03:04 PM	#33 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	OK...so we pretty much discounted the solar cycle, cosmic rays, and volcanism as the primary sources of increased CO2 in the atmosphere....shall we try Cow Farts?

07-15-2007, 02:55 AM	#38 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Since you have just solved the puzzle - why not post it to a journal on atmosphere science. They've been trying to figure this stuff out for decades. We could just eat less cows in that case. Simple. Actually... I seem to recall that most of the gas from cows comes out their mouths. Probably something to do with all their stomachs. Anyways... it's interesting eh. The same might be said for humans. Last edited by Nimetic; 07-15-2007 at 03:02 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost