PC Pals Forum
General Discussion => The Buzz => Topic started by: GillE on March 09, 2007, 11:30
-
After seeing last night's The Great Global Warming Swindle on C4, I'm interested in learning more about variations in the sun's activity, especially sunspots. Can anyone point me to a site that explores this astronomical phenomenon in layman's terms? I'd also be interested in learning more about how we measure the sun's activity and where data that scientists use can be found.
Gill
-
Damn I wish I had known that was on since I have been a long-time advocate of solar activity as the chief cause of global warming. Our sun has long been known to be a variable star and it hardly takes rocket science to work out that it will have periods when it is hotter or cooler than usual. Sunspot activity is always a good indicator of the Sun's temperature and NASA has quite a good website explaining a bit about their background. HERE (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml) It also provides links to the data records. For today's sunspot activity, you can do no better than go to http://www.spaceweather.com/
Hopefully Ch4 will repeat the programme on E4, More4 or S4C in the very near future.
-
Those are good links, Clive - many thanks :) .
I recorded the programme on my computer so I could let you have a copy if you like. Unfortunately, it's 949mb and I don't know how to get a file of that size to you :( .
Gill
-
I recorded it but havent watched it all yet.
I saw a few bits and was pleased to see that it appears to confirm what I posted some time ago about volcanoes producing more CO2 each year than humans produce worldwide.
Also there was something about the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere rising some 800 years after the earths temperature rises and falling 800 years after the temperature drops and it has been shown to do that regularly by analysing frozen core samples from the poles.
So it looks like Gordons tenner a flight tax just isnt go to change much at all, apart from to hit the poorer people harder and rake in a nice little extra bit of cash to fund MPs pay rises and pensions ::)
To Gill :
Convert it to DVD format and burn to a DVD and post it, or run it through something like DVD shrink to make it fit on a CD, it wont lose much quality as I assume its Mpeg2, then he can watch it on his pc.
You would have to connect your speakers though Clive ;)
-
The program is being repeated on More 4 on Monday March 12th at 10 to 11-40 pm Clve :)
-
Thanks very much Gill and Sandra. I've made a note to watch it on More4 next Monday night at 10pm. Good timing for me as that's the time I get home from my ballroom dancing! ;D
-
SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: The Great Global Warming Swindle
On: more4 (13)
Date: Monday 12th March 2007 (starting in 3 days)
Time: 22:00 to 23:40 (1 hour and 40 minutes long)
Polemical film challenging the consensus that man-made CO2 is heating up the earth. Featuring leading academics, the film questions the science behind the accepted reasons for global warming and argues other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=35596
Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.
-
I watched it this evening, I always thought that man was way to insignificant to cause the climate change problems that we were being accused of, I have posted quite a few times in other threads saying that I thought it was cyclical.
This program seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I was right all along, did you ever doubt me folks ;D
Apparently Maggie Thatcher was initially to blame for causing the misconception that it was all our fault.
So thats another devastating blow that she has caused the ordinary people of the UK, by allowing the government to tax us on everything we do now, in the name of supposedly preventing global warming ::)
I wonder if there will be a similar type of programme made to try and dismiss the scientists claims in that programme ?
-
I watched it last night and have to say it was better than I dared hope. Many of the scientists they interviewed are very well respected and their views just have to be taken seriously. None of them were the "usual suspect" crackpots we often see on our screens. I thought that the programme dug quite deeply into the politics to show how this movement has world governments by the short and curlies, forcing them to obey their every whim. I have attended literally hundreds of scientific lectures (mainly astronomy) over the years and have yet to meet face to face a scientist who supports the theory that man is to blame for global warming. All claim it to be caused by the Sun or volcanos.
-
I hope to watch this soon, so are they saying there's nothing we can do about it?
-
Absolutely nothing at all Simon. Temperatures were much higher in medieval times than they are now which is why they were able to grow exotic fruits in the UK. It showed that raised carbon dioxide levels follow warm periods not the other way around! Most CO2 emanates from volcanos and the sea. Man only accounts for 0.5% of CO2 production in the world today.
-
I have attended literally hundreds of scientific lectures (mainly astronomy) over the years and have yet to meet face to face a scientist who supports the theory that man is to blame for global warming. All claim it to be caused by the Sun or volcanos.
That isn't true, you have met me. I'm pretty sure though that you will find lots of scientists who believe that global warming is actually a non-man made effect but it is being accelerated by mankind. I personally feel that the variability of the Sun arguement is fair but I see no evidence for it being much more intense over the last 20 years or so... plus the fact that C02 has risen in the same period dramatically would really make me suspect. Anyway I didn't see the tv show so can't comment more. I always take what I see on the mass media with a huge pinch of salt. The BBC are not biased at all are they...
-
Absolutely nothing at all Simon. Temperatures were much higher in medieval times than they are now which is why they were able to grow exotic fruits in the UK. It showed that raised carbon dioxide levels follow warm periods not the other way around! Most CO2 emanates from volcanos and the sea. Man only accounts for 0.5% of CO2 production in the world today.
yes but clive, the C02 levels were not a huge as they are now. If you look back at the ice core samples we currently have the highest C02 levels on record. I'm not sure I believe the arguement of us only produce 0.5% of the C02 and even if that is the case.. how much of the world's C02 absorbers have we destroyed over the last century?
-
The BBC are not biased at all are they...
The BBC may be biased towards promoting the idea of man casuing global warming Sam but this programme was made by C4 and their documentaries are usually accurate and well made.
-
Sam I think you really need to see that programme so that you can evaluate it for yourself. All producers have their own agenda when they set out to make a TV programme but there were some real scientific heavyweights from all disciplines featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle. I honestly haven't heard any astronomer or geologist supporting the idea that global warming is man made. Did you mention it in your talk last year? No! I rest my case!! :wahh:
-
I think that we need to have an open and preferably televised debate between specialists in this area.
These need to be truly independant of any organisation or government body that would benefit from the outcome, whichever way it went.
From what that programme said, a lot of people are making a lot of money out of supporting the pro man affecting climate camp.
Governments are milking it in a way to extort more taxation out of us.
What reason do the scientists who claim that man has a negligible effect on climate change have for saying so, they arent benefitting financially, as far as I know, unless they are writing a book discussing global warming and need the publicity.
Also they may be riduculed and discredited by the pro mans fault camps scientists who are being financially rewarded for arriving at their conclusions, if they are indeed proved to be wrong.
-
What I took from the programme is the information that changes in CO2 levels have historically succeeded corresponding changes in global temperature by 800 years. I would love to find this actual data! Although CO2 levels may now be distorted due to mankind's activity in the same way that carbon dating has been compromised, it means that the high CO2 levels up until the 1940s (when global industrialisation really took off) are really an indicator of what was happening in the middle ages. And we know there was a heatwave then, as this (rather poor) graph shows:
(https://www.pc-pals.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecolo.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdocuments_in_english%2Fhock-joke-graph-06.gif&hash=b8987d0a62a72bcf802d8cce3182782978005704)
Gill
-
I still find it incredible that a naturally occurring gas that makes up approximately <0.2% of the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from, can have such devistating effects.
Even if man was responsible for 10% of the total CO2 in the world and we doubled the amount we currently produce that would make a maximum amount of <0.24% in the atmosphere.
Could even a 0.04% increase of any gas really affect anything in the way that some people with vested interests are claiming :dunno:
The programme mentioned Maggie Thatchers part in the propoganda of global warming due to mans production of CO2 by over dependence on and the use of fossil fuels.
It was said that she funded the research to prove the connection between CO2 and climate change to promote the use of nuclear energy, after she had destroyed the countries coal mines, as she didnt want the UK being held to ransom by the oil rich countries of the middle east.
So is this yet another of Maggies ways that have turned out to be disastrous for the UK, even after she has long been out of power ::)
-
I'm not sure you can blame Maggie for this - if you ask me, it's more likely that circumstances conspired to bring this situation about, not politicians. It can be argued that Maggie should be held to account for a number of shameful acts, but I don't think this was one of them.
I've found the data I was looking for :) .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Gill
-
Sam I think you really need to see that programme so that you can evaluate it for yourself. All producers have their own agenda when they set out to make a TV programme but there were some real scientific heavyweights from all disciplines featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle. I honestly haven't heard any astronomer or geologist supporting the idea that global warming is man made. Did you mention it in your talk last year? No! I rest my case!! :wahh:
Ok I will talk about it when I talk about exoplanets in November...
... oh and woops CH4... umm
-
I still find it incredible that a naturally occurring gas that makes up approximately <0.2% of the atmosphere, regardless of where it comes from, can have such devistating effects.
Even if man was responsible for 10% of the total CO2 in the world and we doubled the amount we currently produce that would make a maximum amount of <0.24% in the atmosphere.
Could even a 0.04% increase of any gas really affect anything in the way that some people with vested interests are claiming :dunno:
One word, yes. The atmosphere is a very delicate mix - too much one way and even though it sounds like a small number it is still a huge change in volume - an increase of just 0.04% would cause the atmosphere to hold a lot more energy.
-
Ok I will talk about it when I talk about exoplanets in November...
Rotten tomato saving time begins........
NOW!!! >:-) >:-) >:-)
-
I'm not sure you can blame Maggie for this -
Some interesting charts on that link and links from it Gill.
The rise and fall in temperature does seem to have been remarkably regular over the last few millions of years.
It looks like we are just following a well established pattern.
Maggie funded the research into finding the now doubtful correlation between temperature and CO2, to her own ends.
If she hadnt instigated this then presumably there wouldnt have been such a rush to declare that man was to blame for global warming and we would just have been worried about how to run the world when fossil fuels ran out.
I think the blame lies firmly with her and her advisors of the time.
an increase of just 0.04% would cause the atmosphere to hold a lot more energy-
I would be interested to see what effects on global warming occurred after such massive volcanic eruptions from the likes of Krakatoa and Vesuvius.
The one on Hawaii is quite big as well and presumably they all have individualy produced more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses with each eruption than mankind has done for a century or so either side of their eruptions.
I dont think that the earth is as delicate as you think Sam, plus any increase in CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and any defecit is released by the oceans.
Nature works quite well at maintaining the status quo, although it can take a thousand years or so to compensate for these natural variations.
-
If you have a few millennia to spare, HERE (http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm) is some interesting reading for you Sam.
-
Excellent link, Clive!
:thanks:
-
i'll try and take a look later, I've got two talks to give in two days so am a bit pushed at the moment..
-
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
-
Whether we like it or not we all are just one of the animals trapped on this earth.
It has been said global warming has happened before
and its also been reported that it is a cycle that precedes an ice age
history does repeat and i dont believe we can actually be at total fault of global warming i believe its some kind of cycle of the earth healing itself in some way
this cycle has happened even before there were so many humans here on earth
so evidently we are not the total cause
I know i know ill go see my shrink today :hammer:
-
But we are the only animal on the planet that can actually do something to reduce the extent of it. I know their is an arguement as to how much we humans are to blame, so even we are only responsible for 50%, that is 50% we can do something about. Or what ever percentage it may be, changing our ways and cleaning up the planet can only be a good thing for all animals.
-
so even we are only responsible for 50%, that is 50% we can do something about. Or what ever percentage it may be, changing our ways and cleaning up the planet can only be a good thing for all animals.
We arent resposible for anywhere near even 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere MB, even if we quadrupuled the amount we produce then I believe it wouldnt make any difference to global warming.
From what I have read since seeing that TV programme, including the link you posted earlier today, I am more and more convinced that man has very little to do with global warming.
It appears that water vapour in the atmosphere is the main variable factor that affects global warming.
So increasing or decreasing our CO2 output wont alter anything at all, apart from the cash in our pockets if governments perpetuate the myth in order to tax or charge us all more for everything and anything they can :(
-
Well this last week really has sucked, on so many levels.
Then I sign a petition at my local shopping centre, to stop Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. So what does our government do, sign a security treaty with Japan. Way to go, thats telling them. :cussing:
I get an email from PETA asking to sign a petition, petitioning the Canadian government to put a stop to the barbaric slaughter of baby seals. Only to be told that it won't make any difference, as it doesn't work. :brickwall:
Now I learn, if it's true, that global warming isn't down to us humans. So spending money buying expensive energy saving bulbs, not using my car unless I have to, and so on, is a complete waste of time and money. :censored:
Now I really wished I had made the long drive to be there for my mother at her sisters funeral. And that certainly wouldn't have been a waste of time. :cry:
-
you didnt wast your time misty
hopefully sooner or later everything we do will count for something
we just have to keep trying
-
Very well put Davy. We should never underestimate our insignificance on this lovely planet of ours. Its beauty will still be here for four billion years after we become extinct. :D
-
ok here is a thought... f*** our effect on global warming here... I personally believe that we are having some effect, the graph posted the other day shows huge increases in global co2 levels recently also I think you can see from that graph the volcanic explosion you mention don't have a huge effect on the levels... (just look up when they occured a put them on that graph.. not that that graph is definite research)... any back to my lets f*** the global warming debate - lets just go with pollution and its effect on our health.
Cars = toxins = bad problems with health... hasn't asthma increased hugely over the last 20 years? We get smog in our cities due to cars and power stations. This is bad for our health and does nothing for improving our level of life. How about we just do it so we have cleaner and nicer places to live? Or am I just being crazy here?
oh and I really wish people would learn that a train and two legs can get you across the country on time (admittedly I do live in Birmingham so it is easy, but if only everyone in Birmingham took the same attitude!) - I went to London last weekend, on time, Liverpool this weekend.
-
Cars = toxins = bad problems with health... hasn't asthma increased hugely over the last 20 years? We get smog in our cities due to cars and power stations. This is bad for our health and does nothing for improving our level of life. How about we just do it so we have cleaner and nicer places to live? Or am I just being crazy here?
oh and I really wish people would learn that a train and two legs can get you across the country on time
The exhaust gases coming out of cars in LA are cleaner than the air the engines take in Sam, not sure about how good or bad their power stations are.
Asthma and allergies in children has increased dramatically in the last 20 or 30 years, I dont remember anyone having an inhaler when I was at school although some adults had them.
I believe that this is caused by weakened immune systems more so than increase in pollutants.
We were taken to chicken pox parties and the likes when someones child got it so we could catch it and develop an immunity to that and other diseases.
Houses were clean but not as sterile and antiseptic as we keep them now.
All kids enjoyed playing in the dirt and probably ate worms, good amounts of mud and other nasty things that would horrify todays parents, unlike today when they often arent even allowed to play on grass because of pesticides and fertiliser etc.
All of these things helped to boost our immune systems and enabled us to fight off the things that cause asthma and other allergies these days.
Trains are too expensive and dont go where most people need them, unless you have an London underground type system and even that shuts down too early for a lot of people.
Buses take too long and are expensive per journey.
Both are awkward if you want to deliver something like a newly built pc to someone at the other side of town, or need to get your weekly shopping from the supermarket back home.
-
The exhaust gases coming out of cars in LA are cleaner than the air the engines take in Sam, not sure about how good or bad their power stations are.
not sure how that can work...
Asthma and allergies in children has increased dramatically in the last 20 or 30 years, I dont remember anyone having an inhaler when I was at school although some adults had them.
I believe that this is caused by weakened immune systems more so than increase in pollutants.
We were taken to chicken pox parties and the likes when someones child got it so we could catch it and develop an immunity to that and other diseases.
Houses were clean but not as sterile and antiseptic as we keep them now..
This probably does not help the situation and heck our cities are less smogy than they were a 100 or so ago, but maybe we should be able to remove this full stop.
Trains are too expensive and dont go where most people need them, unless you have an London underground type system and even that shuts down too early for a lot of people.
Buses take too long and are expensive per journey.
Both are awkward if you want to deliver something like a newly built pc to someone at the other side of town, or need to get your weekly shopping from the supermarket back home.
So how about the 1/4 of a million commuters that go threw new st station every morning, tell them that. They can be awkward but they do the job. In Birmingham it is far quicker (apart from after say 8pm) to get to most of the city via public transport. The buses are regular and the trains aren't in the best places for all but are very good for those near them (I live a 20 min walk away to mine which is direct to the Uni). I have learnt through my whole life (my parents dont drive) to get the supermarket shopping locally (10 minute walk)... and walk and carry it! Anyway, it is feasible in any city (I was in Liverpool on Sat and got a bus at 3am!), possibly not in more remote regions, so I can see the need for a car there. I also see the need for deliveries but for most journeys in a city public transport is by far the best option. Also in Birmingham it is far far cheaper (just thinking about car parking costs).
-
The Telegraph is beginning to look a bit more critically at the causes of global warming:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen118.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml
Gill
-
umm some interesting reading there. I am still not convinced that humans have not had a large impact on our climate. I think we have but there are still trends to the Earth's climate for various reasons causing global warming and cooling. I just think that the last century has seen us destabilise this system and we can do something about it. I don't think it is some big consipiracy by scientists to make you buy energy effiecient equipment, heck energy efficiency means cheaper running costs. I don't know one scientist who would ever lie about results to promote himself.
-
Sandra wrote
The exhaust gases coming out of cars in LA are cleaner than the air the engines take in Sam, not sure about how good or bad their power stations are.
:o Sandra could you test your theory for me? , connect some tubing to the exhaust
pipe of your car then put the tubing inside your car, then sit in your car with the
motor running and the windows up for 10 minutes. If you don't reply i will know you
have tried it. ;)
-
you didnt wast your time misty
hopefully sooner or later everything we do will count for something
we just have to keep trying
Well it appears that you in the US are headed for a new government, as will we next year. Hopefully some things will improve.
Oh, and Clive, the sooner we become extinct, the sooner this beautiful planet can recover. A friend told me he had heard someone say that "we are nothing more than a parasite on this planet, and a parasite that is out of control".
Must find out who said that?
-
Houses were clean but not as sterile and antiseptic as we keep them now.
All kids enjoyed playing in the dirt and probably ate worms, good amounts of mud and other nasty things that would horrify todays parents, unlike today when they often arent even allowed to play on grass because of pesticides and fertiliser etc.
All of these things helped to boost our immune systems and enabled us to fight off the things that cause asthma and other allergies these days.
Couldn't agree more, the chemicals that we use in our homes these days are dangerous, they kill everything. I very rarely use strong cleaners, actually I won't be anymore, as the last few times I have we both felt quite sick afterwards. And using strong cleaners on the floors can't be all that good for our pets. We need a certain amount of germs or else we will all end up in bubbles.
Hospitals have proved what strong anti-bacterial cleaning can do, produce super bugs. My aunt died from a infection she caught in hospital.
-
I don't know one scientist who would ever lie about results to promote himself.
Ah! The innocence of youth.... ;D
-
The exhaust gases coming out of cars in LA are cleaner than the air the engines take in Sam, not sure about how good or bad their power stations are.
I can tell you from personal experiance the air in L.A and chicago sometimes is brown and very visible
the gases comming out of the exaust is invisible
-
@Gmax, Sam and Davy, please read these 2 pages :
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/eveningnews/main521001.shtml
(CBS) It looks like any other smog-producing car engine, but, as CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, researchers in California say this new design could actually improve the nation's air quality.
http://www.chevron.com/news/speeches/2003/10sep2003_woertz.asp
The University of California at Riverside has studied these so-called "green cars" to assess their tailpipe emissions. And the preliminary results are surprisingly good.
According to the researchers, emissions from these vehicles are so minimal that they often cannot be measured with conventional equipment. In a recent press release, Allan Lloyd, the chairman of the California Air Resources Board, acknowledged the remarkable impact of the cleanest versions of these cars. He said, "We've seen the near impossible with gasoline vehicles: zero evaporative emissions, exceedingly clean exhaust -- cleaner, in some cases, than the outside air. ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about this: In other words, the air going out the tailpipe of these cars is actually cleaner than what's going into them, which is a pretty interesting twist on cars and air quality. It's almost as if we can drive around in rolling air filters.
Even more impressive is that some of these gasoline-powered cars produce less emissions than the power plants needed to make electricity for battery-powered cars.
Point proven ?
-
no not really. I don't believe a word CBS comes out with and the other sounds like propaganda by chevron, who you would expect to champion the technology.
I think the UCalifornia stuff sounds a bit more interesting, but I love the word preliminary results! I have had many preliminary results that prove something to later, devl further, and have it completely different.
I think the key here is the relation to California.. if you put it in a lab with properly clean air (ie. stuff you would get away from the city and industry) then I bet they won't be able to make the same claim.
-
propaganda by chevron, who you would expect to champion the technology
I think the key here is the relation to California.. if you put it in a lab with properly clean air (ie. stuff you would get away from the city and industry) then I bet they won't be able to make the same claim.
I dont think that a big oil company dare come out with a statement like that if they couldnt back it up, all the environmental nutters would tear them to bits immediately.
What I posted earlier was in reference to LA, which is in California Sam.
Even in less polluted cities and countries, new technologies such as lean burn petrol engines and variable valve timing in cars are lowering the harmful emmissions to a point where I think we can say they are not going to be contributory factors to pollution in anywhere near the extent that diesel engines which propel most public transport and goods vehicles do.
-
Even in less polluted cities and countries, new technologies such as lean burn petrol engines and variable valve timing in cars are lowering the harmful emmissions to a point where I think we can say they are not going to be contributory factors to pollution in anywhere near the extent that diesel engines which propel most public transport and goods vehicles do.
which is good... but wait a minute weren't you early saying that it doesn't matter anyway? Seems like this can be used as an arguement against using public transport instead when I mention it... but it doesn't matter anyway, right?
I think investing in new tech for cars is great but whatif we did the same to make public transport cleaner? I agree that cars are needed, but my feeling will always be that most daily journeys are either one for the legs or a short hop away on public transport (in the cities this is).
-
which is good... but wait a minute weren't you early saying that it doesn't matter anyway? Seems like this can be used as an arguement against using public transport instead when I mention it... but it doesn't matter anyway, right?
I never said that pollution doesnt matter Sam, or that cars dont pollute, I said that I dont believe that cars and man are affecting the climate in a way that causes global warming.
This is why theres been such an interest by engine manufacturers to develop cleaner and more fuel efficient engines.
I dont remember reading about cars driving around London in Victorian times when we used to have those killer fogs and smogs on a regular basis, maybe if theyd had cars back then using todays technology they would have been doing as they now do in LA and would have improved the air quality.
If I lived within 10 minutes walk of a supermarket then I would probably walk there on a daily basis but as I dont then I have to use my car so that I can get a few days supplies of food at a time so that I dont make as many journeys.
This is because of the cost of the petrol more than the environmental issues on my part.