An Inconvienient Truth, - Global Warming

[iamaboringperson]

Argumentum ad Nauseum.



Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.

[countzero]

iamaboringperson wrote:

Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.

so please tell us what is not fact in Gore's slideshow.

IMHO, all global warming deniers are to aides bush, brainwashed people by the exxon to blindly deny the FACTS and the CONSEQUENCES that ALL the world is suffering today.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1940117.stm

bloody republicans. THIS WORLD DOES NOT ONLY BELONG TO YOU.

[falemagn]

IIRC, there are combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.

The problem with hydrogen is that you don't find it in free form ready for you to collect and use. You need energy to "extract" hydogen from other compounds (water being the most famous of them), and burning hydrogen is going to give you less energy back than the amount you put in to extract hydrogen in the first place.

And if you had that energy in the first place, then why not use it directly?

The ones who want hydrogen are the ones that want to keep the status quo of things as much as possible, as the hydrogen economy is very much compatible with the oil economy in terms of infrastructures (not to mention that you can extract hydrogen from oil too).

If you want to know in detail why the hydrogen economy doesn't make sense, follow this link.

[falemagn]

Quite true. If anything, it has shown that non-linear dynamics are complex beasts.

Not quite true. All scientists (except the few ones on the payroll of exxon and the likes of them) agree upon the fact that it's more than likely that it's all our fault. Someone here already posted the links to the recent happenings...

[CannonFodder]

iamaboringperson wrote:
Argumentum ad Nauseum.



Look at the sort of language being used here. Some people behave as though the appearance of the word 'truth' in a title equals the works being a fact.

Or covering Australia completely so the inhabitants have no escape.

Only Adz and family excepted. :-)

[Dandy]

CannonFodder wrote:

whabang wrote:
...
How about completely covering the entire Sahara Desert (and anywhere else bloody hot like parts of Australia) with solar panels and hooking them up to the ¨international grid¨. ;-)

The problem I see with this is that the dark solar cells become quite hot when the sun is shining on
them - easily 80+°C.

If you install the solar cells anywhere here on earth, they will release the heat from the sunshine to the surrounding air.

What we are looking for is a way to keep the heat entirely away from earths atmosphere (-> global warming).
I'd say the only way to achieve this is to install the solar panel in an orbit...

Furthermore an orbital installation would give the advantage, that you have sunshine for 24 hours every day up there - no clouds, no day/night.

And keep in mind:
Sunshine doesn't cost anything - it's for free!

[smithy]

@nadoom

I watched this film on the plane on a 24-hour flight recently.  So I admit I wasn't too fresh, but I noticed plenty predictions of the effects of climate change.  And it all looked very nasty.  Then there was plenty pictures of power stations and factories spewing out foul-looking gases.  But the link between the two, which is surely the linchpin of the entire film, was very weak indeed.

When Gore at last got to it, he showed the first graph you linked to (your link is broken btw).  He showed that over the last million years (or whatever it was) that CO2 and temperature were linked.  Then he got to the present day and showed that the CO2 level was far above anything in the last million years.  And this is recorded, not predicted levels.

Now, he glossed over this very quickly, and I was tired when watching it, but I swear he did not show the temperature for the corresponding current period where CO2 is way above anything theorized in the last million.  

Why didn't he show the current temperature?  The data is available.  Is it, perhaps, because the temperature for this recent period of record high CO2 levels does not rise in-line with the CO2 level?  The link between CO2 and temperature is not linear.

Nadoom, your first image (which ironically is broken as it disproves your own point) shows the logarithmic link between CO2 and temperature and debunks Gore's entire film.

[nadoom]

Are you telling me that global warming doesnt exist?

i reviewed the film and grabbed a few screen shots:

1. This is CO2 And Temperature over the last 600,000 years you can see what happens post industrial revolution. you can see the link between them, it is so clear to see.

http://www.huwnad.com/CO2Temp.png

2. This shows the atmospheric temperature ovet time, its a screen shot so i couldnt grab the entire graph, suffice to say that the the rises on the right correspond to our recent history.

http://www.huwnad.com/atmosptemp.png

3. Hottest years on record, many are in the last 14 years

http://www.huwnad.com/hottestyears.png

[smithy]

nadoom wrote:
Are you telling me that global warming doesnt exist?

No, I didn't say that.  I do think some form of warming is currently happening inline with the Earth's natural cycle but I'm not concerned about it.

1. This is CO2 And Temperature over the last 600,000 years you can see what happens post industrial revolution. you can see the link between them, it is so clear to see.

http://www.huwnad.com/CO2Temp.png

This is the graph I meant.  You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened!  In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series:  the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.

This is because there is no dramatic jump in the temperature inline with CO2 levels.  The relationship is not linear, as can be seen in this graph despite the crucial data being missing or removed.  The more CO2 we pump into the air, the less it will affect temperature.  Al Gore's chart proves this.

The CO2/temperature link is circumstantial at best.  It's a bit like saying the sun rises every day, and we all age - the two things are happening together, so they must be related!

2. This shows the atmospheric temperature ovet time, its a screen shot so i couldnt grab the entire graph, suffice to say that the the rises on the right correspond to our recent history.

http://www.huwnad.com/atmosptemp.png

Because the film couldn't prove a CO2/temperature linear relationship then this is meaningless.

3. Hottest years on record, many are in the last 14 years

http://www.huwnad.com/hottestyears.png

Again, this is showing results without providing evidence linking them to any cause.

[Agafaster]

Dandy wrote:

CannonFodder wrote:

whabang wrote:
...
How about completely covering the entire Sahara Desert (and anywhere else bloody hot like parts of Australia) with solar panels and hooking them up to the ¨international grid¨. ;-)

The problem I see with this is that the dark solar cells become quite hot when the sun is shining on
them - easily 80+°C.

If you install the solar cells anywhere here on earth, they will release the heat from the sunshine to the surrounding air.

What we are looking for is a way to keep the heat entirely away from earths atmosphere (-> global warming).
I'd say the only way to achieve this is to install the solar panel in an orbit...

Furthermore an orbital installation would give the advantage, that you have sunshine for 24 hours every day up there - no clouds, no day/night.

And keep in mind:
Sunshine doesn't cost anything - it's for free!

Actually, the thing is these things will mostly reflect light and heat back into space.
besides, any 80+°C change in the panels can be used to heat water - thus cooling the panel.

the real problem isnt heating the surrounding air, but the air retaining heat too readily.

a lot can be done at home, without needing to resort to new/untried tech:

* Dont leave powerpacks/chargers plugged in and switched on when not in use - the same goes for TVs too: dont leave 'em on standby, switch 'em off!

* Use flourescent tubes/energy saving bulbs in place of incandescent bulbs - and switch em off when not in use!

ask yourself:
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive a 4 litre 4x4 to Tescos/school/work and back ?'
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive fast ?' (40-60mph is about the most fuel efficient speed range to drive - given aerodymanics/engine efficiency etc)
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive, when its only a mile away ?'

while we're doing that, we're playing the small steps game, and will make big energy savings, giving us time to make the big steps like fuel cell cars, biofuels etc.

just my 4 penn'orth!

[nadoom]

This is the graph I meant. You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened! In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series: the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.

This is clearly due to the fact that the temperature reacts to the rise in CO2 in a slightly delayed manner, That makes perfect sense. You have no evidence to suggest that the rise in temperature will not occur. Whereas that graph which is based on hard facts shows a clear link.

Seeing as there is 600,000 years of precedent showing that there is a link, logic dictates that such a rise will occur, the link is too established to argue over it.

The other 2 grabs show that in the short term the atmospheric temperature is heating.

There are other factors that suggest the world weather is getting more and more unstable, the weather in the uk has changed dramatically in my own life time! All this turmoil in the weather has to be attributed to something, and i think the graphs to a long way to explaining it.

In any case if u beleive the hype or not, is that we need to start living sustainably, we have the tools all we need is the willpower.

[smithy]

nadoom wrote:

This is the graph I meant. You can clearly see the jump in CO2 levels on the graph (although the scale is such that it makes it seem more dramatic), and you can clearly see a similar jump in the temperature has not happened! In fact, there is missing data on the temperature series: the temperature on that chart does not extend to the present day.

This is clearly due to the fact that the temperature reacts to the rise in CO2 in a slightly delayed manner, That makes perfect sense.

Your "slightly delayed" theory is contrary to the chart you're presenting as evidence.  Why does this delay only occur in the modern warming and none of the others?

You have no evidence to suggest that the rise in temperature will not occur. Whereas that graph which is based on hard facts shows a clear link.

I didn't say temperatures weren't rising:  I said they weren't rising in line with CO2 levels, which suggests that the current modern (slight) warming is not caused by man's activities.  Your chart proves this.  If you were right, the current temperature would be off the chart.  Instead the (conspicuously absent) current temperature does not remotely show any relation to the jump in CO2 levels.

Seeing as there is 600,000 years of precedent showing that there is a link, logic dictates that such a rise will occur, the link is too established to argue over it.

Just one paragraph earlier you refuted the chart's evidence by saying there's a "delay" to prove one point.  Now you're accepting that chart's evidence to prove another.  You can't have your cake and eat it!

As I said, I think the temperature rise will occur in line with previous natural, man-free, warmings.

The other 2 grabs show that in the short term the atmospheric temperature is heating.

There are other factors that suggest the world weather is getting more and more unstable, the weather in the uk has changed dramatically in my own life time! All this turmoil in the weather has to be attributed to something, and i think the graphs to a long way to explaining it.

They do indeed explain it.  They show that the Earth's climate works in cycles, and we are just living through the cycles.

In any case if u beleive the hype or not, is that we need to start living sustainably, we have the tools all we need is the willpower.

I agree with you here actually.  We need to get off the fossils and onto something renewable.  I don't like that we are dependent on middle eastern regimes (and in about a decade Russia) for energy.

[blobrana]

>>Cue the inevitable claim/counterclaim "discussion"...
The problem with global warming is that the issue has become totally politicised in the worst possible way so that clarity has become near impossible.

Hum,
They dont have any scientific arguments against Global warmng now.

An influential global panel of scientists declared today that global warming is "unequivocal", that its effects are likely to last for centuries, and that mankind is almost certainly to blame.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which draws together 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries - issued its strongest warning on the consequences of warming as it published what is considered the most authoritative research yet on the issue.
While the IPCC’s previous assessment in 2001 rated the link between the warming planet and human behaviour as "likely", which is said to mean a probability rate of 66-90 per cent, this has now been revised to "very likely" - a greater than 90 per cent chance that mankind is to blame.

Source

Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate. Since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), new observations and related modelling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.

Climate report (2.2mb, PDF)

[Wilse]

Well, once the almighty Attenborough said it was so, the debate was over, as far as I'm concerned. ;-)

[PMC]

Okay, I'm more than willing to accept the concept of global warming.  

However (in the UK at least), we're entrusting the issue to a political party who are unable to respond to any issue without some think tank ceaselessly gibbering 'Tax! Tax!'.  

[Dandy]

Agafaster wrote:
...
Actually, the thing is these things will mostly reflect light and heat back into space.

I don't think so:

"Problem: Current Solar Cells can "receive" just one wavelength

The weak point of previous solar cells is rooted in physics: The principle is that an arriving photon overrides the so called "semiconductor bandgap", the "energy distance" within an semiconductor between an electron fixed in the crystal and an electron free to move. This means, that all components of the sunlight with longer wavelengths and lower energy levels have no effect on the solar cell other than heating it up. A light beam of exactly the correct wavelength releases one electron and therefor is transformed into current with optimal efficiency.

Light beams of shorter wavelengths - thus the entire visible light spectrum, ultraviolet radiation and so on - as well just produce one charge carrier, which receives the energy of the bandgap. Thus the higher energy content of the visible light can't be utilised and only leads to a warming of the solar cells again (Nano Letters, vol 6, p 424)."

No mention of "reflecting to space"...

Agafaster wrote:

besides, any 80+°C change in the panels can be used to heat water - thus cooling the panel.

However - last but not least the heat ends up in the athmosphere.

Agafaster wrote:

the real problem isnt heating the surrounding air, but the air retaining heat too readily.

So in the last consequence heating the surrounding air leads to a global warming.

Agafaster wrote:

...
ask yourself:
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive a 4 litre 4x4 to Tescos/school/work and back ?'
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive fast ?' (40-60mph is about the most fuel efficient speed range to drive - given aerodymanics/engine efficiency etc)
* 'Do I REALLY need to drive, when its only a mile away ?'
...

Well - I sold my car two years ago.
Depending on the weather I either take the bus or ride my bicycle to work (about 4 miles each direction).

My life is much more relaxed now...