Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD
· Climate scientists say film misleads public · Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian
Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at environment.guardian.co.uk ...
Make sure you aren't mixing up CO2 and SO2. Volcanoes emit about 25% of human SO2 emissions annually -- a big eruption like Pinatubo can almost balance the books in that year. The Swindle was wrong about CO2 and volcanoes, without doubt.
I hope they're real too! They look like actual quotes. I'm gonna RUB it in the faces of any global warming whiners I run into!
Slime/s Climate Timeline commentary:
"Ohhh noooo, we're gonna FREEZE to death!! No wait... We're all going to BURN!! Ummmmm.... No... No... We were right the first time... We're all gonna FREEZE!!! Welllll.... On fourth thought, We ARE gonna BURN afterall!!! Nevermind..."
Reduced solubility of CO2 in warming ocean water. Warm water holds less dissolved gases of all kinds. It takes a while for increased air temperature to cause increased water temperature. That is the reason for the lagging behavior.
LOL!
FWIW: it IS all gonna burn, just not for the currently-propounded reasons.
cogitator>Are you getting that from Zbigniew?
Sounds like Calendar/Slocum debate.
The varied, elevated, 19th Century measurements were conducted by chemical means, different from the Mauna Loa measurements. If you take a look at the corresponding measurements of oxygen concentrations from back then, they were supposedly lower than today's and fluctuating all over the place. The implication is that perhaps we're a bit better able to measure CO2 now than we were back then.
Buy it while it’s hot!
Be sure you're not confusing billion with million. Volcanic activity is in hundreds of MILLIONS of tons/year. Human output is in tens of BILLIONS of tons/year. And recall...much of humanity's contribution is not from automobiles.
In any case, the total anthropogenic CO2 output is
God forbid! Where? We can't have anybody work for the oil or coal companies, and if they do we surely can't have them express any opinions in the public square. Their opinions are simply not worth as much as those of scientists 'working' for the government or some foundation...
uh...Callendar. Sorry.
WEll, I’m not doing a great job typing today. That post wasn’t correct either. I meant “overestimating,” of course.
Download it and make your own DVD, simple fast and saves gas.
But without dependable data from back then, how can we calibrate our technique of measuring the past CO2 levels? They are certainly more smooth, so I tend to trust them for finding relative change. But what about getting the actual amplitude right. The ice core folks seem to confidently account for a lot of "known" factors, and I don't doubt they are trying their best. But science is about testing your assertions--preferably by real world verification rather then making more complex assertions with computers.
I think the USGS seems authoritative enough to trust on this one. It does seem the Global Warming Swindle documentary messed up with on that point. I hope they edit that part.
Side note: I'm probably going to be a way from FR at least a few days as work on stuff I actually get paid for. Its been fun poking my nose into this debate.
Search:
"Michael Crichton" "global cooling"
If you look at the notation the billions refer to total carbon output.
Trust me alkalinity in pool chemistry is a mystery all unto itself. But I wonder if it wouldn’t have common characteristics with alkalinity in other water mediums, i.e. sea water.
Pool Chemistry 101:
Total Alkalinity (TA)
Total alkalinity is closely associated with pH but rather than a measure of hydrogen ion concentration it is a measure of the ability of a solution to neutralize hydrogen ions. Expressed in parts per million (ppm), total alkalinity is the result of alkaline materials including carbonates, bicarbonates and hydroxides - mostly bicarbonates. This acid neutralizing (buffering) capacity of water is desirable because it helps prevent wide variations in pH whenever small amounts of acid or alkali are added to the pool. Total alkalinity is a measure of water’s resistance to change in pH.
Total alkalinity should be maintained in the range of 80 to 150 ppm.
If total alkalinity is too low:
pH changes rapidly when chemicals or impurities enter the water. pH may drop rapidly, causing etching and corrosion.
If total alkalinity is too high:
pH becomes difficult to adjust. High pH often occurs causing other problems such as; cloudy water, decreased disinfectant effectiveness, scale formation and filter problems.
What's hilarious is that you think a smaller call and fluorescent light bulb will do anything to affect the temperature of the planet.
Only if you believe in Martian Fairy dust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.