If you believe in the global warming bullsh*t, don't watch this program.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=90...e+great+swindle

How can anyone believe that tens of thousands of factories, power stations and millions of cars running 24/7, for the last 80 consecutive years and constantly increasing, cannot have any effect on the environment? Actualy, I'm surprised its as little as it is, although, the effects seem to be speeding up exponentialy.

Just the fact that the world has so much cement and blacktop from cities generates alot of heat because it retains all the heat collected from solar radiation during the day. Let alone all of the above...

The difference that evidently arises from the perceived lack of instincts.

The consequences of man´s pure existence are sometimes not measureable by himself since he oftentimes doesnt see that he isnt or should be bound.


In a formulaic sense:


freedom ---> control of freedom ---> maintenance of freedom

I'll side with Spartan on this one... they are bullshiting us on many things and the global warming is one of them...

We are too small to cause such changes and too naive to believe we are able to do something like this... we do polute.. heavily.. and this is not good for us and causes problems to our health directly or indirectly.. but this has nothing to do with global warming :)

p.s. Good to see you all again... i thought that the whole forum was inactive...

Dourieeeeeeee!! Kalos ton bro mou! Good to see you where again, hope we see you more often :friendship: :drink:


But I cant agree on your thesis mate... Yes they are bullshiting us on many things we don't know of. Global warmin is NOT one of them. Aside from the fact that me mum was an environmental engineer, managing multi-million dollar bugets for eco-damage control on military training grounds. Me being open minded, debated with her a few times re this phenomenon. The outcome is clear - we are having a profound effect. This is not new, this has been a long time coming.

1) Sure there have been normal fluctuations in temperatures in the history of the world. But the ones that are as extreme as what we are looking at, have always brought cataclismic changes that have altered the face of the planet. How well do you think humanity would cope with that?

2) OK in above case even were screwed. But if the doubters are right that this is just another "normal" fluctualion, then we are even worse off because were screwed!!

3) aside from very convincing scientific data, scientific opinion/evidence, and personal ovservation, we have to assume that we ARE having an effect, because its our only choice. There is a global warming taking place at a geological sprint. We have to hope that we can control it, because our entire global civilization is based on temperatures have have not fluctuated more than .5-1.0c. we are already at 2+c and looking at 4.5c's in 50 years.

Another big contributor you never even hear of is all the blacktop for roads and cement for cities, absorbs massive amounts of solar radiation. It bleeds it our during clear, dry nights into space. These roads and cities act as massive heat sinks to hold heat to the earth. This is a net plus to the heat rise, but so much less that can be done about it, that they pay all the attention to the main contributor, fossil fuels and hydroflourocarbons. HFC's have been VERY well controlled, and very fast. Actualy, the HFC situation is the PERFECT paralel example of massive, fast change in industrie due to eco-damage.

I remember the first thoughtful, intellegent question that I ever asked... when I was 4-5 yrs old. I was watching all the desel fumes coming out of a lorry, and I ask my grandmother where does all that smoke go? do we choke? She just said it is nothing, it dissapears. 30 years later when I ask the same question, as I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE with all the CO2 we have produced in the last 80 years, not to have an effect. How many volcanos is that equal to? Where does the nefos we have in Athens daily go? every day in 40 years? what about every other polluting city?

Ooooh, wait, the trees convert it all to oxygen, right? Wrong. not all. Today we have 30% less forrest han 80 years ago... and something like 6000% more pollution! Nope doesn't work mathimaticly either...

SO human pollution in a global scale HAS had an effect all the way around the eco-cycle... but is has not had an effect on the environment?? :doubt:

File Thermopyles kalws sas brika ksana... :) i'll try to post more frequently here again (although i'm a bit bored of all these GT disputes, that's why i didn't post mainly)

Back to the topic now.. global warming is an issue that comes naturaly to the planet since millions of years.. and it is something we humans are not capable of controlling or effecting...

It has nothing to do with greenhouse effects and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere... i'm not saying that there is no polution or that the polution is something we should now worry about.. i'm saying that we're focusing on the wrong thing and we try to solve the wrong (and far beyond our abilities) problem...

I'll try to be more specific on that... global warming we have for tha last few years (and far more spectacular than the one we have here) on Mars(!).. is there any polution there? no...
We have changes in the density of the atmosfere of Venus up to 300%.. any polution there too? no...
Changes in the temperature, density, reflectivity, etc of nearly every planet and moon in our solar system... still no polution involved...

On Earth we know that many times in the past we had periods of ice or extreem heat... there was no polution then either.... and i'm talking about the long lasting periods and not some short periods resulting large volcanic activity...

What i'm trying to say is that there are more to this planet (and this solar system) than we know already in practise... we have historical data of some 3-4 thousand years (well we may have more but this is for a different thread :)) but we know in theory that there is more that we have no data about...

We're used to deal only with 2 major movements that the Earth (and every other planet) does... spin (day) and rotation around the Sun (year).. but there are another 3 movements too with much greater periods.. precesion or shift of the axis of rotation (~26000 year), oblicuity or axial tilt movement (~41000 years) and eccentricity (~100000 years)

These 3 movements are much to slow for us to observe in everyday life but do effect the planet in long periods... these long periods were studied by a Serbian Astronomer called Milankovitch and are know as Milankovitch Cycles...
In his work Milankovitch prooves the relation of the climate change with these cycles... it prooves actually that Earth has some other larger "seasons" that last several thousand years each and result in ice and hot ages... and such a seasonal shift is what we're witnessing right now...

Apart from that we have the movement of the Solar System in the Galaxy and the passing from areas with increased or decreased cosmic radiation... and this is also a major factor for climate change... (cosmic radiation is what controls clouds and clouds control temperature)

To cut a long story short, we are too small for effecting such a big thing as a Planet and its atmosphere... what really effects it is the Sun, other Planets, and their movents and relative positions... and there is the answer to what is happening right now, not to greenhouse effects and CO2...

These whole ecology thing is used against us without even understanding it.. first we are fooled that we are indeed capable of controlling everything while we're not (and this gives a stability to our society but doesn't help us in any other way) and second we focus on a non existing problem (the Global warming - polution connection) and we fuel a whole new industry of eco-products that cost billions and don't solve any problem... on the other hand we're not focusing on the real polution problems because we're feeling happy as individuals that we bought a new environmental friently spray or electric device and we contribute to the global warming problem... ;)

And don't pay that much attention to the redused forests and tons of concreat.. many times in the past there were no forests at all for years just because of a volcanic explosion.. and the atmosphere was poluted 100 times more than it is now just because of the explosion... it takes some 100 years for things to return to normal after such an event and offcourse animal population changes severly but it will be restored... everything comes again in cyrcles, the only thing we need to understand is that we can't do anything about it except to be prepared :)

For prooving you how small we are think of only one thing... in the US there is the only super volcano this planet has.. its crater (caldera actualy) is the whole Yellowstone park area... this volcano erupts every 600000 years and in our days is some 40000 year overdue... if it erupts the whole planet will change in 2-3 days.. and it will change for at least 100 years... we'll see no light for at least 2 years... all plant life will be lost.. temperatures will drop dramaticaly.. most animals and humans will die of hunger and thirst... the whole north america will be under ashes and nothing will survive over there after few days... most probably noone living in the states will escape it after the first day... and that is something that can come to us anytime and we can't do anything about it... do you still worry about greenhouses?

The Theory you set is that the purpose of disseminating information related to the ability of human beings to control the warming process is basically to avert "fatalistic" thoughts, thus, up to a certain extent, attempting to avoid conceivable attitudes of littleness and sense of futileness.

Partly yes 123-t... i'll wouldn't put it in your words (as always :)) but thats the idea...

Offcourse it has some other desirable financial side effects for the eco-industry and shifts the problem (and mainly the cost) of doing something about the polution to the consumers instead of the industry that manages even to gain something out of it instead of spending money for making things right.. ;)

If the problem was something so targeted to the industry, people would have demanded immediate changes by those responsible.. now that its something so big that we all appear to be responsible for, we feel that everyone should do something for changing it and the real polluters escape and even gain from that...
i.e we don't deal with the factories tha pollute but we deal with the cars tha we own.. so we buy new cars that are environment friently and we reduce 20% of the pollution while factories that have the 80% keep working and make more money from the products that the new markets requires.. same with nearly everything.. we change products, we make new markets and new needs based on environmental laws so tha the industry that creates most of the polution keeps rolling and remains as uneffected as possible..

Might it also be an attempt to considerably delay the cogitable rise of countries, which currently have less influence in world affairs by indirectly not allowing them to develop sustainable industries.

well bro I already answered many of your arguments... Ex.:

1) Sure there have been normal fluctuations in temperatures in the history of the world. But the ones that are as extreme as what we are looking at, have always brought cataclismic changes that have altered the face of the planet. How well do you think humanity would cope with that?

The rate at which the planet cools depends on how dry and clear the atmosphere is. It wont cool well if the atmoshere is very humid and thick. The atmosphere is becoming thicker, so it takes longer for it to cool. Rudamentary...

Milankovitch has alot less proof of his theory than human affected warming has of thiers. In any event, look at agian case 1.

You're kidding? Have you see seen how much cleaner coal fired plants are than 25 years ago? On par with autos more or less... The coal-fired plant about 10k from ny house, I didn't even know it was coal powered for 5-6 years because it was so clean compared with the others I've seen... What about HFC's/HFCC's? the industry spent alot of money to find and implement a Required alternative, and for good reason. Now they have to charge more? yes, but they are making the same markup that they were before, and now they have one more hasstle. This is how business works. Clean, regular business. If youre against this, then be a hermit or something! :rolleyes:


Lastly, you're really underestemating youre opponent-humanity... deadly mistake. Humanity has found ways to dystroy the world since long time ago mate... This is not her first time!!! Not to control her is like not moving out of the way of a heard of elephants that may or may not be coming through the fog... Can the elephant come regularly? sure. Can they come because there is an external cause? sure. So there is no point to worry about one case (external cause), because usualy, in cases where humanity was not present to aggrivate an effect, only the other case is possible? Paralogo...

NTM, noone can explain where all the airbourne pollution goes? They can but all the effects are detrimental. This is like that movie "envy" where Jack Black created the Vah-Poorisor that made all the poop dissapear, and noone was asking where all the poop went for a while, except is best friend...



PS an asteroid is going to hit us in 10 years, unless we develope an asteroid-busting weapon untill then. But nah, fack the weapon, the asteroid is normal, they come every 40.000 yrs anyway. It would be expensive and the companies would make more money out of it :bricks:

@123-t

Yap.. that is another side effect or possible reason for this Global Warming theory...


@Thermopyles

What do you mean by "Normal flactuations"? are the ice ages normal for you? the global floods? desertification? because they are pretty normal for the planet... and periodical... and are far more extreem than what we're looking at right now..

The changes we brought to the planet are insignifically small compared with the changes other factors bring to the planet periodically or not but in relatively short time intervals (handrends to few thousands of years)...

Humanity offcourse will not cope with these changes.. it will survive but will suffer alot and most people (as most animals and plants) will die... and i believe that this will not be the first time that something like this will happen.. the last ice age was some 10-12 thousand years ago and humans survived... ;)

There are just some things you can't do anything about them.. and i'm not talking about a comet or a meteorite (actually even for them most of the times you can't do anything but thats another story) but about effects that have to do with the sun and cosmic radiation... we are tooooo small for that..

I don't get what you're trying to say over here.. i was talking about Mars, not Earth... and what you call thick atmosphere is actually causing lower temperatures because it filters suns radiation even more..
Polution also is responsible for more clouds that also cool the planet... and that is because particles in the atmosphere help to form clouds faster.. and produce more rain.. and clouds reflect solar radiation back to space before it reaches the surface of the planet and increase its temperature...

Milankovitch has a very solid scientific theory based on facts, data and observations... the Global warming theory is based on poor assumptions, wild guesses, suggestions and falsified data such as the heat/CO2 connection found in ice rods...
Humans effect the environment badly.. that is correct but has nothing to do with what we're witnessing in our days...

I can tell you where it goes... most of it comes back to earth with rains.. some gases ascape to outer space and some remains airborne... CO2 is some 0,05% of our atmosphere.. and most of it is created naturally by the oceans and the dead plant life... out porsion is a small fraction of that 0.05%.. our effect is negligible... a medium size volcano generates more CO2 in a week than what we generate in years...

We should worry about the polution we cause in the lowest level of the atmosphere.. the levels we live in.. the air we breath that is full of chemicals and dust... not that sci fi green house effect causes by CO2 and the global warming... that's not us...

quite normal, and also took thousands of years to occur!!!. Geology, AFAIK, has never seen a paragigm shift in 100 years! And we don't know how much more extrteme (if any) the clamate change was, but -4.5c to +4.5c would be enough to easily do the job.

Thats right. in your scenario, the world is facked. See Case 2. Humans will not be extinct, simply civilazation as it has been known for 10.000yrs will be oblitierated. Yea sure, I'll just sit and watch the show :damn: See? we HAVE to assume we are aggrivating the effect. Don't belittle us so much. We have spewed HUNDREDS OF BIO OF METRIC TONS of CO2 in the the last 100 years (CO2 alone - that only a moderate volcano?

In the form of acidified/polluted rain... and atmosphere does not escape into space, at least not the heavier gasses like o2 and co2.

yes, and ozone was 0,000001% at look what important purpose it serves. We lost 20% of it... and stopped industry in thier tracks! a 20%increase in CO2 to say ,06-,07 - the difference coming from reason due undenyably to man, could have a profound effect!

OK during the day you are correct. BUT:
-when does the planet release the heat?
-how does it release the heat?
-what is the heat gain/loss ratio? is it a 1:1 ratio?

Heat is released at night. For the same reasons as you explained that its cooler in the day with thicker atmoshere, it is cooler in the night with thiner atmoshere. Humanity has been at a ~1:1 ratio for as long as we've known. The facts that we are producing 5000% more emmisions and have 30% less vegitation to process the increased CO2, in addition cities acting as huge heat sinks, is reducing the ability of the planet to maintain the 1:1 ratio, and has moved to 1+:1.

Now wheather this change can account for all of the 2c rise we've documented in the past 50-80 years is due to affortmentioned ratio imbalance we don't know. Maybe the Milankovitch theory accounts for half of it. But to deny that humanity has any role in the DOCUMENTED PHENOMENON of planetary tempurature increase - at a sprint - is madness! :wall: madness! :wall: madness! :wall:

Madness....

:wall: :bricks:






:baeh: :asian bow:

AAAAAAA!!!!!! My friend George you'll drive me crazy today..

First you assume that changes on this planet take thousands of years to occur.. that is not correct... many changes happen extremely fast.. some even instantatiously...

Second you seem to believe tha the planet is in some short of a very delicate balance.. that is not correct either.. the tolerance of the planet as a system is much greater than what you believe... it has recovered from tromendous dissasters that changed it's phase completely.. same holds for animal life and humanity... same holds for the atmosphere, the oceans, and plant life...

What we do to the planet is bad.. no doubt about it.. but compared with what other factors did in the past or do even now is negligible.. we are a mosquito bite in the butt while a volcano is a punch in the face... or a commet is a hit with a baseball stick to the head..

A forest fire like the one we have in Parnitha since yesterday emmits more CO2 to tha atmoshere than the whole city of Athens in months... and we have such fires all the time and since the beginning of time all over the planet.. and the planet always recovers...
There were periods that the plant life was less than 10% of what is now.. and the system recovered...
There were periods with ice covering 80% of the planet.. but the system recovered again...

There were definently times with great flooding and great fires... and not that long in the past so that people remember them.. it is in all mythologies...

It is nice to believe that we can do something about it but i'm sorry to say that it is not true... we are not capable of controlling and escaping even much smaller things like earthquakes or tsunamis (remeber the desaster of the tsunami 2 years ago? can you compare it with anything manmade? 300.000 people gone in minutes.. whole countries destroyed in minutes... and it was a small one compared with what happened in Santoriny when the island collapsed)

You say about the delicate ozon layer... have you ever thing what can happen to all of us if the Sun has a small "hickup" and emmits for 1 minute twice as much radiation than normal? stars of the size of the Sun do it every now and then.. astronomers know about it... our Sun did it in the past many times.. some believe that the Phaethon myth refers to such an event actually..

We are to small my friend... it is good to protect the environment but not to believe that we can controll everything.. it is not pesimistic.. it's realistic and the only thing we can do about it is to try to preserve our civilisation in as many as possible different ways and locations because sooner or later we will face something too big for us to cope with...

Putting things into such a perspective several issues we try to cope with or deem important might lose this significance we attach to them. It is, up to a certain extent, as if an ant sees itself from above.

Since there is a controversy about the issue right now it might be appropriate to ask why it exists. Is it because we evaluate theories and therefore cannot find a common denominator, since this theories have flaws?
Or is it because there is not something entirely correct so that a "correct view" doesnt exist, due to the plethora of assumption that are the basis of each system ?