New Film: THE GREAT WARMING
Categories:
THE GREAT WARMING
www.thegreatwarming.com
Narrated by Alanis Morissette and Keanu Reeves, The Great Warming is a dramatic film about climate change that sweeps around the world to reveal how a changing climate is affecting the lives of people everywhere. It has been called "the best film about global warming ever shot”, and taps into the growing groundswell of public interest in this topic to present an emotional, accurate picture of our children's planet.
The Great Warming includes hard-hitting comments from scientists and opinion-makers about America’s lack of leadership in what is certainly the most critical environmental issue of the 21st century, as well as new scenes documenting the .the emerging voice of the American Evangelical community urging action on climate change.
For more information, to set up an interview, or to find out how to screen the film, contact:
*
publicist Tom Tanno at 818-907-9950
*
producer Karen Coshof at 514-527-2131 ext 305
*
US distributor Chris Gordon 212-396-9464
FACTS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
1. What is climate change?
Climate change is a long-term shift in the climate of a specific location, region or planet. The shift is measured by changes in features associated with average weather, such as temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. What most people don’t know is that a
change in the variability of climate is also considered climate change, even if average weather conditions remain the same.
Climate change occurs when the climate of a specific area or planet is altered between two different periods of time. This usually occurs when something changes the total amount of the sun's energy absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and surface. It also
happens when something changes the amount of heat energy from the earth's surface and atmosphere that escapes to space over an extended period of time.
Such changes can involve both changes in average weather conditions and changes in how much the weather varies around these averages. The changes can be caused by natural processes like volcanic eruptions, variations in the sun's intensity, or very slow changes in ocean circulation or land surfaces which occur on time scales of decades, centuries or longer.
But… humans also cause climates to change by releasing greenhouse gases and aerosols into the atmosphere, by changing land surfaces, and by depleting the stratospheric ozone layer. Both natural and human factors that can cause climate change are called ‘climate forcings', since they push, or ‘force' the climate to shift to new
values.
2. Why “global warming” is the wrong term Climate change refers to general shifts in climate, including temperature, precipitation, winds, and other factors. Global warming (as well as global cooling) refers specifically to any change in the global average surface temperature. Global warming is often misunderstood to imply that the world will warm uniformly. In fact, an increase in average global temperature will also cause the circulation of the atmosphere to change, resulting in some areas of the world warming more, others less. Some areas can even cool.
Unfortunately, although it significantly misrepresents what really happens, the term ‘global warming' is still often used by media and others to describe climate change.
Climate Change Fact Sheet – page 2
3. What is the Greenhouse Effect?
A natural system known as the "greenhouse effect" regulates temperature on Earth.
Just as glass in a greenhouse keeps heat in, our atmosphere traps the sun’s heat near earth’s surface, primarily through heat-trapping properties of certain “greenhouse gases”.
Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the sun's energy passes through the atmosphere, to warm the earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation.
As this energy radiates upward, most is absorbed by clouds and molecules of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. These re-radiate the energy in all directions, some back towards the surface and some upward, where other molecules higher up can absorb the energy again. This process of absorption and re-emission is repeated until, finally, the energy does escape from the atmosphere to space.
However, because much of the energy has been recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer then if the greenhouse gases were absent from the atmosphere. This natural process is known as the greenhouse effect. Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19°C instead of +14°C, or 33°C colder.
Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has been relatively stable. Then a few centuries ago, their concentrations began to increase due to the increasing demand for energy caused by industrialization and rising populations, and due to changing land use and human settlement patterns.
4. What are the greenhouse gases?
Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas. But others that are very important too. Some occur naturally and some come from human activity.
Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas released by human activities, mostly through the burning of fossil fuels. It is the main contributor to climate change.
Methane is produced when vegetation is burned, digested or rotted with no oxygen present. Garbage dumps, rice paddies, and grazing cows and other livestock release lots of methane Nitrous oxide can be found naturally in the environment but human activities are increasing the amounts. Nitrous oxide is released when chemical fertilizers and manure are used in agriculture.
Halocarbons are a family of chemicals that include CFCs (which also damage the ozone layer), and other human-made chemicals that contain chlorine and fluorine.
Climate Change Fact Sheet – page 3
5. Since greenhouse gases make up such a small percentage of the atmosphere, why do changes in their concentrations have such a big effect on climate?
Most greenhouse gases are extremely effective at absorbing heat escaping from the earth and keeping it trapped. In other words, it takes only small amounts of these gases to significantly change the properties of the atmosphere.
99% of the dry atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen, which are relatively transparent to sunlight and infrared energy, and have little effect on the flow of sunlight and heat energy through the air. By comparison, the atmospheric greenhouse gases that cause the earth's natural greenhouse effect total less than 1% of the atmosphere. But that tiny amount increases the earth's average surface temperature from -19°C to +14°C - a difference of about 33°C. A little bit of greenhouse gas goes a long way.
Because the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so low, human emissions can have a significant effect. For example, human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) currently amount to roughly 28 billion tonnes per year. Over the next century human emissions will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from about 0.03% today to almost certainly 0.06% (a doubling), and possibly to 0.09% (a tripling).
6. What causes climate change?
Earth’s climate changes naturally. Changes in the intensity of sunlight reaching the earth cause cycles of warming and cooling that have been a regular feature of the Earth's climatic history. Some of these solar cycles - like the four glacial-interglacial swings during the past 400,000 years - extend over very long time scales and can have large amplitudes of 5 to 6°C. For the past 10,000 years, the earth has been in the warm interglacial phase of such a cycle. Other solar cycles are much shorter, with the shortest being the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Other natural causes of climate change include variations in ocean currents (which can alter the distribution of heat and precipitation) and large eruptions of volcanoes (which can sporadically increase the concentration of atmospheric particles, blocking out more sunlight).
Still, for thousands of years, the Earth’s atmosphere has changed very little. Temperature and the balance of heat-trapping greenhouse gases have remained just right for humans, animals and plants to survive. But today we’re having problems keeping this balance.
Because we burn fossil fuels to heat our homes, run our cars, produce electricity, and manufacture all sorts of products, we’re adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. By increasing the amount of these gases, we’ve enhanced the warming capability of the natural greenhouse effect.
It’s the human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect that causes environmental concern, because it has the potential to warm the planet at a rate that has never been experienced in human history.
Climate Change Fact Sheet – page 4
7. So this is real?
An international scientific consensus has emerged that our world is getting warmer. Abundant data demonstrate that global climate was warmed during the past 150 years. The increase in temperature was not constant, but rather consisted of warming and cooling cycles at intervals of several decades. Nonetheless, the long term trend is one of net global warming.
Corresponding with this warming, alpine glaciers have been retreating, sea levels have risen, and climatic zones are shifting. The 1980s and 1990s were the warmest decades on record. The 10 warmest years in global meteorological history have all occurred in the past 15 years and the 20th century has been the warmest globally in the last 600 years.
8. What could happen if the climate changes?
Climate change is more than a warming trend (which is why the term “global warming” is an inaccurate description of the phenomenon). Increasing temperatures will lead to changes in many aspects of weather, such as wind patterns, the amount and type of precipitation, and the types and frequency of severe weather events. Such climate change could have far-reaching and/or unpredictable environmental, social and economic consequences.
The global sea level could rise due to several factors including melting ice and glaciers. Rising sea levels could damage coastal regions through flooding and erosion. The climate of various regions could change too quickly for many plant and animal species to adjust. Harsh weather conditions, such as heat waves and droughts, could also happen more often and more severely.
Climate change could also affect health and well-being. Many larger cities could experience a significant rise in the number of very hot days. Air pollution problems would increase, placing children, the elderly and people suffering from respiratory problems at greatest risk of health effects. Increases in molds and pollens due to warmer temperatures could also cause respiratory problems such as asthma for some people.
9. What is being done around the world?
Climate change affects the entire globe. Developed and developing countries are working together to find solutions to climate change. In June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was signed by 154 countries that agreed to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that won’t cause harm. In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, Canada and 160 industrialized nations committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an international agreement on climate change called the Kyoto Protocol.
To respond to 'no no no ...'
It is very easy to realise, it is only a FEW that attempt to produce the 'opinion' as expressed by "CH", it is also very easy to realise form previous attempts by "CH" to appear 'authoritive' that the 'internet label' that IS "CH" has not expressed any comprehension of SCIENCE in any of the numerous attempts made from behind the "CH internet label".
AS such very FEW would bother with a 'review' from the "CH internet label".
Again, the 'few' attempt to place their 'opinion' instead of REALITY by trying to express opinions of behavior that are NOT related to the ACTUALITIES seen by the MAJORITY.
If there is 'spam' it is within those repeated attempts, from behind anonymity, by the 'few' within actions to remake their attacks on individuals, of which i am only a single target. So perhaps the SMALL number of belligerent 'individuals' SHOULD BE prevented from using their multiple 'identity labels' and a screen of anonymity from 'free mail accounts'.
This would ALLOW the other REAL people to begin to make REAL discussion, rather than the MAJORITY be bombarded by rhetoric from these 'few' within their attempts to 'rail road' discussion, these 'few' ONLY wanting to allowing 'discussion contents' to be of 'their' 'approved points'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
no no no no. again.
If the stuff you post is "near a level of being COMMON 'knowledge & practice'", why does everyone who bothers to wade through it think it's a load of crap? That's as fair a peer review as you'll get.
Further again to "..Information.." & the "Great Warming".
There is no reason to make spurious claims of 'dire calamity' involving 'a dying planet'. Such claims are as complete a nonsense as could be made regarding the alterations to weather patterning seen so far, and that CAN be correlated to Human activity. There is no '50 years before...' or even a need for healing, over 'a billion years' or any time.
Only 15000 to 20000 years ago much of the continental surface of the now USA was snow or ice covered. Present REAL climate alterations are simply a continuance of this with NOW being the time that warming is showing an observable effect in the Polar regions. The dip into the present CLIMATE PERIOD that encompasses recurring glaciations is 'coincidental' to the rise OF what is termed 'Humanity', at around 3 million years before the present.
It is that Humanity IS a child of climate change, a FACT the vocal minority need to realise.
Climate change is NOT 'bad', change is in general showing NATURE as PERSISTENT. Permanence is a HUMAN made concept.
The recurring glaciations of the last ~2 to 3 million years are themselves placed within an irregularly periodic oscillation that carries climate away from such recurrences for irregular periods, again in various amounts of millions of years. So as an example 'interglacial periods' are infact only relevant within specific portions of the overall climate oscillation whilst the irregular periodicity of the entire process(es) makes any claim relating to 'rate' as meaningless, there is no 'correct and natural rate' that could be expected.
What Humanity IS altering is weather patterning, and THAT can be so done in a few hundred years, and the process of Humanity producing these alterations is around 300 years old, perhaps back even 400 years, tied to the growth (and sprawl) of the Human population.
You can refer to discussion and material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and also, for a short outline with slides, http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Further regard to "...information..."
There is global climate change, there always has been, so there is nothing 'wrong' with admitting such. The WEATHER events that are presently perceived as altering however 'NOW' are linked to the alterations to distribution in both rate and location, of kinetic energy from the planetary surface.
This is being produced by surface alterations made by Humanity within the sprawling production of its habitat. As has been noted, (see *) the increases in surface temperature are due to the rematerialing of the surface BY Humanity. There is a 15 year lag to Ocean surface reaction to the CONDUCTION of this kinetic energy. This is due to the OCEAN being liquid and showing TURBULENCE dissipation of such energy, which is then NOT available to be measured as TEMPERATURE.
HOWEVER.....
The atmosphere far MORE readily displays TURBULENCE.
The DELAY to OBSERVED WARMING within the ATMOSPHERE will be on a longer delay DUE to the greater ability of GASES to produce reactions of TURBULENCE to input of kinetic energy.
SO NOW it seems the warming of the LOWER (by surface sourced conduction/convection) atmosphere is being observed to 'SPEED UP'.
That MEANS it is now 'on the population curve' that the OCEAN SURFACE is now on, but that the DELAY is a little LONGER than seen within the Ocean Surface.
But all we get from 'climate science' is more 'fudging' of results and it seems a flurry of Journalistic 'supportive output' to 'cover up the cracks'
.
Perhaps 'these few' simply need to DROP these 'greenhouse concepts', cease trying to make that fiction PLAUSIBLE and begin to notice SCIENCE more.
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
As to 'kinetic energy' and its link to 'temperature', below is an extract from a primer, with reference to the Text it is extracted from.
-----
This brief summary is abridged from a more detailed discussion to be found in Quinn's "Temperature"
About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale.
The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K).
-----
It is simply 'Alex', Temperature IS a measure of kinetic energy, represented by the kinetic velocity of the molecular unit.
The rest of what I mention is also such solidly placed in SCIENCE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Regarding "...Information..."
I am not attacking anyone "Alex', I have NOT infact had ANY discussion with a uniquely identifiable INDIVIDUAL, all the 'angst and innuendo' that you have produced, as always, has been made from behind anonymity and one individual seemingly conducting themselves using multiple 'internet' identities'.
Plainly "Alex" you are NOT interested in making any attempt at discussion NOR are 'you' interested in gaining the knowledge needed to produce a valid comment in facing the reality now unfolding. For several years I have been attempting preemptive warning, within various 'discussion groups', of the 'reality' that is NOW unfolding, only to have 'internet identities' make spurious 'outraged innuendo' of actions I have not made. When NOT able to stop discussion in that manner, they conduct general harassment of any discussion present until those interested need to go elsewhere. This has NOT however stopped discussion, only moved it.
Now it IS that Uranium IS beginning its implementation as the major fuel for power generation as NEW utilities Are needed RAPIDLY now, and 'greenhouse platforming' has stifled coal/oil/gas as a fuel. That this reality is NOT able to be overcome by the production of a 'committee opinion' is perhaps the issue at the root of much of the angst shown towards myself, but i am NOT myself installing Uranium.
As to 'kinetic energy', try reading, and to aid you below is an extract from a primer, with reference to the Text it is extracted at, sorry I do NOT have the ISBN of that text. A decent library should have it.
-----
This brief summary is abridged from a more detailed discussion to be found in Quinn's "Temperature"
About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale.
The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K).
-----
It is simply 'Alex', Temperature IS a measure of kinetic energy. The rest of what I mention is also such solidly placed in SCIENCE.
Go, read, stop expecting the veneering of opinion to produce more than the empty shell it has so far made of 'environmental science' and the activities of 'environmental action'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Your Information is Rubbish
It is you 'Peter' that are belittling with your ridiculous theories about global warming, and your attacks on people that question you, your 'independent information' that is 'in common knowledge and practice'. Your graphs are completely unclear and do not support your mindless ramblings.
You make claims of the science not existing when you spout utter rubbish about kinetic energy - which obviously you don't actually understand anything about because kinetic energy of an object is the energy it possesses because of its motion. It is obvious that you have no clue of the science involved and should actually read basic high school science textbooks. It is accepted scientific theory that there are conditions called greenhouse as explored and verified through experimentations in greenhouses - and yes these things do exist and 'Peter' or 'Hartlod', you can even build one in your backyard to help your tropical plants grow well in colder climates. There is much scientific data about the greenhouse effect as illustrated by a greenhouse. It is a pretty simple straight forward theory that even yourself 'Peter' can try out by going in to a greenhouse.
It is obvious that you have not thought about your arguments and because your 'slides' are fuzzy and incoherent devoid of any connection with your arguments. Not only that but you have not presented one shred of information to support your claims. Not one - no matter how loud or long you bleat on about your ludicrous theories - of your claims is supported by the science you claim it is.
In one comment you have left you claim that the sun doesn't heat the surface of the planet or the oceasns. I hate to dispel your 'science' but light energy from the sun is transmitted in waves and particles, an accepted scientific theory, which is highly energised, which energises the atoms around it creating a wave effect of energy transmission, some of which is turned into heat, and thereby warming our planet. This is an accepted reason for why our planet is able to sustain life for if we were any closer our planet would be too hot to sustain life as we know it; and if we were too far away it would be too cold to sustain life as we know it.
How dare you claim to being belittled when it is you, 'Peter', that is belligerent in making your non-sensical claims about the science of global warming and climate change. Even at best - a quick google search - there is a biologist at http://nov55.com/index.html making the same sorts of ridiculous claims as yourself. Perhaps you have just accepted that author's explanation because it claims to be written in a way the public can understand - this author sounds as pretentious as you 'Peter'. You have even made claims about ignoring people that support global warming and climate change 'propaganda ', which is like the kettle calling the pot black. Your mindless, belligerent rants against climate change and global warming is just your propaganda.
Perhaps you need to look at the entire picture of human activity contributing to global warming and climate change. Human activity is not just the waste and pollution that we pump into the air, but it includes the waste and pollution that we pump inot the ground and into the oceans and waterways. Human activity is contributing to climate change and global warming through the mindless logging of forests, through environmental vandalism commited by governments and corporations. Our planet, and the means by which life as we know it, is as a result of the unique interconnected systems of our planet.
You appear to be nothing more than a persistent pest - not just here but on other forums - spouting your propaganda and trying to pass it off as science. 'Peter' you have obviously been indoctrinated by the commercial corporate interests that spout misleading propaganda to ensure that governments and people continue to purchase and consume at the detriment of the environment and the our precious eco- and planetary systems.
In response to "Belittling....."
In fact I have supplied more than adequate material to indicate the veracity of what I point out "Alex". Apart from including slides conveying already accepted information, you should realise that the SCIENCE I have presented AND the uses of such SCIENCE made is near a level of being COMMON 'knowledge & practice' and does NOT need to be 'peer reviewed' in ANY manner any longer. There is literally NOTHING NEW "Alex". Thus the inferences are NOT in any manner needing to be 'reviewed' before they can be discussed on this site, or anywhere else on the internet ESPECIALLY. If you do not understand the SCIENCE I use 'Alex' you need to visit a LIBRARY and do some reading. The SCIENCE I use is NOT in 'papers' any longer, it has NOT been for DECADES, it IS in standard TEXTS on the SHELVES of libraries.
OPINION, no matter how it is presented "Alex", is of little consequence to the presenting situation regarding use of Uranium Fuelled generation either. Your 'issues' are NOT realistic, just the repeated expression of 'standardised rhetoric' that is being over passed now near PERMANENTLY as it is NOT CORRECT in reality. AS I have mentioned "Alex", OPINION is for a time well passed now in this issue as the time of ACTION is NOW.
To paraphrase a well known novel, "It's really happening Alex!"
This situation is NOW occurring as for over TWO DECADES, the cry of the 'greenhouse platform' HAS been heeded, and now existing infrastructure IS in need of RAPID replacement. It is that the REAL situation has little use for the 'criteria' of 'renewable' either "Alex".
The NEEDED 'criteria' is for REAL generation ability and REAL distribution ability to SUIT the needs of PRESENT population AND THE NEXT 50 years considering of the REAL needs of population AND society as a whole with EXISTING practical generation/distribution systems (note the PAIRING).
As such, to represent quotes from May 5th 2006 in 'The Daily Telegraph' in NSW on page 22, no internet link, under the title "Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the 'only just' ex-NSW Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]
["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without Nuclear Power."]
["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]
***["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base load power."]***
It is simply this "Alex", no matter WHAT 'opinion' is held regarding the criteria of 'renewable' it is NOT RELEVANT to the issues at hand, this is WIDELY realised and it is ONLY due to the NARROW attitude of 'opposition' within the 'enviro-movement' that this situation HAS come-to-be.
I HAVE mentioned for YEARS (around protagonists such as 'yourself'' "Alex") that this WOULD be the situation seen unless the 'alternative energy lobby' turned about and DEMANDED from those CORPORTATIONS 'they' supported that a DISTRIBUTION system of suitable ability was produced to MAKE 'alternative generation' a PRACTICAL reality.
This has NOT been done, what I HAVE warned of for years IS happening, for the reasons I HAVE been outlining, and really "Alex', I have NOTHING that needs 'more proof' than the REALITY we are seeing NOW.
=========
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
=========
You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links and please try to find some aspect of the 'greenhouse theory' that has not already been 'ripped to shreds' please:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Belittling? Uranium fuelled power generation?
Peter you are right the issue is not the measurement of temperature or the accuracy. Rather the argument is that you present no evidence - that is to say you produce no independent sources of information or references to support your arguments. Until that is done, then you are making unsubstantiated claims as the information produced about this topic. Readings of scientific journals is that there is acknowledgement of the existing natural phenomenon of global warming and cooling; and acknowledgement of the natural changes of environment over time.
I am not trying to belittle you rather ask that you provide independent sources of reference for the arguments you present. It is very easy to make arguments without justifying the basis of those arguments in a sensationalist and belligerent manner. It is quite another thing to present arguments where the basis for such arguments are supported by independent sources of reference. I do not accept independent sources of reference being to your own work or work of others that don't present independent sources of reference.
On the topic of uranium fuelled power generation.
Uranium fuelled power generation solutions, which in my opinion is Orwellian newspeak, is not a suitable 'alternative'. The fuel is not renewable; to extract the fuel requires extensive environmental destruction (which has a flow on effect for fauna/human survival), and storage of nuclear waste has not been made safe. I do not accept that storing it in the middle of Australia deep underground is an adequate or environmentally sound solution for nuclear waste storage.
Short term economic gain leads to long term environmental destruction, which once destroyed is irretrievable.
I would also reprise (in
I would also reprise (in short) my outlines, given as warning, over the past YEARS in various Yahoo groups (especially).
"Greenhouse platforming" will be rendered moot by:-
1) The increased use of hybrid bio-diesel vehicles.
2) The increased use of Uranium Fuelled Power generation as backbone generation.
SO infact there will be a vast reduction in 'greenhouse pollution'.
Thus the incessant (and POINTELESS) 'greenhouse rhetoric' will fall from 'public notice' (from what ever level that is NOW) as pollution OVERALL is reduced.
Any INTEREST in listening to CONTINUED claims of 'climate change due to greenhouse warming' will also disappear, as the entire PREMISE is rendered MOOT.
So the ENTIRE 'climate/greenhouse' sociopolitical VAPIDITY is rendered MOOT as 'Human additions' of supposed 'greenhouse gases' ARE infact removed as an issue.
Welcome to the URANIUM age induced by 'greenhouse' nonsense.
Next, with regard to:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/450 with title:-
"Earth First! In US initiates EF! Climate Caucus"
There is no SCIENCE to support the 'anti corporate mentality' so often
expressed (as it is above), to make possible even the 'greenhouse effect' that is platformed to justify so much of this misdirected angst. Meanwhile, the Amazonian Forests, the people who live within it AND those trying to protect it are being MURDERED.
Let us ALL notice a section from this (May 5th 2006) mornings paper ('The
Daily Telegraph' in NSW) on page 22 (no internet link), under the title
"Atomic Power: a great bright hope" attributed to Bob Carr (yes the ex-NSW
Premier signed up by the "Climate Institute"):-
["The debate is over. Yesterday WWF Australia, one of the nation's largest
environmental groups, accepted the realist of peaceful nuclear power."]
["In other words you won't save the planet from global warming without
Nuclear Power."]
["As Premier I made similar comments. I was surprised by the response. It
wasn't the outrage and indignation that one would have got in the 70's and 80's."]
["Renewable energy -wind, solar- is a part of the solution. But a smallish
part. WE could build windmills from the Blue Mountains to Broken Hill and
they would not provide the seven-day-a-week flow of energy that we call base
load power."]
These individuals (as in Earth First!), and the 'groups' they have overrun (as exampled by Earth First!) are now IGNORING reality, ignoring the Public, and ignoring the Environment. Perhaps we should ALL just ignore "Earth First", and other
Organisations with similar self interest wrapped in a veneer of 'environmental concern'.
Next with regard to http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/439 with the title "New Film: The Great Warming":-
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Over the past 10,000 years, the amount of 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere has been relatively constant"]
Well INFACT over the past ~15000 years the CLIMATE has been rising from a GLACIATION, so it seems that in terms of CLIMATE 'greenhouse concepts' have NO application.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Without greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be -19 degrees C instead of 14 degrees C, or 33 degrees C colder.']
AS yet NO valid reason to even BELIEVE these figures has been provided, just a LOT of OPINION being REPEATED.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["Earth is heated by sunlight. Most of the Sun's energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the earths surface, oceans and atmosphere."]
Blatantly incorrect as can be seen in slides I have already provided, ONLY those photons within the upper and lower VISIBLE spectrum as well as the lower THIRD of the UV spectrum are able to become surface incident. This is on the 'inward' leg, i.e. FROM the outer edge of the atmosphere.
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, in order to keep the atmosphere's energy budget in balance, the warmed earth also emits heat energy back to space as infrared radiation."]
WRONG AGAIN, the photons escaping the CASCADE are infact NOT representing 'heat energy' in ANY manner. These PHOTONS represent NON kinetic interactions by the molecules of the atmosphere with PHOTONS within the cascade. It is the energy NOT released by the interaction that is retained as HEAT. This is the energy recorded within measures of ALBEDO
To quote from the MOVIE script:-
["However, because the energy is recycled downward, surface temperatures become much warmer than if the greenhouse gases were absent form the atmosphere."]
Complete nonsense, the energy is NOT recycled downward with ANY trend, again ALL photons within the atmosphere are absorbed as seen in the slides I have already provided.
INFACT photons NOT in the upper/lower VISIBLE spectrum (as trapped by the process of Photosynthesis), or the lowest one third of the UV spectrum, or that small portion in and just above the RADIO spectrum DO NOT become surface incident, EVER.
So there is NOT POSSIBLE any 'surface warming' from a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. The WARMING that is seen as unnatural is due to humanity rematerialing the surface, end of 'debate'.
This (and other) 'movie(s)' is(are) dispensing POINTLESS nonsense which is leading us all into the URANIUM age.
Boycott these movies, and they will cease attempting to produce their PROPAGANDA.
Ignore for OUR own 'collective good' those attempting to PROMOTE or DEFEND these 'movies' and the concepts they propaganda.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
A theory, or not much of an idea?
A theory is NOT voted into being 'accepted' "whoever", purely on that 'taking of a vote', if at all EVER.
That IS the problem with the 'greenhouse theory', which FAILED to be VALIDATED on THREE occasions, after which those attempting to PROMOTE it simply VOTED themselves as 'correct', and that the 'greenhouse theory' was 'correct' and proceeded to POLITICISE the 'greenhouse concept' from behind a veil of vague warnings of potential 'DOOM and WOE'.
Oh wait that is STILL what is being platformed......
HOWEVER, as the REASON that the 'greenhouse theory' was FAILED was that it was INCONSISTENT with the known properties of the MATERIALS it would involve, the PHILOSOPHICAL attempt to garner 'plausibility' is totally WORTHLESS as there is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' in ANY manner with regard to SCIENCE and the REAL materials REAL properties.
Also, which 'scientific community' are you meaning, that of actual SCIENCE; or the pretenders behind the 'greenhouse' nonsense?
Feel free "whoever" also to give a DETAILED outline OF the 'greenhouse process' NOW please, or cease attempts to harass me. There are REAL issues needing discussion, NOT more time wasting is needed from the "Greenhouse Bandwagoner's".
You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links and please try to find some aspect of the 'greenhouse theory' that has not already been 'ripped to shreds' please:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
In response to 'measuring temperature'...
'Alex', it is NOT that 'measuring temperature' is at all the issue, and you ARE I believe aware of this. Nor is the issue 'accuracy' either, I do not even see myself having used that word. Also, Mercury WAS the material used by Fahrenheit in his device (see below).
HOWEVER, the need was to make REPRODUCABLE measures, and existing DEVICES could not be suitably CALIBRATED. This is what 'drove' the development of these measuring devices, the need for the ABILITY to consistently MEASURE in a reproducible manner LIMITED ALL SCIENCE, and still does.
Short (partial) history (notice words in CAPS or tween {***} please):-
-----
The earliest devices used to measure the temperature were called thermoscopes, consisted of a glass bulb having a long tube extending downward into a container of colored water.
SOME of the air in the bulb was expelled before placing it in the liquid, causing the liquid to rise into the tube.
As the REMAINING air in the bulb was heated or cooled, the level of the liquid in the tube would vary reflecting the change in the air temperature.
An engraved scale on the tube allowed for a QUANTITATIVE measure of the fluctuations.
1641, the first sealed thermometer that used liquid rather than air as the thermometric medium was developed, using a sealed alcohol-in-glass device with 50 "degree" MARKS on its stem but no "fixed point" was used to zero the scale.
1664, Robert Hook used a red dye in the alcohol. Every 'degree' represented an EQUAL increment of volume equivalent to about 1/500 part of the volume of the thermometer liquid, needed only one fixed point. Hook's original thermometer became known as the standard of Gresham College and was used by the Royal Society until 1709. {***}The FIRST intelligible meteorological records used this scale{***}.
1702 Ole Roemer based his scale upon two fixed points: snow (or crushed ice) and the boiling point of water, and he recorded the daily temperatures at Copenhagen in 1708- 1709 with THIS thermometer.
1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit (an instrument maker) used mercury as the thermometric liquid.
{***} (All in caps) Mercury's thermal expansion is large and fairly uniform, it does not adhere to the glass, and it remains a liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Its silvery appearance makes it easy to read. {***}
Fahrenheit described how he calibrated the scale of his mercury thermometer:
"placing the thermometer in a mixture of sal ammoniac or sea salt, ice, and water a point on the scale will be found which is denoted as zero. A second point is obtained if the same mixture is used without salt. Denote this position as 30. A third point, designated as 96, is obtained if the thermometer is placed in the mouth so as to acquire the heat of a healthy man." (D. G. Fahrenheit,Phil. Trans. (London) 33, 78, 1724)
.
-----
There is more to the 'history' but the needed DETAIL is already seen here "Alex".
You see 'Alex' having NO ABILITY to consistently MEASURE in a reproducible manner LIMITED ALL SCIENCE, and still does.
Perhaps you need to comprehend MORE 'Alex' and attempt 'belittlement' much less, certainly attempting to produce a position for myself will avail you little. Try reading what I post instead, and make comments accordingly please.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Measuring temperature
Peter unlike yourself I have actually bothered to reference independent material.
Human kind has been measuring temperature for longer than 250 years. They have had the ability use liquids (like water, alcohol and mercury) to determine temperatures.
Given that the scales we have at the moment are arbitrary then your argument about accuracy is irrelevant as accuracy is determined by the scale you use. Subsequently, ancients could have been measuring temperature but using widely varying scales and thereby not producing 'accurate' temperature measurements.
Science is more than just experiments, it is also theories.
Creating reproducable experiemnts is only a part of science. Speculation and theory-making is also essential.
However, if that were the ONLY criteria for what qualifies a science, then astronomy, particle and quantuum physics would not be called science. As Professor Ian Lowe said at a public meeting I recently attended, you can't reproduce a planet.
Making credible theories that offer the best available explanation of a phenomenon (like rising surface temperatures, weather pattern changes) is also part of what is called science. These theores gain credibility by being accepted by most scientists at the best explanation. There will always be doubt, and in that case all scientfic theories, including the testable ones, are provisional.
Scientific consensus is that rapid climate change is occurring and that humans have induced the change.
Until new evidence, new technology or a new convincing theory proves otherwise, and is accepted by the scientific community as casting sufficent doubt on current beleifs to revise theory, climate change will remain accepted.
In response to 'length of time'...
It is very easy to realise 'Alex' that you have NOT comprehended that REPRODUCABLE is what SCIENCE needs. This is that any number of instruments will record a particular temperature within a realisable error margin based around that temperature.
This was NOT available before not only the development of a SCALE of Temperature but the development of a DEVICE, which was ALSO made in 1724, by Fahrenheit. This was a cheap and accurate device also, easily produced.
In the 1800's it was also seen developed the GAS Thermometer. It was this devices development that saw the realisation that the 'Ideal Gas Law' was only UNIVERSALLY applicable at very LOW pressure.
The metallurgy of ages past was NOT done with MEASURES, but by the EXPERIENCE of the CRAFTSMAN. It seems 'Alex' that you need to observe TRADITIONAL craftsmen at work, there is NOT 'measure' of temperature beyond 'the eye' backed by experience.
Thus 250 years is ALL that is available to SCIENCE 'Alex' from which to obtain SUITABLE 'data'.
No 'Alex' it is not I that seems confused, more comprehension, fewer links. Next point please.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Length of time human kind has been measuring temperature
Peter, I am wondering by what authority you claim that human kind has only had the technology to measure temperature in the last 250 years?
It seems to me that they would have had the necessary technology to measure temperature otherwise metallurgy would not have been discovered and replicated. The bronze age would have stalled, indeed not existed, if human kind had not been able to measure temperature in order to smelt copper and tin to cast bronze[1] for armour, weapons, tools, implements and art production[2].
So clearly human kind has been able to measure temperature actually enough since at least the bronze age, and thereby lead to the greatest period of development of civilisations around the globe. Interestingly enough you will note that the Andean civilisation, before Spanish destruction, had begun their bronze age as late as 900BC[3]. It would seem that for human kind to have learnt to smelt and cast they would know how to measure temperature, in order, therefore, to be able to smelt copper and tin and cast bronze. They would also know the relative temperature of the air. It seems by your thesis that you are confusing the creation of standardised scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin)[4] with measuring temperature[5]. Fahrenheit established his scale about 250 years ago and Celsius also established his scale about 250 years ago.
References
Please note that the production of independent references in support of an argument is an accept form of academic writing. Unsubstantiated claims, of any kind, do not constitute an academic writing.
Another 'movie'?
Another movie? 'The Great F(r)iction' is a more suitable title.
Climate Change is a swing of overall weather patterning's that is planetary in scale. The secondary oscillators with the overall 'climate affecters' have seen 'warming' in the past 15000 years rising from a period of an overall glaciation event.
NOW', with the 'opposing warm peak' containing 'turbulence', & will ALSO contain altering 'turbulence based events' (i.e. WEATHER PATTERING) for 'some duration' whilst CLIMATE is within the opposing 'warm peak' (to the previous glaciation containing 'dip').
That 'NOW' (the present) is 'warmer than any time in the past 600 years(*)' only suggests that the warming process began ~15000 years ago is still in progress.
There is NOTHING that can be done in altering these long term processes, which is the first 'thing' the 'doomsayers' need to realise.
Climate is ALWAYS 'changing', only ever offering PERSISTENCE. This is the second 'thing' the 'doomsayers' need to realise.
The sea level WILL rise a little within the 'warm peak', but that IS natural. It will lower again when the motion towards the net glaciation begins, this IS natural.
AS for the spurious 'scare mongering' regarding 'health', or 'well being', that is all there is, spurious scare mongering.
There is also NOTHING to validly produce ANY link of 'greenhouse' concepts to ANY 'warming' process and most certainly NOT any valid link to 'climate change' that utilises the SCIENCE of the materials such 'greenhouse opinion' attempts to involve.
As such the 'climate change fact sheet' is in general lacking facts.
The 'consensus' is only for the MEDIAN surface temperature; this is altering as the materials OF the surface are altered within the sprawl of Humanity production of habitat. The small rise in MEASURED temperature is only due to this 'measure' actually recording that kinetic energy NOT already moving within the processes of Conduction and Convection. This energy is presently being 'observed' in the Ocean after around 15 years, whilst the Atmosphere, with a greater capacity to 'express' kinetic energy additions as Turbulence will have a longer 'lag time' before similar (more muted) trends are seen. This is NOT linked to 'global climate', as is attempted INCORRECTLY again to be alluded to.
(*) Also only the last ~250 years have contained the technology to make reproducible measures OF temperature, so the CLAIM involving mentions OF 600 years are NON FACTUAL.
Also NON FACTUAL are the claims that 'Kyoto based remediations' are in any manner going to be of 'positive value' to the REALITY we all face. This REALITY involves ONLY the alterations to weather patterning produced by Humanities production of habit and the alterations to the surface materialing there in contained. This IS altering rain patterning leading to flood and drought, and adding to the strength & ferocity of 'wind events' along with altering the location and 'time placement' of all these events. This is 'altering' what Humanity sees within those preconceived notions of a 'season' (i.e. winter summer spring and autumn), but ALL of these 'concepts' have ONLY been made within the period of 15000 years before the present and as such are ALL within a SMALL and SPECIFIC portion OF the overall 'climate' oscillation(s).
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Post new comment