In short the documentary ass-kicked those who claim the Earth is warming up because of human activities. It was shown that it might be warming up, but then at most about a tenth of a degree over the last 25 years. In comparison, some claim that mans activities could increase the worlds temperature of about 6 degrees.
Also it was shown that the Earth has a solid system of stabilizing its temperature, using rain, clouds, evaporation, ice-formation, to name a few examples. It was even reasoned that if the Earths temperature would rise, say 10 degrees Celsius, it would actually increase the ice on the Antartica, thus lowering the ocean levels globally.
But are Danish people happy about hearing something else than constant propaganda about the need for Kyoto, need to reduce the usage of this and that, and not to mention the need for more taxes to fund these and that special government projects aimed on "saving" the environment?
I would say no and point to these discussion, out of which the following text is roughly translated:
This with the C02 not warming up the planet is completely wrong in my opinion. C02 grabs, along with H20, various wave-frequencies of infrared light, that is it catches the suns energy, which it then moves on to other molecules in the air, which then can warm up the atmosphere. It is true that water is the biggest greenhouse-gas, but many small springs can make up a large river. So if we burn all those coals and gases we have on the planet, we will significantly increase the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, which then will warm up the atmosphere.The author of this text must have been on the toilet when last nights documentary showed that C02 itself is a very weak measurement of the potential global warming we might possible see in the future, if we burn up "all" the coals and gases in the world. Shouldn't we stop volcanoes from erupting also, since they are a huge producer of C02 in the atmosphere?
3 comments:
I wouldn't say that my environmental-policy is "do nothing". I would say that by damaging the environment, there is actually a property-damage going on. If I spill oil in your groundwater-resevoir, I must pay the bill.
In the case of air-pollution the story isn't all that different. The Kyoto-deal is good in the sense that it tries to put prices on air-pollution, given the current air-pollution, and thus there is economic gain in reducing air-pollution. However, by trying to force a reduction through political agendas, nothing will be gained. Then a reduction in air-pollution is simply a political project which no-one benefits from, except perhaps politicians currently in office.
Its hard to say how many fishes there are in the ocean, but it can be guessed given some scientific data. Its hard to say when we cross the limits of which Earths climate can stabilize itself, but we can simply decide that its now and be safe about it, although real data doesn't support it so far.
My firm belief is that this may cause vibration, but not more. According to control engineering the ecosystem is stable.
Otherwise, would we be where we are right now?
According to temperature-measurements via satellites during the last 25 years, the global warming has been in the range of 0.1-0.3 degrees Celcius. However, temperature-measurements done by surface suggest higher numbers, because reflection from asfast, buildings etc increase reflection and therefore temperature at surface.
A human-induced temperature-rise of 0.1-0.3 degrees over 25 years given that nothing else is at work) has not been proven to be harmful for the global climate.
Post a Comment