Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
|
|
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 581 seconds The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain? Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4 Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 520 seconds Part 2 - Professor Bob Carter examines more of the data concerning climate change and Global warming. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain? Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - pt 3 of 4 Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 509 seconds Part 3 - Professor Bob Carter continues looking at the things which are problems to the idea that CO2 is driving climate change and global warming.Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain? Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4 Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 574 seconds Part 4 - Professor Bob Carter examines examples of the scientific data being ignored over popularist views about CO2 causing climate change and Global warming. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain? Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Past & Future Climate change - Pt 1of 4 Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 561 seconds The first of a 4 part presentation where Scientist David Archibald has researched the data that effects Climate change and has worked out the most likely future climate predictions. Inconvenient Truth Author Al Gore would find his views contradicted by this presentation Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Forestry - Hidden Talents Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 536 seconds A look at the opportunities the forest industry in SE of SA presents to people with good machinery skills Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Apocalypse? No! - Why there is no Global Warming Crisis Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 583 seconds Lord Christopher Monckton was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher & has been following the Global Warming issue with growing concern the facts have not been properly revealed. This nine minute excerpt of his New DVD gives you some good information to think about Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming Posted by: Bushvision
Video duration: 523 seconds David Evans worked for the Aust Greenhouse office as a modeller and established the worlds best method of carbon accounting. He also started to realise CO2 is not the cause of dangerous global warming. Here he explains why. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
Latest comments made on this video:
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 15:06:26
excuse the typos
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 15:05:18
To support gerjanp We can agree a system with an input of 170 W/sqm .. equivalent to Steve's pan and stove at this point. Passive termparature rise can be observed due to thermal resistance. Not controversial and widely accepted as < 1 dC per CO2 doubling. This is consistent with conservation of energy - a property of the passive response. Now what we need is a reference to literature which demonstrates that the response is magnified. Should be both mechanism and systems analysis.
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 14:55:48
Gerjanp - I only have a couple of minutes now, and I'll return later with more commentary. In the meantime, though, you and others might visit the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram in AR4 WGI FAQ for an illustration of the Earth's energy budget. Consider whether you don't agree that all net energy flux depicted conforms to the 2nd law, and that at equilibrium, energy in (168W/m^2) equals energy out, so that the system has not manufactured energy out of nothing.
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 14:18:17
"diminish it to only 170W/m^2, and the system would have no way of knowing the difference from its external location." But grastog it's that 170 watt signal that you are claiming is being amplified where is the energy for that coming from?
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 11:20:49
**This is truly a statement of ignorance. You have no clue why gas is as high as it is** It costs Big oil $7 a gallon to pump and ship oil to which world governments subsidize them $7 at regulates the sale price at $7.10 a gallon. Gasoline Refiners buy that 10 cents a gallon oil and it costs $8 a gallon to turn oil to gas and world governments subsidise $* and regulate gas Wholesale price to $1 before taxes. Add Federal tax,State tax,city tax,county tax,hazzard/sin tax then trasport costs
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 11:09:44
**dare you to find ANY evidence how biofuels have hindered world supply any worse than it already** Farmer grows corn over hops,hops come more expensive and harder to come by. farmer grows corn over wheat and Wheat comes more expensive and harder to come by. Farmer sells corn for biofuel over food and corn fed cows and chickens products (milk,eggs,cheese,meat) comes more expensive. Because there is less corn for foodstuff products using cornstuff gets more expensive/harder to come by
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 10:49:04
**every nation is now committed to CO2 reduction at the leadership level** Yes, & people forget how quickly & efficiently government agencies like FEMA responded to Hurricane Katrina & How efficiently the UN is at keeping Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons andpulling out of Iraq. So far the "Biofuels initative" has cause a global food shortage as farmers rather grow corn and sell it for fuel over food and they have tax the air and taxed gas to $5 a gallon. Is the world saved yet?
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 10:39:02
**The point I've tried to make is that readers of the science literature can confirm there's no serious doubt anthropogenic warming is a potentially serious threat requiring vigorous efforts to reduce CO2 emissions** Just as readers of the Christain Bible have no doubt there is a God and Jesus "died for their sins? And no it isn't a unfair comparision as both works of litature are compilations of different works of different people and it is to easy to pick and choose what you read and believe
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 09:32:57
I'll relent, and at the risk of boring those who already understand the CO2 greenhouse effect and feedback amplification, I'll explain why your claimed need for an internal energy source is unfounded. The Earth is heated directly by about 170W/m^2 solar radiation, but because the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight, you could relocate the sun internally within the Earth, diminish it to only 170W/m^2, and the system would have no way of knowing the difference from its external location.
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 07:53:55
Gerjanp - BV has cautioned us against ridculing you for misconceptions about the positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, but I don't consider it unfair to invite readers to review the last few pages for an accurate understanding - all I'll do here is repeat suggestions to Google "Climate Book" for thermodynamic details. Despite your repeated challenges, it's truly a settled area. My concern is that we're not addressing unsettled questions on how to curtail the CO2 that's involved.
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 07:36:11
Jeffrey "You're level of insulin level production is probably fine, but you're immune systen attacks it." Regardless of how it happened, whether autoimmune problems etc. I am not producing enough insulin and my liver is producing more glucose than I need. Both are a failure of the feedback mechanism. There is also a complication of insulin resistance due to the excess glucose being converted to a fat that inhibits insulin uptake by cells -a typical run away system that I control by diet etc.
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 07:09:56
grastog you haven't shown that a) earth climate system is an active one i.e. with an internal power source. It IS a necessary condition for positive feedback it IS a necessary condition for amplification both effects imply more power out than in therefore an internal source for that power is necessary. or B) you can show the earths climate system has such an internal power source. You have done neither.
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:42:54
Regarding positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, viewers can visit earlier pages of this thread and judge for themselves whether this has been adequately described - I expect most will agree it has. To proceed beyond what I see as an attempt to reargue already settled material, the new Ahn/Brook paper has appeared in Science (Oct. 3). It's importance lies in the evidence (mainly from Antarctica) that the current potency of CO2 in driving temperature was also high prehistorically.
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 06:35:23
Repeating it yet again does not make it true. It seems you are quite unable to do anything else. What you need to do is either show that that positive feedback is possible inn a passive system or show that earths climate system is not passive but active and has an internal power source that can drive the heat contrary to its natural (second law that is) inclination.
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:31:33
It's hard to avoid being baited by some of these comments into rearguing matters that are well settled in science - certainly the role of net positive feedbacks in amplifying CO2-driven warming is an example, and my earlier comments explaining this and providing references will, I hope, satisfy objective readers. To me, the larger point is that debating what is no longer controversial - the potentially dangerous warming of the planet - diverts focus from addressing needed remediation options.
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 06:21:13
grastog simple repetition of the the tale does not make it true. So when are you going to show us that positive feedback is possible in a passive system. Of course the system may not be passive then you must show us the internal power source that will enable the feedback signal to run counter to it's natural inclination.
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:16:23
The point I've tried to make is that readers of the science literature can confirm there's no serious doubt anthropogenic warming is a potentially serious threat requiring vigorous efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. The role of positive feedbacks as a CO2 amplifier is also well established by evidence (multiple sources I cited earlier should be visited by those interested). Even if some here perceive the need to shift focus to CO2 remediation as unfair, it's a reality that's no longer avoidable.
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 02:39:57
**CO2-driven warming and its feedback amplification are settled issues in science,** Actually it's settled politically and on the Environut fronts via mass media...Science has nothing to do with villinizing Co2 cause it is supposedly made by $5 gas and "big oil" making 12 billion a Quarter...er.."buirning fossil fuels" None of the papers try to exclude CO2 as the culprit via repeatable experiments in the field or lab nor do they even try to explain how CO2 excapes filtration systems
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 01:15:43
"You didn't read Spencer's paper, which argues that the negative feedback is due to a reduction, not an increase in clouds." I'm wondering whether you read the paper or if you did you understood it. Spencer's negative feedback is due to increase AND decrease of a particular kind of cloud not any clouds and not just reduction. You can try to base an argument on blurring distinctions but it won't carry much weight with people who have actually read and understood the paper.
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 00:03:43
"I learnt much through videos at school & uni e.g the structure of DNA & I never read the literature of Watson & Crick" That's a very good point. grastog is apt to eulogise about truth in the literature. In his mind, he's ahead of the game and everybody needs to listen to his conclusions. Unfortunatly the references he gives are weak and he has a problem accpeting diverse conclusions from reading the same paper. Surely the experience of plate tectonics is reason for more caution.
By: gufpott. on 06 Oct 08, 23:32:43
"There's little doubt feedbacks obviously play a role, to quantify them is the challenge." Thank you jffry - we agree. I asked a simple question: has it been shown that the climate an active system? This is a wish to understand the state of enquiry of one particular aspect of what you mention. If this has not been demonstrated, there would be serious reason to doubt the proposition that, due to feedback, climate is capable of acting as a temperature magnifier.
By: gerjanp. on 06 Oct 08, 22:42:39
"the only game in town, and it would seem neglectful not to participate." said one lemming to another just before diving off the the cliff.
By: Bushvision. on 06 Oct 08, 20:47:04
Grastog there are thousands of sceptics including hundreds of eminent scientists & climate scientists who are not convinced of the CO2 warming being anything but a small amount and that an ETS is a total waste of time & money. I have read Spencers papers several months ago & I don`t claim I remember every detail however I remember the principles & conclusions of his presentations & have edited two videos for youtube. If you want to discuss remiadiation - you`re at the wrong site.
By: grastog1313. on 06 Oct 08, 20:29:24
BV Despite your previous reluctance regarding CO2 remediation, the fact that we're wasting time on settled issues impels me to ask you to reconsider. The literature universally acknowledges CO2-driven warming, with a near unanimous sense of its danger. The outside world has consequently moved beyond arguing that point - every nation is now committed to CO2 reduction at the leadership level. At this juncture, remediation is the only game in town, and it would seem neglectful not to participate.
By: grastog1313. on 06 Oct 08, 20:15:26
You reinforce points I made, BV. You didn't read Spencer's paper, which argues that the negative feedback is due to a reduction, not an increase in clouds. More important, you repeat claims from videos, blogs, talks, etc., - all essentially worthless in the absence of supporting evidence in the literature. There, the evidence clearly documents a net positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, and I can't help suggesting again that you consult original sources. It's not controversial.