Blue Planet II
 

Hmmmm. Not that overawed this time.So far....

And an annoying 'Eco' theme. Winding me up as much as 'blue motion' and ''eco' on the back of cars

I agree, Atty's eco crusade is getting worse; Preaching it to a audience that is limited in doing anything about it. If he really wants to help...use his influence to lobby our Western governments to sort out the damage China is doing. Otherwise it's just lip service.

It does spoil an otherwise captivating program.

Yep agreed, really surprised atty mentioning that it's us that is causing the global warming too, which is just complete horsesh1t, climate change happens whether we are here or not, we might be accelerating it sure, but it will still happen regardless.

We all know the beeb push gov policy ergo all tv shows at any opportunity will spout out the eco bollocks.

yeah I mean lung cancer happened before smoking tobacco, so what's the problem with smoking

yeah forest fires have been happening for billions of years, why can't I have a BBQ in one

what a fvcking stupid argument

China is divesting itself from carbon production in ways that are unmanageable in the west

and to complement this shift from coal/carbon China is investing in renewable energy and battery storage technology in numbers that will make your ill informed opinions look like the shallow ramblings of an idiot


"The growth of solar energy continues to outpace forecasts and this growth, according to a report published today by the International Energy Agency, “is a China story.”

While China today is far and away the global leader in solar generation, a decade ago, the country had just 100 megawatts of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity installed. That’s nothing. For reference, it’s actually less than is currently installed in the city of San Antonio. By the end of 2016, China had increased its solar PV capacity by nearly 800 times, with more than 77 gigawatts currently installed.

China’s solar dominance is only going to keep growing, according to the IEA report. As Dr. Paolo Frankl, one of the lead authors on the report, said on a call to reporters, “In one year, China will install the equivalent of the total history of solar development in Germany.”

https://www.desmog.uk/2017/10/03/chi...new-iea-report


http://www.businessinsider.com/r-chi...in-2017-1?IR=T

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's energy regulator has ordered 11 provinces to stop more than 100 coal-fired power projects, some of which are under construction, with a combined installed capacity of more than 100 gigawatts, Caixin reported on Tuesday.

writing off some 62 billion dollars

what next "the earth is flat and only 6000 years old" FFS

Savage sarcasm i like it. So the planet wouldn't warm up without us being here then, is that what you are implying? If you believe that you are also fecking stupid.

are you a fvcking idiot?

the planets temperature is driven by physics


physics that have ben known, understood and refined for the last 200 years

it began with John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier in the 1800's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall and his work on "radiant heat"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier and his work on "The Analytic Theory of Heat"


expanded and refined by Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

"In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[2][19][20] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[21][22] Arrhenius, in this work, built upon the prior work of other famous scientists, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall or Claude Pouillet.

Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon — by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh — to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. In its original form, Arrhenius' rule reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The following formulation of Arrhenius' rule is still in use today:[23]
Δ F = α ln ⁡ ( C / C 0 ) {\displaystyle \Delta F=\alpha \ln(C/C_{0})} \Delta F=\alpha \ln(C/C_{"

and the physics simply say that if you add heat trapping gasses to the atmosphere the earth will heat up - it is basic physics



guess what - humans have added "heat trapping gasses" aka CO2 to the atmosphere - as demonstrated by Keeling with his famous "keeling curve"

and the earth has heated up !!!!


and you idiot "flat earthers" can do the experiments yourself

- well except you are too lazy and thick


what next, the earth is flat -I mean it looks ****ing flat!!

as a lovely aside, pretty much all the leading Brexiteers deny basic Physics of climate change and the DUP (hard core Brexiteers) even think the world is flat - whoops sorry not flat

that would be ludicrous

no, they just think it is 6000 years old

#Brexidiot

It's just annoying

People can argue until they are blue in the face (no pun intended)

Just wanted to watch a great documentary without guilt thrown in:(

"without guilt thrown in"

nothing to do with guilt - it is a documentary on the Blue Planet - aka the Earth and we are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere which is then changing (within our living experience) the planets biosphere and every living organism on it

what should he/the BBC do

"oooh look lovely furry seal!!" - or endless videos of cats doing funny things FFS

sort of "Teletubby" television

Totally agree, expecting there not to be an “eco” theme in this series is just ridiculous. :cuckoo:

You're wasting your time mate.

The 'climate always changes' argument defeats logic everytime. I'm surprised they even bother doing science anymore.

All of which begs the question; why do you even watch a show like this? Surely you could find something that doesn't try and educate you on another side?
The BBC 'push this theme'; FFS it's not really a theme is it? It's bloody science.
It astonishes me that we're still having this ridiculous debate.

There are no words

Are you trolling?



Hodgy, just what exactly is the problem you have on this forum of late (past 12months ish)

I can forgive it going on in the Brexit thread, but for you to repeatedly bring this vitriolic (and unacceptable) attitude across into other topics is waning significantly enough to force me to point you in the direction of sticky thread at the top of this forum.

So, please quit building strawmen. For starters; Where in this thread have I denied climate change? I haven't.

And China? So what they are doing now or in the near future fixes all the damage already done?

So if you disagree with me, fine. But do so politely and exercise better manners. That is all I ask and expect. This angry retaliation and resorting to belittlement in way of closing down any differing opinion does you no justice at all. And only provokes others to respond in kind. We can all use google and Wikipedia, so no need for the swathes of copy and pastes either.

Stop with the Brexidiot cheap shots, I voted in. And this has zero relation to this thread. If I see you using further hashtags like this in non-Brexit threads, I will call you up on it.

I seriously doubt this thread will go back to discussing the TV program now, but I will try. Hodgy did you even view it? Have you viewed any of the previous series? I have Blu-Ray box sets of Frozen Planet and Planet Earth. My post is in reference based upon this series appearing to be more politicised than the earlier ones. Would you agree?

This series doesnt appear as spectacular as the last one

Have they mentioned the quantity plastic we're launching into the oceans ? - thats pretty shocking too

Trumps and his man made climate change denial has happened since the last series

- yeah that is a real problem IMHO its shocking the sheer amount of plastic crap they find on beaches & oceans...

But all this talk of global warming - I'll just leave this here ;0)
Just think of the golf courses Trump could build on this - LOL

http://www.earthlymission.com/wp-con...n-16000-bc.jpg

I think you'll find it's the rate of warming that is unprecedented. No one has ever said the climate doesn't change.

Even taking our effect on climate away, anyone who thinks that humans are not having a disasterous effect on the planet are fecking stupid ;)

yea yea I know, I did already say we are accelerating it. There's still way to many eco warriors/jobs worths spouting bollocks and ramming it down our throats though, which is my main gripe.

you have it the wrong way round Ali B

The Brexit thread is a bit of fun really - yes it will (negatively) effect the UK for the next 20 to 30 years and the ultimate the irony of Brexit will be laid bare when the unemployed car workers of Sunderland will not be able to travel to the EU/Germany for work

Auf Wiedersehen!!! as the say

but my children/wife and I will not be negatively affected by Brexit, we have the means (cultural, economic and educational) to insulate ourselves from the worst effects - but nethertheless it will be, by and large, a UK issue, and it will be either **** or really **** – and hit the poorest the hardest – "plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose"

in few years the overriding sentiment regarding Brexit will be "why weren't we told" - but off course they were, and the Brexit threads are a testament to this fact

but climate change is on a different level entirely, and has the potential to threaten vast swathes of humanity, including us in the UK – I came to the subject 10 odd years ago a “soft” sceptic, due to my ignorance of the science

but as I have continually posted for the last 5 odd years, the science of AGW is robust, built on over 200 years of solid evidence, indeed the basics are "settled science" and are getting better all the time – so all the science/evidence confirms the simple undeniable FACT that human activity is changing the planets climate/biosphere , the planet is gaining heat/energy at an astonishing rate – and changing it in way that is deleterious to life as we know it; for us and every living species on planet earth

In 20 odd years when the effects of AGW are so blindingly obvious that you would have to be a flat earther to deny it, the sentiment will be, much like Brexit “why weren’t we told”, well on Scoobynet they were

so I make absolutely no excuses for calling out science denial claptrap on Scoobynet (and associated rubbish like "Why aren't China blah blah bah" - in fact China ARE!!!!) , just like I call out other conspiratorial tin foil hat nonsense, weirdly they seem to go hand in hand (google “crank magnetism”)

it is just an interesting aside to me that ALL the leading Brexiteers are climate change deniers, they are cut from the same cloth, use the same daft arguments and the same misuse of facts and statistics, and rely on the unquestioning stupidity of “beleavers”

ps a sticky would be great

So you are trolling/baiting. Keep it in the Brexit thread then.

Sticky is second from the top of this section.

Where has the thread starter (Lozgti1) stated his referendum voting preference? Or his level of belief over human influence on climate? Or even bioforger who is a climate pessimist but as far as I know hasn't said anything of his referendum voting decision. Those are all who had posted before you came into this thread and started insulting people (myself included).

Not everyone here holds the same view as Warrenm2 (who IIRC was pro Brexit AND had objections to MMGW). Be mindful of that before quoting people's posts and jumping to conclusions.

The greater media already publicises the various eco topics for us all to digest. What it doesn't widely publish is the largely unknown activities and interactions of wild/marine life in the lesser known reaches of the planet with totally unique footage that is not repeated anywhere else. But in reference to the Teletubby comment, consider the "fakery". The media has cited this series, like previous ones contains footage obtained from controlled environments (Labs, Zoos etc.) without informing the viewer, which is fine if its for a basic factual/educational use. Also consider its shown at "prime time" on the main BBC channel; Its already geared for the "Teletubby television" audience.

Scratching the surface. This needs a thread on its own, but to keep within the Marine-based topic, I shall briefly drop out a few to mind... The trade in endangered species (including marine, which involves reef destruction) is one issue, yes they have laws and global agreements, but its not working or being enforced enough. As is their island building/expansion. And as Dpb points out; Plastic pollution, which is cited to primarily come from the Asia continent, China is the biggest producer of polyester and acrylic plastics.

We (the West/First World) could do more to challenge them but on the other hand when we are driving their industries to supply us with the lastest tech or whatever cheap tat the global public is clamouring to buy (say, electric cars as a tech example) demanding the need for scarce/expensive raw material at the cheapest cost (and not always sourced from within China), the incentive to be honest and responsible is not necessarily at the top of a corperation's (or government's) agenda.

Grandfather used say the spare CO2 would be absorbed by diatoms in the oceans

I dont think people living a foot above the water really care who or whats doing the damage and i think trumps dismisses them as collateral damage

looks like its too late to stop coral reefs dying off from warmer seas

Hodgy do you completely discount the Milankovitch cycles?

Just asking, since you didn't give it any reference in your earlier post about the cause of climate change.

The people you mention in your post (#7) may have came up with a theory to explain the effect, but not the cause.
Milutin Milankovitch however came up with a mathematical formula to explain the cause of climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

I watched it last night, all about the methane tubes and volcanic crap being constantly belched up from under the sea bed.

the role of Milankovitch_cycles are well understood these days, and they drive the earths climate over 10's of thousands of years (inter glacial periods)

but they do not and cannot influence the earths climate over the recent timescales - measured in 100 of years

indeed solar out put has declined or remained steady over the last 20 years, yet temperatures have risen

I am afraid it is simply a denier myth that climate scientist have not heard of the Milankovitch cycles, do not understand them and have hence discounted them as a cause of the recent climate change


https://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html


"Changes in the Earth's orbit brought about by astronomical variations have a strong impact on Earth’s climate. They serve as the pacemaker for the glacial-interglacial cycles over the Quaternary (roughly the last two and a half million years of Earth's history), and provide a strong framework for understanding the evolution of the climate even over the Holocene (the last 10,000 years, beginning near the termination of the last glacial period). Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to explain the full range of Quaternary climate change, which also requires greenhouse gas and albedo variations, but they are a primary forcing that must be accounted for."

and I believe I have mentioned them before - as they are critical to understanding the Earths past climate

the cooler the water the more CO2 it can absorb (simple physics), but the seas are warming hence they take less of the earths carbon budget (the planet naturally both releases and absorbs CO2 - and this has been in equilibrium for thousands of years)

and hence warm seas will act as a "positive feedback"

the warmer the seas get, the less CO2 they absorb, so more CO2 is in the atmosphere, so warmer the seas get and the less,........


well you get the picture

as a point of order I did not reply to Lozgti, and tbh would not have bothered, like I don't really bother to comment on much of the rubbish on here

what Lozgti thinks of the eco content of The Blue Planet is up to him tbh

I only replied to Bioforger and only because he posted the same old same old tired nonsense on climate change

as an aside the stance Blue Planet and David Attenborough have in Climate change is quite interesting because David Attenborough is on record as being a climate sceptic in the 70's 80's and 90's - his view was that he had not really noticed a change in the Earths environment etc and so he thought it was all "eco" claptrap to a certain extent

but over the years it has become increasingly obvious to him that the visible signs of AGW - retreating ice sheets, glaciers encroaching deserts and changes in the Biosphere are happening

so he has actually changed his view

as an interesting aside James Hanson - one of the fathers of modern climate science said in the early 80s that the visible fingerprint of global warming would be apparent by the early 2000's - and that is what Attenborough observed

Do you work in an environmental agency/science/arena whatever it's called hodgyCO_2 by any chance? You seem to be very passionate about the subject ;)