Free Documentaries Online

there is no battle on climate change, humans do not and have never affected the weather on a scale anymore grand than the bear. i am absolutely sick of this it has been fully debunked aswell but of course with it just being a ruse to imply further illegal taxation upon the public the politicians will never let this drop. what a stupid race we can be.

Great Doc! I liked the animation especially. Though certainly not to scale, it gave me a great idea of all three dimensions of the current. This was a MAJOR scientific discovery when it was made and shows how abrupt climate change can be.

Let's hope political action is taken to steer us clear of climate change that could prove disastrous to our earth, species and economies.

Exactly AJ Auran.
Brendan, it's people like you that keep the retards in power, why do you need political action… can you not just stop polluting on your own? Is it that hard to turn the TV of when you aren't using it without being fucking told? Come on.

Exactly Stephen! No one seems willing to accept the positive affects of carbon for the planet and also that we account for such a minute amount of it.

I'm shocked to see some of these comments.
What about ACID RAIN.

"Scientists discovered, and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal."
(info taken from: "http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.shtml")

Man has a direct and indirect impact on the climate and the ecosystem no matter what you say. More then any other species on the planet. And this is only one tiny example among many many others I could give.
We're not the only cause for climate change, but we are definetly one of them.
So stop preaching nonesense and forget your little conspiracy theories about this subject.

Right, that's it- it's dteail time (even though I said i wasn't going into detail)

-CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as NO2 and CH4 are known to heat the planet up by a process know as the basic greenhouse effect.

-They do this through the process of radiative forcing by increasing the amount of heat trapped in the Earth's atmosphere and heating up the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.

-A balance must be maintained in the atmosphere for stability and so if more greenhouse gases were emitted into our atmosphere- depending on the scale- the lower troposphere and surface would heat up through radiative forcing in a specific radiation unit (W m-²).

-So we move on to the enhanced greenhouse effect in which humans are emmiting CO2 etc. From the explanation above we can deduce that increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources will alter the amount of radiation in (W m-²) in the atmosphere leading to increased lower tropospheric and surface temparatures.

-It is KNOWN that if CO2 concentrations in the atmospheres were to double (which in my opinion is highly likely after the unsuccessfulness of Copenhagen) then the longwave radiation amounts in the atmosphere would increase by 4W m-². This is a significant amount and would cause huge disruptions on a wide scale.

So if anyone disputes this then, well…

I am into climatology and have read a number of studies on the case of climate change and I find it, quite frankly, laughable when people deny climate change is happening (most of them without any background in science). And even more laughable when they deny every single temperature etc data source in the world (of which there are thousands). So, let us stop being ignorant and selfish and solve what really needs to be solved.

Also let us not forget that the theory of climate change was not made by politicians or governments, it was developed by scientists. Climate change deniers often treat climate change as a hoax made by the government- which is untrue. Climatic change science at the end of the day has nothing to do with the government, so while you may hate the government and say that they just want us to pay more money; really it is a science and so no politicians or governments can disturb the actual science of it and therefore neither can deniers…

Providing clean adequate drinking water and waste sanitation for EVERYONE on the planet would be a far greater and rewarding goal…

Big Cheese & Tiago C. are regurgitating pseudo-science talking points, which in turn are used by politicians and shrub hugging, tree cuddling, bunny sniffers.

The greenhouse effect is a popularized misnomer. The warmth generated in a greenhouse is due to STILL AIR. In other words, there is little or no exchange of inside and outside air in the building.

Earth's warming and cooling cycles are due, in part, to very complex atmospheric phenomenon and feedback systems. Very little is really known or understood. As an example, atmospheric water vapor accounts for up to 95% of infrared radiation retention / re-radiation. CO2, on the other hand, accounts for less than 0.03% or 0.0003 times the total; this is easily justified to be rounded to zero. In mathematics, the language of science, nothing times anything equals nothing…

Then there are the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores that show CO2 concentrations LAG, are behind, follow, delay, trail, are subsequent to, come after – temperature changes. The time period of this delay was about 800 YEARS. Additionally, prior CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been 15 to 25 TIMES MORE than those of today.

Even more disturbing are the climate science scandals PROVING that data, computer programs, and dissemination of information has been falsified. More simply, the scientists and government officials have been caught arrogantly, deceiving the public. Corruption in science is now synonymous with that of government.

Part of the Scientific Method requires a hypothesis to be discarded or seriously modified in the face of ANY contrary facts. Several have been illustrated above. Any one – is enough cause to throw out the human caused climate change hypothesis – entirely.

Wow Aj Auran, it seems clear you didn't read my explanation properly. Your 'scientific' explanations are completely incorrect and you need to brush up on climate and basic science as you clearly lack understanding of simple situations and our planet. Firstly, 'still air'. Well wow is that complete rubbish you obviously don't understand the basics of radiation. The greenhouse effect is called that because the planets atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, I have never heard a climate skeptic question that! But be sure to ask me if you want it explained to you. Right, now you say that it is the government and top climate scientists all over the world who are completely wrong, no question. And yes of course all the climate sceptics with slight scientific background are correct when they state that climate change is a hoax.

Has it never occurred to you that your beloved climate sceptics are wrong and the top climate scientists (of which many of them have been studying the case for nearly 40 years) are in fact correct? Of course it hasn't! This is because you are ignorant and you don't see the benefits of a renewable based energy system over a carbon non-renewable energy system, the advantages are obvious

Anyone who doesn't see these benefits is obviously inept!

@ Climate Schlimate- I seriously don't know what your sources are when you said that the carbon dioxide fraction of our atmosphere hasn't changed for 165 years! Before the industrial revolution of 1750 the atmospheric composition of CO2 was 265 ppm and now the comp is 387 ppm, too small for any effect? Think again, the atmosphere is the most sensitive of all aspects of our planet, a tiny change in gas composition can have untold and unpredictable effects. So really I don't know where you climate sceptics get your 'facts' from they're probably made up by other climate sceptics who have 'studied' climate change for a year! Sigh, when will everyone learn…

You miss the point entirely don't you, you still haven't argued back against your clear lack of understanding in basic science and also therefore advanced science like climate science. I assume you still haven't read my bullet pointed explanation on the science of climate change and rather you are avoiding it by summoning up ridiculous comments that you think are scientific. Please if you are going to argue to me about the SCIENCE of climatic change then please build up a solid scientific background of this field of science.

resorting to putting everyone in one basket, big cheese, if they don't believe what you do, eh? where does AJ Auran state he doesnt see the benefits of renewable energy sources? nowhere, he doesnt even mention it once (if you are a woman AJ sorry for the 'he' assumption). dont just throw little insults and wise-ass retorical questions at people jsut because they dont think youre right, thats just holding up the process of debate. quite indicative of the meek minded that believe anything is 'scientific fact' if the right people say it. people used to state christianity as scientific fact purely because the most influencial people pushed it, so dont run your mouth because others can look beyond blatant spin.

Thanks Tiago C! @ dkMcGreeb to be honest I have te deal with government haters and inept people all day who believe 'climate change is a hoax' every day they say to me- 'prove climate change exists'- and thus I respond accordingly- 'prove that it is safe to continue emmitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere'- and like all climate sceptics they respond either by swearing or trying to make a scientific comment which goes terribly wrong. I am quite literally sick of climate change deniers, I just don't understand how you can deny it and even more mental is the fact that they think a carbon based industry is a good thing. There is one thing for sure- we will eventually run out of coal, oil and gas and so we need to start to build up a renewable energy system now as more jobs will be lost if we don't. This is why I think all climate change deniers are stupid as they don't agree with starting a renewable industry and they just want coal, why, why, WHY? I can think of a hell of a lot more advantages of a renewable industry than a non-renewable one and if you can't see these then you shouldn't be in this debate now. Even if you don't believe in climate change, we NEED to switch to an alternative energy system now as if we don't we will eventually be left without electricity etc and energy will become more expensive and coal etc mining systems left scarce causing wars for energy. So climate change scepticism is just plain stupid!

Last words for the two unenlightened & entertainment for my fellow supporters (large thanks) –
1) You have demonstrated a severe lack in understanding rudimentary mathematics. Converting parts-per-million to a percentage or equivalent decimal representation is exposed as beyond your, so-called, reasoning ability. The distinct evidence is in your muddled inadequate responses plus, attempts to deflect or discount intuitively obvious computations. As mentioned, earlier, math is the language of science. Your glaring inability to perform, even basic calculations, leads to the conclusion of your complete incompetence in ANY science – PERIOD.

2) Reading cognizance is also in severe doubt, in several cases. To keep this brief two examples are sufficient:
a) Failing to recognize the unmistakably stated, much greater, more attainable goal of providing clean drinking water and sanitary waste disposal for BILLIONS of people, indicates extremely deficient compassion or consideration for anyone. How can you be so selfish, cold-hearted, and so very obtuse? ….The question is rhetorical.
b) You have also chosen to ignore the current state of affairs concerning personal, scientific, and political MISCONDUCT and/or outright FRAUD. These very same people get their thoroughly discredited, talking point nonsense, repeated by others, at best, in denial and deeply ill-informed…

Haven't you heard? — Fairies and Unicorns aren't part of the fauna on Earth. Put so even you two can understand it: ….Fairies and Unicorns are figments of mankind's imagination.

3) Your very words unedited, with incoherent logic, and unacceptable reflection, illustrate a clear ineptness to think critically, much less, for yourself.

Here is some very useful corrective homework. Enroll in and complete a remedial math course with a grade of "B" or higher. Describe Dr. Edward Lorenz, his equation, and its significance in relation to climate and climate modeling. Hint: discussion about him occurs in one of the following posted documentaries. What are the differences between a closed system versus an open system in Thermodynamics? By scientific definition, which has the more sound standing, hypothesis or theory? ….Again, the questions are rhetorical.

Final result — You couldn't convince me to take a bucket of water from you….even if my ass was on fire!
-QED-

Very usefull evidence, continue the good work

excellent documentary – though i’m well aware of the science presented, there’s still a lot of folks out there that just don’t get it … perhaps the “plain speak” of this film will help people understand – i agree w/the german climatologist at end of film who said we really only have about 10 more years to effect some change – please, people, act responsibly … rating 4.5 (more animation would have been fun).

At Europe’s latitude, atmospheric heat transport exceeds that of the ocean by several fold during the summer months and maybe even ten fold in the winter. The atmosphere, not the ocean, keeps Europe warm in the winter. The explanation lies in conservation of angular momentum of air flows from west across the Rocky mountains which are forced south then north. Cold air is forced south into eastern north America and warm air north into western Europe. You can see this happening by looking at today’s satellite photos. The warmth stored in the summer ocean is released into the air and transported eastward into Europe.
This is not the ocean transport from the Gulf stream, which adds very little warmth. In Europe today, the temperatures were in the 30s to 40s while eastern U.S. its in the 10s or 20s. See this article: Climate mythology: The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change by
Richard Seager, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University