GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!...........?

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Look, I hate Republicans and Democrats; I hate politicians period! Whether they are on the left side of the Atlantic or right side, they all suck balls! I'm not familiar with the Greens, but if they can save the planet without sending the world into a Depression, or if they can prevent the American economy from going to hell in a handbasket, I'm al ...[text shortened]... oxes...you name it...the clash of civilizations going on right now isn't helping either.

The same thing happened before. It was called Rome.

Originally posted by TomP
Is the point that we do not yet fully understand our planets weather and ecosystems? I am inclined to agree and urge everybody not to mess with it all so much.

'But Mr. President, if we reduce consumption of energy ,our GDP might drop, and then all the ethnic folks would be able to see on paper how poor they really are - we might come out of it with a per ...[text shortened]... would that look to the Europeans?!?'

Anybody remember George C Scott in Dr. Strangelove?

i watched a british doco way back which debunked the notion of global warming. It identified foundational pillars on which global warming rested and then quite convincingly set about toppling those pillars.

Some of the arguments seem quite logical and I have yeat to hear adequate alternate reasons as to why we should still subscribe.

From memory the pillars were:- the temp record; not that it has gone up .5 to 1 deg C over the past century, but because of how temp is collated worldwide with a disproportionate amount of data coming from urban centres which are built on thermal islands(the effects of urbanization mean that populated centres are 2-3 deg warmer than the surrounds)
By contrast since sattelite readings have been taken in the 60's there has been less of a noticeable trend change over terrestrial based weather balloon stations.

Carbon dioxide is not the most effective greenhouse gas. water vapour is and the effect of the 70% water mass of oceans maintain a heat equilibrium on this planet without which life itself would not be possible.
almost any scenario of change affects take up of water vapour as clouds.
for eg, the more incoming heat, the more clouds produced, the more that incoming radiant energy is reflected back out of the atmosphere leading to a decline in heat trapped in our atmosphere..The program said that oceanographers are definitely one group of scientists very skeptical about the notion of global warming and hence climate change.

Oh yeah and the thing about carbon dioxide anyway is that because of its molecular geometry there are certain frequencies of infrared that pass through its structure without the ability to exite its molecules. ie that do not heat the co2 therefore these "holes" in co2's ability to absorb reflected radiant heat from the earth when the earth cools are termed radiative windows. All the black body radiation that currently can be trapped via radiation spectra is absorbed by current levels of co2. as no amount of additional co2 can "close" these "windows" any additional co2 concentrations while possibly affecting the environment in other detrimental ways, certainly will not make co2 trap any more heat into the atmosphere than it already does.

I think the show was called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" and some of its final conclusions relate to Maggie Thatchers role in helping popularize the scare about it that was a lot more prevalent in the late 80's early 90's. There was a lot more to the program than what I've briefly sketched out, and it would seem that a lot of what we see in weather patterns has a lot more to do with 11 year cyclical sun spot activity than with anything else.

The program also asserted that to a large extent because of governmental funding bias a lot of research was going into studying the effects of GW such that PHD students were often driven to take up the cause of it so that they could at least get funding..

Originally posted by kmax87
i watched a british doco way back which debunked the notion of global warming. It identified foundational pillars on which global warming rested and then quite convincingly set about toppling those pillars.

Some of the arguments seem quite logical and I have yeat to hear adequate alternate reasons as to why we should still subscribe.

From memory the pil e often driven to take up the cause of it so that they could at least get funding..

The geenhoude conspiracy huh?

There may be some science behind your co2 theory in that it only traps some types of heat radiation. I have to say though it does seem evident that co2 and other greenhouse gases do trap heat in a treat.... Venus, next planet along, is a great example of 'the greenhouse effect'. Obviously it is closer to the sun, however, any climatologist would quite happily explain why Venus is disproportionally hot in relation to its distance from the sun.
Further, Venus is disproportionally hot permanently, not in 11 year cycles.

I was impressed at ol' GW's initiative at trying to find 'carbon capture technology' recently. At this rate his marketing people in the spin dept. will be working out how to re-brand trees and whack a patent on this new 'miracle technology' before trading opens for the next quarter! Now theres a conspiracy waiting to happen........

Originally posted by c99ux
Same page dude:

The sum of components indicates an acceleration of only 0.2 (mm/yr)/century, with a range from –1.1 to +0.7 (mm/yr)/century, consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century.

Knew I'd hit this one before... My post from a previous thread on the subject.

7. Sea level changes.

Pre-1800 sea level was increasing a 17 cm / century. 1800 - 1900 rise was 1.6mm / year, and from 1900 - 1920 this rose to 3.2 mm / year - rising twice as fast as previously. The rate of rise in sea level continues to increase in step with atmospheric CO2 conc By 2100 projected rise of 0.5 - 0.8 metres.

Sources; Gehrels et al. 2005, Quaternary Science reviews.
Houghton, J. 2005, Reports on progress in physics. (both peer reviewed journals)