Gores - Bark Eaters are Active, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news95059115.html

http://www.physorg.com/news95059115.html

Look out chicken little the sky"s falling.

We have proof of global warming. All the weather EXPERTS and SCIENTISTS say Man is responsible. What do you not understand about that? What evidence do you have that they are wrong?

I suppose someone who thinks global warming is something to do with Space News can't really expect to have a clue as to what is going on in the world.

The proof can be deceptive and misleading. There is no absolute proof.
Facts can be made to distort what ever view you want to put a face on.

I want further evidence not a panic attack to irrational thinking.

kaneda,

If you could try and be more respectful to others maybe you will get respect.

Its not necessary in the thought process to bash others because they have
unsecured views about what Experts say. As far as I know the experts have
been wrong many times.

Doesn't the solar system and space effect the Earth's environment ? You bet.

Regards,

holoman

Meanwhile the Great Lakes are sinking...go figure.

Pelosi the Syrian embassador.

It appears that California Pelosi the smartest woman in the universe has cast her vote for warming. Oh goody !

http://www.torontodailynews.com/index.php/...1global-warming

Now, I can believe its true. She by the way holds a 2nd degree Gore Scout badge for environmental tree hugging.

The Earth is changing as it always has since the beginning of time. The factors involved are beyond mankind's control but some people believe they are bigger then life or can change the universe. Totally absurd !

Here's something to think about, maybe God or the God's want to snuff us out.

Of course, this proof falls under the dark matter - dark energy belief I have proof scenario. Right !

Mars has Global Warming.

I suppose Mankind on Earth will get blamed by the experts for this also.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Wa...rs_Too_999.html

Like I've been saying all along the Earth is a grain of sand in the universe and there are forces beyond our control and even unknown to us that could be effecting
our environment.

We need to do things that make our planet safer and better, but what they are
I am still not sure.

I want all my family, friends, and people of the planet to live a healthy and happy life.

I agree, Holoman. Evidence can be manipulated by whoever is reporting it fit agendas. The whole point of science is to question, test, and prove empirically and I don't believe that the people who make the case for man-made global warming have actually proven anything.

It really needs no more proof than you should have gotten in grade 10 physics. Earth and the moon each recieve the same amount of energy input, yet the earth average surface temperature is 37 deg higher than the moon average surface temp. Both operate as infrared (IR) radiating black bodies in a vacume, so why does the earth need to operate at 37 degC higher temp? Amount of energy each radiates to space depends solely on their surface temps, and anything which can intercept and hold outgoing radiation will cause the radiating body to increase it's temperature in order to compensate. There are four main IR blockers in earths atmosphere, H2O, CO2, Methane, NOx, and some relatively insignificant ones. H2O is main one, BUT amount of H2O in earth's atmosphere is almost entirely dependent on atmospheric temperature, THEREFORE the temperature rise described above is controlled by the amount of the other three, mainly CO2.

280 ppmv CO2, whatever methane, in 1750 caused an approx. 37 degC higher avg. temp on earth than on the moon. SO what SHOULD be the result of taking CO2 levels to 500 ppmv? 750? (At some point, no more radiation ever escapes in the quite broad IR band affected, then further increases have no more effect. Last time I saw a graph it appeared we were about 1/2 way there.) I'm guessing the only reason we haven't seen FAR more obvious effects of increases to date is because oceans act as huge heat sinks, and it takes them a long time to warm up. But they eventually will.........

Forget all the rest, just convince me above is seriously wrong (eg. don't quibble me on decimals and half percents, it was all done from memory anyway. I've grown sick of re-posting references all the time) and I'll stop worrying.

This post has been edited by lengould on Apr 19 2007, 06:03 PM

The earth and its atmosphere is much larger than the moon. It takes longer to cool than the moon does. If the radiation from the sun has increased due to sunspot cycles, the earth is going to heat more and also take more time to cool. The temperatures on Mars are also heating up. Check out "The Great Global Warming Swindel" on google video. Even if it doesn't change your mind about man made global warming, at least you will have food for thought.

This post has been edited by wizard_j on Apr 19 2007, 07:53 PM

I wouldn't say that the current global warming is not at least in part is human caused but I am very skeptical. The fact that there is a Consensus in the scientific community that global warming is human caused is flat out wrong. Many sites and facts that are in papers say that there is a scientific consensus that Global warming is happening. Absolutely right it's, provable. Now for a saying that there is a consensus on whether global warming is man-made is wrong. Heres a prominent French scientist who doesn't agree "Claude Allegre" who used to be a humans caused global warming supporter. Read her thoughts at http: //www .canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388.
Or a few facts that show some inconsistencies in Gores movie "An inconvenient truth"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Both quotes and some more at http: //epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
I think we need more scientists that are not funded by partisan politics and groups such as green peace working on the issue. Scientists will naturally look for and only present facts that support their funders. We need less movie stars and politicians that think they no more than the scientists. And we need to be able to discuss this issue for more than 5 minutes without calling each other idiots or you don't care about the planet and the like.
Hopefully we can have a healthy discussion on this issue where people can be presented with the facts and decide for themselves what side to join instead of having the usual bias on both sides.
Thank god for spell check.

You included H20, but you failed to mention clouds as their impact is HUGE and quite different than water vapor and as yet, unpredictable.

But to answer your question, no one really knows what the impact would be.

Reradiated energy from CO2 is at a lower frequencey and so is not in a bandwidth that CO2 can absorb, this makes the impact of CO2 to not be linear, nor obvious.

Which is why the IPCC has a fairly wide range for the impact of doubling of the CO2 levels. Models using the low end of the range show relatively little warming over this century, but then that doesn't generate the headlines (or the temp increases) that come from running the HOT models and then stoking them with the feedback from one of the ABSURDLY HIGH GROWTH SCENARIOS.

Example A1F1 Senario:

GHG - Today - 2050 - Impact
CO2 - 7 GT - 25 GT - Warming
NOx - 16Tg - 24 Tg - Warming
CH4 - 500 Tg - 900 Tg - Warming
SOx - 70 Tg - 70 Tg - Cooling (in the A2 Senario they have SOx dropping to 6 Tg)

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Apr 19 2007, 10:44 PM

"no one really knows what the impact would be." is a best disingenuous, at worst a poor tactical attempt to get me to take a "no regrets" position so you can dismiss it. In fact anyone who has any background in physics DOES know what WILL happen. The temperature WILL rise. And your albedo tack "holds no water". Increased CO2 --> increased temperature --> increased H2O --> increased cloud cover SHOULD NOT provide sufficient change in albedo to entirely compensate back to the same low temperature as at the beginning, because by your own logic if it does, then H2O will again drop and your "increased albedo" will again dissappear .....

In FACT, as we all know, the temperature WILL rise to a new stability with the new cloud cover. No way around it.

This post has been edited by lengould on Apr 19 2007, 11:28 PM

Then just to move to a topic which IS controversial, HOW MUCH will the average temperature rise as a result of these anthropogenic GHG additions? One way to think of the temperature increase related to GHG levels is to measure temperature in "amounts of glaciation". Throughout the past at least 420,000 years, every time CO2 levels dropped to around 180 ppmv and methane levels took a drop, glaciers advanced down to about 45 degrees lat., eg somewhat south of the US Canada border. When CO2 levels increased to around 280 ppmv and methane levels increased, then the glaciation retreated to near or above the artic circle, (depending on air and sea currents, eg. Greenland has still managed to maintain an icecap while Alaska, though further north, has lost it.)

It seems rational to me that increasing CO2 levels to 380 ppmv with an atendant increase in methane (as now) MUST cause a significant further retreat of the glaciation, eg. goodby Greenland icecap and other minor glaciers, hello 7 meter (22 foot) sealevel rise. Forget New Orleans, how about Miami, New York?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Who will take a guess on the effects of 500++ ppmv? If Antartic icecaps de-stabilize, smaller western icecap additional 8 meters rise (26 feet), main icecap 64 meters rise (200 feet). Total potential, 80.32 meters (250 feet), goodby most of Florida etc. So far, these are facts. Indisputable. I know, all you naysayers will hysterically yell "never, can't happen", but you're all just guessing. Watch that documentary of the couple who tried to again ski across the North Pole from Russia to Canada, as they'd done a few years ago. They unexpectedly ran into open water, wide unpassable open stretches, just a short way from the pole. Had to call an airplane to rescue them. No go.

Sure, all of antartica may be unlikely, but no-one is certain. Glaciation moves half way back to the pole for a 100 ppmv increase. Why shouldn't another 120++ ppmv move it back the other half?

Given the physics, the ice core histories, the biggest puzzle for me is "why isn't the temperature already rising more"? I suspect ocean heat sinks simply causing a few decades delay. Honestly if I owned property in Miami I'd be selling it now. Just makes a very poor risk investment.

This post has been edited by lengould on Apr 20 2007, 12:37 AM

That's what the models are all about.

None of them predict that Greenland will melt.



Arthur