My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Michaelangelica]

[Eclipse Now]

There's a great podcast from Dr Karl on the Greenland myth.

Wreckless Eric has Greenlanders seeing red (Great Moments in Science)

[goku]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No, the radiation from space has a wave length that is too short to interact with the greenhouse gases. When that radiation is radiated back toward space from the Earth it's wave length is long enough for greenhouse gases to absorb it there by making the atmosphere warmer and preventing the extreme cold you would see on an airless body like the moon. in moderation this is a very good thing but too much of a good thing will result in a too warm earth.

so the GHG's absorb radiation (energy) then hold it?
no, they release it. otherwise you wouldn't feell it, or know it.

so the sun heats the dirt, the dirt heats the air, the air heats the dirt

but the farther from the dirt you get, the colder it gets, and hot air rises??
where's the cold come from

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by goku

where's the cold come from

Outer space. It's quite cold out there, and as MTM pointed out, without our atmosphere, Earth would be a very cold place. It's this same warming of our atmosphere that can get out of control and begin to roast us too much!

[Greg_G47]

I'm not convinced that anthropocentric global warming is a fact. for several reasons.

Current data (that I've seen) isn't sufficient to determine whether increased CO2 levels will cause a continued increase in temperature. For one, consistent global temperature records aren't available very far into the past. Until recently, urban heat-island effects were ignored, machine locations were not kept consistent, etc. Methodology has improved over time, but recently (since 2000) no statistically significant temperature increase has been reported, despite rising CO2 levels.

Many factors have not been considered. One argument I've read is that effects such as increased water vapor formation following an initial increase in temperature (clouds reflect a great deal of visible light, and may prevent some radiant heat transfer from the sun) have not been considered.

Several times, predictions of rapidly accelerating global temperature change have been made and failed to come true. The low success rate of these predictions suggests that either predictive models are flawed, or that predictions are influenced by politics or other ourside sources. The matter has become highly politicized, and 'carbon credit' systems mean that a lot of cash is tied up in the result of the debate also. In all areas of research, commercial and political interests must be disclosed and examined when evaluating results.

As with anything else, the media interpretation doesn't reflect the science. Extreme weather is "sexier" now, and thus recieves more media coverage than before. The increase in coverage coupled with the mention of "climate change" every time a weather event occurs has lead to a public perception of a "the-day-after-tomorrow" style prediction. Unfortunately, this sort of "coverage" does nothing but damage the credibility of real climatologists. If global warming IS a fact, we'll miss it and reject it along with the absurd media interpretation.

I'm certainly not ruling out global warming entirely, but I would like to see more data before I decide one way or the other. Specifally, results from NASA's climate-monitoring satellite (which has yet to be launched) would probably help to sort things out one way or the other.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Greg_G47

I'm not convinced that anthropocentric global warming is a fact. for several reasons.

Current data (that I've seen) isn't sufficient to determine whether increased CO2 levels will cause a continued increase in temperature.

Please provide the data as that is not my understanding.

For one, consistent global temperature records aren't available very far into the past.

What is "very far"?

Until recently, urban heat-island effects were ignored, machine locations were not kept consistent, etc. Methodology has improved over time, but recently (since 2000) no statistically significant temperature increase has been reported, despite rising CO2 levels.

I'm going to stop here. All of these arguments have been discussed already in this very thread. I suggest you read through the thread first as it will answer all of your questions. Actually, I believe the last 30 pages address all of your concerns iirc.

[goku]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Outer space. It's quite cold out there, and as MTM pointed out, without our atmosphere, Earth would be a very cold place. It's this same warming of our atmosphere that can get out of control and begin to roast us too much!

and yet i wonder how they know it could roast us

is the temp atop of everest rising?

i'm not sure that it is impossible for man to slightly change climate, but i disagree with the CO2 propaganda, cuz, my mind keeps going back to all the air compressed in car tars.

seems to me the best way to change air temp on earth is to change the amount of air on earth.

air cools the surface of earth, right?
so if you have less air you can't cool it as much

[Essay]

Originally Posted by goku

and yet i wonder how they know it could roast us
What could "roast" us? In space solar exposure will roast you, won't it? Is that what you're talking about?

is the temp atop of everest rising?
What would this mean to you if it were (or were not)?

i'm not sure that it is impossible for man to slightly change climate, but i disagree with the CO2 propaganda, cuz, my mind keeps going back to all the air compressed in car tars.
HUH???

seems to me the best way to change air temp on earth is to change the amount of air on earth.
HUH???

air cools the surface of earth, right?
so if you have less air you can't cool it as much
HUH???

"i'm not sure that it is impossible (you mean possible, right?) for man to slightly change climate" -goku
...but just look at history, geography, anthropology....
~

p.s. Just look at what a large volcano does to the climate for a few years (or more, depending....).
Civilization is just like a medium size volcano, running all the time.
What do you think will happen....

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by goku

is the temp atop of everest rising?

Yes; it is rising.

Complete Article: >> -- Press Releases June 2007 - Fast Melting Glaciers from Rising Temperatures Expose Millions in Himalaya to Devastating Floods and Water Shortages - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) --
First Paragraph of Article: >>

Originally Posted by UNEP

Kathmandu/Bangkok, 5 June 2007 – The rapid shrinking of Himalayan glaciers, accelerating at alarming rates in past decades as a result of global warming, will have catastrophic consequences for communities living downstream and millions who rely on glacial melt water, a new report says. The report, the first comprehensive study on the impact of warming temperatures on glaciers and glacial lakes in the Himalayan region warns of impending glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) – when rising waters from glacial melt breach dams in glacial lakes – and calls for early warning and mitigation measures to avert disaster. ...

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

air cools the surface of earth, right?
so if you have less air you can't cool it as much

goku,

Sunlight generates heat. Air retains heat. Cold air has much less heat in it. Hot air has more. Certain gases, such as Carbon Dioxide, are better at retaining heat than others. The more there is of those gases, the more heat is retained. The more heat is retained, the less cold air there is.

Not only does air retain heat, but it also reflects harmful radiation from the Sun. The less air there is, the more harmful radiation can get in on the sunny side which can fry us, and the less heat is retained that keeps us warm on the cold night side. But there isn't anywhere near enough air in "tars," cars, houses or buildings to have any real affect on the amount of air there is outside and how it is reacting with sunlight.

But the issue isn't really about how much air there is, it is about how much of each kind of gas it is made of, and how much heat can be retained by them.

It is well understood that Carbon Dioxide is good at retaining heat, and that we are constantly pouring it into the air. Though it is far more complicated than this, the simple idea is - More Corbon Dioxide>more heat>more melting of glaciers>less reflection of light>more heat; More cutting of forests>less absorption of Carbon Dioxide>more heat.

We are not changing the amount of air, we are changing its composition.

More heat.