A Simple Proof of Global Warming By Greenhouse Gases

[oomblikkies]

I am saying that there is enough doubt on man made GW that given the current economic crisis, it would be irresponsible just to abandon fossil fuels. The core of most countries financial problems are the reliance on the import of energy from abroad. Right now focus should go into the optimum utilization of own energy resources. Research should continue into alternative energy sources, but NOT at the expense of fossil fuels.

[david222444]

Even our Pagan ancestors knew how important the Sun is to climate. The Planet is now cooling abruptly. Today the Troposphere is 0.4 degrees celcius cooler than this day last year. A Grand Solar Minimum is expected. Cooling has been forecast for at least the next 30 years. See the cloud mystery on youtube. google AMSU-A temperatures.

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "the NET HEAT CONTENT of Earth is *measurably* increasing"

Dr. Lindzen actually used satellite data to show that it is not possible to have a runaway warming situation. The more energy the Earth receives, the more it radiates out.

/watch?v=VwM_B4-5gaE&p=F18325F­F61468F46&playnext=1&index=14

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar You keep ignoring the fact that it was MEASURED that the earth is accumulating heat. We are not in a stationary situation where the in and out fluxes cancel eachother out. We will reach it at some point, it will just be at some higher average temperature. It has nothing to do with a runaway situation. It's obvious that an increase in CO2 doesn't lead to a runaway situation, it will settle down eventually. We are not at equilibrium at this moment.

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "You keep ignoring the fact that it was MEASURED that the earth is accumulating heat."

According to NASA there has not been further cooling for a decade, while the CO2 is going up. Where is the correlation?

It does matter very little what the antropogenic CO2 concentration is doing.

[judomagyar]

@judomagyar sorry, it is not" has not been further cooling for a decade"

but "has not been further warming for a decade"

[judomagyar]

@SwangSwibg "how is it arrogant to tell the truth"?

IT IS ARROGANT TO BE SO SELF CONFIDENT, THAT YOU think THAT YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.

We have a hundred times more H2O in the air than we have CO2. Isn't it logical that the H2O has hundred times more effect that the CO2? Besides, only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. Now, how is it not arrogant to say that we determine climate by decreasing the 3% to 2% of the 0.036%CO2 in the air?

Math 101....

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar Nobody disputes that H2O contributes the most to the GH effect. However, additional CO2 pushes the stationary temperature point upwards and we haven't reached it yet, the Earth is radiating less heat than it recieves and the outgoing radiation is missing EXACTLY the wavelengths that CO2 absorbes - direct proof that extra CO2 is causing the warming. This is not arrogance, these are measurements. If your intuition contradicts measured facts, you should adjust your views.

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "If your intuition contradicts measured facts, you should adjust your views." This is from the NASA website. The annual mean temperature in the last decade. year temp-anomaly 2001 0.59 2002 0.66 2003 0.68 2004 0.63 2005 0.82 2006 0.75 2007 0.78 2008 0.59 2009 0.64 This is not warming. Now you can adjust your views.

[judomagyar]

@judomagyar

correction: deviations of mean temperatures

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar

I'm aware of the atmospheric temperatures, you are familiar with long-term trends, I hope? They are all positive if you take i.e. 12-year trends. Second, the atmospheric temperature is not governed by GHG alone, have you heard of El-Nino Southern Oscillation? It's responsible for some of the deviations in the temp. Finally, the NET HEAT CONTENT of Earth is *measurably* increasing, so it doesn't matter which portion of temp data you cherry pick, this fact remains.

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "They are all positive if you take i.e. 12-year trends."

Actually, a random looking variation is riding on an 11-year cycle( actually a 22-year double cycle) riding on a 60-year cycle, riding on a 1500-year cycle. All these punctuated by el-ninos, la-ninnas and volcanic eruptions, etc...

Look up: " the cloud mystery " on youtube.

/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar If you are reffering to sun activity - there is no correlation with the sun for the last 25 years. Second: are you then actually agreeing that we are experiencing climate change but you claim that it's natural? Make up your mind, is there climate change or not? Third: natural causes can not explain the warming that we are currently experiencing.

1/2

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "are you then actually agreeing that we are experiencing climate change but you claim that it's natural? "

Climate has always been changing. What is new about this?

I don't need to make up myind about anything i look a the data.

Climate has been changing for billions of years. So?

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar "Climate has been changing for billions of years. So?"

Indeed, it has. Unfortunately, the warming of the past 30 years can't be explained by natural causes. Again, atmospheric temperature may go up and down from year to year due to heat exchage with the oceans, but: 1.) long term trends are still positive 2.) heat content of the Earth is measurably increasing 3.) The missing radiation that shoud be leaving Earth is kept in the system by CO2

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 You keep saying the same things aover and over.

1)long term trends are cyclical.(depends on how long the longterm is)

2)how a dn who measured the heat content of the Earth?

3)How do you know tha the missing radiation is kept by CO2 not H2O(which we have 100 times more in the air than CO2)?

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar

1.) Yes, there are cycles of climate change for which we know the causes (mainly Milankovic cycles, but those are really long term, solar irradiation, etc.) The current trend of temp. rise since the 70s can't be explained by these known natural cycles

2.) If your asking for references about the heat content, see for example Murphy et al, JGR 114, 2009.

3.)Because the missing wavelengths are those which CO2 absorbs (see for example Harries et al, Nature 410, 2001)

[BeachofDreams]

@tomaz2007 Thanks for these refs. I know Harries et al. but wasn't aware of the Murphy.

[TheMaximumoverload]

Tool - Aenema Got it right! Let it swim!

[judomagyar]

The cheapest way to provide electricity is by building modern nuclear power plants. It is arrogant to think, that we can change what the planet will do by changing a small portion of the 0.036% CO2 in the air.

Just recently, Eyjafjallajökull had released some volcanic ash into the atmosphere, paralyzing air travel in Europe. Mother Earth is laughing at us!

[ShwangShwing]

@judomagyar How is it arrogant to think the truth? Eyjafjallajökull released 150000 tons of CO2/day. The European aviation industry (when not grounded) releases 344000 tons of CO2/day. Have you checked the facts?

[judomagyar]

CO2 is necessary for plant growth, without it we would die of starvation.

CO2 becomes toxic at 1% in our atmosphere. Now we have 0.036%.

The dominant greenhouse in our atmosphere is water vapor: 0-4%!!!!

H2O has a practically unlimited supply in the oceans, therefore we are at a dynamic quasi-equilibrium, there is no chance of a runaway greenhouse situation because of some more CO2.

Nothing will change through carbon trading, except some bankers will get even richer.

[peepeevagi]

Funny how these "Greenhouse gasses" Have existed for thousands of years, and are just now having an effect.

Global warming has nothing to do with that bullshit.

The earth gets hot. The earth gets cold. It changes off and on from time to time and we're in the middle of a change. You cant prevent it, you cant stop it.

Humanity ends, the world begins life anew.

It's nature.

[BeachofDreams]

Uhh, it's a RISE -- a CHANGE -- in greenhouse gas levels that have caused temperature change. Not just that they are there.

Duhhh!!!

[peepeevagi]

And they've suddenly just gone beyond what the world can handle? If that's true, the ice caps would have melted way back when in 1850. The pollution era.

[BeachofDreams]

Hmm, I suppose, then, that under your reasoning, ice cubes would melt instantly as soon as the temperature hit 0.1 degree C...

[peepeevagi]

So how deadly and earth threatening is global warming really? None such.

[BeachofDreams]

It carries the same danger of a global economic depression that doesn't end and gets worse. Some people (and in the case, any life forms) benefit; most are fucked.

[peepeevagi]

Okay, so if it's true, and allready beyond the level of safety, how do we fix it? It's beyond that N'th level....

[BeachofDreams]

I'd say large scale geoengineering. What would be needed would be the injection of sulfur into the upper atmosphere to help block a small fraction of light -- enough to cool earth enough for us to switch to a carbon-free (or nearly carbon-free) energy scheme. But that carries its own dangers.

[peepeevagi]

... i thought sulfur was deadly poisonous.

Why not a large layer of cotton? A big artificial cloud. Stick a city on it so you can monitor stuff too.

[vogelstraussenior]

this is simply, but completely wrong!

the hotspot all co2 modells predict, does not exist!

it should be warm up in middle and upper troposphäre over lower latitudes, but there is no warming. this warming is named the fingerprint of co2 ghg warming and because messurements dont show this, the co2 theory with strong positiv h20 feedbacks ist completely wrong!

[hrthrhs]

Watch 'Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 2)' from 6:47. It talks about the atmospheric temp. changes aswell. They seem to say that it is proof that it's NOT GHG's.

[greyflcn]

re: hrthrhs

So is the troposphere warming faster than the surface?

greyfalcon. net/ trends2.png

greyfalcon. net/ christy

greyfalcon. net/ christycorrection.pdf

[paint3d]

Actually, the greenhouse effect is fiction. The idea that carbon dioxide traps heat and that's how a greenhouse works was disproven all the way back in 1909. If you think that I'm making this up, just google "greenhouse effect disproven" and you'll find a bunch of info. Physicist Robert Wood was the one who conducted the experiment.

[BeachofDreams]

No one is claiming that the Greenhouse works in the same manner as a does a free atmosphere with GHG in it.

[Grimmest117]

Hopefully the person that produced this video knows that simple water vapor makes up about 98% of the "Greenhouse" gasses. Now unless you plan to build a dehumidifier the size of India, I don't see how we are going to eliminate 98% of the "Greenhouse Gasses" that spell our doom. If Leif Erikson had Youtube he could have produced a video to explain why the Tropospere was WARMER in his time. The planet cools and warms naturally. Silly person!

[BeachofDreams]

Actually, nor I or anyone else ever claimed that greenhouse gases themselves are the problem. It's always been known that greenhouse gases keep the planet warm enough for life. (Silly person!).

Other than that, since you haven't commented on stratospheric changes, you're comments are irrelevant. Sorry.

[Bobertoq]

Search this on Google Images:

temperature chart over the past million years

Google this:

Is the sun getting hotter

you get my point. "Global warming" is caused totally by natural causes. The temperature over the past 450,000 years has just been going up, and down, up, and down, and right now, we are in the up phase.

[Grimmest117]

Your logic is faulty. You used the term layers. Ok lets go with that, of course the tropospere is warmer than the stratosphere. Sunlight and heat passes through the upper layer (stratosphere) and proceeds to pass through the tropospere. These layers do not have the same air density. So of course the readings would be different. Once sunlight and heat hit the surface of the Earth they are reflected back into the lower troposhere so of course the troposphere would be warmer. DUH!

[BeachofDreams]

My argument is not that the toposphere is warmer. Watch the video again.

[karimnn]

More CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. Cutting trees reduces CO2 absorbtion. More CO2 heats up the atmosphere, which melts the ice, which doesn't reflect sunlight, which again heats up the atmosphere even further, catch the logic?

[sixbillionmorons]

Corporate oil has recently launched a YouTube campaign in which numerous dummy accounts have been set up showing videos from supposed experts refuting global warming. The campaign includes numerous comment writers who attempt to make it appear that most people are skeptical of global warming. Isn't it disgusting what they're willing to do? Most of the detractor vids and comments you get probably aren't even real random YouTubers. We've been debating "oil-dummies."

[Revbone450]

"We've been debating "oil-dummies."

I Believe Corporate Oil "hills" is the proper term

[Nerobus]

Curious, what is the name of the research paper you got those graphs from? I'd like to read it... sounds intresting.

[Dekrapitator666]

It's OK! Carbon emissions are harmless! All of us "conservative" douche bags can sit down in the garage while the car is running, and read Ann Coulter books! Whoo! We beat "the liberals"!!!!

[Narcoleptic36]

i feel scared :S

are we all gonna die..? everybody?

i'm so f*cking young!

what will be the more affecteds countries?

it will be so "pain"?

sorry for my horrid english..

i speak spanish...

[daveyboi03]

i just won a debate in my university ethics class on solar warming... the poles our in fact feezing more than they are melting yet they still melt at a 42% rate so if thats possible so is the simultaneous heat of stratoshpere and cooling of trophoshere dont forget that this isnt a global scale of figures like most doomsday models use.. most models take the parts that are heating and leave out those that are cooling look at the entire picture people don't be brainwashed by poltics

[BeachofDreams]

Heating of the stratosphere? Cooling of the troposphere? Are you sure you won the debate? Maybe you ought to try a debate with, I dunno, climatologists on this one.

Other than that, your post seems quite meaningless.

[fistblade251]

Dude, that's some freaky music. Do you have an mp3 of it? I also noticed that your other videos have the same ambient music. Where do you find them? Or do you just make them on your own?

[BeachofDreams]

It's hard to get, actually. It's from a PC strategy game called "Homeworld: Cataclysm". You'd have to own the game and rip the music off of it. Sorry! If you like I can upload all of them to youtube.

[fistblade251]

Ah, okay. If it wouldn't be any trouble, could you load them up, please? That'd be awesome.

[jev2000]

This is what passes for scientific reasoning these days? I could use the same logic to prove that global warming is a result of an increase in global population. Everybody knows that the more people there are in a room, the hotter it gets. Its the excess body heat that causes global warming. We need to depopulate the planet to save humanity.

Remember, more people = more heat = global warming. Q.E.D.

[BeachofDreams]

No, actually, you couldn't use the same logic. This is not correlation implies causation argument. This is actually a case of reductio ad absurdum.

[SurleyBlaine]

To bad so many people have forgotten grade 6-7 science and history. The earth has been warming for centuries, if not, then my ass and yours would be in Mexico and the ice caps would still be here. How did the Great Lakes form? Receading glaciers. I admit that we MAY be helping, but I also remember the 70's when the same people cried "NEW ICE AGE" from the same causes. The earth is not round by the true sence, and it it's orbit is eliptical.

I blame those F*ing dinosaurs and their suv's.

[BeachofDreams]

You've obviously forgotten your grade 6-7 science, then. Geography too. Just because we've had other instances of warming in the past doesn't mean that the same causes of those warmings underlie the warming today. We are not "still" coming out of an ice age.

[SurleyBlaine]

I've forgotten nothing and continue to learn and look at all sides objectively. The earth works in cycles, there is geological proof of previous warming and cooling trends. We have only developed the tools to accurately measure this in the last few centuries. It was warmer in the "glory" days of Medevil times than now. Excavations at the South Pole of penguin nests show the growth and shrinkage of ice cover over centuries.

I never said that we are NOT the cause, just not the sole reason.

[BeachofDreams]

"I never said that we are NOT the cause, just not the sole reason."

Yet the reasoning you used to get to this conclusion is faulty and relies heavily on what you happen to think certain patterns mean. For instance, you think that very local ice growth and shrinkage in parts of the SP equates to changes in global climate. Mistake number one.

[BeachofDreams]

Sorry, Surely, accidently removed your comment.

If you are indeed talking about nests in the SP, it behooves you to admit that you are dealing with the local areas of the SP. Penguin nests and changes in ice and snow do not neccessarily mean either changes in the SP in total, or on the global scale, which is even more important.

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine theres only one god the vedas upanishads its in their brahman that is the almighty god just like how guru gobind singh ji the 10th guru of sikhism says god has no shape colour relgion just like how sikhism says god never comes in human form god has no enemys just like how spinoiza and sikhism says theres only one god that is brahman that is allah waheguru almighty god no one can make a picture of god

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine medatation doing rightousness we are so dirty and nasty inside god is a 100 percent clean when we get clean when we start seeing god in every human being creature animal thats why eating meats bad vegetables were given by GOD for us to eat god gave us vegetables when we 

stop talkin trash about people when we stop hearing trash about people when ever someones talkin trash about someoneelse we dont

[SurleyBlaine]

@mosiefool Dude, I don't know what your smokin, shootin or snortin, but share with the rest of us.

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine stop talkin trash about people when we stop hearing trash about people when ever someones talkin trash about someoneelse we dont hear it when a person reaches at that point and more stuff the person just changes when the person reaches the highest stage which is becoming the same as god that stage cant be described the person becomes one with god no difference in the person and god theres

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine only one one god for evey relgion theres only one god for every body animals human beings everything everyone no one can make a picture of god no one can make a image of god god never comes in human form god has no gender some people think god is man but that would be injustice to woman if they think god is a woman than thats injustice to man god is limitless has no gender brahman in the

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine vedas upanishads is god alone who is un describle guru nanak the first guru of sikhism says the universe keeps on expanding that universe everything exists because of allah waheguru god that one who is the creator of everything is limitless is un describle

when someone is talkin trash about someone that person never hears it about someone that happens when a person gets clean he or

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine she dosent hear it when the person gets clean gods name makes our mind clean doing rightousness makes it clean and when we do more stuff we just change then a person reaches that stage were he or she becomes the same as god no difference becomes one with god anyone can become like god doesnt matter whats your relgion god bless amen and amen peace some people mis read holy books

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine PREACH THIS YOU WILL TRULY BE BLESSED second hand smoke look how many people walk outside you can be killing someone without knowing it second hand smoke the government needs to stop this look at the innocent people walking on the streets i understand if a person wants to harm there self but harming others is a mega mega sin SECOND HAND SMOKE MURDER SECOND HAND SMOKE

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine people need to start thinking peace please preach this to people this is what god wants god will be so happy and you will be blessed not even one person should be effected god lives in every human being creature animal helping one person is helping all of hummanity hurting one person is doing evil to all of hummanity just think my brothers and sisters about second hand smoke you can be killing

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine someone without knowing it remember not even 1 person should be effected THINK? god bless peace amen and amen amen and amen a woman and man are equal its just that people have made the man bigger than woman a person should only marry one woman and man should only marry one who love each other so much and thats marriage so both should only be married with one WOMAN AND MAN

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine WE SHOULDNT WASTE ELCETRICITY AND WATER WE EVERYONE NEEDS WATER AND ELCETRICITY SOME PEOPLE GET DIRTY WATER WE HAVE TO STOP WASTING THIS ELEVATORS TAKE A LOT OF ELECTRICITY ALOT WHEN IM DOWNSTAIRS AT NIGHT I TURN THE LIGHTS OFF I TRY MY BEST NOT TO WASTE WATER AND ELECTRICITY EVEN WHEN YOU TAKE A BATH OR

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine SHOWER MAKE IT REALLY LESS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED PREACH THIS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED GOD BLESS PEACE AMEN AND AMEN WE SHOULD TRY OUR BEST TO REDUCE THIS GREEN HOUSE GASES THIS PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THEM IN FACTORIES ETC AND TRY NOT USING THE CAR THAT MUCH GOD BLESS AMEN AND AMEN PEACE

[mosiefool]

@SurleyBlaine me i dont do drugs im on nothing if you want to really get high medate on gods name that will really get you high god bless amen and amen peace

[rhinojizz]

@mosiefool Amen Dude

[mosiefool]

@rhinojizz amen yo you too my friend amen to you to my friend thanks for writeing write back at any time my friend if you dont mind you should watch this video Documentary About Buddha Boy (2 of 5) Ram Bahadur Bamjan PEOPLE SAY HE HASNT EATEN ANYTHING IN 10 MONTHS OR DRANK ANYTHING IN 10 MONTHS in nepal thats what they say is in deep MEDATATION watch it on youtube god bless you god bless all animals insects bugs everyone peace amen and amennn

[commandercool069]

the graphs you've presented say tropical. do you happen to have global averages or just tropical?

[BeachofDreams]

Look on the first link. Though, even in the tropics, this effect shows that solar radiation cannot be responsible for, at the very least, most of the change seen.

[Tilley540]

didnt the global warming swindle say the opposite proof. how am i supposed to make a choice on a very important matter when both sides are giving me absolute opposite evidence. who can i belive

[BeachofDreams]

Keep in mind that two of the scientists that were interviewed on that documentary made public statements that their views had been misrepresented and that they didn't agree with the film.

In the end, you make a choice by looking at the evidence critically. However, since your problem with this video and Swindle is that both claim different facts, then it should be easy to verify who is right and who is wrong. Look at any actual data about the atmosphere, and you'll see that Swindle was a lie.

[alcedias0]

How was swindle a lie?

Because two people said their views had been misrepresented? There were innaccuracies (as in any documentary) but the majority of the swindle's points are true.

BTW: Because of ozone depletion, we can't rule out sunspot cycles or insolation as a factor.

[BeachofDreams]

"How was swindle a lie?"

Because it claimed that stratospheric cooling had not occured.

"Because of ozone depletion, we can't rule out sunspot cycles or insolation as a factor"

False. If warming was indeed brought on by insolation, the stratosphere would be warming.

[godfather755]

2 out of the 15 ppl showed in the video. The one was carl wunsch who was the other?

[BeachofDreams]

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen

[alcedias0]

BTW: stratospheric cooling only means a high presence of GHG's, not that they are forcing the current warming.

[BeachofDreams]

Uhhh, what about cooling in the upper atmosphere but warming in the lower atmosphere don't you understand to be indicative of forcing? If we can infer GHG's from changesin temperature, then we MUST be inferring forcing.

[alcedias0]

Hmm...I went as researched this:

the recent cooling in the troposphere has been attributed to ozone depletion.

(h t t p ) wattsupwiththat . wordpress. com /2007/11/26/the-scoop-on-satel­lite-temperature-data/

[BeachofDreams]

Part of it is ozone depletion, and the other part is greenhouse gases. Ozone depletion shows itself mainly in the trends of the lower stratosphere, carbon dioxide in the middle to upper stratosphere, which is also cooling.

[BeachofDreams]

Also, didn't you read the panel at the side, which from the beginning showed that this is also the result of ozone depletion?

[alcedias0]

Okay.

Watch climate change-is c02 the cause? Recent warming fits perfectly in natural boundaries.

1000 years? A laughable amount of time for a planet that is billions of years old.

Actually, true. No one can explain why 1940-70 temperatures dropped as c02 went up. That's why they say that our emissions only began to take effect in 1970. C02 forcing should have prevented that drop.

[alcedias0]

according to the theory, the 1940-1970 drop in temperature should not be possible.

c02 is a greenhouse gas, however, no one is sure about climate sensitivity, and, c02 is drowned out by all the background noise anyway. The warming we're experiencing is completly not unusual. The level of temperature, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Look at temps over 10,000 years and you'll see what i mean.

So why do we blame something that should be happening anyway on us?

[BeachofDreams]

"according to the theory, the 1940-1970 drop in temperature should not be possible."

False.

"The level of temperature, and the rate of change is perfectly normal."

Again, false. Show me one period in the last 10k where it has warmed this fast.

"So why do we blame something that should be happening anyway on us?"

In the same way that murder can be blamed on a human cause even though death would have occured naturally anyway.

[BeachofDreams]

Actually, it's been over 40 years...

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that, because we have not measured stratospheric trends over the last few billion years, we can't understand how radiative transfer works to cool it now? Isn't that like saying that, since your doctor hasn't studied your body for all of the years of your life, his diagnosis of (put in sickness) is incorrect or shaky?

Please.

[GBanville]

No, what's shaky is generalizing from a small period of time and a single planet.

The analogous situation with a doctor would be one who never had any similar patients, examined me once, concluded I would overheat and could not, or would not listen to me saying that this happened to me every so often, and had been going on all my life.

500 characters makes this no forum for debate, but the theory is the carbon was once captured in forests, no? Life survived then.

[BeachofDreams]

So, when the doctor diagnoses you with the flu, his diagnoses is shaky if he has examined you once, has never diagnosed anyone with the flu before, (he doesn't need to give a prognosis to know it's the flu), and doesn't take into account that you've had this condition before?

By the way, this isn't an issue of prognosis. This is an issue of diagnosis.

[GBanville]

Wow, you can mix a video with spooky music! That alone has convinced me.

No. This should be pretty simple. How long has the temperature of the stratosphere been measured?

obviously its going to have been for 30 years or less out of the five billion or so years of the life of the planet. So does your argument prove anything? No. Not without a total understanding of the temperature dynamics of the upper atmosphere.

Would you be convinced by a similar argument about the warming of other planets?

[BeachofDreams]

And yes, I would be convinced of a similar argument if made in regards to another planet, as this effect (although it may not be as simple as stratosphere and troposhere) may only be due to a narrow set of causes, no matter what planet you're on.

[kdog12355]

AMEN DUDE!!!

[kdog12355]

WOW! AMAZING! just a picture slide show and and words flashing on the screen! and im just BURNING UP here in wisconsin!! High today? 20 degrees? Amount of snow? 4 ft! hmmmm... think logicaly.

[BeachofDreams]

Your point?

[kdog12355]

uhhhh stupid..... it's not real!!!! Read the bible

[BeachofDreams]

So, because in YOUR LOCALE it feels cold, this means that, GLOBALLY, the temperature has not risen?

Uhhh...Stupid.

[kdog12355]

OK...in the bible it says God will bring the end of the earth! NOT MAN! just incase u didn't know...U R MAN!The only thing Al Gore did was make money Making money off of a lie! in his video, all that stuff and graphs are things made up by him!!!! Gee, i'd like to make money of a lie! Wouldn't that be great?

Question for u: have u bought any Carbon Credits for emiting carbon dioxide, or methane, or driving instead of walking? do u have more than one car? do u got a snow blower?

[BeachofDreams]

"Question for u: have u bought any Carbon Credits for emiting carbon dioxide, or methane, or driving instead of walking? do u have more than one car? do u got a snow blower?"

Yes, No, and No (I shovel)

Also, do you think I'm I'm a liar?

[kdog12355]

*shakes head* u actualy bought carbon credits??? amazing! and yea! i do think ur a liar!!!!

[BeachofDreams]

U actually believe the Bible? aMaZinG!

[kdog12355]

u know u should maybe try the bible! it will save u from persishing in hell when u die. i know im going to heaven... Mr. Al Gore Jr.

[BeachofDreams]

LOL!

[jakotatio]

Just because they are there dosent mean its there fault.

[jakotatio]

Okay again this says they checked the temperatures and said that we had more green house gasses. This dosent prove that this is causing it. It just asumes that this is the reason. Its not real proof... its an asumption. For all we know this could be a normal fenomina. In the past there has been dramatic changes in climate. theres been the ice age... the global drout... These all happened of natural causes. This could be another grand cycle. I know i already used this example.

[BeachofDreams]

They didn't check any temperatures. What are you reading from???

The paper clearly states that outgoing RADIATION was studied.

[Wildarmswizard]

So what about global cooling back in the 70's?

how they thought about putting soot on the poles to melt the ice. Hey if you don't believe me check wikipedia.

[BeachofDreams]

"So what about global cooling back in the 70's?"

Well, what about it? In fact, I don't believe there was any strong scientific belief that major global cooling would occur. It was thought, however, that slight cooling could happen in the next few centuries to few thousand years.

[jakotatio]

um wow. you proved there is global warming but you didnt prove it could be stoped and that humans are causing it.

[BeachofDreams]

Seeing as how the humans have caused the changes in greenhouse gases seen throughout the 20th century, I think it's pretty much safe to say that human activities have caused the temp changes.

[jakotatio]

it might be save to say but that dosent mean your rigth. I havent seen any real proof of it. I only hear people talk about. Can you give me a link to a website that might prove it?

[mcferic]

It's not the sun warming the globe ... so what else could it be? Mystery factors ... x, y, and z? Or, something that lines up with the physics and the observations -- i.e., greenhouse gases are the primary source of the warming ... along with the inevitable feedbacks.

[jakotatio]

you know what it could be... nothing at all. It could be a normal sesonal thing. IN history there has been world wide drouts and the ice age. this might all just be apart of a grand sesonaly cycle just like the cycles of the year. think about it. And if its our carbon emisions causing it how are the holes in the ozone only over the ice caps... gases dont move like that.

[mcferic]

Unlikely ... and what you are saying is not scientific by any stretch. Postulating unknown causes in the face of mountains of evidence is ... irrational.

[jakotatio]

HOw is it unlikely. I have seen no real proof that humans of caused it. My assumption is just as true with as much as we both know I do agree that it is warmer and that it is and that the sea level is rising but i have only heard people taking about the green house effect. There is no proof that our gasses cause it all. Mine is more logical because i use evidence of the past to guess what is happening. There has never been a time when green house gasses have caused warming.

[BeachofDreams]

I'll post a link that you might be interested in, on the side panel.

[BeachofDreams]

"Mine is more logical because i use evidence of the past to guess what is happening"

What you should be using is evidence seen now. Would you, for instance, try to determine what you're sick with by looking back at what you've gotten sick over in the past? I have the influenza virus right now, but I don't know it because I am "using evidence of the past".

[jakotatio]

The thing is there is no evidence that is seen now. Sure i know it exists. I know the temp is going up and i know the sea level is comming in, But i have seen no real proof that carbon emisions from humans cause it. I hear people say that it is carbon emisions and i have seen reports written about it but no real proof. Id like you to send me a document proving humans cause it. I dont want people saying emisions cause. I want to see real honest proof that people cause it.

[jakotatio]

"Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere." Again all they do to prove it is say that it exists. the only cahrts i saw on your oh so reliable site were charts showing the temperatures of the stratosphere. Its not reliable proof.

[BeachofDreams]

Didn't you look at the second link?

Are you also actually asking me to show you that greenhouse gas concentrations have risen because of human activities?

[jakotatio]

They have risen because of human activities. And yes the temperature is rising. But there is no proof to sudjesting that the green house gasses are causing warming. It is just an assumption based on cheep scientific studies. The temp has gone up a .7 of a degree. There has been periods of time when everything was frozen or everything was melted before and none of that was blamed on green house gasses becuase there realy werent enough animals alive to make enough.

[BeachofDreams]

Didn't you read the second link on the side panel?

(and, yes, greenhouse gases have likely caused climate change in the past -- plants and bacteria also produce them)

[jakotatio]

What i am saying is they didnt study what they say is causing it.

Global warming is a very sucessful tool used to get popularity and nothing more.

the temperature isnt rizing enough to kill us tho. sure the sea level might come in fifty feet in the next 20 years but is it realy moving that fast? no! i think we can run from a slowly growing sea level. Why spend millions of dollars trying to change the weather when we can simply walk away.

[DoctorFist]

the ending was cool!

[BeachofDreams]

Actually, you can obtain a linear trend upwards between 1997 and 2007. The years around 1998 are cooler than the years around 2006.

On what basis do you make your first claim (i.e. about model predictions). If correct, how would that refute the stratosphere/troposhere proof?

[sydneydoc]

The troposphere has not warmed anywhere near as much as predicted by AGW models. There has been no warming in the past decade, if you study the graphs in the video and there is nothing to say that man caused it anyway.