Global Warming Affecting The World

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978. That means that for the last thirty years, while our temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

"NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate"
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years."

[link] www.sciencedaily.com... [/link]

Below, from a a link on the above page:

"Removing long-term solar cycles from the input to climate models takes away about a tenth of a degree [Celsius] of early 20th century warming," says Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. "This suggests that other influences on past climate changes may play a greater role than the solar one."

REPLY: This only does to show that NONE of the climate models are accurate. As stated before, if you have a computer climate model and go, say, 200 years into the future, reversing it back to the current time should give a climate similar to what we have now; It's never happened.

I don’t know where that “stat” is from. Maybe we can mash 6.5 billion people into texas, but where will our waste go? Where will we grow our food? Where will we fit the extra 2.4 billion people when we hit 2050?

REPLY: I didn't say it would ever happen (I sure wouldn't want all those French in-country), 'nor did I mention the logistics if it DID happen..... because it won't. It was merely to make a point against the over-population/urban sprawl myths.

Increased Water Vapor is not the cause of Global Warming it is a symptom and an accelerant.

REPLY: True.

Right, Plant life takes in CO2 and puts out oxygen. Deforestation means that there are less trees to take in that CO2.

REPLY: I agree, and never said it's a good thing; It will exacerbate local climate change to a great degree, which will affect other localized systems, etc.

What makes your 8 hours of reading material better than the movie?

REPLY: As I usually do, no matter how long it takes I check as many sources of information as possible on any given issue. I saved all the pages on the site, and from the links, and read a few each day; it took a while for sure.

I haven’t seen the movie, have you?

REPLY: No, and I have no intention of doing so. I DID read the book he put out a few years ago; and the movie, from the rushes I've seen, expound on the same premises, most of which are refuted on the SEPP pages, and other sources. I think he has a lot of nerve making the movie in the first place. Clinton didn't sign Kyoto, either, and Gore was in office for 8 years and didn't do much.

Regardless of the source of Global Warming the consequenses are still quite serious. Does it really matter if 'it wasen't our fault' when sea levels start to rise and flood the world's costal cities?

Took the words from my mouth. So whats the point in argueing about it ???
We should try to argue about the best way to make a house float !!!

Originally posted by Amur Tiger
Regardless of the source of Global Warming the consequenses are still quite serious. Does it really matter if 'it wasen't our fault' when sea levels start to rise and flood the world's costal cities?

REPLY: Fill a glass 3/4's with watter; add ice until it's full, and let it sit until the ice is melted. Did it overflow? However, if the rise of the oceans is as bad as some say, and we lose Floriduh and California.... well, I'm still trying to figure out the downside of that. I hope it happens REAL QUICK, so those in the land of fruits and nuts don't move inland.
Oh.... my "insensitivity alarm" is going off.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by zappafan1]