Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof of global warming?

  1. Nov 29, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uow-std112904.php
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2004 #2
    Too bad that the radio-sondes (balloons with thermometers) of the troposphere did agree well with the satellite readings. Now, that we finally have found a way to get rid of those awful global warming denying satellite data, obviously the radio sondes must be wrong too. So, the next thing is to show that those are wrong indeed and why they are wrong.

    Well, no problem for the government to spend a few millions for a dozen scientists to get this done. Probably the paint of the radio sondes getting more reflective over the years and hence causing the thermometers not showing the warming.

    Hurray for global warming, the peaceful enemy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2004
  4. Dec 1, 2004 #3

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Any handy links on this? If not, I'll google.

    From Ivan's link, it seems that the stratosphere only threw off the measurements by 0.1 C. I'm a little surprised that such a low deviation is significant. What's the noise/statistical variation baseline? (0.01?)

    Conspiracy theory? :smile: :wink: (I know...see the "merely urgent/truly important" thread) Seems like the current U.S. government (at least the federal executive & legislative branches) would not mind writing off AGW.
     
  5. Dec 1, 2004 #4
    Conspiracy theory?

    No not at all, just human nature :biggrin:

    Here is something about global warming in general including radio sondes and satellite data.

    0.1 degree Celsius per decade is significant I guess. One C or 1,6 degree F per century.
     
  6. Dec 1, 2004 #5

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for the link.
     
  7. Dec 1, 2004 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the Andre's link; the paper dated February 27, 1999
    It seems that we have another study.
     
  8. Dec 6, 2004 #7
    Anyway, it doesn't look too good for global warming. Apparently it's only the press that is faithfull to Andre's "law of maintaining menace".

    I think that Roy Spencer should be much more careful with our precious enemies:

    http://www.techcentralstation.com/120304F.html

     
  9. Dec 8, 2004 #8
    i honestly dont put too much faith in global warming. Simply because we still have winter. ok, that seems stupid at first, but tell me, have you ever heard anyone screaming about the evils of global warming during a blizzard?
     
  10. Dec 9, 2004 #9
    The proof is definitely there. The cause is suspect. Mother earth has been going through temperature variations since birth but the reasons vary. Let’s take a different view.

    After looking into Ozone depletions and how the hydrocarbons are so damaging I deduced an alternative that points to a new evil; the reversing polarity of mother earth. The magnetic field is why we have the basic wholes at the caps and they are getting bigger because our poles are moving. Someday the compass will point south and during the change the ozone which is held in place by our magnetic field will be going through some changes as the polar areas reduce in intensity during the reversal. This will cause many issue with global warming and let’s hope we don’t receive a heavy solar flare at the wrong time during this change. Talk about global warming. It will be almost biblical and with only an 8 minute window to react ….ouch! :surprised
     
  11. Dec 9, 2004 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Global warming alarmism has been rolling across the political landscape for decades. It's principle output is fantasy and science fiction. It's apparent agenda is to smother industry in developed nations. How does moving offensive industries to under developed nations with lax or non-existent environmental regulations improve the global climate? Has the earth signed the Kyoto treaty? Non-anthropogenic CO2 emissions consititute about 95% of the total. Some links
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/tbl2.html
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
    http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/national.htm
     
  12. Dec 10, 2004 #11
    I found this while doing research for a report last year.
    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

    It’s very interesting. It compares the temperature of the lower atmosphere from data collected from Antarctica ice samples with past CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The data goes back almost half a million years. The data shows that there is a very regular pattern to temperature and CO2 fluctuations. When there is a higher concentration of CO2, there are higher temperatures. It’s still not clear whether higher temperatures cause greater CO2 concentrations or vice versa. If it’s the latter then we have a serious problem.

    If you look at the graphs then you’ll notice that for about the last 20 thousand years or so we’ve been on a warm trend, at the top of the temperature cycle. If you look at the CO2 data for this time, we’re also on a peak of CO2 concentration in the cycle. What’s interesting is the very last data point on the CO2 graph, data for the year 2000. It shows CO2 concentrations almost 25% higher than at any other point in the last 420,000 years.
    You can draw your own conclusions as to what this will mean for the future.
     
  13. Dec 10, 2004 #12
     
  14. Dec 12, 2004 #13
    And you'll find that pattern back everywhere, also in the sediments of the deep sea. But now a little calculation. See that the CO2 spikes are from about 180-200 ppm to about 280 -300 ppm and the "temperature" spikes are about 10-12 degrees Kelvin.

    Nowadays the CO2 is about 380ppm coming from 280ppm in 1850. So we would have to expect a temp jump of another 10 degrees in the last 150 years. But it was only 0.7 degrees or so. So the temp jump is lagging perhaps and we are due for it?

    Forget it, the alleged temperature in the ice core is leading the CO2 with about minimum 500 years.

    We are looking at something totally different. It's not about ice ages. It's about the clathrate gun.

    edit to add that link: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2004
  15. Dec 13, 2004 #14

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Agreed. I am a proponent of the hydrogen economy. We have the know how and technology. It is economical, environmentally friendly and a readily renewable and widely available resource.
     
  16. Dec 14, 2004 #15
    Look closely at the link Check provided.

    He is right that temp and co2 have a correlation.

    However, the temperature goes up before the co2 concentration does. This does not fit the model for global warming I've been presented with. No one who agrees with AGW has ever been able to explain to me why that is the case.

    Edit: I see andre beat me to it ;)
     
  17. Dec 14, 2004 #16
  18. Dec 14, 2004 #17
    Popular Science January 2005 has an intresting article discussing the problems with current fuel cell technology.

    such things they noted was that hydrogen burns near colorless and could go unnoticed until your pants catch on fire. furthermore, cellphoned, and lightning could ingite compressed hydrogen. they also note that cars only account for 20% of of CO2 emissions while power plants account for ~20%. there is also another major problem. 1gal of gas has ~2600 times the energy for 1gal hydrogen. So to get enough power out of hydrogen you would need to compress it to 10000 lbs per sq.in...


    of course, i dream of a day inwhich cars are powered by antimatter and get 10000 mi. to the proton...
     
  19. Dec 16, 2004 #18

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Could addition of small quantities of gasses such as propane or methane eliminate the problems of the invisible flame, or would this interfere with the reaction?
     
  20. Dec 31, 2004 #19
    The following observations speak very strongly of a crisis.
    From:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm


    * mountain glaciers the world over are receding; Mind you that these glaciers have been around for thousands of years.

    * the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades; There is similar data from Antarctica.

    * the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

    * there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

    Furthermore some of the organizations referenced in previous posts (like the Cato Institute) are known to be industry financed propaganda mills.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2004
  21. Jan 2, 2005 #20
    Ok, the planet is heating up, all the ice is melting! It started over
    20,000 years ago, the glaciers stopped growing and started to melt. Question,
    why did the this happen at that time? Did all the cave men burning wood cause it?
    Another question, there where 10 ice ages starting 400,000,000 years ago. so what
    caused each of them to melt? Not cave men. Remember chicken little? An acorn fell on his he ran around screeming that the sky was falling. Don't wish for something
    you don't understand, you may get. All to soon the glaciers will come back, and what will you wish then?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Proof of global warming?
  1. Global Warming (Replies: 35)

  2. Global warming (Replies: 1)

  3. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

  4. Global warming (Replies: 5)

  5. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

Loading...