Global warming scam exposed!

[Gorgon]

Guys, please. The phenomena of global warming is not contested, what is contested is greenhouse gasses and the effects of reducing them. Whatever happens in Copenhagen at the climate summit it's just going to be a very tenuous beginning.

 

I dunno, it could be a huge waste of time with no noticeable result.

[Meshugger]

While we're having fun with local data, i can present some fun facts on white christmasses on where i live. When i was a child, it was always a lot of snow on christmas, the question was more on how cold it would be. Recently, we have had two christmasses in a row where there wasn't any snow at all, which is the first time since the recordings started. On one of those, we also had a recordbreaking warm christmas eve (+7 C).

 

During christmas last year, we got a lot of snow a few days before the 24th, but it melted quickly away before new years eve. As of this date, we hardly have had any snow yet and subsequently barely any days at all with minus centigrate temperatures.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling.

 

 

If this chart from the American Thinker article I linked earlier is correct, then whatever warming we're seeing is simply a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also people saying just increasing CO₂ must be causing global warming have to realize CO₂ is only .04% of the atmosphere, while water vapor, a more important green house gas, is 1% of the atmosphere.

 

Edit: Here's a new study which supposedly says the melting of Kilimanjaro is not due to global warming. Of course I can't read Dutch, so I don't know if that's true.

 

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/0...of-kilimanjaro/

 

Edit: Used google translate, and it does say that. Funny that a government site would be attacking Al Gore though.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Lare Kikkeli]

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling.

 

 

If this chart from the American Thinker article I linked earlier is correct, then whatever warming we're seeing is simply a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also people saying just increasing CO₂ must be causing global warming have to realize CO₂ is only .04% of the atmosphere, while water vapor, a more important green house gas, is 1% of the atmosphere.

this is totally non relevant. what does it matter how much of the atmosphere is CO₂ if it will warm the climate up? you're not denying that an increase in CO₂ will raise the average temperature in earths atmosphere are you?

 

Edit: Here's a new study which supposedly says the melting of Kilimanjaro is not due to global warming. Of course I can't read Dutch, so I don't know if that's true.

 

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/0...of-kilimanjaro/

 

lol best thing you've posted so far. here's an article in a language i dont understand proving my point! classic stuff.

 

edit: alright you ninja edited. anyway i dont think anyone was claiming otherwise.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling.

 

 

If this chart from the American Thinker article I linked earlier is correct, then whatever warming we're seeing is simply a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also people saying just increasing CO₂ must be causing global warming have to realize CO₂ is only .04% of the atmosphere, while water vapor, a more important green house gas, is 1% of the atmosphere.

this is totally non relevant. what does it matter how much of the atmosphere is CO₂ if it will warm the climate up? you're not denying that an increase in CO₂ will raise the average temperature in earths atmosphere are you?

 

Edit: Here's a new study which supposedly says the melting of Kilimanjaro is not due to global warming. Of course I can't read Dutch, so I don't know if that's true.

 

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/0...of-kilimanjaro/

 

lol best thing you've posted so far. here's an article in a language i dont understand proving my point! classic stuff.

 

edit: alright you ninja edited. anyway i dont think anyone was claiming otherwise.

I didn't ninja edit, I still had my post open, and didn't see yours. And yes, I am denying that increasing CO₂ by such a tiny amount is proven to cause global warming. By contrast, atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO₂.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I didn't ninja edit, I still had my post open, and didn't see yours. And yes, I am denying that increasing CO₂ by such a tiny amount is proven to cause global warming. By contrast, atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO₂.

 

i'd like to see the math you used to base your assumption.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Venus.

I don't think driving a car over to McDonalds, letting it idle in the parking lot, ordering the McFatty and cutting the cheese is going to bring about that kind of global warming in the near future.

 

Where ice ages have actually happened and killed off numerous species on Earth before.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I didn't ninja edit, I still had my post open, and didn't see yours. And yes, I am denying that increasing CO₂ by such a tiny amount is proven to cause global warming. By contrast, atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO₂.

 

i'd like to see the math you used to base your assumption.

Where's the assumption?

 

Edit: You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO₂ must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[taks]

already addressed, but very misleading and not about the subject at hand

it is not misleading at all if melting is used as proof of warming.

 

i'd like proof of these numbers.

for god's sake the information is available everyehwere. i cannot help it if you choose to be ignorant of basic facts.

 

also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community?

i didn't make any claim other than to agree that many that we monitor are melting (my words were about half). nice try, but let's be a little more intellectually honest in the future.

 

again misleading. sure the glaciers have been melting since the ice age (maybe because back then all of europe was under a glacier? ). the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.

no it hasn't. do you have proof. you made the claim of accelerating, prove it, hypocrite.

 

deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming. thats the theory anyway.

and your point is? my only point was that kilimanjaro can be directly linked to absolute changes at its base, i.e., it is not due to "warming." are you capable of addressing what i said, or only on erecting strawmen?

 

again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass.

uh, can you read? i said that the ARCTIC is losing mass. duh. let's be smarter, please. the NSIDC has information on the antarctica mass. it's mass and extent (which are different) is growing.

 

this is plain false unless you have some solid evidence that contradicts mine.

read your links a bit better... nothing in there contradicts what i said. greenland's coastal areas are calving ice, true, but that is because of an increase of mass in its center, i.e., because it is getting thicker.

 

so false.

god you're an idiot. you post a link about ARCTIC sea ice extent but you replied to a comment i made about GLOBAL ice. ARCTIC means north pole, which i already said is declining. so, what you have done is post a link that agrees with what i said, so no, not false.

 

i just checked and the GLOBAL anomaly is statistically flat, but the antarctic is statistically up, so my statement that global ice is up is incorrect.

 

lol

indeed, you can't even address the points i made nor did you manage to actually find anything that disagrees with me. the one point i got wrong (global ice) you didn't even catch! maroon.

 

taks

[Lare Kikkeli]

wait, so you're not denying it, you just want more proof that an increase in CO₂ will cause global warming? CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and according to physics an increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere will increase it's temperature. its based on math, not opinion. now if you want to know how much CO₂ is needed to increase the temperature of earth you'll gonna have to take a pencil and start doing math. or trust people who have. your choice.

[taks]

Edit: You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO₂ must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

indeed, this is the one thing nobody has ever proven to exist. all the "evidence" has shown is warming, and few argue this, but no cause-effect relationship has ever actually been uncovered (at least, none that overcomes the effect of the oceans, which have a heat capacity of over 3000 times that of the atmosphere). even the physics argument is sorely lacking (and absent from any legitimate discussions). it's usually arm-waved as "outgoing radiation is absorbed" but never goes any deeper into the process by which kinetic energy of the CO2 increases (which is required to raise the temperature).

 

taks

[taks]

according to physics an increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere will increase it's temperature.

nope, at least, this has not been shown to be true.

 

its based on math, not opinion.

where's the math? even the IPCC report does not go into any detail.

 

now if you want to know how much CO₂ is needed to increase the temperature of earth you'll gonna have to take a pencil and start doing math. or trust people who have.

to date, nobody has actually done the math. it is an assumption that absorbing photons increases heat, one that originates with arrenhius (sic?) over 100 years ago in a paper that has since been shown to be deeply flawed.

 

your choice.

apparently there is only one choice, to do it ourselves.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling.

 

I suggest that we trade weather with each other, like they do at the copenhagen meeting. Carbondioxide-caps and all that, i think

[Lare Kikkeli]

for god's sake the information is available everyehwere. i cannot help it if you choose to be ignorant of basic facts.

 

link me to it. prove your claims.

 

i didn't make any claim other than to agree that many that we monitor are melting (my words were about half). nice try, but let's be a little more intellectually honest in the future.

 

i meant that i'd like to see these numbers. please show a link that shows the percentage of glaciers have been studied, and that only half of them are melting. you throw around numbers with no sources.

 

no it hasn't. do you have proof. you made the claim of accelerating, prove it, hypocrite.

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

google glacier melt accelerating and you will find multiple articles that back me up.

 

and your point is? my only point was that kilimanjaro can be directly linked to absolute changes at its base, i.e., it is not due to "warming." are you capable of addressing what i said, or only on erecting strawmen?

 

well you've got one example of a glacier receding that isn't directly caused by global warming. it only proves that one glacier isn't melting because of global warming, nothing else.

 

uh, can you read? i said that the ARCTIC is losing mass. duh. let's be smarter, please. the NSIDC has information on the antarctica mass. it's mass and extent (which are different) is growing.

 

i couldn't find any data on global sea ice levels, just regional data and it all says it's decreasing. if you have data that backs your claim up please post it.

 

read your links a bit better... nothing in there contradicts what i said. greenland's coastal areas are calving ice, true, but that is because of an increase of mass in its center, i.e., because it is getting thicker.

 

it says it is in mass balance and it's losing coastal ice, not that it's gaining mass like you claimed. you learn how to read.

 

god you're an idiot. you post a link about ARCTIC sea ice extent but you replied to a comment i made about GLOBAL ice. ARCTIC means north pole, which i already said is declining. so, what you have done is post a link that agrees with what i said, so no, not false.

 

i just checked and the GLOBAL anomaly is statistically flat, but the antarctic is statistically up, so my statement that global ice is up is incorrect.

 

heh, resorting to name calling are we? as i said i couldnt find any data on GLOBAL ice and i already said that the antarctic is probably in balance or gaining mass slightly. if you have that data please post it.

 

 

indeed, you can't even address the points i made nor did you manage to actually find anything that disagrees with me. the one point i got wrong (global ice) you didn't even catch! maroon.

taks

 

no i just think it's funny, you being so arrogant yet having no proof of anything you say at all.

 

 

i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO₂ in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either. however i am very spectical.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Gorgon]

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the science, but sea levels are rising, as observed in several tropical islands. Where is the extra water coming from if not ice ?

[213374U]

i posted two articles, one by nasa. if you find something wrong with the data in the articles please point it out.

There seems to be nothing wrong with the NASA article, even if it's from 2006. But again, the Greenland ice sheet is just ~9% of the total. So based on that and the Arctic observations, I'd say it's a bit risky to venture predictions based on what's happening to 1/10 of all ice, in a 30 year lapse.

 

The other link I'm not even touching.

 

 

yes, and i'd like to see evidence that while floating ice is decreasing the total mass is increasing. couldn't find any myself.

Haha, if such evidence existed, I could go to Copenhagen and leave everyone looking like complete idiots, don't you think? That's why we have a debate, to begin with.

 

However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which is what I've been saying all along. We have nothing like a complete picture, and what we do have has been carefully selected to support a set of views.

 

 

it is an assumption that absorbing photons increases heat, one that originates with arrenhius (sic?) over 100 years ago in a paper that has since been shown to be deeply flawed.

Um, thermal radiation is a well established phenomenon...

 

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

google glacier melt accelerating and you will find multiple articles that back me up.

I thought I had already addressed that one? Peripheral ice may be melting at an accelerated rate, but that's irrelevant if the total mass remains constant. It's the same as with the whole "warming" trend and local/absolute extremum.

 

 

i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO₂ in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either. however i am very spectical.

Heh. "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"

 

Climate is a complex system - and it's also affected by the biosphere and changes in solar activity, to make things worse. An increase in variable X (increase in carbon dioxide, in this case), needn't result in what would otherwise be expected.

Edited December 9, 2009 by 213374U

[213374U]

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the science, but sea levels are rising, as observed in several tropical islands. Where is the extra water coming from if not ice ?

Sea levels rising are a result of thermal expansion more than an increase in the water masses, believe it or not. And that seems to be slowing down, as well...

 

http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/C...al_GPC_2009.pdf

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's an interesting article on "clean coal": http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...171.html?page=1

 

I especially like this statement:

The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency

[taks]

link me to it. prove your claims.

already did, NSIDC. you were capable of going to the NSIDC to find arctic data, which i already noted as declining, but conveniently ignored antarctic data. is it that you did not realize the word "arctic" mean north pole, not global? i wouldn't be surprised... nah, given your subsequent responses you simply realized you couldn't refute me so you chose to erect a strawman, failing to note that i actually mentioned the arctic as declining (technically, the extent is sitting just below the 30 year average right now, though i don't know about its mass).

 

i meant that i'd like to see these numbers. please show a link that shows the percentage of glaciers have been studied, and that only half of them are melting. you throw around numbers with no sources.

i throw around common knowledge. that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to prove things for yourself is not my problem. this incessant need to have everybody post the same damned links time and time again is a joke.

 

but, since you choose to be intellectually lazy:

 

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/summary.pdf

 

they (UNEP, data from the world glacier monitoring service) have inventoried over 100,000 (there are thought to be nearly twice that) and have measured the length of 1800, just under 2%, and the mass of 230, or only 0.23% of those inventoried. the percentages are even smaller if we consider the total number, which is nearly double what has been inventoried.

 

from the same summary, it says there is high variability, and they stop short of actually claiming an acceleration, though they do claim "rapid."

 

note, too, that the UN backs me up, and i find the UN to be the most dishonest organization on the planet.

 

well you've got one example of a glacier receding that isn't directly caused by global warming. it only proves that one glacier isn't melting because of global warming, nothing else.

that's the one al gore always uses. it is rather easy to find a list of expanding glaciers. for you to suggest there aren't any simply because i didn't point out every one is even more proof of your dissonance.

 

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

 

i couldn't find any data on global sea ice levels, just regional data and it all says it's decreasing. if you have data that backs your claim up please post it.

not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses.

 

it says it is in mass balance and it's losing coastal ice, not that it's gaining mass like you claimed. you learn how to read.

i read your article fine. i said its interior is gaining mass. you should learn to read.

 

heh, resorting to name calling are we? as i said i couldnt find any data on GLOBAL ice and i already said that the antarctic is probably in balance or gaining mass slightly. if you have that data please post it.

yes, because yet again, you posted a reply about the arctic ice in response to a comment about global ice, then somehow made the leap to me being wrong. when someone repeatedly makes such fallacious claims, i begin to surmise they aren't the brightest in the lot. had you actually been more intellectually honest, i would have treated you with more respect, but instead, we get the same old ill-informed alarmist nonsense becuase it is about belief to you, not truth.

 

no i just think it's funny, you being so arrogant yet having no proof of anything you say at all.

everything i said is either proven, or easily provable. this debate has raged for years with the same ridiculous talking points. there's a point at which people simply need to analyze what is there, without ignoring the obvious just because it does not fit with their belief system.

 

i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO₂ in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either.

you have a hard time because you don't understand the basics of the physics. there is nothing wrong with that, but making the claim that "the basic physics says so" (paraphrased) is disingenuous at best.

 

i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature. what complicates things further is that the atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and stored heat in the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor. this in turn is vastly overwhelmed by the massive amount of water stored in our oceans, which has, as i noted, over 3000 times the capacity.

 

this is the physics that i am currently trying to understand myself, for the record. it needs to be explained in enough detail that someone like me with a rather extensive technical background can analyze, as well as a high enough level for the lay person to understand. so far, what has been proposed does not pass the smell test.

 

however i am very spectical.

i would assume you mean skeptical (or perhaps, i've seen it spelled sceptical). in light of that, i would recommend you not make claims you cannot back up either with your own knowledge, or that of someone else.

 

taks

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's some more on temp record "adjustments": http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/ Hard to believe they'd be that blatant, but who knows.

[Lare Kikkeli]

already did, NSIDC. you were capable of going to the NSIDC to find arctic data, which i already noted as declining, but conveniently ignored antarctic data. is it that you did not realize the word "arctic" mean north pole, not global? i wouldn't be surprised... nah, given your subsequent responses you simply realized you couldn't refute me so you chose to erect a strawman, failing to note that i actually mentioned the arctic as declining (technically, the extent is sitting just below the 30 year average right now, though i don't know about its mass).

i already admitted, in the first post even that antarctice isn't probably losing mass and could well be gaining some.

 

i throw around common knowledge. that your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to prove things for yourself is not my problem. this incessant need to have everybody post the same damned links time and time again is a joke.

 

but, since you choose to be intellectually lazy:

 

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/summary.pdf

 

they (UNEP, data from the world glacier monitoring service) have inventoried over 100,000 (there are thought to be nearly twice that) and have measured the length of 1800, just under 2%, and the mass of 230, or only 0.23% of those inventoried. the percentages are even smaller if we consider the total number, which is nearly double what has been inventoried.

 

from the same summary, it says there is high variability, and they stop short of actually claiming an acceleration, though they do claim "rapid."

 

note, too, that the UN backs me up, and i find the UN to be the most dishonest organization on the planet.

that wasn't so hard now, was it?

 

that's the one al gore always uses. it is rather easy to find a list of expanding glaciers. for you to suggest there aren't any simply because i didn't point out every one is even more proof of your dissonance.

 

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

no one mentioned al gore before you did. and i never claimed there couldn't be any other glaciers receding for other reasons than global warming, just that your example didn't prove that there is either.

 

i couldn't find any data on global sea ice levels, just regional data and it all says it's decreasing. if you have data that backs your claim up please post it.

not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses.

please, back your claims up with real data stop making them. i dont care what your common sense tells you, give me some sort of proof or get out.

[Lare Kikkeli]

gonna have to split this in two posts...

 

it says it is in mass balance and it's losing coastal ice, not that it's gaining mass like you claimed. you learn how to read.

i read your article fine. i said its interior is gaining mass. you should learn to read.

 

let's see now...

 

f) greenland is also gaining mass.

 

was your point that greenland is gaining mass at about the same rate as it's losing it? because it seems you said it's gaining mass, which it isn't.

 

heh, resorting to name calling are we? as i said i couldnt find any data on GLOBAL ice and i already said that the antarctic is probably in balance or gaining mass slightly. if you have that data please post it.

yes, because yet again, you posted a reply about the arctic ice in response to a comment about global ice, then somehow made the leap to me being wrong. when someone repeatedly makes such fallacious claims, i begin to surmise they aren't the brightest in the lot. had you actually been more intellectually honest, i would have treated you with more respect, but instead, we get the same old ill-informed alarmist nonsense becuase it is about belief to you, not truth.

 

i'd like to see you dig up a link that shows how much antarctica has gained mass. oh wait, you can't. there is no data on global ice, just regional stuff.

 

not in the antarctic, it is growing. since antarctica is the largest body of ice on the planet, it serves to reason that it could easily balance out the arctic losses.

 

pot kettle black. i assumed that antarctica is not gaining enough to offset the global loss. prove your claim.

 

everything i said is either proven, or easily provable. this debate has raged for years with the same ridiculous talking points. there's a point at which people simply need to analyze what is there, without ignoring the obvious just because it does not fit with their belief system.

 

no it hasnt. you haven't proven a thing. in fact i think my side is winning

 

i have a hard time believing that there's no concrete evidence that an increase CO₂ in the earths atmosphere increases the temperature as well, but i guess i can't disprove it either.

you have a hard time because you don't understand the basics of the physics. there is nothing wrong with that, but making the claim that "the basic physics says so" (paraphrased) is disingenuous at best.

 

i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature. what complicates things further is that the atmosphere is extremely dynamic, and stored heat in the atmosphere is dominated by water vapor. this in turn is vastly overwhelmed by the massive amount of water stored in our oceans, which has, as i noted, over 3000 times the capacity.

 

this is the physics that i am currently trying to understand myself, for the record. it needs to be explained in enough detail that someone like me with a rather extensive technical background can analyze, as well as a high enough level for the lay person to understand. so far, what has been proposed does not pass the smell test.

 

lol, you're so arrogant it hurts.

 

i dont claim to be an expert in physics, but i dont think you're an expert either and i have a hard time believing none of the real experts have no real evidence for stuff that has been pretty much universally accepted apart from a few cranks here and there.

 

 

i would assume you mean skeptical (or perhaps, i've seen it spelled sceptical). in light of that, i would recommend you not make claims you cannot back up either with your own knowledge, or that of someone else.

 

taks

 

i could point out a number of typos you made in this thread, and english is your first language. how childish of you, the self proclaimed genius. also you haven't posted any real proof either.

[Meshugger]

Eh, so what's the verdict fellas?

 

1) Not enough data for conclusive evidence?

2) The evidence is there for one thing or the other, but being manipulated by industralists and politicians alike for gains in power and money?

3) We should let the good times roll, the evidences are right in front of us; we have zero impact on the climate change. Spew out more CO2-emissions. Drill, baby, drill!

4) We should change our ways, the evidence is right in front of us; we need to drasticly drop all emissions. Combustion engine-technology needs to replaced by something else. All plastics and other oil-based products need to be replaced by some new technology.

5) The **** has hit the fan, the only thing that can save us, is to start living like the Ewoks.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Gorth
Circumventing language filter

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'd say 1), although that doesn't preclude us doing things which make sense anyway, like building nuclear power plants or wind turbines for that matter. Also we should all move underwater.

[Zoraptor]

As for Kilimanjaro, apparently the cause is deforestation - a result of an increase in farming (clicky).

OK, so the change in climate caused by man's deforestation for farming is not evidence for a change in climate caused by man, hmm? I don't have a degree in philosophy but I think I can spot a logical fallacy there. And yes, I used 'climate change' not 'global warming'.

 

And, um, how do changes in wind pattern and "warming" (see Hiro's post) constitute evidence of anything but, you know, changes in wind pattern and warming?

Language barrier? Because warming and changes in wind pattern are climate changes in any and all definitions.

 

Peripheral ice may be melting at an accelerated rate, but that's irrelevant if the total mass remains constant. It's the same as with the whole "warming" trend and local/absolute extremum.

If the ice at the edges melts at an accelerated rate mass will eventually be lost in the centres too, primarily because of increased rate of drop (less friction from the 'tail') and increased drop from the terminal face. An accumulation of mass at the tops of glaciers leads to greater speed of the glaciers ('gravity') which usually leads to glacier growth (in some cases it may not, but that's hardly good news as in that case the temperatures at its terminal face must have increased enough to balance out the speed increase). If it did not we would have ended up with the earth being a ball of ice millions of years ago.

 

To put it another way, if Antarctica always accumulates ice for the past 40 million years then a 1mm annual accumulation would see the ice cap there being no less than 40 km (!) high.

 

You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming.

 

even the physics argument is sorely lacking (and absent from any legitimate discussions). it's usually arm-waved as "outgoing radiation is absorbed" but never goes any deeper into the process by which kinetic energy of the CO2 increases (which is required to raise the temperature).

The kinetic energy of the CO2 itself does not does not does not need to increase. All that is required is for the re emitted photon to hit the earth/ ocean or something else that will absorb it. Nobody bothers proving this for the same reason nobody bothers 'proving' gravity, anyone with understanding knows that that is how it works and proving it all the time is literal def trivial.

 

Frankly there's a lot more I can go into, though I won't as things like sea ice, as I already said, are largely irrelevant (or perhaps considerably less significant than other probable effects like drought) as they won't raise sea levels as the ice is already floating. As numbersman said, the thermal expansion is likely- and hopefully because if we get lots of rise due to ice melt we're in real trouble- more important.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Zoraptor