7th September 2006 - 07:45 PM
I think the fact that there hasn't been a significant rise in sea levels should be a big clue that there is no significant global warming either.
It's true that sea levels would rise some if ice was melting but there's been almost no rise in sea levels observed (I don't remember the exact estimate but it's something like a small fraction of an inch over decades and no cities are going to be flooded, despite what Al Gore says ... unless of course we blow money on stuff like this instead of maintaining a levy).
I also remember some claims that fresh water from glaciers could stop the gulfstream currents. This is simply impossible as these currents work via heat convection. No matter what the temperature or average density of the water is, waters warmed in the equator will rise toward the poles as colder waters sink and return toward the equator. It's the same principle as air rising above a heater and sinking to the floor elsewhere. If you had some smoke or otherwise change the density of the air in some area, it can't stop this heat exchange from occuring.
It's also claimed (or at least strongly implied) that CO2 is directly responsible for any rise in temperature over the last 100 years or so and that's simply not the case. This doesn't explain why the upper atmosphere is getting colder either or why Ice Ages occured.
If you instead look at water vapor and solar radiation, the picture becomes much clearer. When the atmosphere is colder, water vapor condenses out of the air. Water vapor in the atmosphere can vary hundreds of times more than CO2 and it is a much more significant contributor to any greenhouse effect we experience, yet you virtually never hear about this. Why the stealth mode propoganda if it's not for the exact same reason the U.S. is in the middle east to monopolize the energy industry?
Ice Ages were not caused by a lack of CO2. CO2 only exists as ~1/3000th of the atmosphere, whereas water vapor averages about 100 times as much and has a higher variability as well and can go from close to 0% in some areas, yet close to 5% of the atmosphere in other areas. Even if the average variability runs from 2-3%, compared to the worst case manmade assumptions for CO2 production, that's ~100 times the variability of CO2 and water vapor levels appear to have increased over time as well:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozone.html"Stratospheric Water Vapor
Utilizing balloon-borne frost-point hygrometers, GMD has detected an approximately 1% per year increase in stratospheric water vapor at Boulder, Colorado, since 1980. Besides implications for climate change, increased water vapor can affect the rate of chemical ozone loss, for example, by increasing the incidence of polar stratospheric clouds. Satellite measurements of water vapor, although not of adequate length for accurate trend determination, suggest that the increase may extend to other latitudes.
So if CO2 has increased by ~25% over the last 100 years and water vapor has increased by this percent over 25 years, then the absolute rates of growth between the two are:
(~1/3000*25%/100 years) = .00000083 parts per year for CO2
(~1/30*25%/25 years) = .00033 parts per year for H2O
So relative rates are .00033/.000000083 = 400 times as rapid a growth in absolute growth of water vapor compared to CO2!!!!!!!!!!
And even then we still don't see cities flooding!
So CO2 increases by ~25% over 100 years or so, yet water vapor, a much more significant greenhouse increases by ~25% in 25 years and we're suppose to say CO2 is responsible for this small fraction of an inch increase in water levels over time?
I can't believe the levels of hype surrounding this global warming campaign. Who's footing the bill for the propoganda?