I just caught glimpse of something as I was leaving. I didnt read the entire post, but V. Kemp wrote this:

"Most studies show that a slight rise of temperature will cause a net decrease in damage/losses, human life and property, as a result of changes in weather patterns around the world. Some weather will become more damaging, but most that see change will become less so. The earth has seen far more significant changes in less time than the projected changes that COULD result from continued human emissions of CO2,"

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Most areas, by FAR, are experiencing more extreme clients. Heat waves in europe, snow storms in USA, heat waves in Australia/NZ, more rain in NZ.

Things are changing faster than the models predict.

What will Michael Harrington do if he "proves" Climate Change is not driven by Human action? Use it as an excuse to start living in knee deep piles of his own filth? Redouble his waste production?

PS: it would be funny if you were a 'yes it is done by humans' but were arguing the 'no' side just for a laugh.

Why don't you prove global warming exists, Flint?

I guarantee you'll get further in here that way.

> > What has Al Gore got to gain?

> Fame.

Personally, I have a feeling he is not that shallow. If he wanted to hunt fame I'm sure he would have joined a barbershop quartet sometime in the 70s.

Also more like legacy then fame.

I thought it was amusing that a good number of the links that flint posted actually support global warming.

Rest assured folks that ppl who don't want to believe for global warming to be a fact are going the same way as all those ppl who assumed the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

That's from the second link posted.in this thread. Now 2 things to keep in mind here. The data from this article is many times more accurate than core samples cause it can e measured in greater detail. With that said it is clear that the CO2 emissions are rising far beyond what a normal margin of error could account for. Also you have to understand how the complete biosphere works as a whole. The oceans are the easiest measure of how global temperatures are changing. This is evident in the fact that the oceans serve as a giant heat sink for the planet. When more heat is present in the atmosphere more of it is absorbed into the ocean. This is how our biosphere works. Furthermore it is becoming evident that the oceans ability to store so much heat is beginning to reach it's limit. Most notability is the decline of permafrost in Russia and north America that will cause us many more problems than anything we'll ever see. The sheer amount of carbon dioxide stored in that permafrost is staggering, far more that what is the air currently. (The information I got from this paragraph is partially from the article that flint posted and partially from a news article that showed some startling photographs of regions that haven't had plant life for several thousand years).

Truthfully they shouldn't even call it global "warming". Cause the name itself is deceiving, cause there is a lot more than simple "warming" going on here. Now at the same time I don't think that this climate event will spell the end of mankind of life as we know it. IF anything life and we can adapt to the changing global conditions. Part of that adaptation is for us to take responsibility for what we have done and are doing to are planet. We cannot simply ignore that fact that we are having a negative impact on the environment because of our reckless habits.

Now I don't have all day to be writing here. I don't even know why I even came to these forums, i haven't been here in months. But I would encourage others to read the articles that flint posted, at least a few of them. They are a good read and he put forth a great deal of effort to get all of that information gathered. You will find though that in many of these articles upon further more in depth reading that the evidence in fact supports mankind's effect on global climate conditions.

Remember, we only have one body to live with, so we have to take care of it. The same applies to our planet. We only have one planet. We should do our best to take care of it.

Atmospheric readings would prove a point if it weren't for the fact that it only accounts for 10-20% of the total surface heat in our biosphere. the other 80-90% is in the ocean. So your source sample is a tad bit tiny to say the least. You say that humans cannot change our climate. Your own source material saids otherwise. Take note of CO2 emissions specifically over the past 200 years the increase is far above what normal readings should be, even taking into account a 10-20% margin of error for more accurate readings.

Now if you look up global ocean temperatures you will see a varying account of global temperature shifts. But you have to be fully aware of the conditions surrounding those readings to more fully understand the conditions we're in.

For a long time global ocean temperatures have risen at a startling amount. Recently it's cooled but some factors have played a part in this. Most importantly is the disappearance of ice sheets from the arctic regions and Antarctic regions of this planet. The amount of water added to our oceans is staggering, and would account for a portion of a downward shift in ocean temperatures (more water = more energy that can e stored). But not all of course. Other factors have come into play, most notably the continued rise of CO2 emissions worldwide combined with the disappearance of key permafrost regions in the northern hemisphere. These 2 factors also play a part in it. Increased CO2 emissions released form permafrost locations and our own emissions can actually reflect solar energy away from the planet. Does this mean a permanent trend? The answer if no of course.

The reflection of energy from the planetary surface is a symptom of environmental conditions, it is not the cause nor the gauging factors around those conditions. As long as energy is continued to being pumped into the atmosphere and into our oceans the temperature overall will continue to rise, regardless of what temporary declines we get from our planet's attempts to absorb as much energy as it can.

Regardless though this argument your trying to put up is a mute point. The "fight" to prove or disprove global climate change has already been settled a long time ago. The vast majority of ppl in this country and around the world already agree, that humans DO have an impact on global climate and DO have a responsibility to minimize our impact on the environment. The debate is long over, your just late to the party. Now we must do what we can to protect our planet as much as possible, and perhaps even reverse some of our previous mishaps. In the end the planet will be fine, and we'll adapt as always, as that's our nature. So i'm not worried about the "End of the world", I know i'll be fine, and so will most everyone else for that matter.

I really wish there was a way to accurately measure the amount of energy being stored in our biosphere. But that's impossible of course currently. If there was it would surly show an increase in global energy stored in the environment.

"Just as surely the Higgs boson exists. . . for sure."

Then I would highly encourage you to tell me where all the energy that is being poured into he environment is going? It doesn't just vanish you know, it has to go somewhere. The only reasonable answer to this question is that the storage capacity of this planet is increasing. But if that is the case, to what capacity can it reach to? Is there a limit? Logically there should be of course, nothing is limitless. And where is the energy being stored? I Suggest the oceans, as that's where most of it is being stored anyways. And evidence supports that claim.

Think of it this way, you put some ice cubes into a bowl and heat it up in the microwave. The ice melts yes? Of course. Now what happened to all the heat energy that was poured into the ice that caused it to melt? It got absorbed into the ice and it became water. The energy is still there, it just moved somewhere else. If that heat energy were to disappear the ice would go back to being ice...which we know doesn't happen. This is simply an example of energy moving from one medium to another. And I use it to stress the point that the energy going into the environment has to go somewhere, like the ocean for example.

If you believe that the energy is going somewhere else pray do tell!

Golly gee... Your so funny. The latent energy is described wrongly, imo, so that the current generation of kids have no clue what is what.

Some quick questions for you if you think your so smart.

1) How much $$ has been spent on Quantum Physics?

2) What has come, in actual working terms... not theories... from this investment? (Besides meta materials which I consider standard physics)

3) How many years has the study of Quantum Physics been there?

I can name one study which actually showed functioning quantum physics until I realized that the experiment could also represent the effects of light through a quartz crystal.

Thermodynamics =/= quantum mechanics, Einstein. (Geez, I can't believe I'm telling an /Einstein/ this).

At any rate, Lizon, I do not have an explanation for the energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternative interpretations out there. The way you phrased it was carefully so to imply that, while your theory had not been "proven", it is the most likely explanation that fits the data to the best of your knowledge. Just like the Higgs boson must exist, according to the models of certain theoretical physicists, even though this particle has yet to be observed (if, indeed, it ever will be). That was my point.

"I will say that quantum physics has kind of gone haywire, because they have produced theories (like parallel universes) that can not be empirically tested."

When it comes down to chemistry, nothing can be empiricly tested. There's always some sort of abstraction involved.....