Should we all just throw Physics out the window and start believing in Global Warming?

Question

Right now, at this stage in our planets exsistence, with the height of all land mass on earth, if all the ice on the planet were to meltin the next couple of years, we would only get an aproxomate rise in the ocean of about 3 inches.

Everything in Algore's movie has been shown to be fabricated lie's.

I also watched a movie called "Day after Tomarrow". Great movie, but physics was not consulted if they wanted to make it realistic.

Answer 1

You do not truly get Physics.  Physics is a life science.  To understand life sciences you must understand that things will change as life evolves.  

I am not familiar with Algore's movie, is it a documentary?  I do know that the "Day after Tomorrow" is fiction.  In fact, I am watching it right now, again for the third time.  Man, this is science fiction.  That means it takes a little science facts, twists it all up, then asks itself "what if".  It bases a story based on the what if.  It can mimic some parts of reality, but it is not reality. Please do not confuse a fictional story with real life.

Answer 2

I'm not sure where you're getting your information that says 3 inches, but I have a meteorology book that says:

"If all the ice locked up in glaciers and ice sheets were to melt, estimates are that this coastal area of south Florida would be under 65m (213 ft) of water. Even a relatively small one-meter rise in sea level would threaten half of the world's population with rising seas."

Answer 3

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming.  I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  

And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.ph...

Some more general resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.ph...

http://www.john-daly.com/

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2.  When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink.  As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them.  The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere.  Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas.  All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.  Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere.  So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is.  So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature.  However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses.  Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct.  Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise.  The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:H...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-...

These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years.  For proof of this look here:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/...

A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible.  Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels.  Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels.  The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us.  If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe.  When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/20...

This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways.  One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/docum...

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality.  This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming.  Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters?  The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.  

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real.  People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t.  Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index....  That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2.  The natural sources have been completely ignored.  Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr....  The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor.  This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth.  Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements.  They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report.  This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004Glo...

And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipcc...

And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc....

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers.  Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming.  The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.  

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct.  While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options.  Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty.  For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT.  This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells.  Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided.  These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate.  If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea.  Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool...

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.ht...

In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age.  We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world.  Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today.  Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away.  That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.

Answer 4

AS you see the earth is a sphere having a bulge in the equator and flatened at poles, the antarctic comtinent is more than 2 million sq KM  OF ICE, if this melt this will ofcourse trigger a rise in sea level, you are right, the sea level will increase by 3 inches, but thats in the equator, NOT in the southern hemisohere, besides you must study teh water cycle too?! all taht water will in the form of clouds will go around the world and rain, therefore increasing the sea level EVRYwhere ... think over it!

IceSync

Answer 5

Your 3 inches statement shows your ignorance of the scientific data.

http://www.physorg.com/news97301758.html

Google ice melt ocean rise for many many more references.

Here's the truth about global warming data (which the skeptics ignore);

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of data that convinced Admiral Truly, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

By the way scientists criticise some details of Gore's movie, but they say he has the basics right.  Global warming is real (mostly caused by us, and a serious threat.

Answer 6

No, you could jst keep all your physics inside your window and believe burning 10 billion tons of carbon and dumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 1) CO2 levels aren't rising because of that 2) rising levels of a greenhouse gas like CO2 doesn't cause global warming 3) sea water will raise only 3 inches (whatever, pick another magic number that'll make your pals and bush's pals happy) 4) it won't make a difference...

... i give up. just go, start whatever big fuel inefficient truck you drive, and leave it idling for a few hours - then empty the hot water down the drain from your 100 gallon water heater and keep heating it up with a few kWhs of "no big issue" electricity from "not global warming" coal burning power plants. while you're at it...

but in either case - no, no, no.... there is no such thing as global warming. co2 isn't a greenhouse gas. burning fossil fuels don't release co2. in fact, the whole carbon thing is just a myth. it is algore's (and other GW scientists) conspiracy to make people believe there is a problem so that they can get re-elected. whatever...

:-). :-(.

Answer 7

Hey now, lets be fair, Al Gore needs the money from this lie to run his 20 bedroom mansion and SUV's.

Theres a sucker born every minute, and they send him money.

Answer 8

Global warming fighters are always speaking about several meters of ocean level rise in the case of e.g. Greenland ice completely melts, but they forget to add, that in the worst case 1000 years needed for this process. 3 inches is obviously one of numerous prognosis for some time period, may be for 100 years. As far as I know ( http://elementy.ru/lib/430449 it is in Russian), we could experience at maximum 88 cm ocean level rise in next 100 years. It seems, that it much easier to fight 88 cm ocean level rise than to fight global warming.

In fact, we in Russia hope for global warming, but sadly it not comes. It was snowing again today. Also don't forget about poor plants of our planet, which are close to their survival limit with the present CO2 concentration (well, may be they are already not so close). During hundreds of millions of years, carbon was being withdrawn little by little from the constant flow of life, forming deposits of oil, coal and gas. And carbon is the most important element for life on our planet. Finally mankind appeared and began to return carbon into the life cycle. Is it bad? I'd like our planet to be full of vegetation, what about you, global warming fighters?

It doesn't mean we should be wasteful, of course not. Hydrocarbon resources are very limited, what our life would be without them?

We have to keep thinking, do not trust easily. Real scientists always doubt, at least a little bit. Those who scream about global warming are not scientists, they are believers.

Just think about one small problem related to global warming: how to precisely measure mean Earth temperature, and what would be error of that measurement.