Proof of global warming?

Here ya go:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

More to the point...anthroprogenic induced "Global Warming" is only a theory...or a crock, depending on your point of view.

Here are a few excellent articles with a whole lot of really interesting FACTS about historically verifiable "global warming" that has nothing to do with humans, or their activities.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/whos_afraid_of_global_warming.html

or this one...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html

...and this one is possibly my favorite...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

...enjoy!

If anyone would like to discuss the facts contained in these articles, that would a great conversation.

I believe that poor horse was beaten to death in this forum a few weeks ago. Since you missed it, I'll summarize:

You either believe that the science justifies the conclusions (a 90% certainty that global warming is the result of human activity) or you don't. Sources are cited and ridiculed, evidence (both real and imaginary) is tossed about and no one changes their mind, although several members get pissed, and a few have their patriotism and/or manhoods challenged.

You can find the debate under "General".

I am looking for ocean level measurements. The only real proof.

Ron

Suppose the oceans do not rise because the ice were to thicken on Antarctica. The global temperature could be rising on average still. The strong evidence for me is the melting equatorial glaciers.

Then the warming wouldn't be global.

Ron

Even Antarctica could warm and still have net gains in snow pack.

Then you should be satisfied with my previous reply.

Just read your second link, and while it is quite interesting, there are some glaring errors in the assumptions that lead to the 1-in-3 conclusion.

1) If assumptions are 99% correct in saying the earth is going to warm, it is no longer "whether", but "by how much".

2) The 1-in-3 is that the end values will be as predicted, not that there is a 2-in-3 chance of staying the same.

3) There are three forms of untruth - lies, damned lies, and statistics!

This is such a complex area, by the time we have clear and positive proof, it will be way to late.

If the whole world is heating up, then the circumference will be growing - maybe only by a few milimeters, so not possible to tell accurately - and the seas on the surface will be spread thinner, thus the actual levels in relation to the land mass will not rise as predicted (the predictions I have seen all assume the waters change, but the land stays the same!)

Thanks to all for the links! I will be watching Malibu. You will know, when the actors start to move out.

Ron Wagner

Did you read Bhankii's first link? I took a half hour to glance over it, and I'll summarize: The University of Colorado has measured an increase in the average sea level at a rate of 3mm per year (+/-0.5mm). The measurements have been ongoing since August 1992. Measurements were both land based and satellite, and they have calibrated the measurements to each other (in real time) to account for both satellite drift and land movement.

here is Bhankiii's original link, its all there:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The real question is: does this scientific evidence change anyone's mind? Or has the issue become so political that no one will change their view no matter what?

If this is true, then in 333 years sea levels would rise one meter. That doesn't impress much. It is also just a small bit of time to extrapolate from. Ups and downs are normal.

Thanks for the link. I will be studying all of them.

Ron Wagner

Keep in mind that the effect suffers from positive feedback and accelerates.

As you know, everything has a critical point, now the temperature is warming gradually and sea level are growing slowy, however, when someday the balance is etched, it will go worse sharply, our fate is just like the dinosaur otherwise outer space is exploited.

Wow, you have a whole 16 years of data with which to "prove' a cycle which happens over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years. Pick up a copy of any magazine from the mid-seventy's. We were on our way to a Global Ice Age (it, of course, was too late to do anything about it then, either, except politicians squandered huge amounts of our money to combat it).

I'm assuming you've bought into Al Gore's bit of pop science. On interesting bit of information he used was the graph of CO2 levels and average temperatures. On the scale he was showing (millions of years), it looked as if average temperatures rose with CO2 levels. But if you look at the actual data, CO2 levels did indeed rise and fall with global temperature averages...but following them by 200-1000 years. He probably also think pain causes injury...

Another interesting fact...Al Gore makes an exhorbitant amount of money selling "green", yet his carbon footprint is the size of most small countries.

I'm betting the next few years (5, 10, 10000? Don't know) will be another cold spell. It seems the Sun is in a cool phase. Since it's the Earth's only power source, that is much more likely to have an effect.

Couple of interesting tidbits that might bring the CO2 scam into perspective

CO2 is somewhere between 9 and 26 percent of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere

Water Vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and, so far, scientists have not been able to find a link between what we do and it's manifestations and movements (with one notable exception - directly over freshly irrigated fields, but for short periods of time - notably, hours)

CO2 comprises about 0.038% of our atmosphere.

The mass of the earth is 5.9736 × 10²⁴ kg.

The mass of the atmosphere is 5.1361 × 10¹⁸ kg

According to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture, an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day. So that's 6.7 billion (est. as of Feb 2008) which equals 6.7 x 10⁸ kg (per day) or 2.446 x 10¹²

US anthropogenic CO2 emmissions - 2006 5.983 x 10⁹ kg (for the Year)

There are no statistics I can find on the global mass of photosynthesis based plants or how much CO2 they consume (sink) each day

Just a a few facts you never hear from because they don't line the pockets of the "Green" Thieves

I am still watching Malibu. Paradise Cove to be exact. Haven't noticed any change. Have had a very cold winter here in Central Illinois also. 13 degrees right now on March 8. We are about 80 miles north of the latitude of St. Louis, that is about the center line of U.S. population.

Just watch the oceans you are familiar with. Don't count the storm surges, just the waterline. If you have a GPS mark some spots, and make sure to check it yearly at the high tide.

I am just looking for scientific observations, no speculative theories.

Direct and measurable data is always good. But you're looking for level changes on a human scale where weather patterns are on a geologic scale. How many millenia can you measure data for? Your temperature today, means nothing. I remember the mid 70's where every newspaper and magazine was predicting an Ice Age. The first step to truth is admitting you know nothing. Work from that premise and we may make a scientist out of you yet. If not, and you still want to spout off about it, you're a politician, and should be shot at birth.

Your choice.

You are twisting what I said. The weather comment was just an aside. The water level is concrete proof, which is lacking. Observation and collection of real data around the world is what I am advocating. You are way off base.

Water levels on shores around the world are the most objective possible proof of global warming or cooling, in my opinion. There are a mllion opinions. I am advocating easily observable facts.

...This report has everything you asked for, and more...download the pdf file and absorb it. It is completely referenced, with all contributors named and documented published efforts. Finally, this should be enough to convince all that human activity has no effect on the earths climate. Leave the emotion out of the discussion, observable data and scientific analysis are what counts.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (pdf)

Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Written By: Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Published In: Summary for Policymakers
Publication Date: March 2, 2008
Publisher: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change / The Heartland Insstitute

Water level is proof? Proof of what? That the earth changes? That's never been in question. 4 billion years of change is the norm. Ask the dinosaurs. I have no quarrel with you collecting the data. We don't have nearly enough data to make the remotest of hypothesis. But to tell me you're one little measurement, even if you had been collecting the data from the date of your birth, religiously, until the time you die (hopefully at a ripe old age and hale throughout your life). All the data you would have collected would be meaningless in cycles that last millions of years.

And you make the assumption that because the water level changes, Global warming is the culprit and that we are responsible. I'd really like to see your proof on any of that, because if you could come up with that, you would have done something that the rest of the world has not been able to accomplish.

So, in closing...Data Good, unfounded conclussions and calls for action, money and loss of rights and freedom because of them...BAD!

You might want to take a look at the Hypocratic oath. It works for more than just Doctors... Do No HARM.

I never said ANYTHING about WHAT may have, or not caused global warming. Just a very simple way to test if it exists to a worrisome degree or not. You need to think before misrepresenting what others write.