|
Solinear -> RE: Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Documentary (1/31/2007 5:19:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Solinear
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i do know water levels have risen a bit in venice
I seem to recall data that rather than supporting rising water levels venice itself was sinking.
The UK has a similar phenonemon (sp?) the south east is sinking (relative increase in water levels) wheras the northwest is rising (relative decrease in water levels)
I just saw something about that today and Venice *is* sinking... however, the water coming into the lagoon has increased by a significant amount over the past couple of decades.
Venice has been sinking for thousands of years.
Does this prove that global warming due to sequested carbon being released into the atmosphere is a lie?
Sinergy
I was simply stating that while Venice is sinking, that doesn't change the fact that the water entering the 3 inlets coming into the lagoon where it resides has increased drastically in the near past. This is a statement of fact and doesn't lend itself to proving or disproving anything other than the fact that, while the city is sinking, the sea level (independent of the city's level) is increasing. I'm sure that it could be measured almost anywhere on the Mediterranean though. Venice just gives us an easy way to measure, since, while it's part of the Mediterranean, it's somewhat isolated.
Do I think that global warming is or is not an effect of CO2 ppm increase? I haven't the slightest. It seems like the only way that a particle in the air could increase the global temperature would be if it decreases the reflectivity of clouds. If it acts as an insulator (to hold in heat), then it's 2 ways... it holds heat in and out. I would tend to believe that it's related to sunspot activity (increased IR output of the sun) and if you track back through history, at least in the last 500ish years, the average temperature seems to be closely related to that. I guess what we really need to wait for is the sunspot activity (and the associated IR output) to decrease and see what the affect on global temperatures is.
I guess for me it's more of an equation. x amount of energy is coming into the planet from the sun. x is variable upon the activity of the sun... y amount of energy is leaving the planet... it has a different variance than x does. If x and y are not equal, then the energy (read: temperature) of the planet will change. If x is larger than y, then the temperature will increase; if y is larger than x, then the temperature will decrease. Of course, the amount of energy that is required to heat the planet by just 1 degree is huge, so these changes take many years to be measurable and be attributed to something other than normal variation.
I really just think that we have a habit of taking an effect and looking for a cause and naturally we consider ourselves the creators of the cause (being self centered). If the temperatures drop over the next 50 years by twice the amount that they increased in the last 50 years, we'll get to hear about how something that we're doing is causing a new Ice Age. Some things there is absolutely no debating... 100 billion gallons of water are pumped out of a lake and it's volume is decreased by ~80 billion gallons (environment wants to go back to it's parity position, so compensates a little), then we are pretty sure what the cause is. A lake that holds 200 billion gallons is going to be down by 40%... that is clearly measurable and we can track the cause. CO2? I really need to see the math on that series of equations to really believe it. Increased IR output from the sun, which is the source of 99% of the energy that this planet has? Yeah, I'll go with that one... increase the IR output by 5% and you get a corresponding increase in the energy on the planet, unless you can figure out how to also increase the energy leaving the planet.
I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over... sorry for the redundancies.
|
|
|
|
