On 13/12/2011 21:56, Bill Graham wrote:
abelard wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:19:17 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:35:04 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Barbarian Mutual wrote:
On Dec 11, 9:19 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:15 am, abelard wrote:

Yawn, another denier, ewe deny AGW is just another ****ing great
leftist hoax dont ewe?

What proof do deniers have that Sea level doesn't rise ??
Something from tinyurl again ??

Of course it rises, and of course GW exists. The question us
dissenters have is how much of it is due to the activities of human
beings, and how much is the natural cycles that have occurred due
to solar activity and other factors that are not related to human
activity. We have gone through a number of ice ages and global
warming spells over the last billion years or so, long before human
beings were a gleam in God's eye, so to blame it all on our autos
during the last hundred years or so is ridiculous. But we might be
able to ease the pain with our modern technology, and there is
nothing wrong with giving this a try, is there?

nobody sane claims 'it is all to blame it all on our autos during
the last hundred years or so'
the standard claim is that ~33*c of it was there before the motor
car was even developed

the 'ice age' cycling began about 800,000 years ago with short
interglacials...
this interglacial is about due to give way to another covering of
ice.
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/ant...#past_ice_ages


the reverse appears to be occurring...
that looks a bit like a change of pattern...

Yes. Take Carbon Dioxide, for example. The standard claim is that we
human beings are creating global warming by burning carbon and
creating the CO2. but, in fact, the natural decay of vegitation on
the forest floor creates CO2 and has been happening for all of that
800 million years you are talking about. Also, forest fires create
many tons of CO2 whenever they happen, and they have been happening
for over a billion years. When we spot and nip a forest fire in the
bud, how many miles are we allowed to drive to make up for that? It
can be argued that human activity has had little or no effect on the
global warming at all.

the rising amount in the atmosphere is being monitored

Tha amount of gas the ocean water absorbs is smaller as the average
atmospheric temperature increases. Warm water hiolds less gas than cold
water does. So, the natural percentage of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere will go up as the oceans warm up. Also there is a lot less

That will eventually be a factor when the surface waters are completely
saturated with CO2 but for the moment the oceans are still dissolving
almost half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere and so becoming
measurably more acidic as a result. The southern oceans are beginning to
get close to saturation in places according to recent research.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ease.php?id=89

When the oceans do finally saturate all the CO2 we emit will stay in the
atmosphere and then warming will drive extra CO2 out of solution.

ocean plant life in tropical climates than there is in the colder
climates. Just try to go scuba diving in San Francisco Bay sometime
rather than in the Bahamas and you will see what ai mean. The plant life
on the sea floor in the Bahamas is miniscule compared to the Northern
Bays. Which brings up another point, How much carbon dioxide do these
ocean plants convert to oxygen? And, if they convert more as the
temperature gets colder, then this constitutes an accelerating effect on
global warming, rather than a negative feedback effect, does it not? Has
anyone considered, and/or accounted for this?

There are monitoring stations around the world that check atmospheric
CO2 concentration, isotope ratios and for the past few decades the same
for O2. Scripps leads the world in these measurements.

Regards,
Martin Brown