For the folks out there that think that global warming is a theory that was created by environmentalists, fear mongers, is something new, etc; how WRONG you are!

Global Warming was a theory intoduced by John Tyndall, a British, although I have seen some say Irish, so, for sake of arguement we'll say he was a UK scientist, that came up with the theory in 1859 - yes, 1859!

Mr. Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps heat the planet, by trapping some energy the earth gives off.

What helped confirm Co2 as one of the catalysts for Global Warming?

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. (Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903)

So, are these guys wrong, or did they have it right all along?

   

You can't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I don't think anyone does.

It's the CO2 -> Global Warming that isn't as obvious, because there are a myriad of factors which are also affect, or are affected by, CO2 concentrations and the greenhouse effect. It's very difficult to quantitatively determine the causes of global warming, and I doubt Mr 19th Century was in any position to accomplish this, given the amount of information gathered regarding global climatology, etc etc, since then.

   

Not just Co2 though, Blue, but water vapour as well.

I agree, there could be a myriad of other factors, but I do find it interesting that a man came up with the theory almost 150 years ago, and another helped prove it's possible by going the opposite direction - decrease Co2 gas, you get a cool down; decrease it enough, you have an ice age.

   

I thought an ice age would occur BECAUSE of the global warming. A rapid increase in temperature would then result in a major drop in global temp....isnt that sort of the idea? Or is that crack doing things to my mind again?

   

That's what some think, SireJoe.

I'm not too sure myself, but as Svante Arrhenius' experiment showed, removing Co2 cooled things down, and that makes sense. If an increase in Co2 causes warming, than a decrease in Co2 would cause cooling.

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to educate some people on this board that felt Global Warming was a relatively new theory.

If I have the time, I'll try to find some reliable links on cooling and the causes. If it's what I suspect, then Arrhenius is right and so is Tyndall.

   

The latest thing to come along is that the Sun is dimming. Apparently, this is a cyclical phenomenon of our nearby nuclear furnace and remarkably detached from the effects of capitalism and eeeeevil SUV drivers.

So the Global Warming crowd has already hooked up to this to say that if it weren't for pollution that the world would be getting cooler.

But then I remember the 1970's when those same assholes said, with the same authority that they promote Global Warming, that the world would be in a new ice age by 1980 unless pollution were stopped.

So no matter what happens, these fucktards can prance around saying that they were right.

   

No, sorry, that's just bullshit. Someone mistook the bullshit in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, for science. Other than the fact that Emmy Rossum was awfully cute, there were no facts in that movie.

During the Miocene period there was a seven million year long period in which global climates remained warmer than they are now. Why was it that for seven million years a catastrophic climactic event didn't occur?

   

So what you are saying is that if the temperature of the earth rose like 4 or 5 degrees, that would not then create an ice age? I understand that it may melt every polar cap on earth, but if there was no ice age, just hot weather....hell bring it on! lol I always wanted a beach front property....you wouldnt have a choice after that occured