I just watched "The Global Warming Swindle" on youtube.

Seriuosly, what's up with all these scientists arguing that global warming is not a well scientifically founded theory?

Most of the movie appears to be a rethorical exercise that attempts to  convince that CO2 is not the cause. Instead, it atributtes the warming of the earth to other factors such as periods of high solar activity. Then it conclusively promotes the general idea that there is nothing to worry about, and that government money should not go to GB research.

Another aspect in which I think the movie is weak is in that it does not mention anything about the chemistry and physics involved in the CO2 molecule, and whether it has a capacity to retain heat.

However, some of these people make some ferocious arguments and seem to be genuinely convinced of what they are talking about. They also appear to have intimidating  credentials in science.

What is going on with them?

What do you guys think? Am I just biased because I am a tree huger, or these just people don't care about the future of our planet?

I also saw about 5 minutes of that documentary and I thought it was complete garbage as well.

But I do have a number of unresolved questions about GW.

Think about when it is winter here in MN...

When it is nighttime and the sky is overcast, it is a warm night generally speaking.

when it is a clear sky at night, it is very cold.

there is no argument that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.  There is also no argument that it exists in higher concentrations than CO2.

I would bet that if it were winter, you could not make it a warm night by releasing tremendous amounts of CO2, so I would guess that water vapor is a stronger GHG (green house gas) than CO2.  Would one of you Chem guys find out about that for me please?  I honestly don't have the expertise to make a really informed conclusion of the relative strength of H2O vs. CO2 as a GHG molecule vs molecule.

The guy (name?) who heads up the climate observatory at Columbia University says that the only thing that could cause such rapid changes in temp is water vapor.  

I thought on this for a while..

When we are closest to the sun during our orbit, it is summer in the southern hemisphere.  Also 70% of the earth's landmass is in the northern hemisphere.  This means that when the sun is the strongest, the earth's greatest amount of water is receiving the greatest amount of direct sunlight.  Thus more H2O in the atmosphere.  This makes sense.  It would also explain why Antarctica is melting at a faster rate than the northern arctic.

There are a number of books by astrophysicists that say that global warming has more to do with the sun than anything else, but I have not read any of them.  Many of them got good reviews though.

Another thing of note is the pre-industrial baseline for the GHG's and the amount than nature has added since that time.  From the graphs I have seen, the only GHG that we have contributed to more than nature is CFC's, which are in such low concentrations that as a GHG they are negligible.  Obviously they destroy the ozone layer, but that's another topic.

So as far as methane is concerned, we release more than nature in a given time interval.  That is a fact, although nature has released more historically.  Methane is also more potent than CO2, but is in such extremely low concentrations, that the net effect of CO2 is much greater.  In fact it was only recently that they started talking about methane as a GHG.

As far as I can tell, this is based on the only place I could find the information too, but it seems that since the industrial revolution, nature has still supplied a greater amount of CO2 than we have.  I would like to see more about this though too.

So it seems that H2O and CO2 are the greatest contributors to GW.  It also SEEMS (can't make up my mind just yet) that we have less to do with it than is commonly thought.  THis makes sense too.

When you think about the greatest push for GW in the last 10 years, what comes to mind?  For me, it is An Inconvenient Truth.

This was made by a politician, not a scientist. Yes the earth IS warming, but in an atmosphere where whenever a scientist does research that leads to a contradictory conclusion is at risk of losing his job or being ostracized, we can never get a real truth, inconvenient or not.  I am clearly not afraid of making anyone angry (sorry if I do), so I am willing to play the Devil's advocate in the matter.  More scientists should be the same.  The implications are stunning when you think about them.

We all know what they say will happen if we do nothing, but what if it is a political movement, rather than a scientific one?  What happens if a global network of cap and trade goes into effect?  What happens when we ignore the other DIRECT types of pollution?  

If a global network of cap and trade goes into effect, it will adversely affect developing nations.  Sure, here in the developed world, we have the resources to change and do something different, but what about China and India and Africa?  They need coal because it is cheap and reliable if we impose taxes on them for emissions, to me it seems like a way of keeping the poor man down, rather than a solution to GW.  Of course the Kyoto Protocol exempts them, but thats just Kyoto.  Who knows what could happen in the future.  Anyway the Kyoto Protocol would have very little impact in the long run anyway.  This is not debated by people on either side of the fence.

Besides that, there are much more pressing types of pollution that kill creatures by the boatload RIGHT NOW.  Run off from rivers, chemical plants, plastics in the ocean, all kinds of nasty crap in the water, mercury, and on and on ad nauseum.  The verdict is IN on these things, lets figure these ones out first.

Before I get back to C++, here are some other things to think about.  The earth's albedo(a percentage of light reflected back from the surface of a planet) has decreased in the last hundred years.  All the roads and cities we have built have increased the amount of the sun's rays that are converted into heat rather than being reflected back into space.  It has decreased by a fairly large percentage.  When you are talking about an average of 250W/m^2 on the whole surface of the planet, you are talking about a lot of heat being absorbed by the surface EVERY DAY.  

Also, deforestation has done two things.  It also decreases albedo significantly, but also reduces the amount of CO2 that can be recaptured from the air.  

Finally, there is the "urban heat island" effect.  This is an effect that is caused partly by smog and partly by the lowered albedo caused by particulate matter in the air and the black tar in roads and roofs in our cities.  The smog then traps this heat close to the city creating an "island" of heat.  This has been proven to change regional weather patterns to a significant degree.  What net effect do these have on GW.  I would bet my brown eye that it is greater than CO2.

Okay, I am not saying anything conclusively about GW.  I am just saying that you should really look hard at it and do your own research.  They can pay people, scientists or not, to say anything they want said.  If it is on TV, its probably BS.  You may call me a conspiracy nut, but if I am that, then what does that make you?  Anyway look at who pushes GW.  Yes there are some equally propagandist people on the other side. I am a moderate.  I am on neither side.  I am on the side of inquiry.  So they can prove with bored out pieces of ice that there was less CO2 10,000 years ago.  Okay, I agree. It does not and can not say anything about how it got there.  I am on the side of nature and I say we fix what we know we can right now. Recycleability, landfills, energy, direct pollution, agriculture, wastefulness, chemical output, you name it.  There are things we know have problems, and solutions, and here we are throwing huge amounts or resources at something we cannot be sure of.  Notice there is no documentary called the Great Pollution Swindle.

I would like to clarify that I am in fact going into electrical engineering to make sustainable changes to the way that we do things in general.  One of my greatest areas of interest is electrically driven transportation.  However, the reason for doing so is not so much global temperatures as it is simplicity.  An electrical vehicle takes less energy to make and ultimately drive.  It also is more recyclable and the parts last much longer than their ICE counterparts.  

I would like nothing better than to see a world where nature and mankind can develop at their own rate without one encroaching on the other.  But this realization does require a huge shift in the way people think, especially in what one thinks they are entitled to.  In the end we need to live closer together, grow food indoors and harvest the sun in much the same way nature does.  The Taiga supplies 1/3 of all of the worlds oxygen and it is only operating for 2 and 1/2 months of the year.  Not to mention its latitude and the fact that it gets the most indirect sunlight of any forest on earth. Think about it...  If the Taiga can do what it does on a global scale with only the 8% efficiency of chlorophyll, what could we do with our 40% efficient solar cells?  What about future advancements in the tech?  Sure placing solar cells over a large area in the desert would infringe on much of the habitat there, but if we are to expand, and we will, it should be in an area with the least biodiversity.