Followup question...Is some global warming due to increased radio and TV broadcasts in the past century?

Hi again Paul your onto it radio waves use O2 and H20 to propagate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation so oxygen is the key and guess what CO2 has 2 oxygen molecules and is very violent to microwaves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 this was created with only a 1000 watts @ 2.4gig The ERP (effective radiated power) for most American TV stations is a 100,000 watts I think that's why CO2 is being blamed for AGW because it's so reactive regarding the greenhouse affect CO2 is a linear molecule and flips end on end rotates and bangs and crashes it's way around and retains it's heat longer The carbon in the middle of the 2 oxygen atoms http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_D... heats up like the coke in a fire and retains it's heat longer. Anyway just my thoughts and here's another link I thought you mite be interested in http://web.mit.edu/6.014/www/handouts/lecture14_no...

About those nuke test look at the damage to the Van Allan belts and the damage they did and how they help fix them also interesting, hint copper needles

Even project high-water and the ionospheric tests were interesting google's or friend anyway enough from me like I said your onto it and I'm no expert on subject but smart enough like you to see how our com's and remote sensing are heating the atmosphere both public private and of cause the military all contribute to the release of free electrons (electrical energy) as waste or pollution. Cheers

"Followup question...Is some global warming due to increased radio and TV broadcasts in the past century?"

Um-mm, this sounds like something Pat would ask, heat radiates to spaces very quickly, as can be seen each day when night falls. On a longer time scale the absence of Sunlight makes the Arctic very cold in just a few months of winter, even though the atmosphere share some heating to keep it warmer. without an atmosphere the arctic would be more like the Moon where day-times temps are very high and night side temps very low.

Previous denier attempts at this sort of nonsense have included "did nuclear testing add to climate change" same answer the heat was radiated to space long ago.

The Sun on the other hand is there every day, providing energy to 50% of the planet at any given moment, with more Co2 a small amount of extra energy is retained, before also being radiated to space. It is the long term effect of this small increase in temperature that affects ice (it melts) and sea water (water holds heat longer than the atmosphere)

Microwave certain can warm, it's the principle behind the microwave oven, but you need high power and very close range for the effect, you will never heat your dinner if you hold it 5m from the oven.

High frequency radio is similar at close range it can generate a small warming effect, soldiers in WWII used to complain that those large and old fashioned walkie talkies warmed their heads.

Radio and microwave emissions probably do have a microscopic effect, just as a campfire in the middle of Gobi desert would, but how that changes the pronounced and well document effect of Co2 which has increased ~40% across the entire planets atmosphere, is something only deniers can answer as they try to find any old lame excuse to explain away the now, mountain of evidence which has proved this is happening.

Excuses that have lurched from termites to cosmic rays to the Sun to volcanoes to "it's not happening" to "it's is happening but it's natural" to the large array of conspiracy theories. Excuses that continue to show a distinct lack of understanding of even basic physics.

Which is why there probably are denier blogs talking about radio and microwaves affecting climate, but there won't be science links, because they know better. For the same reason you will find blogs on the Yeti or 2012, the only science links you find on 2012 are saying, "it's not going to happen"

"Is some global warming due to increased radio and TV broadcasts in the past century?" Maybe due to advertisers urging us to buy more goods then we need. Other then that I don't think it would have had a measurable effect.

Quote from Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) : "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA."

You are a very science cluey fellow. This question may go better in one of the science categories.

Just look at the facts. Undeniably radio wave usage has increased, due to cellular activities, while the earth's temperature has gone down for the last 16 years. Need we say more? Or don't the facts matter to you either.

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

More plantations / increase of greenery n by avoiding the plastics...'' we can solve the problem.''

All the best.