The Great Global Warming Swindle

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Clearly you don't understand science, then. It is very hard for a scientist to lie and get away with it. Your accusation is not only baseless, but is just plain absurd. Never ever has there been a case where you've gotten large numbers of scientists to lie. Always cases of fraud have been isolated situations with a small number of scientists mucking the numbers.
There are no many fields that require extensive computational power. Your presumption is that the others that are working honestly in the field can expose the forgery. However they may not have free supercomputer at hand to run the models several hundreds of times. If the models are publicly available, I mean their source code as a computer simulation. Anyway do you think their simulation software is bug free?

And besides, if you really think these people are lying, you can look at the original research, examine what they did, and see if they actually are lying. This openness is why it's so difficult to lie in science.
Yes, I will not eat breakfast and will save the money. Probably after 10000 years I will have enough money to buy a super computer...

I am aware of what we are talking about.
It doesn't seem to.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟14,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
So it all boils down to 100's of scientists of all faiths and none from many countries have all banded together to tell lies to Upisoft.

where's an Orly owl when you need one.

I just can't see why the converse, that 100's of scientists from all over the world have come to a mutual decsion that man is effecting the climate by pumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, upsets him so.

Is he Exxon's biggest share holder or something? I work in the oil industry and I am quite prepared to believe that the scientists are correct, when that many scientists reach a concensus the usually are as close to the truth as present evidence will allow.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There are no many fields that require extensive computational power. Your presumption is that the others that are working honestly in the field can expose the forgery. However they may not have free supercomputer at hand to run the models several hundreds of times. If the models are publicly available, I mean their source code as a computer simulation. Anyway do you think their simulation software is bug free?
You speak as if there is only one group doing climate model simulations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, I will not eat breakfast and will save the money. Probably after 10000 years I will have enough money to buy a super computer...
You don't have to buy a supercomputer to examine their methods.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So it all boils down to 100's of scientists of all faiths and none from many countries have all banded together to tell lies to Upisoft.

where's an Orly owl when you need one.

I just can't see why the converse, that 100's of scientists from all over the world have come to a mutual decsion that man is effecting the climate by pumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, upsets him so.

Is he Exxon's biggest share holder or something? I work in the oil industry and I am quite prepared to believe that the scientists are correct, when that many scientists reach a concensus the usually are as close to the truth as present evidence will allow.

That's not true and you know it. Apparently there are people that are not involved, but unfortunately they somehow become "former professors of climatology". So, it is obvious that if you don't agree, you're out of the field. Thus, this is not science, but politics.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You speak as if there is only one group doing climate model simulations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
IPCC.

You don't have to buy a supercomputer to examine their methods.
But I can't reproduce their results without one. So, if they forged the result, but the method is quite OK, how would I know?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
The absorption is impossible to be increased significantly, because it is already near 100%.

I ask again: where is your evidence for this. Furthermore, where are your calculations showing how large or small a temperature increase we will see if absorption is increased by 1%.

And how you suggest that adding more CO[sub]2[/sub] is increasing the emission? The emission is temperature based, thus you postulate that temperature had increased.

No. CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs light in the 16.7 micron region, removing that light from the earth's emission spectrum. The only realistic way for that light to be put back in to the spectrum is by re-emission of that absorbed light by CO[sub]2[/sub] at the same wavelength. Re-emission by other atmospheric components is unlikely to be a significant contributor.

That means that adding CO[sub]2[/sub] will increase both absorption and emission, although it will increase absorption by more, since re-emission emits in a random direction, and does not happen for 100% of absorptions.

Thus it is only ever possible to nearly make the earth opaque at 16.7 microns, and you've not shown A) that it is and B) that adding more CO[sub]2[/sub] will not result in a significant temperature increase because of that.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Here people tried to use bio-diesel. The problem was that any rubber pipes get damaged in mater of months. Only silicon pipes can handle it. Also the engine must be prepared to run with bio-diesel, because unprepared engine becomes craps in one year. So, making your old car (and here most of the cars are really old - 15+ years) will cost you more than the car. The people say that the price you have payed will never repay. Bio-diesel is cheaper here, but not by much.

Also, biofiuels emit CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere. The plus is that they use CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere when they're produced. But the problem is that we constantly increase the volume of fuel we use, and production speed depends on the CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration in the atmosphere. Also we use that same resource to grow more food faster. If you switch to biofuels only, then there is probability that the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere will begin to decrease, thus decreasing biofuel and food production. That can mean more deforestation for new biofuel plants and agricultural fields. That can mean erosion and more deserts. So, I don't think that biofuels are actually good for the planet. They are renewable, but that only means good for us.

Biofuel is carbon neutral. It takes out very slightly more carbon dioxide than is returned when you burn it - due to incomplete combustion. If that tiny imbalance turns out to be significant in the long run, the solution is simple - burn some other carbon-containing compound.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
MODEL: Emissions included
GlobalWarming2_1.gif


MODEL: Emissions excluded

GlobalWarming2_2.gif


Source: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarming2.php

Now the red line shows the measured data, and the orange lines show predicted temperatures by the models.

Now they say the bottom does not fit... So... Let's see....
The orange line at upper picture starts from 57.0, but on the bottom chart it starts from 56.4 (0.6 difference). It ends at 57.7 on upper chart and at 57.1 at bottom, again 0.6 difference. So, what is going on? They just deliberately moved the whole orange line up, just to compensate... Hmmm, do they call that "including human activities"? Then I have to agree. Adjusting a curve to fit another is "human activities".

Look, you don't believe them, that's OK. But if you're going to try and discredit them, for goodness sake do it intelligently. Have you even looked at those graphs?! Compare the two orange lines - their shapes are completely different. I'm trying desperately to consider your points objectively, but when you trot out nonsense like this... it's very hard, because you look, once again (like with those flow maps) that you're frantically looking for anything that contradicts the climate scientists and, in the rush, failing.

The particles that create auroras do not think so. They actually find it thick at much higher altitudes (more than 80km upwards) than sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Pressure_and_thickness
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟11,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
But I can't reproduce their results without one. So, if they forged the result, but the method is quite OK, how would I know?
Maybe you can't but unless that's the only supercomputer using that software, the methods can be reproduced elsewhere. The scientific method does not require reproducibilty by any joe shmo from the row, just reproducibility. I doubt you have the means to replicate the methods of particle accelerator experiments too.
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟11,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
BTW my 2 cents on global warming is that both its occurance as a current trend and its anthropogenic cause are the consensus views of the scientific community. The debate from the opposing side from my observation overwhelmingly uses denialist tactics such as touting lone or few skeptical scientists as expert to provide illusion of scientific debate and the use of "common sense debunkings" of complex science. I also think that the evidence that i have seen from paleoclimatology and melting ice caps is very scary, convicing, and warrants action in the near term.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
BTW my 2 cents on global warming is that both its occurance as a current trend and its anthropogenic cause are the consensus views of the scientific community. The debate from the opposing side from my observation overwhelmingly uses denialist tactics such as touting lone or few skeptical scientists as expert to provide illusion of scientific debate and the use of "common sense debunkings" of complex science. I also think that the evidence that i have seen from paleoclimatology and melting ice caps is very scary, convicing, and warrants action in the near term.
There is no consensus,nor should there be... the data is political, not scientific and the Lone and Skeptics scientists are former Climate Warming advocates who have seen the light and been "shunned" by the PC "give me grant money" chorus.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is no consensus,nor should there be... the data is political, not scientific and the Lone and Skeptics scientists are former Climate Warming advocates who have seen the light and been "shunned" by the PC "give me grant money" chorus.
How, pray tell, can data be political? Next you'll be telling us that earthquakes adhere to the Democratic party line!
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟11,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no consensus,nor should there be... the data is political, not scientific and the Lone and Skeptics scientists are former Climate Warming advocates who have seen the light and been "shunned" by the PC "give me grant money" chorus.
No consensus? hmmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Controversy_concerning_the_science
The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion.[20][21]
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I ask again: where is your evidence for this. Furthermore, where are your calculations showing how large or small a temperature increase we will see if absorption is increased by 1%.
Such increase in absorption is unrealistic.

No. CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs light in the 16.7 micron region, removing that light from the earth's emission spectrum.
It clearly does not remove it. Even Venus with 97% CO[sub]2[/sub] and 100 times more dense atmosphere is emitting with 50% relative intensity at that wavelength. If you were right Venus would not emit a single photon at that wavelength. (See post #363 for diagram and link)
Anyway here is a quote about an experiment they made to see how much CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs.
A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.
The quote is taken from here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The only realistic way for that light to be put back in to the spectrum is by re-emission of that absorbed light by CO[sub]2[/sub] at the same wavelength. Re-emission by other atmospheric components is unlikely to be a significant contributor.
Why do you think that is the case? CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs the energy, which is turned into heat, that can be transferred to any other atmospheric component. Then any other atmospheric component is able to emit its thermal energy as infrared.

That means that adding CO[sub]2[/sub] will increase both absorption and emission, although it will increase absorption by more, since re-emission emits in a random direction, and does not happen for 100% of absorptions.
I don't understand why you insist that other atmospheric components are unable to emit at that wavelength. This is thermal radiation.

Thus it is only ever possible to nearly make the earth opaque at 16.7 microns, and you've not shown A) that it is and B) that adding more CO[sub]2[/sub] will not result in a significant temperature increase because of that.
You have the links and quotes. Others did it, when the Global warming was not political issue.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Such increase in absorption is unrealistic.

You assert.

It clearly does not remove it. Even Venus with 97% CO[sub]2[/sub] and 100 times more dense atmosphere is emitting with 50% relative intensity at that wavelength.

If I remove a ball from a bucket of balls, does that necessarily mean there are no balls left? CO[sub]2[/sub] removes some balls, and then puts some back in.

If you were right Venus would not emit a single photon at that wavelength. (See post #363 for diagram and link)
Anyway here is a quote about an experiment they made to see how much CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs.

So, when you have shown us that such a tiny change produces an insignificant change in the earth's temperature, you might have something going for you.

Why do you think that is the case? CO[sub]2[/sub] absorbs the energy, which is turned into heat, that can be transferred to any other atmospheric component. Then any other atmospheric component is able to emit its thermal energy as infrared.

This will happen, but due to the way a black body radiator radiates, it is unlikely to put large amounts of radiation back at the required wavelength, and in the required direction.

You have the links and quotes. Others did it, when the Global warming was not political issue.

You probably have point A, but you have nothing on point B.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Look, you don't believe them, that's OK. But if you're going to try and discredit them, for goodness sake do it intelligently. Have you even looked at those graphs?! Compare the two orange lines - their shapes are completely different. I'm trying desperately to consider your points objectively, but when you trot out nonsense like this... it's very hard, because you look, once again (like with those flow maps) that you're frantically looking for anything that contradicts the climate scientists and, in the rush, failing.
I agree that their shapes are completely different. I also see that the first orange line starts higher than actual while the second one starts lower. How do you explain that? The CO[sub]2[/sub] that is released now changes the past? I wander what graph would be produced by the model if the initial state was set like one known from the red line. I mean, why they set arbitrary high initial state when they want to show how their model copes with current trends and arbitrary low initial state when they want to show how their model will not work without their CO[sub]2[/sub] "fix".
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you can't but unless that's the only supercomputer using that software, the methods can be reproduced elsewhere. The scientific method does not require reproducibilty by any joe shmo from the row, just reproducibility. I doubt you have the means to replicate the methods of particle accelerator experiments too.
Yes, I don't have one, but particle accelerators are still outside the politically induced hysteria.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
BTW my 2 cents on global warming is that both its occurance as a current trend and its anthropogenic cause are the consensus views of the scientific community. The debate from the opposing side from my observation overwhelmingly uses denialist tactics such as touting lone or few skeptical scientists as expert to provide illusion of scientific debate and the use of "common sense debunkings" of complex science. I also think that the evidence that i have seen from paleoclimatology and melting ice caps is very scary, convicing, and warrants action in the near term.
So, do you have paleoclimatology "evidence" that human induced global warming happened in the past? No. You only have evidence that global warming happened, but it wasn't induced by us. I've never saw a model to explain either the medieval warm period or the little ice age, but regardless of that inability they happened.

Maybe the medieval warm period was caused by global burning of evil witches...^_^^_^^_^
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How, pray tell, can data be political? Next you'll be telling us that earthquakes adhere to the Democratic party line!

I see ... a little defensive about the Dems, are we? I didn't mention the Democrat Party, did I? Seems to me, they are both in on this scam. Money is money... no one cares where it comes from.


Do you know what consensus means? 30 out of how many? 270?

Do you really believe that every person in "all the national academies of science" agree? Don't be naive. Where do these academies get their funding? Follow the money.

I guarantee that there are more than the petroleum geologists that disagree with the findings of the politically motivated IPCC.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How, pray tell, can data be political? Next you'll be telling us that earthquakes adhere to the Democratic party line!
Like this:
Politic 1: "Hey, we need more money from taxes."
Politic 2: "We can't increase then, there will be revolution if we do that."
Politic 1: "So, do you have any idea."
Politic 2: "Let's see. These guys climatologists say that the climate is warming up. All people know that CO[sub]2[/sub] causes greenhouse effect, so why we don't blame it and tax people that produce it."
Politic 1: "Great idea. But they will not believe us."
Politic 2: "We will create IPCC then... Those climatologists must start earning their money."
 
Upvote 0