The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Chalnoth]

You mean the proxy they measure do not correlate. Still that proxy do not have all the required information, for example how big is the intensity of low energy cosmic rays.

Granted. But what evidence do you have that the low-energy cosmic rays have increased in magnitude enough to explain the recent warming?

Why do you think that absorption lines in infrared part of the spectrum must have something to do with emission spectrum (not lines!) at all? The emission spectrum is much or less similar to the black body spectrum at the same temperature.

Because the emitted infrared light from the Earth is mostly from the ground, while the CO2 in the atmosphere preferentially absorbs certain frequencies of light coming from the ground, causing the dip in the spectrum in the measured emission spectrum of the Earth.

 

[KCDAD]

global warming does exist bc the gulf stream has become warmer and the north atlantic stream has become warmer. Thats why there are so many deaths in europe fromt he heat wave; the cooling effect of the north atlantic stream is what keeps europe cool. This has not been the case this summer, however, as temperatures continue to climb in record proportions.

republican government wnats you to think global warming doesn't exist. But I suppose Al Gore doesn't exist either. lol but hey, the right-wing has never wanted the truth. only votes!

Have you looked at the data from Europe's "heatwave"? It was having highs of 103 in 2003 and now having highs of 102... It is really tough to find a comparison of temperatures that correspond to dates in any of the stories about this heatwave... all they keep repeating is "crisis".

I lived in Las Vegas for several years and endured 125 degree days and in the Midwest 110 degrees with 95% humidity...

Where is the crisis?

 

[Upisoft]

No, I am saying if there is no evidence for the GCR effect, there is no evidence for the GCR effect. It doesn't mean it isn't happening, just like the lack of evidence for the flying spaghetti monster doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

These cases are somehow different. There is no evidence for the GCR effect, because there is no measurements of the absorbed low energy part. But that part exists and is known to be absorbed by the atmosphere or trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. Thus knowing that something exists, but dismissing its effect, because there are no measurements, is not the same as the FSM existence. This is more like to leave your car on the train rails and go home, confident that nothing will happen to it, because you will not be there to watch it. Then, the next day, go to the wreckage and blame the terrorists, because they're know no blow up cars.

As for the emission spectra of the earth, you clearly don't understand the greenhouse effect. Let me recap, incoming radiation (mostly in the visible) from the sun passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth. The earth warms up and then re-emits in the IR like all black body radiators do. This outgoing IR radiation is absorbed by CO2 and water vapor on the way back up. So when we look at the emission spectra of the earth (ie the outgoing radiation) there are big holes in it from where the CO2 absorbed the outgoing radiation, primarily around 1.5 microns.

Thus you assume that the only thing that emits infrared waves is the lithosphere. Which is wrong, because the atmosphere also emits infrared waves. The emitted waves in the CO[sub]2[/sub] absorption spectrum are not necessarily emitted by the lithosphere.

This is the greenhouse effect. If the CO2 lines were saturated, none of the radiation from the earth on those lines would escape, and the 'bite' out of the spectra would go all the way down.

The greenhouse effect is absorption, not reflection. The absorbed energy will be re-radiated in all directions including upwards. If what you said was right, then Venus (which has 97% CO[sub]2[/sub]) must not emit in the 'bite' range. But it do emit, thus you're wrong.

http://www.dlr.de/os/forschung/projekte/venuspfs/index/pfs.html

Please don't get all snooty when I demonstrate to you what is going on. The emission spectra of the earth is in effect the emission spectra of the ground - the absorption spectra of the atmosphere.

+ emission spectra of the atmosphere.

 

[Upisoft]

That would be the Null Hypothesis. Similarly, the Null Hypothesis is that pirates do not cause global cooling.

Do you have any data that pirates do interact with atmosphere globally? For example, do you have data that pirates are absorbed by the atmosphere?

But the earth's atmosphere is clearly not opaque at CO2's infrared absorption point. Unless you are suggesting that the atmosphere is emitting light at precisely the right point to make it look otherwise, in which case you will need data and a mechanism. And a source, of course.

The atmosphere emits light as any object that is hot. In that case it is infrared light.

 

[Upisoft]

It'd be interesting to investigate how these things will change the climate. However, there is no question that they're much better than burning fossil fuels, whose effects upon the climate will last long after we stop burning them, since in the case of these things if they cause problems, we can manage those problems by adjusting the construction of the power stations.

You will get Nobel prise if you find substance that has 100% efficiency in turning the absorbed light into electricity and reflects the all rest.

 

[Upisoft]

Granted. But what evidence do you have that the low-energy cosmic rays have increased in magnitude enough to explain the recent warming?

But Chalnot, I don't argue that this happened. I argue that this is one of all things that they didn't take into consideration in their models, thus they can't say that they know exactly why and by how much the CO[sub]2[/sub] was responsible.

Because the emitted infrared light from the Earth is mostly from the ground, while the CO2 in the atmosphere preferentially absorbs certain frequencies of light coming from the ground, causing the dip in the spectrum in the measured emission spectrum of the Earth.

You also believe that the atmosphere do not emit in the infrared. Well, that's not so.

 

[FishFace]

I lived in Las Vegas for several years and endured 125 degree days and in the Midwest 110 degrees with 95% humidity...

Where is the crisis?

Just because weather is normal in one place does not mean it is normal everywhere - it would be a crisis if it were 52°C in Antarctica, would it not? Such heat is we had in Europe is just not normal, which is why people died. It's unusual to have air conditioning - in the UK at least, and people's bodies are not acclimatised. (Apparently it takes 10 days to become accustomed to a change in temperature)

 

[FishFace]

Do you have any data that pirates do interact with atmosphere globally? For example, do you have data that pirates are absorbed by the atmosphere?

I believe it's something to do with their digestive system. Anyway, regardless of mechanisms, you don't have the data to show that GCR are responsible for recent warming.

The atmosphere emits light as any object that is hot. In that case it is infrared light.

This means it's impossible to saturate the atmosphere with CO2 absorption, since adding more CO2 will always be increasing the absorption and emission. Do you have evidence to suggest that adding more CO2 doesn't make a significant difference? If not, then you're just making unevidenced assertions.

 

[TheBear]

It has only been very recently that we've developed processes to the point where biofuels have become viable as an energy source.

Right. It's brand new technology. How many cars currently run on this new technology? What percentage of cars manufactured today, are geared towards this technology? Do you drive a biofueled or solar powered vehicle? If not, why not?

Manufactures are overwhelmingly producing fossil fueled vehicles. That's why they're much cheaper than alternative fueled vehicles. It will probably take another three decades or more, for the bulk of vehicles on the road to be alternative fueled vehicles. (I probably won't see it's full fruition in my lifetime. But it will be a good thing when it happens.) Are undeveloped countries supposed to sit on their hands for another several decades?

 

[TheBear]

Take a look at this chart, going back 10,000+ years.

 

[Chalnoth]

But Chalnot, I don't argue that this happened. I argue that this is one of all things that they didn't take into consideration in their models, thus they can't say that they know exactly why and by how much the CO[sub]2[/sub] was responsible.

Uhhh, they don't. But not only is it extremely unlikely that the low energy cosmic rays happened to coincide with the recent warming, but current climate models that include human factors are an excellent fit to the data. So not only is there no direct evidence for this effect, the observed warming is best explained by a combination of known natural and human factors. If there were some major natural factor that we were missing, we'd be unlikely to be able to reproduce the recent warming using climate models.

You also believe that the atmosphere do not emit in the infrared. Well, that's not so.

No. I believe the atmosphere is thin and diffuse. That is so.

 

[Chalnoth]

Right. It's brand new technology. How many cars currently run on this new technology? What percentage of cars manufactured today, are geared towards this technology? Do you drive a biofueled or solar powered vehicle? If not, why not?

Manufactures are overwhelmingly producing fossil fueled vehicles. That's why they're much cheaper than alternative fueled vehicles. It will probably take another three decades or more, for the bulk of vehicles on the road to be alternative fueled vehicles. (I probably won't see it's full fruition in my lifetime. But it will be a good thing when it happens.) Are undeveloped countries supposed to sit on their hands for another several decades?

Gasoline-fueled cars can run on partial-ethanol fuel without much adjustment. Diesel cars can run fully on biodiesel with no adjustment. It's not the cars so much as it's the infrastructure. Even here in the US where diesel cars are a rarity, people will make the switch if the cars are made available.

 

[Chalnoth]

Take a look at this chart, going back 10,000+ years.

So? Who cares? The important thing isn't so much what the planet has done in the past, but rather that any change at all is bad, and thus whether or not we can do anything to either prevent or slow climate change, for the wellbeing of our own civilization. The answer is a resounding yes. And, according to the last international report on climate change, it's not even that expensive to do so.

 

[KCDAD]

So? Who cares? The important thing isn't so much what the planet has done in the past, but rather that any change at all is bad, and thus whether or not we can do anything to either prevent or slow climate change, for the wellbeing of our own civilization. The answer is a resounding yes. And, according to the last international report on climate change, it's not even that expensive to do so.

You really need to watch the BBC program The Great Global Warming Swindle..it's on Google video... you'll see why it is a farce and a con job. We do less to the environment than we do to under developed countries... it is all about money... puh leese... carbon offsets???????

There is 1992 progrtam as well as the more recent one...and CNN did a show on it with Glenn Beck recently as well.

 

[Chalnoth]

You really need to watch the BBC program The Great Global Warming Swindle..it's on Google video... you'll see why it is a farce and a con job. We do less to the environment than we do to under developed countries... it is all about money... puh leese... carbon offsets???????

There is 1992 progrtam as well as the more recent one...and CNN did a show on it with Glenn Beck recently as well.

Please. You really need to pay attention to what the scientists are saying. Global warming is here. It's caused by man. If left unchecked, it will be very destructive to world economies. And we can do something to slow it down.

 

[KCDAD]

Please. You really need to pay attention to what the scientists are saying. Global warming is here. It's caused by man. If left unchecked, it will be very destructive to world economies. And we can do something to slow it down.

What scientists are saying? Which scientists? The ones on the Climate Council that left it because of the politics involved in the whole mess? There is no consensus. Al Gore? I don't think so.

There are plenty of experts who disagree with the idea that increased carbon causes warming. They are convinced by the evidence that solar activity (imagine that) causes the warming which in turn causes increased carbon in the atmosphere. So am I.

The Global Warming debate is a scam to exclude developing nations from exploiting there resources and to keep those in power in the manner of life they are accustomed to... carbon offsets... puh leese.

 

[Chalnoth]

What scientists are saying? Which scientists? The ones on the Climate Council that left it because of the politics involved in the whole mess? There is no consensus. Al Gore? I don't think so.

There are plenty of experts who disagree with the idea that increased carbon causes warming. They are convinced by the evidence that solar activity (imagine that) causes the warming which in turn causes increased carbon in the atmosphere. So am I.

The Global Warming debate is a scam to exclude developing nations from exploiting there resources and to keep those in power in the manner of life they are accustomed to... carbon offsets... puh leese.

Yeah, this is pretty much nonsense. Why don't you try presenting some of these so-called experts, so we can look at their credentials?

 

[Belfry]

There are plenty of experts who disagree with the idea that increased carbon causes warming. They are convinced by the evidence that solar activity (imagine that) causes the warming which in turn causes increased carbon in the atmosphere. So am I.

So how do you explain why global temperatures have continued to rise for the last 20 years, while solar activity has decreased during that time?

 

[TheBear]

So how do you explain why global temperatures have continued to rise for the last 20 years, while solar activity has decreased during that time?

Solar energy has been fluctuating.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/OldSunNewSun.mpg


Solar activity - 1975 to present

 

[Chalnoth]

Solar energy has been fluctuating.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/OldSunNewSun.mpg


Solar activity - 1975 to present

Those links don't appear to work. Is this the article you obtained them from?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

Regardless, though, it is of little relevance. Of course the Sun can affect climate here on Earth. But right now, human factors are dominating. It seems that you are also arguing that climate scientists are idiots who don't understand their subject. Why do you think they have not factored in the obvious?