Global warming [B]is[/B] caused by human activity...

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by KFischer:
- There is nearly no CO2 in the upper atmosphere, the little .03 diminuishes there like the O2. Never heard of O2-masks during climbing high mountains?
- The CO2 weight (44) is much higher than mixed air (29), so it is almost totally near the ground. Think about the farm silo and the brewerey, where CO2-lakes over the ground floor can kill you. The crazy climate science measures CO2 near Mauna Loa at Hawaii - a CO2-emitting vulcan! Real measurement from airplanes founds 7ppm - look here an article of Nature.
- The CO2 will not absorb, reflect and emitt IR radiation in a way which would be worth to speak about. It's a question of spectral absorption (Fraunhofer-lines), the window for IR is widely open in the atmosphere. Look to the IR-fotographs which the satellites shot - they wouldn't be existent if the warmth will be 'catched' by CO2.
- The atmosphere is very cold, the soil ground is warmer - since old Isaac we know, there is no heating of warm parts through colder ones. And the theory of back radiation by ol'Prevost (a Frenchman!!!), today 'radiative forcing', is not expertised by measures and experiments, so it's not existent in reality.
Konrad Fischer

1. The temperature/pressure profile of the atmosphere is relativistic, i.e. the temperaure of a region is established in relation to the temperatures of it's adjacent regions. It can be appreciated by using a radiative model of layers and it can be shown that changes in flux at higher levels impacts flux changes at lower levels. Thus the objection of people like Professor Heinz Hug is flawed, because he merely considers band spectral saturation at ground levels not at higher levels in the troposphere. The greater impact of enhanced greenhouse effect in the troposphere above the boundary layer is not controversial.

2) Convective mixing in the boundary layer means that CO2's mass does not cause it to 'sink'. Once in the troposphere mixing is limited. Do you think that ice crystals and water droplets in clouds are more dense than air? By your reasoning there should be no clouds. So why is the sky not continually blue?

3) Your nature reference is not news to me. However it is irrelevant. The stratosphere is cooling due primarily to enhanced greenhouse effect, but the stratosphere is not where the increased radiative 'trapping' occurs, that's why it's cooling. The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere, below the tropopause. Image of atmospheric profile here.

4) The boundary layer is virtually opaque to the wavelengths of IR involved in the greenhouse effect in the boundary layer. Satellites use different wavelengths of IR from those involved in the greenhouse effect.

Satellite: Lansat7 table here: http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/compositor/

Atmospheric absorption spectra here: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~owen/CHPI/IMAGES/transir.html

5) Again at the IR frequencies involved in the greenhouse effect the atmosphere is virtually opaque. The way it works is that UV and visible from the Sun which radiates at an effective temperature of 6500 kelvin, warms the surface and to a lesser extent the atmosphere. Then the greenhouse effect traps that energy radiaing up from the surface and in the upper troposphere the earth radiates at an emission temperature of 255 kelvin (about -19degC).

The programme to be screened tonight would be a joke if there wasn't so much at stake. As it is it's a rather sick joke, but it's still a fundamentally flawed contention based on poor logic, flawed understanding and deliberate misrepresentation.

Plant Fossils of West Virginia's global warming section is a complete joke. I have previously been in e-mail correspondence with them about their inaccurate conclusions, they declined to revise and correct.

Boo2u,

Let me quote once more from my first post, this thread, Frohlich 2006. "The observed change of [Total Solar Irradiance] difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level."
i.e. there is NO variation in solar irradiance in the solar minima since 1976.

And again from my first post: "Before the last 30 years, Solar changes do correlate well with global temperatures. But it is only recently that human CO2 emissions have risen so high and so fast that they now have an effect."

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by papertiger0:
When you talk about the Sun not causing global warming it's strange to me that you rely on archane science speak and figures instead of observational evidence from other solar system bodies.
I have seen a new red spot erupt on Jupiter.
I have read that Saturn is suffering from a hurricane that could swallow whole terrestrial planets. I have read about warming taking place on Pluto and Neptunes's largest moon Triton.
National Geographic resently wrote up a report on Mars's receeding polar ice caps.
And just today I found an article on solar forcing causing an asteroid to increase it's spin rate.
TO me talk of CO2 contents and ocean acids is the scientific equivalent of navel gazing when you use it as the basis of your assessment that there is no increase in solar activity.

Why should we think a new red spot on Jupiter is related to the Sun?

Pluto and Mars? At what part of their year are they?

If Triton's warming why isn't Neptune?

"archane science speak and figures" huh????

What is this, the new Dark Ages? How do you think we might know details about the planets? Who do you think put's the satellites on which Frohlich's work is based in orbit? Yes the same people who gave you probe missions to other planets.

If you don't believe me I give you links to papers, versions freely available on the inernet.

You want it simple? OK, I can do simple.

If the sun is increasing it's output and causing global warming then why is the stratosphere cooling when it's above the troposphere so gets all that extra solar energy first.

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

elfuente

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by boo2u:
...why do theese left wing nuts have a deaTH WISH?

Cause it completes our mythology, man. A romantic life must end tragically.

Or so I've been led to believe.

Posts: 193

Ignored post by elfuente posted

Posted

boo2u is wrong on politics as well. I'm a Thatcherite.

This swindle documentary is trying to do an Adam Curtiss.

And failing miserably.

But there's some real Curtiss on BBC2 Sunday 21:00.

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

boo2u

Posted

cobbly if you are not a lefty why are you arguing that co2 is warming earth when it is so obviously not?google is canada ready .here are the last 400000 years.4 cycles 100000 yrs. each.are we presumpyious enough to think we can afect the worlds climarte?i love thatcher btw my hero.

Posts: 59

Ignored post by boo2u posted

papertiger0

Posted

Triton's and Pluto's warming was discovered due to occlusions of stars allowing the measure of their atmospheres. The reason we don't have a measurement of Neptune is because Voyager didn't park. Occluding a star won't work for Neptune's atmosphere because the whole planet is atmosphere.
It's a shame we don't have the means to observe Neptune and Uranus because I bet they are suffering from global warming too, and it would make a perfect set.

Posts: 33

Ignored post by papertiger0 posted

Castlehard

New Member

Posted

naturaly not! About 20000 scientists say so. Not CO2 but the sun makes Global Warming. If you want to know the Names of them, please look here:http://www.schmanck.de/FS/E/vE.htm .
or .

BS

Posts: 2

Ignored post by Castlehard posted

fiona_j

New Member

Posted

Both sides seem to have good arguments. Both sides seem to rely on science (ignoring governments and any arguements from both sides regarding trying to get money). It seems to me that I would prefer to go with the "global warming is human made" for several reasons:

1 - It can only do good for the world
2 - Protecting the rainforests is a good thing
3 - Fossil fuels cannot last forever so lets tackle the problem before they run out not when they run out
4 - Running cars etc less also helps decrease health related particles (such as asthma increasing particles)
5 - I am an astronomer so having lights off at night is a good thing

Overall, I think that decreasing energy in general is a good thing. Whatever the reason.

Also, if Global Warming Promoters are wrong, then there is no problem. If Global Warming Skeptics are wrong, then oops, we are in for huge problems.

That is why I, personally, promote the energy reduction global warming believers are encouraging.

There's more to it than temperature change

Posts: 6

Ignored post by fiona_j posted

Posted

Castlehard,

First post on this thread I show that the sun is not causing the current warming.

Your link is not a terribly scientific argument.

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

papertiger0

Posted

Can't play that "it's summer on Mars" tune. We have dedicated Martian surveyers on duty. Global warming is real and ongoing. The ice caps have shrunk and the return to Martian winter has not caused them to return to their previous size.

Pluto is in the summer season if you can call it that, but that only means it is at a distance from the Sun comparable to Triton. Triton has heated appreciably since the Voyager flyby.
Jupiter just happens to develope the second biggest sore spot at the same time as Saturn develops a cat 47 hurricane. Enough.

And you are talking about stratosphere heating out of one side of your mouth and telling us it is transparent to incoming radiation with the other. If the troposphere is where heat is trapped why would the stratosphere heat up?

And explain to me why the IPCC has decreased the solar forcing estimate from the 2001 report? Are we to believe that the Sun has rolled back production?

Posts: 33

Ignored post by papertiger0 posted

fiona_j

New Member

Posted

quote:

And explain to me why the IPCC has decreased the solar forcing estimate from the 2001 report? Are we to believe that the Sun has rolled back production?

There is evidence to believe that the sun is about to "crash" as it does regularly (like the Little Ice Age).

Maybe that is what they have taken into account?

There's more to it than temperature change

Posts: 6

Ignored post by fiona_j posted

What's in your mind

Posted

The real issue behind 'global warming' is of course that it is a convenient way of blocking economic development of developing nations. Now India and China are becoming economic giants, the developed nations need a way to make their use of carbon more expensive. It's plain and simple and stern report is just the blueprint of it

Posts: 493

Ignored post by What's in your mind posted

fiona_j

New Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind:
The real issue behind 'global warming' is of course that it is a convenient way of blocking economic development of developing nations. Now India and China are becoming economic giants, the developed nations need a way to make their use of carbon more expensive. It's plain and simple and stern report is just the blueprint of it

Heard of Dongtan?

There's more to it than temperature change

Posts: 6

Ignored post by fiona_j posted

Posted

quote:
And explain to me why the IPCC has decreased the solar forcing estimate from the 2001 report? Are we to believe that the Sun has rolled back production?

See my first post and reference under 2a. The latest research. The IPCC2001 used Willson/ Mordinov ACRIM, which contained a trend shown to be an artefact of processing by Frohlich, and Frohlich showed his PMOD dataset had a much better (>20% better) agreement with Kitt Peak Magnetograms

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

Castlehard

New Member

Posted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Castlehard,

First post on this thread I show that the sun is not causing the current warming.

Your link is not a terribly scientific argument

terribly "and!" scientific, if you prefer to know instead of to believe only. Please ask your Coke, because of what it is cooling and not warming you.

Posts: 2

Ignored post by Castlehard posted

*boosh*bitch*

Posted

i can see how the sun is contributing to global warming, and that co2 levels from the oceans are rising contributing to the effects of global warming, but there are still chemicals being spewed out into the atmosphere on a daily basis that is going to affect the environment around us. Its a contribution of various different elements. I refuse to accept that humans have no effect on global warming.
These 'scientists' cant sit there and say "well 800 years ago the earth was hotter and this was absorbed into the oceans and is now giving off these gases". you have to take into account the co2 being given off from the oceans and sun AND the chemicals that are being generated from every human process - from nuclear power stations to co2 emissions to dumped waste.

sorry if im going off on one and no one is actually paying attention, please feel free to ignore.

Posts: 27

Ignored post by *boosh*bitch* posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Castlehard:
Your link is not a terribly scientific argument

In other words you can't challenge my evidence or conclusions.

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

boo2u

Posted

quote:
Both sides seem to have good arguments. Both sides seem to rely on science (ignoring governments and any arguements from both sides regarding trying to get money). It seems to me that I would prefer to go with the "global warming is human made" for several reasons:

1 - It can only do good for the world
[diverting resorses from more imidiate problems will not do good but harm.thousands of people starve to death every day and harming economic development will make starvation worse not better]

2 - Protecting the rainforests is a good thing
forests in usa have increased in step with economic growth. protecting forests comes at the cost of hurting the poorest.

3 - Fossil fuels cannot last forever so lets
tackle the problem before they run out not when they run out
nessesity is the mother of invention.razing your electric bill by 300 % for no good reason does no one no good.
4 - Running cars etc less also helps decrease health related particles (such as asthma increasing particles)
i recon thats true.i can rever fuigar why people are runnig hither and thither but i guess that comes under personal freedom.

5 - I am an astronomer so having lights off at night is a good thing.

Overall, I think that decreasing energy in general is a good thing. Whatever the reason.
as long as the economic hit does not afect the poorest.and it will.

Also, if Global Warming Promoters are wrong, then there is no problem. If Global Warming Skeptics are wrong, then oops, we are in for huge problems.
if global warmers are wrong the poorest will be all dead having wasted precious resorsed on nil.if global sceptics are wrong...well they cant be because even the warmers admit that if kyoto were implemented the difference it would make would not be measurable...we can respond as requiored.the only way to afect warming is to wreck the world economy totally.and there is no problem with co2 in the first place.

That is why I, personally, promote the energy reduction global warming believers are encouraging.
if it were just you personally paying the economic cost i would have no problem with that but you and your mindless ilk wanna drag the whole world down with you.as for being a believer aperantly there it some sort of mystical or spiritual quaulity to you desire to comit suicide and drag western civilization down with you.

There's more to it than temperature change

Posts: 59

Ignored post by boo2u posted

Robert1234

Posted

Jeez I tried hard to read a lot of this thread but boy does that 'Cobbly' go on a bit... I'm sorry but... I think he's a bit nuts. In fact if you look you can see him praying to his God right URL=http://www.cafepress.com/coxandforkum/2608519]here[/URL, he's the middle one, face down.

fiona_j, your not just wrong you're dead wrong...

quote:
It seems to me that I would prefer to go with the "global warming is human made" for several reasons:

The developing world needs to ugh...develop! The point is not to pull back and retreat, the devepoment of mankind is part of what the earth is all about, we in the west have done so, now, unless the greeny killers have their way, its the turn of those less fortunate than us. They all want cars, medicine, heating, air con, etc. all the things we take for granted, its called a better standard of living. In case you dont think so look at the flow of human traffic.

Posts: 36

Ignored post by Robert1234 posted

Posted

"Jeez I tried hard to read a lot of this thread but boy does that 'Cobbly' go on a bit... I'm sorry but... I think he's a bit nuts. In fact if you look you can see him praying to his God right he's the middle one, face down."

Jeez, I love the way your incisive rebuttal gets right to the crucial details of my argument.

"The science of global warming is complex, but it is not controversial." Dr Gavin Schmidt NASA.

Ignored post by CobblyWorlds posted

Robert1234

Posted

quote:
Jeez, I love the way your incisive rebuttal gets right to the crucial details of my argument.

Really? Well I guess you're far too clever for me as I have no IDEA how. (note: always place stupid 'wink' thing at the end to try and evoke a belief of a mysterious insight in to deeper meaning of subject.

So PLEASE tell me, no tell us ALL about the "crucial details of you're argument" but only one rule, NO cutting and pasting, your own thoughts only and no pointless platitudes please like the gem of a quote you chose last time.

quote:
"The science of global warming is complex, but it is not controversial." Dr Gavin Schmidt NASA.

Well an aphorism perhaps from the, Doc from NASA, but so telling and the message is clear. I.e it's too 'comlex' a problem for normal folks like us to get it. Yep, we need you guys to save us.

So, the "crucial details of you're argument" please but remember NO using the cut and paste crutch.

Posts: 36

Ignored post by Robert1234 posted

papertiger0

Posted