Posted on 03/28/2007 5:01:58 AM PDT by rhema
Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet. Link is here.
Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.
Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.
There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
You are an unthinking zealot on this issue. As such, I have no expectation of convincing you of anything. I simply show up from time to time to de-bunk your lame attempts to out-authoritate others with specious web links and other nonsense.
Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present...
They lost me when they claim that the Sun plays a minor role in the Earth's climate.
I'm sure your efforts are appreciated.
The sentence you quoted was badly phrased, I think. It should say "Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though current minor variations in solar activity are not considered to be the most dominant climate forcing factors at present." See point #2 in my profile, particularly the first link.
I actually wish liberals were right when they claim that human action can make massive changes to our climate. We need the ability to control climate to our liking, especially in increasing rainfall to dry places. A warming climate has mostly beneficial effects, such as changing several million square miles of Russia and Canada from useless wasteland to the world's breadbasket. That, and flooding out those rich Luddite idiots in Malibu and Nantucket - good riddance.
Unfortunately, past climate swings tell us that we have not yet acquired the ability to change what Nature throws at us. If anyone wants a bipartisan project that would free climate science from its political chains, let's start working on developing the ability to engineer climate.
People who think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax*
Taking a look at the Gore fiasco and like output from those who push the end of the world crisis scenario, I would say those who see anthropogenic global warming as a hoax, are well founded in their beliefs that such is indeed used to create and perpetuate a political hoax of the first magnitude.
Your desire to hold yourself apart from such folks fails to address that which is of major concern in the direction politics takes takes matters.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H. L. Mencken
To neglect the consequence of such crisis management scenes, plays into the hands of those who use science as a cover for political agenda. Whether such neglect is due to indifference, ingnorance or malfeasance is of little import, the resultant damage to national sovereignty, and individual liberty will be the the same.
"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. . . . It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-- Thomas Paine"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran
Taking a look at the Gore fiasco
The use of the word "fiasco" certainly indicates your viewpoint (which I'm fully aware of, obviously). Gore's movie is not interpreted that way across a broad segment of politics and society.
I would say those who see anthropogenic global warming as a hoax, are well founded in their beliefs that such is indeed used to create and perpetuate a political hoax of the first magnitude.
Excerpt: "This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you."
...
"TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". An undated note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a "Seitz symposium" with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to "40-60 regulators"."
And I think it can first be attributed to Rush Limbaugh that one volcano puts out more CO2 than all of mankind's activities over historical time. Let me go check a sec:
OK, wow, this is amazing. Rush didn't say that about CO2, he said it about ozone-destroying chemicals in the stratosphere (that wasn't true either), and it's been twisted into CO2 and greenhouse gases by inaccurate repetition.
The Way Things Aren't Linked from here, -- apparently the "Great Global Warming Swindle" says it about volcanoes and CO2, which if true really blows any shred of credibility GGWS might have had out of the stratosphere.
That's why I have tried to provide an accurate view of climate change science here on FR (probably to little avail, which is why I'm expanding my profile and decreasing my activity) -- because there are so many sources that provide inaccurate views and misconceptions about what's important and what's not.
Sir -- despite the fact that we do not agree on this and that we are philosophically different, I respect you. You may not respect me -- that's your prerogative. One of the reasons I have discussed this issue is that it is fascinating -- it has implications for humanity, whatever turns out to finally be correct and what actually happens. I think that's why it attracts strong opinions. Humanity is at a critical juncture in time right now, for a great variety of reasons. If some of the more critical problems are resolved, climate change may become a more critical problem 10-20-30-etc. years from now. Ultimately, I think it is wise to make prudent plans to anticipate potential future problems while devoting most of our time and effort to the most pressing socio-political problems facing us now.
If the flood waters are rising in the river by your house, that it isn't the right time to insulate the attic.
If the flood waters are rising in the river by your house, that it isn't the right time to insulate the attic.
Seeing as the flood waters aren't rising and infact the flood plain is well below norms, it is hardly the time to be yelling flood and creating a panic and rush for the exits over little more than the nomal light spring rain bringing with it that which is necessary to prosperity and life.
Neglecting the attic with an inevitable and recurrent winter obviously on the horizon, one should not be be wasting resources on low priorities and the frivolous.
Good day to you.
You didn't understand my analogy -- things like Iran, Iraq, mortgage foreclosures, water shortages, coral reef degradation -- those are the flood waters. Climate change is important, but doesn't require immediate, drastic action. But it does require accurate information to determine proper action.
Good article, but this guy sounds on the radio as if he has marbles in his mouth. He's also very slow, mentally that is.
“For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”
-- Nicolo Machiavelli
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H. L. Mencken
I ain't them.
If you could, I would more incline to believe in the hypothesis of global warming do to an increase of CO2.
One could make a better argument in favor of dust particle having greater effect on climate change than CO2.
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
What is a GHS particle? And why is a fluctuating heat source required?
The IR absorption properties of CO2 are well-known.
This is why:
Here is a fairly famous study of greenhouse gas absorption in the atmosphere:
I'm not sure if that assists you; I'll wait for your response.
The IR absorption properties of CO2 are well-known.
As are those of water vapor, which overlaps and limits the efficacy of CO2 to act as an IR absorber/emitter to substantially less capacity for warming the surface via downward directed IR flux. The abundance of water vapor in the atmosphere is 10 times that of CO2 and as well as being more efficient IR absorber/emitter. Each water vapor molecule in the troposphere absorbs IR radiation through multiple modes across the atmosphere's IR absorption spectrum from the Near IR into the far micro wave, limiting IR flux available to other IR active GHG molecules:
IR absorption overlap between Water Vapor and Carbon dioxide
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ArbitersOfEnergy/
thus severely limiting the capacity of CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas in respect to warming the surface where we peons live.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
"Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues[106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor."
[106] S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264.
Kiehl, J. T. and V. Ramanathan, 1982: Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 12-18 mm Region . J. Atmos. Sci., 39: 2923-2926.
Introduction:
Within the 12-18mm region, both H2O and CO2 absorb and emit radiation giving rise to the so-called "overlap." This study examines the role of this H2O-CO2 overlap in the CO2-climate proble. The H2O absorpotion, within the 12-18mm region, that has been traditionally included in climate models (Manabe and Wetherald, 1980; Ramanathan, 1981) is the line absorption due to the pure rotational band of H2O. In addition to the pure rotaional band, there is very strong "continuum" absorption by H2O in the 12-18 um region (Roberts et al., 1976). The few climate model studies which include the effect of this continuum (e.g., Wang et al., 1976) have not examined its rl in the increased CO2 radiative effects. In order to isolate the overlap effects of various H2O radiation processes in the 12-18mm region, we comput the radiative heating of the surface/troposphere system due to double CO2 with and without the H2O overlap effects.
*** SNIP ***
[p. 3] We consider three cases in which CO2 is doubled and the changes in longwave fluxes are computed for no overlap between water vapor and CO2. This is achieved by setting the transmissivity of H2O in the 12-18mm region to be equal to 1. In the second case, the H2O overlap due to the rotaional band is included. Finally we include the H2O continuum and calculate the flux changes using both continuum and line transmissivity (for the pure rotation band) described in the previous section. These cases illustrate the most important aspects of the water vapor overlap.
*** SNIP ***
Table 1. The effect of CO2 increase on the hemispherically
averaged net radiative heating (wm-2). DFTN is the change
in the net outgoing longwave flux (at the tropopause) due to
doubling of CO2; negative values of this quantity denote
heating of the joint surface/troposphere system. DF¯s is the
is the change in the downward longwave flux at the surface.
Case Comments -DFTN DF¯s 1 Without H2O absorption in
12-18 mm region4.69 3.65 2 H2O line absorption 4.18 1.56 3 Line plus continuum absorption 3.99 0.55
The work of Jack Barret provides the results of HITRAN line-by-line integration of the significance of water vapor as a green house gas in comparison to CO2, CH4 & N2O, in their respective concentrations in the atmosphere near the surface clearly supporting the above statements:
Energy & Environment, volume 16 No. 6 2005
"Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere"
by Jack Barrett, PhD (Physical chemistry, Imperial College, London)The infrared (IR) spectra of the four main GH gases over a 100 metre path length are presented in Figure 6, their concentrations being those that pertain to the atmosphere at sea-level, and in the case of water that which amounts to 45% humidity.
*** SNIP ***
Table 1: Contributions to the absorption of the Earth's radiance
by the first 100 meters of the atmosphereGHG % Absorption Absorption relative
To water vapor = 1Water Vapor 68.2 1.000 CO2 (285 ppmv) 17.0 0.249 CO2 (570 ppmv) 19.0 0.271 CH4 1.2 0.180 N2O 0.5 0.007 Total [water, CO2, CH4, N20] 86.9 Combination with 285 ppmv CO2 72.9 1.069 Combination with 570 ppmv CO2 73.4 1.076 Some idea of the relative contributions to global warming by the GHGs at the Earth’s surface may be calculated from the spectral data. Percentage absorption values are useful; they are calculated as %A = 100 – %T (T = transmission). The values for CO2 in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era of 285 ppmv and double that value, so crucial to the IPCC arguments, are given in Table 1, together with the contributions from water vapour, N2O and methane.
The absorption values for the pre-industrial atmosphere add up to 86.9%, significantly lower than the combined value of 72.9%. This occurs because there is considerable overlap between the spectral bands of water vapour and those of the other GHGs. If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present. Whether this overlap effect is properly built into models of the atmosphere gives rise to some scepticism.
The GHGs absorb 72.9% of the available radiance, leaving 27.1% that is transmitted of which an amount equivalent to 22.5% of the total passes through the window and the other parts of the spectral range transmit only 4.6%. For the doubled CO2 case this small percentage decreases slightly to 4.1%. These small percentage transmissions are reduced by 72.9% and 73.4% respectively by the second layer of 100 m of the atmosphere so that only ~1% in both cases is transmitted to the region higher than 200 m.
As is readily determined from Dr. Barrett's results, even with doubled CO2 concentration, water vapor constitutes more than 100*1/1.076 = 92% of the total radiative greenhouse effect in just the first 100meter column of air near the surface.
That's >92% not counting the additional radiative capacity in the troposphere above that level nor counting IR absorption of H2O in its particulate form as rain and ice content of clouds which contribute additionally to the atmospheric feedback processes discussed above.
The net of effect of water vapor and clouds through the hydrological cycle is to act as a cooling factor in respect to the surface of the planet transfer heat upward into the mid levels of the atmosphere where it is readily radiated back into space:
In the words of Dr. Richard Lindzen MIT [contributor to IPCC second assessment, and a lead author in IPCC Working Group 1] in regard to the important role of water vapor in transport of surface heat to the upper atmosphere and subsequent re-emission in IR bands:
"If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, water vapor and clouds would still provide almost all of the present greenhouse effect."
Research & Exploration Vol 9, 191-200, 1993."The surface of the earth does not cool primarily by infrared radiation. It cools mainly through evaporation.7 Most of the evaporated moisture ends up in convective clouds (clouds with strong vertical currents carrying the air and its contents upward, as opposed to layered clouds, which form and stay at a particular level) where the moisture condenses into rain. Just as evaporation cools, the condensation of watervapor heats, and the atmosphere realizes most of this heat at altitudes >5km. It is at these heights that the atmosphere must balance the heat deposited by convection from the surface through cooling by thermal radiation. It is worth noting that, in the absence of convection, pure geenhouse warming would lead to a globally averaged surface temperature of 72oC given current conditions (Moller and Manabe 1961). Our current average temperature, 15oC, is actually much closer to the black body temperature temperature (-18oC), than to the pure greenhouse result.8 The relative ineffectiveness of the greenhouse effect is due to convection which carries heat past the bulk of watervapor (which has a characteristic scale height of about 2km), and to large-scale meridional heat transport which carries heat from the moist tropics to the less moist higher latitudes. Because of this transport, it is primarily the distribution of infared absorbers above 5km (rather than below 5km) that is important for containing the heat carried away from the earth's surface (Lindzen et al. 1982)."
*** SNIP ***
"In the meantime greenhouse effect is not nearly as straight forward as is commonly stated."
--- Richard Lindzen (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming. Bulletin, American Metorolological Society, 71, 288-299."Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect." Cato Review, Spring issue, 87-98, 1992;
|
If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
Absolutely.
No amount of modelling is able to change this situation. There are simply too many variables that are too unknown to model this clearly chaotic system. Anybody who believes that the "models" can predict that which they do not understand is a complete fool.
Clearly, there is something - many somethings - of major import being left out of the climate models. ANYTHING based on them is bogus. Anybody in the scientific community who has ever done work with these complex models can come up with example upon example of results from models that proved wrong when physical testing was actually done. And in the realm of modeling, there are few models which are more complex and LESS understood than the GCMs.
Acceptance of anything they come up with is based not on science, but on fanatical religious faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
