The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on three things:

1) Humans are emitting CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Greenhouse gases redistribute energy in the atmosphere.

Which of these 3 is false?

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

The video in the OP mentions that the Earth would be uninhabitable without greenhouse gases, and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases - which are both quite true - about 15 minutes in.

Soon after, they've constructed a strawman where greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere further away from the surface. In reality, greenhouse gases restrict the flow of energy away from the surface. Then, they destroy this strawman by accurately stating that it's warming near the surface faster than further up in the atmosphere.

Shocking! An increase in gases that redistribute warmth towards the surface warms the surface faster than the rest of the atmosphere!
What a farce - one no longer worth watching beyond that.

1. CO2 is 400 PARTS PER MILLION in the atmosphere, a TRACE gas.
TRACE.
Comprende ?

2. Water vapor is 10 TIMES more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 and is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

3. As Earth warms, a planet 3/4 covered with water, by definition more clouds will form.

4. As more clouds appear, the Earth's albedo will increase, more of the Sun's energy will be reflected back to outer space. Earth cools.
This is precisely why IPCC "models" have ALL failed and have vastly overestimated future warming, and are about to get crushed when temperatures will inevitably decrease.


Earth has been and continues to be a self-regulating system.

Sure, CO2 is less prevalent than water vapor.

Water vapor is, however as you understand, dependent upon temperature - warmer means more, ceteris paribus.

Consider the problem with this... the Earth only receives enough energy from the Sun for it to be 255 K - well below freezing; indeed, that is the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

So, if water vapor is dependent upon heat, and the Earth without a greenhouse effect would be freezing at the surface, what do you suppose warmed the Earth enough for that not to be the case?

THE WATER VAPOR DID.
NOT a trace gas like CO2.

"Thinking"
You should try it sometime...

So you think water vapor, highly dependent upon temperature to exist in the atmosphere, is a perpetual motion machine?

What ??
WTF ???
Are you stoned or drunk ????

Planetary conditions are dominated by this large body in nuclear fusion called the SUN.

Again, water vapor is a tiny portion of molecules in the atmosphere as well. Somewhat higher than CO2, granted, but also highly dependent upon temperature (unlike CO2).

Again, the Sun casts only enough energy on the Earth to warm the atmosphere to 255 K.

This isn't enough to even melt ice - barely enough at the equator in the time it takes for the Sun to pass overhead.

So, again, what warmed the surface enough such that water vapor could even exist in the atmosphere?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Yet, you missed my reply to that very thing.

No, I didn't miss it. I just added my own rebuttal to the ones already going.

It is quite disingenuous to complain about being called out on obvious propaganda because it has already been called out once.

TheRedneck

It's rather disingenuous to highlight water vapor and downplay CO2 emissions.

What is the ratio of carbon to hydrogen in gasoline, do you suppose?
You can infer the emissions from that.

No you can't.

Your comparison with gasoline is totally ridiculous.

Water vapor is more powerful and 10 times more present in the atmosphere.
By definition, CO2's effect will thus be negligible in comparison.

Logic.
No point explaining it to leftists...smh....

a reply to: Greven

0.0004 = 400 ppm
0.04 = 4% - about as high as water vapor gets in the atmosphere... and it usually isn't even that high.

Your math is wrong.

400 ppm = 0.04 %

4% = 40 000 ppm

originally posted by: Greven
That's not how it works at all. The surface of the Earth is substantially cooler than that of the Sun, and so radiates mostly less energetic (longer) wavelengths after being struck more energetic (shorter) solar wavelengths.

This then goes from the surface up. We are emitting greenhouse gases at the surface as well, which intercept some of said longer wavelength radiation and re-emit some of that downwards.

What you have described here is simply the greenhouse effect whereas I am describing how radiation is absorbed by bodies depending on their temperature. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface and so when CO2 radiates its energy into the surrounding atmosphere and the surface it will warm the atmosphere more than the surface simply because the atmosphere is cooler than the surface and requires less radiation to be warmed. This is a straightforward consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The documentary is correct. It is not absurd.

originally posted by: RumpleStiltskin
a reply to: Greven

0.0004 = 400 ppm
0.04 = 4% - about as high as water vapor gets in the atmosphere... and it usually isn't even that high.

Your math is wrong.

400 ppm = 0.04 %

4% = 40 000 ppm

00000400ppm (CO2)
00040000ppm (water vapor)
----------------
0000.0400% (CO2)
0004.0000% (water vapor)
----------------
0.0004000 (CO2)
0.0400000 (water vapor)

The math is correct, what's your issue?

Water vapor in the atmosphere maxes out at about 4%. It's considerably less on average, maybe 1-2%. CO2 is on average 0.04%.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Yet, you missed my reply to that very thing.

No, I didn't miss it. I just added my own rebuttal to the ones already going.

It is quite disingenuous to complain about being called out on obvious propaganda because it has already been called out once.

TheRedneck

It's rather disingenuous to highlight water vapor and downplay CO2 emissions.

What is the ratio of carbon to hydrogen in gasoline, do you suppose?
You can infer the emissions from that.

No you can't.

Your comparison with gasoline is totally ridiculous.

Water vapor is more powerful and 10 times more present in the atmosphere.
By definition, CO2's effect will thus be negligible in comparison.

Logic.
No point explaining it to leftists...smh....

Your logic is failing you.

TheRedneck was highlighting water vapor emissions from exhaust over CO2 emissions from exhaust.
Hence, the gasoline content question.

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Greven
That's not how it works at all. The surface of the Earth is substantially cooler than that of the Sun, and so radiates mostly less energetic (longer) wavelengths after being struck more energetic (shorter) solar wavelengths.

This then goes from the surface up. We are emitting greenhouse gases at the surface as well, which intercept some of said longer wavelength radiation and re-emit some of that downwards.

What you have described here is simply the greenhouse effect whereas I am describing how radiation is absorbed by bodies depending on their temperature. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface and so when CO2 radiates its energy into the surrounding atmosphere and the surface it will warm the atmosphere more than the surface simply because the atmosphere is cooler than the surface and requires less radiation to be warmed. This is a straightforward consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The documentary is correct. It is not absurd.

You do mention one of the other reasons without knowing it.
Something you have not considered the implications of: a cooler atmosphere.

What do you suppose the lower stratosphere has been doing as the troposphere has warmed?

The stratosphere has cooled, since it is getting less energy. We won't go so far as Venus, where it gets cold enough for CO2 to actually freeze, but it will continue to cool as the troposphere warms.

This cooling of the atmospheric layer above it causes some trouble with the upper/middle troposphere.

The documentary is claiming things about the middle troposphere, not the lower troposphere.

a reply to: Greven

The math is correct, what's your issue?

My issue was your math was wrong.

You had posted this:

Water vapor ain't much either, you know...
0.0004 = 400 ppm
0.04 = 4% - about as high as water vapor gets in the atmosphere... and it usually isn't even that high.

You going to argue what you posted is correct?

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

Yeah, that's the right number for H2O concentration.

Perhaps you're concerned though because relative humidity gets quite a lot higher than 4%. That's a different thing entirely though.

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

I'm confused as to what your confusion is. 400ppm is roughly what CO2 is at, and I was comparing the amount of CO2 to water vapor. Was that not obvious?

a reply to: Phage

0.0004 = 400 ppm
0.04 = 4%

Tell me, do you agree with the above quote?

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

Yes, I do.
Those are equivalencies.

a reply to: Greven
Water Vapor 40,000 ppm.
CO2 400 ppm.

share the same absorption bands.

Doesnt seem so scary when its laid out like that.

You alarmists are tricky. Carry on with your fear mongering, its what your religion is based on.

I will stick with science.

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

Yeah. Both are small numbers.

But as has been pointed out, H2O concentrations are temperature dependent while CO2 concentrations are not.

That's a part of the problem. CO2 warms the atmosphere, allowing it to hold still more water vapor. Feedback.

Cosmic rays.....


Just dropping this here.....

A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth's cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations. The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere. Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability. "Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the Sun's surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth's cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change", explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU. Read more at: phys.org...

phys.org...

a reply to: Groot

Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth's cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change",

Yeah. It's an interesting hypothesis. Not a lot of evidence that it has much to do with the current warming trend though.

You see, it works like this. High levels of solar activity result in an increase in solar wind, expanding the heliosphere and keeping galactic cosmic rays at bay. The difference is observable, most dramatically within each solar cycle. The idea is that the fewer cosmic rays, the fewer clouds to reflect solar energy (lower albedo).

Now, solar activity has been declining for 60 years or so. So that means there should be more cosmic rays (and more clouds, and higher albedo) resulting in cooling. But that's not what's been happening. It's been getting warmer. So either the cosmic ray connection doesn't really work, or increasing CO2 levels are outpacing their effect on climate.

a reply to: Greven

It's rather disingenuous to highlight water vapor and downplay CO2 emissions.

Not really. Water vapor is far more abundant, and has spectral absorption magnitudes greater than carbon dioxide.

And, unless the faces in that video are made of carbon dioxide or water vapor, it's not even showing them... it's showing infrared radiation... aka heat... and you call me disingenuous?

What is the ratio of carbon to hydrogen in gasoline, do you suppose?

Well, for starters, gasoline is not a specific hydrocarbon. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons, roughly from hexane to dodecane, with a few aromatics mixed in... it is refined by boiling point, not by molecular weight. But since gasoline is measured in octane rating, one can infer the same amount of octane and adjust by the rating. Hexane is C8H18.

You can infer the emissions from that.

Not really that exactly. There's the issue of combustion efficiency, oxygen supply, etc. Inferences are not exactly exact science.

TheRedneck

a reply to: RumpleStiltskin

The math is correct.

0.04% is the same as 0.0004 concentration.
4% is the same as 0.04 concentration.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

The real problem is time. Earth is a big girl and goes through cycles. Humans are mere fleas compared to the sun and everything else. You can't compare a few hundred years vs thousands of years. It's like comparing what my 8 year old grand daughter has done vs me , a 54 year old old fart.

Until late 2006, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the 20th Century average. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth's mean temperature dropped to near the 20th Century average of 57 degrees. Since that time, land and ocean readings have rebounded to the highest levels in recorded history in 2016 with a temperature of 58.69 degrees Fahrenheit. For 2017, the global temperature was 58.51 degrees Fahrenheit. We, Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, believe in rather frequent climate changes in our global weather patterns. Geologic evidence shows our climate has been changing over millions of years. The warming and cooling of global temperatures are likely the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind's activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the "Urban Heat Island Effect" are likely creating more harmful pollution. Yes, we believe we should be "going green" whenever and wherever possible. Our planet seems to be in a cycle of constant change. According to an article by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Climate.gov in August, 2014, our planet likely experienced its hottest weather millions of years ago. One period, which was probably the warmest, was during the Neoproterozic around 600 to 800 million years ago. Approximately 56 million years ago, our planet was in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as global mean temperatures were estimated as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit, over 15 degrees above current levels. Ocean sediments and fossils indicate that massive amounts of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere. By contrast, evidence shows there have been at least five major ice ages on Planet Earth. One of the most well-documented and largest, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago, is called the Cryogenian period. Glacial ice sheets likely reached all the way the equator producing a "Snowball Earth." Scientists believe that this massive ice age ended due to increased underground volcanic activity and, perhaps, a much warmer solar cycle. One reason scientists believe that the Earth's temperature reached a record level in 2016 was the very strong El Nino in the waters of the south-central Pacific Ocean that formed in 2015. El Nino is the abnormal warming of ocean waters that often leads warmer air temperatures and less snowfall during the winter seasons. In 2007-08, a moderately strong La Nina, the cooler than normal sea-surface temperature event, combined with extremely low solar activity (storms on the sun), resulted in a period of global cooling and record snowfalls across many parts of the northern U.S., Europe, Asia and the Former Soviet Union. The same type of situation, perhaps more severe, could occur again in the early 2020s, especially if we see a strong La Nina combined with very low solar activity.

www.longrangeweather.com...

originally posted by: RumpleStiltskin
a reply to: Greven
Water Vapor 40,000 ppm.
CO2 400 ppm.

share the same absorption bands.

Doesnt seem so scary when its laid out like that.

You alarmists are tricky. Carry on with your fear mongering, its what your religion is based on.

I will stick with science.

The science is a little different than you might think. Since you like math, let's look at some...

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 404.92ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,166.6911 Gt

Estimates are that the atmosphere contains approximately 1.2753 x 10^16 kg of water vapor in the atmosphere (enough to cover the Earth's surface in 25mm of water), or 12,753 Gt. See, when we talk about the atmosphere containing up to 4%... it's mostly not that high. There is little water vapor in the upper atmosphere, and not a tremendous amount down below, either. Also, it's quite a bit lighter than average, at 18.01528 g/mole.

By weight, that means the Earth's atmosphere is approximately:
0.247% water vapor.
0.062% CO2.

I suppose that a difference of 1/4 is not quite as appealing as a difference of 1/100 if one wishes to minimize things.