The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary

Scientists can be clever in the way they portrait their results, and often are misleading to embellish an otherwise boring result.

Regardless of climate change, there are many positives to renewable energy. Solar panels have dropped in price by 75% in less than ten years, it will soon be the most economically viable way to energize your home and car. Payment plans from various companies have already made it more viable than conventional methods for powering your home

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

I did.

The only way to 'see' carbon dioxide is by using spectroscopy, and even then you're looking at mostly water vapor. The spectral lines overlap. This oft-used myth that tries to show pictures of carbon dioxide is just a good example of how disingenuous Global Warming is, and I call it out whenever it pops up. It's pure propagandized poppy-cock.

TheRedneck

And spectroscopy measurements of CO2 have found its warming to be small.

Quote:

The warming from CO2 is relatively small. The measured radiative forcing at the surface from CO2 (under clear-sky conditions) between 2000-2010 was 0.2 W/m2 from the 22 ppmv increase (Feldman et al 2012) which works out at ~0.01 W/m2 per 1 ppmv. Although because of the logarithmic nature of CO2, regular increments of CO2 would produce ever-diminishing increments of radiative forcing, and so 0.01 W/m2 per 1 ppmv would be a generous linear relationship to use (as of today). According to the Keeling Curve, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere at the rate of 2.5 ppmv/year. Therefore the annual radiative forcing from CO2 would be ~0.025 W/m2. That would be enough to raise the mean global temperature at the surface by 0.0046°C per year under the Stefan-Boltzmann law (assuming a baseline temperature of 288°K).

There is absolutely no reason for the upper atmosphere to be heating up faster than the surface.

Why do you think this would be the case?

CO2 is apparently homogeneously spread throughout the atmosphere. The claim that the upper-atmosphere will warm faster than the surface appears to be a straightforward consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which governs how radiation is absorbed. By that law, an increment of radiation from CO2, let's assume 5 W/sq.m in the upper-atmosphere where the temperature is 255K will produce a warming of 1.3C whereas the same increment of radiation at the surface where the temperature is 288K will only produce a warming of 0.9K. This is why the upper-atmosphere should warm more than the surface. It is because of the 4th-power root between radiation and temperature. Increasing the temperature of a body by a fixed amount requires progressively more radiation, meaning cooler bodies will warm faster than warmer ones.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Absurd that one would suggests the increase of CO2 is natural.

30 billion tons+ of CO2 is how much we emit from our fossil fuel addiction. The direct result is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere we are observing.

a reply to: Nathan-D

You do no understand the basic levels of the atmosphere: troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and the thermosphere.

I bet you cannot descripe the temperature profile in each layer...

Jrod. If you're not going to contribute anything to this thread then don't bother posting.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I have contributed...you just do not like being called out on your BS.

In the troposphere(the lower level where weather occurs) the temperature goes down with height, the stratosphere temperature goes up with height, the mesosphere the temperature goes down, and in the thermosphere it goes up.

Understanding this is crucial before one tries to describe how the upper atmosphere will warm.

Again the claim that the excess is not coming from human activity is asinine.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

I have contributed...you just do not like being called out on your BS.

In the troposphere(the lower level where weather occurs) the temperature goes down with height, the stratosphere temperature goes up with height, the mesosphere the temperature goes down, and in the thermosphere it goes up.

Understanding this is crucial before one tries to describe how the upper atmosphere will warm

What are you even talking about? I explained why the temperature of the atmosphere will warm more than the surface as explained in the video-documentary. The reason is, as no doubt RedNeck will also be aware of, is that when absorbing the same amount of radiation, bodies that are lower in temperature will warm greater than bodies higher in temperature. This is physics 101. So, no, Jord. You have not "called me out on my BS".

a reply to: Nathan-D

Have you ever taken a college level course on atmosphere dynamics or chemistry?(one with calc/physics/chem as pre reqs)

You are trying to explain a complex dynamic fluid with a simple equation.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

I did.

The only way to 'see' carbon dioxide is by using spectroscopy, and even then you're looking at mostly water vapor. The spectral lines overlap. This oft-used myth that tries to show pictures of carbon dioxide is just a good example of how disingenuous Global Warming is, and I call it out whenever it pops up. It's pure propagandized poppy-cock.

TheRedneck

Yet, you missed my reply to that very thing.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

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.

Hate to break it to you but that is a FLIR camera. If it was a camera that picked up "CO2" gas, it wouldn't light up on things like a hot muffler, it would only show the end of the muffler, but it shows the hot gas coming out, which a large part is hot water.

I'm aware that this is a FLIR camera with a filter. You still see the gases being emitted.

A large part is also CO2, unless you want to say physics is wrong and burning hydrocarbons doesn't produce CO2 along with H2O.

Both would be visible to a FLIR, and it would be difficult to separate the two, since they overlap wavelengths.

Here's a fun experiment you can do with a standard FLIR:

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Oh FFS!
Venus is 96% CO2
Earth CO2 is 400 PARTS PER MILLION!

Spot the difference....

originally posted by: Nathan-D

There is absolutely no reason for the upper atmosphere to be heating up faster than the surface.

Why do you think this would be the case?

CO2 is apparently homogeneously spread throughout the atmosphere. The claim that the upper-atmosphere will warm faster than the surface appears to be a straightforward consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which governs how radiation is absorbed. By that law, an increment of radiation from CO2, let's assume 5 W/sq.m in the upper-atmosphere where the temperature is 255K will produce a warming of 1.3C whereas the same increment of radiation at the surface where the temperature is 288K will only produce a warming of 0.9K. This is why the upper-atmosphere should warm more than the surface. It is because of the 4th-power root between radiation and temperature. Increasing the temperature of a body by a fixed amount requires progressively more radiation, meaning cooler bodies will warm faster than warmer ones.

It is spread well, but not so much homogeneously; it's denser than air, so it's a bit more prevalent closer to the surface. You know, where plants have grown to utilize it.

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 reemit some of that downwards.

Additionally, the higher one goes, the thinner the air. There are less molecules to collide with said radiation.

There is no rationale for why it would warm faster further away from the surface, and there are further reasons for why that would not be the case.

a reply to: Nathan-D

And spectroscopy measurements of CO2 have found its warming to be small.

Correct.

That is the same phenomena that make CO2 lasers so easy to create. For a lasing material, one needs a material with a small, isolated spectral bank in the wavelength desired. CO2 has that.

The law of diminishing returns is also absolutely true. The calculations usually used to advocate Global Warming are linear progression instead of logarithmic, and the amount of heat energy available for absorption/emission is considered infinite, whereas in reality it is limited.

TheRedneck

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.