Global Warming Conspiracy LOL

[Oliver]

*double post* D'OH!

 

[Oliver]

Er... snow plays a pretty small part in lower winter temperatures. The main reason is because you're further from the sun, and more sunlight is reflected off the atmosphere.

Lots of places don't get any snow in winter, but still get frikken cold. (Antarctica, for example... )

-Gumboot

I also believed in the "further away from the sun" argument until
i read the "tilting" argument. :">

What causes winter

The popular belief that winter is caused by the Earth being farther from the Sun than in summer is not true. In fact, in the Northern Hemisphere, winter occurs when the Earth is at its closest to the Sun. Winter in the Southern Hemisphere does occur when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, however the greater distance from the Sun at this time is relatively small compared to the distance from the Sun as a whole and the variation in distance from the Sun has no noticeable effect on the seasons in either hemisphere.
The tilt of the earth's axis relative to its orbital plane has a dramatic effect on the weather. The Earth is tilted at an angle of 23°27' (23 degrees 27 minutes) to the plane of its orbit, and this causes different latitudes on the Earth to directly face the Sun as the Earth moves through its orbit. It is this variation that primarily brings about the seasons. When it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere faces the Sun more directly and thus experiences warmer temperatures than the Northern Hemisphere. Conversely, winter in the Southern Hemisphere occurs when the Northern hemisphere is tilted more toward the Sun. From the perspective of an observer on the Earth, the winter Sun has a lower maximum altitude in the sky than the summer Sun.


During winter in either hemisphere, the lower altitude of the Sun in winter causes the sunlight to hit that hemisphere at an oblique angle. In regions experiencing winter, the same amount of solar radiation is spread out over a larger area (see Effect of sun angle on climate). This effect is compounded by the larger distance that the light must travel through the atmosphere, allowing the atmosphere to dissipate more of this already limited heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter#What_causes_winter

 

[Brainache]

Are there any stats available on the numbers of climate scientists on either side of this Climate Change debate?

I know that the majority is not always right and that scientific consensus can sometimes prove to be misleading, but I'd still like to know just how many fully qualified practicing Climatologists(is that what they are called?) doubt that Global Warming (Climate Change?) is:
a) Real

b) Caused by the activities of people.

From what I've heard it isn't really a controversial topic. Except in the sense that a few people on the pay roll of big oil companies dispute the models and findings.

 

[Oliver]

Are there any stats available on the numbers of climate scientists on either side of this Climate Change debate?

I know that the majority is not always right and that scientific consensus can sometimes prove to be misleading, but I'd still like to know just how many fully qualified practicing Climatologists(is that what they are called?) doubt that Global Warming (Climate Change?) is:
a) Real

b) Caused by the activities of people.

From what I've heard it isn't really a controversial topic. Except in the sense that a few people on the pay roll of big oil companies dispute the models and findings.

I don't know any significant and/or credible expert on the "Bush" side
who isn't on the energy-lobby's payroll.

But what's really surprising is that america is still in political Stone Age
concerning the issue. And is anyone in here familiar with global dimming?

 

[offchops]

I watched this doco today which was mentioned in the LC thread.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

I've never really researched the subject too much, but i certainly found this doco interesting. It is a bit of a counter to Gores' doco, and also discusses many points raised here.

Would love to hear some feedback from anyone who knows about the subject.

 

[Oliver]

I watched this doco today which was mentioned in the LC thread.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

I've never really researched the subject too much, but i certainly found this doco interesting. It is a bit of a counter to Gores' doco, and also discusses many points raised here.

Would love to hear some feedback from anyone who knows about the subject.

I watched it some days ago and i could'nt find any data or "scientist"
that is not refutable. Most of the experts in this movie are paid by the
oil and petroleum lobby. I have no idea why any british media would
try to spread such semi-true propaganda...

 

[offchops]

Hi Oliver,

The experts in this doco claimed that they were not on the bank roll of any oil/petrol Company. Do you have a source on that?
It wouldn't leave the doco with much credibility if that were the case.

 

[gumboot]

I also believed in the "further away from the sun" argument until
i read the "tilting" argument. :">

Yes you'll notice I said that. The tilt is important because it causes heat to reflect off the atmosphere - not off snow.

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

Hi Oliver,

The experts in this doco claimed that they were not on the bank roll of any oil/petrol Company. Do you have a source on that?
It wouldn't leave the doco with much credibility if that were the case.

I don't remember their names but most of them are pretty prominent
oil sponsors. A good resource confirming it is a movie called "the denial
mashine", a docu made by a canadian tv-station. All their claims can
be backed up by researching their names and backgrounds:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=the+denial+machine&spell=1

 

[Brainache]

I don't know any significant and/or credible expert on the "Bush" side
who isn't on the energy-lobby's payroll.

But what's really surprising is that america is still in political Stone Age
concerning the issue. And is anyone in here familiar with global dimming?

I heard something about Global Dimming. Just a little doco somewhere about a study done in one part of the States after 9/11 and all the planes were grounded. Turned out that high altitude pollution from jet planes was helping offset the effects of Global Warming. Without all the "chemtrails" the ground would be getting even hotter.

 

[gumboot]

New Zealand's top climatologist (or whatever you call 'em) is pretty anti Gore and his film. I'm not sure what his specific stance is on Climate Change. I also don't know where he gets his $$$ from, but he works for the University of Auckland which is funded by our government (who support the Climate Change consensus and were quick to sign up to stuff like Kyoto).

I gather he doesn't seem so much to think they're wrong, but more that:
A) The data they have is not as conclusive as they claim it is
B) The body of solid scientific knowledge on the subject is insufficient to reach accurate conclusions

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

Yes you'll notice I said that. The tilt is important because it causes heat to reflect off the atmosphere - not off snow.

-Gumboot

Sorry, i just tried to make it clear because your reply sounded ambiguous.

 

[Oliver]

*snip* ...who support the Climate Change consensus and were quick to sign up to stuff like Kyoto *snip*

So New Zealand signed Kyoto while Australia denied to sign it?

 

[gumboot]

So New Zealand signed Kyoto while Australia denied to sign it?

I guess so, if Australia indeed declined to sign it.

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

I heard something about Global Dimming. Just a little doco somewhere about a study done in one part of the States after 9/11 and all the planes were grounded. Turned out that high altitude pollution from jet planes was helping offset the effects of Global Warming. Without all the "chemtrails" the ground would be getting even hotter.

There was a pretty good BBC documentary about it on GoogleVideo
but they deleted it. In this documentary there was a scientist who
was measuring local temperatures and was astounded by the increase
of temperatures during the "stand down order" after 9/11. So he
compared his data to other, similar studies and found out that
"Chemtrails" were responsible for less sun rays hitting the earth
and cooling it down.

The same results were studied by people who measure evaporation of
water in simple water basins all over the world. The docu claims that
the reason for decreasing water evaporation is the pollution caused by
humans - pollution particles reflecting sun rays back into space.

I don`t know the current state of the global dimming research but you
may try to google global dimming for the latest information about the issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought it was the contrails caused dimming, and hence cooling. Without the dimming after 9/11, temperatures increased, which is a worry. The dimming is caused by short lived particles, while warming is caused by long lived CO2. (in the sense that it persists in the atmosphere for about a century before being re-absorbed.)

 

[Oliver]

I thought it was the contrails caused dimming, and hence cooling. Without the dimming after 9/11, temperatures increased, which is a worry. The dimming is caused by short lived particles, while warming is caused by long lived CO2. (in the sense that it persists in the atmosphere for about a century before being re-absorbed.)

Yes, this is the current explanation for the phenomena (And i corrected
myself in my last message for confusing decrease and increase again).

So it is possible that global dimming is slowing down the global warming
effect - which could be much more dramatic without global dimming.

If this is true, the european efforts to reduce pollution may have dramatic
consequences. But i don't know if the IPCC will include these datasets
into their new models and publications.

 

[jhunter1163]

Are there any stats available on the numbers of climate scientists on either side of this Climate Change debate?

I know that the majority is not always right and that scientific consensus can sometimes prove to be misleading, but I'd still like to know just how many fully qualified practicing Climatologists(is that what they are called?) doubt that Global Warming (Climate Change?) is:
a) Real

b) Caused by the activities of people.

From what I've heard it isn't really a controversial topic. Except in the sense that a few people on the pay roll of big oil companies dispute the models and findings.

From my (admittedly limited) reading on the subject, it's my understanding that the consensus of climatologists is that global warming is real. It's a question of how quickly the earth is warming, and how much it will eventually warm.

There's been a lot of play given to the icecaps melting and the havoc that will wreak, but the warming will not stop at that point. In a few hundred years, there may be palm trees at the poles.

 

[Free Thinkr]

First of all there is nothing "dark". The Human brain (information submitted by Rod cells) enables us to distinguish between low and high reflections or low and high irradiance in general. Colors and contrasts are some kind of illusion, produced in our brains to process this information.

Obviously, I'm aware that darkness isn't an actual physical attribute of something; my point is that things that we see as being "darker" are so because they do not reflect light as much as things that are "light," and the reason they don't is because they absorb the light.

While the sun rays are passing the earths atmosphere, they are heating up particles withing the air - particles absorbing parts of the sunrays, the effect is doubled if something reflects the sunrays and sends them thru the atmosphere again.

Perhaps, but which actually results in more heat in the air:

1. light passing through the air, being reflected, and passing through the air once more
2. light passing through the air, being absorbed by something on the surface, and being radiated into the air

To me, it seems obvious the answer is #2, because air doesn't absorb light very well (hence its clear nature). "Dark" objects on the ground absorb heat very well, and once absorbed, they radiate it into the air quite efficiently. When I was younger, I worked for my uncle setting up canopies. We used to set them up in parking lots occasionally, and I can tell you that the blacktop surface makes for much hotter air than grass surfaces.

Plants use this sun energy in a similar way like humans use food to gain energy. Most cities that don't have much green space are up to 2 degrees celsius hotter than the green environment surrounding the city. The causes are materials like concrete and tar, absorbing light energy but heating up in the same time - while plants use ("eat") most of the energy and therefore don't heat up.

See, this is more what I was getting at. I'd still be pretty interested to see a comparison between, say, a grass field and a concrete sidewalk. I have no doubt whatever that blacktop radiates much more heat than plants do. But the point I was taking exception to was that reflecting was worse than absorbing. To me that definitely seems backwards; if there is an advantage, the use of the energy in photosynthesis as you describe here would seem to me to be the key.

Snow is a different issue. In wintertime the angle to the sun is tilted. The hemisphere having wintertime does'nt face the sun as directly as in summertime. That's why winter in europe means summer in australia.

Come on! Don't go Captain Obvious on me twice in the same post.

The reflectivity of snow is responsible for low earth temperatures and this effect is also cooling the air in lower regions in a much higher scale than in higher regions of the atmosphere.

Right. More heat in the retained in the atmosphere when there's no snow on the field than when there's snow; even though the light passes through the atmosphere twice, it still doesn't equal the absorption that would have taken place.

But to get back to your question and to sum up the info above:

Reflecting surfaces don't heat up the lower atmosphere but the higher regions of the atmosphere - while dark surfaces heat up the lower atmosphere.

That makes sense, but I'd wonder how long it takes heat in the lower atmosphere to radiate out into the upper atmosphere; to me, it seems that it would all even out in fairly short order, and that the main concern would be total heat absorption, be it from the surface, or the air itself.

A light bulb is no luxury but if everyone would replace the regular light bulbs with Compact fluorescent lamps (for example), it would save hundreds, probably thousands tons of carbon dioxide per year. Another thing would be a higher efficiency of burning fuels and oil. We do have the technology to realize such goals, but many governments does'nt subsidy such technologies, in america probably because the huge oil-/coal- and petroleum lobbies ... sponsoring the (Uhm...democratic???) Government.

That still strikes me as spitting in the ocean. Bottom line, we still need tremendous amounts of energy, and as long as its produced by burning fossil fuels, there's going to be way more CO2 produced than the earth can deal with; never mind reducing the CO2 levels, we'd barely dent the rate of increase. I think a huge problem in the US, that will not be addressed, is urban sprawl. For many reasons, this is a tremendous energy-waster.

Then there are alternative energies like hydrogen based motors or renewable fuels like vegetable oils or other bio gases. Here in germany, politics is already following this trend since several years and i hope that american politics will follow some day in a near future.

While I agree that these are interesting short-term solutions, I find them to be stop-gaps at best. I mean, take hydrogen for instance; it still has to be produced with electricity so far as I know, and as long as the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, it seems to me we're, at best, increasing efficiency.

IMO, if the more radical doom-sayers are correct, it's a done deal, because there is no way in hell we're reducing carbon emissions by the percentages needed to make a real difference. In fact, with China rapidly industrializing, the exact opposite seems likely to occur.

 

[Free Thinkr]

Yes you'll notice I said that. The tilt is important because it causes heat to reflect off the atmosphere - not off snow.

-Gumboot

Actually, the most important thing with the tilt is the fact that the same amount of light is spread over much greater distances; the light is much less intense in the winter. But that said, it's especially cold when there's snow-cover, due to the fact that the ground hardly absorbs any heat.