Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Hmm? The pressure broadening is what I was talking about. When the pressure goes down, the absorption lines become narrower. That makes more room between the lines, ie more of the spectrum there than on the line centers. The absorption coefficient goes down almost linearly with a drop in pressure.

Some of the CO2 molecules will radiate the energy out again, and some of them will transfer that energy through collisions with other molecules. That broadens the lines, and the pressure broadening occurs higher up as there are fewer other gases. Is that what you were saying about stratification?
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Hmm? The pressure broadening is what I was talking about. When the pressure goes down, the absorption lines become narrower. That makes more room between the lines, ie more of the spectrum there than on the line centers. The absorption coefficient goes down almost linearly with a drop in pressure.

Some of the CO2 molecules will radiate the energy out again, and some of them will transfer that energy through collisions with other molecules. That broadens the lines, and the pressure broadening occurs higher up as there are fewer other gases. Is that what you were saying about stratification?


Pressure broadening is more significant at higher pressure then lower pressure. I think that aside from natural bordering the only effect that might be significant is Doppler broadening but that might be more of a high temperature phanominom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through obfuscation of complexities.
What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
I think what Tonington may be getting at is that CO2 captures the infrared light in the lower atmosphere when it has only traveled 10 m but in the upper atmoshper the black body radiation re-emitted will travel much further before being re-absorbed because the concentration of CO2 is lower.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Pressure broadening is more significant at higher pressure then lower pressure. I think that aside from natural bordering the only effect that might be significant is Doppler broadening but that might be more of a high temperature phanominom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

Yup, that's correct. Line broadening is a function of local pressure from collisions, and temperature which is doppler. I find the most pervasive error in talking about saturated lines or bands is the effects of the wings of a band, not just the center of the band. That's why they aren't saturated. The bands are actually many lines and thus many wings.

Not entirely related, i found a piece from Science investigating the possibility that clouds of CO2 created an atmosphere on Mars that allowed for free flowing water.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
I highly doubt any significant spectral broadening of the CO2 absorption bands is unaccounted for. When I was at university I remember a physics teacher telling me that pressure broadening is only significant where there is a lot of pressure like in a sun. I think he said the same thing about temperature broadening. You can disbelieve me if you want but your wrong. It doesn't matter anyway, because the absorption spectrum come from experimental results and not theory. The lower the pressure (AKA the higher in the atmosphere) the less significant the broadening would be anyway. I agree that there is less saturation higher up in the atmosphere but it is not due to pressure broadening.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
In your first response you said that atmospheric pressures has no significant effect. Now you're telling me the lower the atmospheric pressure, the less significant the broadening will be. You've confused me now.

As I understand it, if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be more collisions of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's pressure broadening. You can see this in the Lorentzian profile of the bands. I'll have to go see my enviro studies prof in the new year for clarification I guess.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
In your first response you said that atmospheric pressures has no significant effect. Now you're telling me the lower the atmospheric pressure, the less significant the broadening will be. You've confused me now.


My statements aren’t contradictory. I said pressure broadening exists but I don’t think it is significant.

As I understand it, if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, there will be more collisions of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's pressure broadening. You can see this in the Lorentzian profile of the bands. I'll have to go see my enviro studies prof in the new year for clarification I guess.

You understanding is correct. There will be more CO2 where the pressure is higher. Thus the higher up in atmosphere the less significant the pressure broadening will be. I contented that it is not significant at earth pressure levels. Regardless neglecting of this effect is more likely to result in overestimating global warming then under estimated it.

Anyway, I found a link that might be helpfull
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/high-pressure-limit.html

I'll look it later tonight to see if I can get a better idea of the significane of pressure broadening.
 
Last edited:

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets

By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » Last updated at 23:14pm on 11th December 2007
Comments
Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
If that isn't the richest appeal to authority, so which is the Pope an authority on, ideologies or scare mongering?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
Corcoran: Reasonable, again.

A new call to reason

Terence Corcoran, National Post Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007
Two days ago, the following e-mail circulated from the Alliance for Climate Protection, an Al Gore activist group.
From: "Al Gore, Alliance for Climate Protection" Subject: 48 Hours Dear Friend,
In less than forty-eight hours, I will step on stage at the UN Climate Conference in Bali. With me I will bring hundreds of thousands of messages demanding a visionary global treaty be completed and brought into effect by 2010. If we want to solve the climate crisis, we need to demonstrate the broad public support for action together. That's why it is vital you sign our petition right now ...
Only two days remain before I deliver your messages to the delegates meeting in Bali. Over the past few days, more than 174,612 people have added their voices. Don't miss this incredible opportunity to demonstrate your support for a visionary global treaty to end the climate crisis. Thank you, Al Gore
By the time you read this, Al Gore will already have made his presentation to IPCC delegates, no doubt attracting global coverage from the thousands of media reps combing for nits of news at an event that offers little. By early last night, the Gore petition had accumulated 239,150 names. A box-office disaster, one would think, for a climate event that's the product of a decade of polished political showmanship, billion-dollar marketing campaigns and relentless manufacturing of headline hyperbole.
On the hype front, which one would have thought pretty well exhausted by now, the Secretary-General of the United Nations cranked out a fresh one: "We are at a crossroads," Ban Ki-moon said. "One path leads to a comprehensive climate-change agreement; the other to oblivion." Oblivion! From now on, Mr. Ban is to be known around these parts as Ban Ka-boom!
Silly, to be sure, but what else can one do in the face of meetings such as Bali, where thousands gather to needle 190 governments into some kind of action to reduce the world's output of carbon emissions, the objective being to change the global climate for the next 100 years and preserve some pseudo-scientific idea of what the world's climate should be. Also on the agenda are schemes to redistribute unidentified megatonnes of cash and wealth from one part of the world to another.
The last time it pushed for agreement, in the early 1990s, the IPCC produced the Kyoto Protocol. So far, it looks like delegates this week will produce the Bali Discord. The latest reports say delegates will fail to adopt clear emissions-reduction targets and waffle on other issues. Bali, in any event, is just a warmup for the big meeting, the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009. That's where the IPCC plans to replace Kyoto with the Copenhagen Protocol.
While some people might like to get their science and economic inputs from Al Gore and Ka-boom!, there are plenty of sensible experts who see no need for apocalyptic scare tactics and Hollywood sales gimmicks. Watching Al Gore pipe 240,000 or so petitioners over a cliff looks like a fun experiment in mass psychology and a sure media hit. But why would a list of no-name petitioners dragged from the Internet deserve any attention, let alone credibility, especially since they were assembled by a documented faker of science and economics?
Compare the Gore petition and message with an Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to be distributed in Bali tomorrow (see right). Signed by more than 100 specialists from around the world -- many are leading figures in their fields, from climate science to economics to biology -- the letter begins with the obvious: "It is not possible to stop climate change." The letter was assembled under Robert M. Carter, a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory of James Cook University in Australia. Canadian signatories include IPCC expert reviewers Ross McKitrick of Guelph University and Ian D. Clark of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. Among the Americans is Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, Virginia.
The points of agreement in the letter are broad and by now all too familiar. They dispute the IPCC science process, argue against the existence of consensus and reject claims of abnormal climate change. Much new climate science research has also emerged since the last IPCC reports were written, undermining the official science. The IPCC reports, they say, are "materially outdated."
This call to reason is obviously no match for Al Gore in the global competition for attention over climate change. It contains no warning of looming Armageddon. It offers no choice between oblivion and salvation. It simply suggests that Bali and the the whole IPCC process is a big mistake that will ultimately be futile.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
Don't fight, adapt

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Sonny Tumbelaka/AFP/Getty Images
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
[List of signatories]
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
[...]The medieval warming was a speed bump compared to the rising emissions we have today. All those graphs show one temperature spike, followed by an emission spike, not a bump followed by a spike. [...]
You'd be interested in an article I saw recently, Ton, but I can't find it now. Apparently air trapped in ancient ice isn't the same as when it first got there. Seems the CO2 content is up to 50% less than it started out with, making today's CO2 levels right in line with actual previous levels. I'll find it and post it if I can.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
You'd be interested in an article I saw recently, Ton, but I can't find it now. Apparently air trapped in ancient ice isn't the same as when it first got there. Seems the CO2 content is up to 50% less than it started out with, making today's CO2 levels right in line with actual previous levels. I'll find it and post it if I can.
I've posted this before but it fits perfectly with the quoted post.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
for you radical right wingers who continually say there is no truth to this idea of global warming, why do you suppose it has been given so much credence by the UN, the majority of nations world wide, and by so many in the science community?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
for you radical right wingers who continually say there is no truth to this idea of global warming, why do you suppose it has been given so much credence by the UN, the majority of nations world wide, and by so many in the science community?
I've posted this before, too.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.