jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (153 posts)

The Global Warming Scam - yet more lies and exaggerations

  1. sannyasinman profile image61
    sannyasinmanposted 6 years ago

    Online news service promotes false climate change study
     
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd

    1. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting logic. So, by your reasoning...if I find a Christian website that makes a false claim, then the entire religion of Christianity has been proven false. Interesting. One false or inaccurate claim about, say tax cuts...and so the entire concept of tax cuts are false. I like it. It makes being ignorant much easier I suppose.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "It makes being ignorant much easier I suppose."

        Does it?

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Seems to work for the Right...

          1. bgamall profile image85
            bgamallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Here is the problem. Clearly global warming is affecting higher elevation places like the Eastern Sierra Nevada and the poles. In the Eastern Sierra Nevada, even without additional population in remote areas, low temps rarely approach average lows in winter.

            On the other hand, I think the oceans sop up some of the problems so that I don't think immediate crisis will occur.

            I personally like the balmy weather in Reno lately.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image93
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I do not know the person who posted this, but I think it's high headed, and heavy handed superiority complexes that would make someone to start the conversation starter (that's what the post seems to be to me) off with barely veiled insults.. . . but that's just me, you all have a great day.

    2. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      False climate change study?  Impossible.  lol

    3. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Guardian is becoming mnore worthless by the day. They are the UKs LA and NY Times. Two papers that are not worthy of using for the catbox

    4. megs11237 profile image78
      megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really the guardian is your source??

  2. frogdropping profile image84
    frogdroppingposted 6 years ago

    Can you feel the vibrations sanny? Sure to cause a rumpus. Unless everyone on HP just died smile

    I reckon we're just cycling round (mean cycle - time periods rather than mountain biking) as per the nature of things. No expert though. Let's see what others come up with.

  3. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    Yes because we all know that all of climate science is just a plot by Hitler's brain which is kept in a basement by the Rothschilds who are secretly controlling Obama through mind waves and have been trying (unsuccessfully for some strange reason) to take over the whole world since at least Woodrow Wilson's presidency, maybe even since the founding of the US (have you ever looked into the architecture and design of Washington DC?  Obviously an illuminati plot). 

    Maybe this whole global warming thing will finally hit the jackpot for these all powerful global elites who have somehow failed so far to take over the world.   

    By the way Sanny, I have some tinfoil hats for sale if you need some.

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Yeah, the latest "What's the problem? Man never does any damage" non-event is the BP oil spill.

  5. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Pollution damaging the environment? Impossible! wink

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      To the extent and accuracy reported by climate science?  Yes, I would have to agree. smile

    2. megs11237 profile image78
      megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is funny how quickly we forget the people who died from such things...

      It is shameful.

      4000 people died in London due to one of the worst cases of air pollution

      20 people died and 6000 people were ill when a bad case of temperature inversion settled over Donora PA trapping the all the pollutants in the air from the nearby steel mill, zinc smelting factories. For 10 years after that they would have a higher than normal mortality rate.

      Yet we pretend that we have no effect on our environment. Sad and irresponsible really.

  6. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    I thought we settled this already in the last thread? OK, second Misha challenge. Please, William, Texas, and LMC, post here your explanations of how global warming works, for a peer review. smile

    If you can't post and defend your own model, you don't know what you are talking about, so your opinion on the matter is, err, uninformed, and therefore negligible. smile

    1. frogdropping profile image84
      frogdroppingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You arrived then smile

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL Super Misha to the rescue big_smile

    2. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I've written a series of hubs on the evidence.  The model holds up very well. 

      Or do you have some alternative explanation?  The sun maybe?  Nope, sorry, we have been at a solar minimum for the past decade, while we've seen the highest temperatures ever recorded.  Natural cycles?  Maybe, but it's awfully strange that the physical changes we're seeing in the atmosphere mirror what we would expect from greenhouse gases. And exactly what natural cycle are we talking about?  Milankovitch cycles?  Not good enough to explain.  Solar cycles?  We've already examined that and found it to be wanting. 

      There is 150 years of science backing the anthropogenic global warming theory.  The theory is falsifiable and evidence based. 

      Those of you who are so quick to dismiss:  what's your alternative theory?  Will it hold up to peer review?  Is it a falsifiable hypothesis?  Can it be tested?  Or is it just wishful thinking based on no evidence?

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please William, in a few sentences - but your own. How exactly does global warming works? I promise, if you present the model that holds up to peer review, I will change my tune. smile

        1. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Facts-About-Global-Warming

          Those are my own words, as simple as I can explain it.

          edit:  see my profile for a whole list of articles on the evidence that the earth is warming, and it is caused by CO2.

          1. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            William, I will not go there to waste my time in your comments for nobody to see. If you want to be taken seriously, post it here.

            Oh, you may want first to check this thread out http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63461?p … ost1402375 , specifically the conversation between Kerry and myself, to avoid duplicate content wink

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry bud, I have things to do other than argue with someone about something that the vast majority of scientists and educated people accept, especially when I have already written about it extensively. 

              What's your alternative theory anyway?  Is it testable?  Evidence based?

              1. Misha profile image74
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't have to come up with alternative theory. This is you who want me to believe this tale and act accordingly, so the burden of proof is on your side. Pretty much like christians want me to believe their god exists, and I ask them to prove it. Same concept. smile

                So, I take it you admit you don't think your model could hold up to peer review, right? wink

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  OK Misha, I'll bite:  do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not worth it really, if they won't accept that our actions can change the climate in the face of evidence that we can make the rain fall and what about temperature inversions over cities, entirely man made, like I say, what's the point?

                  2. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Umm, at least something to start. OK William. First I do not believe in anything. I do consider some things proven, though. smile

                    Now, to answer your question, I see that people state that. Since I do not consider proven that greenhouse gases exist at all, then no, I do not think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just to make it clear, I consider proven that CO2 itself exists LOL smile

    3. mrpopo profile image87
      mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      From what I remember seeing in the last thread, the major disagreement with the presented model eventually boiled down to visible light not being able to get converted into heat.

      If that's the case, I can't help but wonder why darker surfaces emit heat better than lighter surfaces. Darker surfaces absorb the entire visible spectrum while lighter surfaces reflect most of the spectrum, so if absorbing this visible light does not result in heat emission why are darker surfaces better at warming up than lighter surfaces?

      Personally I think that's a moot point, because in whatever way the Earth is heating up it is pretty clear that the greenhouse gases are good at trapping heat, which is the main issue in the first place.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, Kerry is educated enough to understand that this is not a moot point, but cornerstone of her model. You obviously did not understand this. smile

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do either of you actually understand what "moot point" means?

          Nothing to do with this ridiculous argument, just that both of you seem to think it means the opposite of what it actually means.

          1. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oops, I stand corrected. Ok, let it be insignificant point, how it was intended by MrPopo. Thanks for an English lesson. smile

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, don't feel bad about that. I bet 99% of native born citizens misuse it.

          2. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Probably not. I did look it up prior to using it just for verification, but apparently it's still incorrect.

            I was under the impression that it meant something of irrelevance. In my view, it doesn't really matter how the heat is being converted - be it UV, visual or infrared - because the trapping of the heat by the greenhouse gases is the main concern.

            If the trapping of the heat is not the main concern, then I'll need some clarification with the global warming theory. Otherwise, I'll need some clarification with the proper use of the word "moot".

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I am sure Misha knows much more about all this than anyone who studied to be a climatologist. If I were not part of the evil leftist conspiracy to destroy capitalism by imposing pollution controls on business, I'd agree with him because I like his profile picture and he makes four times the passive income I do. That plainly makes him right and the climatologists must be wrong.

            2. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              As to "moot", neither meaning is applicable here. But that's unimportant.

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Neither meaning? I don't know either meaning!

                Some clarification would be nice. I'd rather not make the same mistake twice, you know.

        2. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I was referencing more in regards to the fact that spouting more gases will result in more heat being trapped and thus have an effect on climate. That has little to do with the "cornerstone" of her model (the visual spectrum issue, I'm assuming?), just a basic observation.

          I'd like an explanation for the darker surfaces bit though, if you'd indulge.

          1. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Darker surfaces absorb more in all parts of the radiation spectrum, including infrared. Infrared is what is responsible for heat transfer.

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm searching for anything supporting whether a darker surface will absorb more for all parts of the spectrum but I can't seem to find anything.

              "Color has nothing whatsoever to do with an object's ability to absorb infrared energy. That is because color is a property related to visible light only. White paint, for example, appears "black" to infrared energy. That is, although it reflects most visible light (which is why you see it as white), it strongly absorbs infrared energy. In fact, most surfaces except bare polished metal, strongly absorb infrared. A significant part of  the sun's energy is in the infrared region, so no matter what color your experiment was painted, it looks black to infrared energy."

              http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/e … g99520.htm

              1. Misha profile image74
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Umm, interesting point. Somehow it does not quite correspond with what we both observe - Sun heats black objects more than white ones. And, until you boil a cup of water with a led flashlight, or at least increase its temp measurably, I will maintain that visible light does not transfer heat. smile

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, the sun does heat black objects more than white ones, but you haven't pinpointed exactly what causes that. It could be either ultraviolet, infrared or the visual spectrum, or perhaps a combination of the three. I assumed the visual spectrum had something to do with it because the colours that you're able to see are based on what they reflect/absorb from the visual spectrum. Darker objects absorb most of the visual spectrum and are able to warm up better than lighter objects that reflect most of the visual spectrum. I don't see any evidence that they absorb more of infrared or any other radiation, however.

                  As for the LED experiment, I'm not quite sure but it seems you're limiting the possibilities of the experiment to one conclusion when there could be several to account for the result. Perhaps there is too little power in an LED light to significantly warm up a cup of water. Maybe the heat is dissipated to the rest of the flashlight. It sounds too simplistic and you might be missing some outside variables in the experiment.

                  1. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    In my everyday life I don't see any evidence that visible light gets somehow converted to heat, in any noticeable quantities. Since we are coming back to this again and again, I may try to setup a better experiment than a flashlight, but this will have to wait a month or two until I can get to it. smile

                2. melpor profile image91
                  melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  All light, invisible and visible, have electromagnetic energy. The colors we see in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum correspond to different levels of energy. In this case blue will have the highest energy level with a gradual decrease in energy level through all the colors to red being the lowest. The next higher level after violet is ultraviolet (means beyond violet) light; this why we get sunburn when we are in the sun too long.  Everything after ultraviolet light such as x-rays and gamma rays will burn and kill you if you are exposed to them long enough. Black objects absorbs all the colors, therefore it will feel warmer than white objects, it is absorbing all the energy of the different colors.  White does the opposite all the color are reflected so it feels cooler since it did not absorbed any of the energy from the colors. That is why everyone should white in the summer months, it is cooler. But everything will feel warmer when it is exposed to infrared (heat) light because all molecules absorb infrared energy regardless of what color they are.

                  1. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yet another push towards setting up a proper experiment. I actually got interested myself. smile

              2. Rabid Puma profile image60
                Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Something black is absorbing across all parts of the visible spectrum.

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I know. Misha's claim is that darker objects are also able to absorb more from all parts of the radiation spectrum, including infrared.

                  1. Rabid Puma profile image60
                    Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    In most cases that's probably true. If it's black it probably has a broad diversity of absorbing species, which increases the probability of having an absorption band at any given point in the UV or IR.

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I see it, smell it, breathe it, taste it and walk in it......Nothing like experience to beat any ol study.

    Next time you're behind a bus, and it takes off...take a nice big whiff. Then tell me that causes no damage to the air.
    Go to the nearest oil refinery, and find a puddle near you. stick your finger in it and smell...better yet, taste...then tell me that is good for the ground.
    Same goes for the smoke-stacks you see blowing that greasy smoke every day....smells real healthy, doesn't it?

    Get a grip....man-made pollution causes damage to the environment. Just ask anyone who lives in a big city in the poor part of town.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just to get it straight - nobody in their right mind denies that pollution damages the environment. It is obvious. However, causal relationship between pollution and climate fluctuations is not obvious and need to be proven - if you want to be taken seriously. smile

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just to get it straight,nobody in their right mind denies global warming, either.

        But Right wing people still do, or they fall into the kind of nonsense you spout here.

        Educate yourself.  No, never mind: that would interfere with your Leftist anti business conspiracy theories, I expect.

        Ayup - all of us on the left want to DESTROY  CAPITALISM  by  pretending pollution is creating climate change. Oh, we are sneaky..

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well then, I'm out. Polluton is bad enough for me...as well as the destruction of the sacred rainforest....Greed is our downfall....is that man-made?

  8. Rabid Puma profile image60
    Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago

    Starting a new subthread here for Misha because the one above is confusing my computer:

    "I swear I don't put any spell on them

    You said - to fill the box with CO2 - this is a bit different from 0.03%. Though mythbasters used the correct concentration, at least they say so.

    And not sure I understood your last sentence, sorry."

    Whether it is 0.03% or 100% is not particularly relevant if all you want to demonstrate is that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. The answer is yes in both cases but easier to see at higher concentrations, obviously.

    To clarify the last sentence of my previous post: If you had a box of nitrogen and a box of carbon dioxide and you irradiated both with infrared light, the carbon dioxide box would be cooler than the nitrogen box.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, it is actually a huge difference - 100/0.03= 3333 times. If you get a marginal result in 100% concentration, you are highly unlikely to see any result in 0.03% concentration, that is all what I meant. smile

      Do you have any proof of your second statement, please? I don't have any casual experience to match it with, so have no idea if it is proven or not. smile

      1. Rabid Puma profile image60
        Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The mechanism of heating in the greenhouse effect is increasing the average time it takes for the earth to emit infrared radiation. In effect, CO2 reflects a portion of the light back to earth. In the case where the impinging light is infrared the same thing occurs, except here some of the incident light is reflected back out rather than held in.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Umm, that sorta sounds confusing, especially considering your previous post where you claimed the effect to be isotropic. Could you elaborate on your model a bit more so I can understand. smile

          1. Rabid Puma profile image60
            Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is isotropic, hence only a percentage is reflected.

            The earth converts impinging light to infrared and radiates it towards space. Greenhouse gases absorb that light and re-emit isotropically. Since all of it was trying to leave before and after re-emission the direction has been scrambled the effect is akin to that of partial reflection.

            Likewise, light coming in being absorbed and re-emitted results in some of the light being ejected immediately.

            1. Misha profile image74
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Kerry did not show the mechanism of converting visible light into infrared, you did not show either. It is a cornerstone of this model, there fore it is not proven.

              On a side note, this is the third model you presented on two pages of this thread. Should I take it you don't have one, and just are trying to invent it as you go? wink

              Please make up your mind which one exactly you prefer. And no, when you reflect more visible in one direction and more IR in another, it is not isotropic, it is anisotropic. smile

              1. Rabid Puma profile image60
                Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure where you think I'm being inconsistent.

                There is no reflection in the visible; CO2 has no absorption there. It's emitting IR in all directions, but the INITIAL light is not isotropic, so the conversion from anisotropic to isotropic is an effective partial reflection.

                The mechanism of conversion from visible to IR is a little hard without figures.

                Paraphrasing myself from elsewhere:

                Visible light interacts with matter by promotion of electrons. Electrons are intimately related to the bonding of a group of atoms. Changing the energy level of an electron, therefore, weakens (usually) the bonding interaction and makes the preferred distance between atoms larger.

                When an electron is promoted the molecule doesn't have time to react, and it finds its atoms in unfavorable positions in the electronic excited state. As a result the molecule is also in a vibrational excited state (the Franck-Condon principle).

                The molecule "relaxes," getting rid of extra vibrational energy by collisions with other molecules or distributing it into rotational and translational modes. Eventually it re-emits a photon but it has lost a lot of energy due to its relaxation. It also relaxes to an excited vibrational state in the ground electronic state. The net result is a significant red shift, or decrease in energy (increase in wavelength), typically this emission is shifted all the way to the infrared.

                1. Misha profile image74
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This is where smile


                  1. Rabid Puma profile image60
                    Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I have a hub on the subject titled "Global Warming."

                2. Misha profile image74
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That part we need to set up an experiment. Here is the plan:

                  1. Obtain infrared and visible optical filters, preferably rectangular.
                  2. Set up three booths equipped by thermometers, capable of holding filters and soil/water samples while providing ample natural ventilation.
                  3. On a sunny day, set all three booths facing sun (two equipped with filters and one without any filter) with a portion of soil/water placed behind the filters and read the temp measurements after half an hour.
                  4. After measurement, shift the filters between booths and replace a sample with a fresh one, form a shady area. After half an hour measure again.
                  5. Repeat step 4.
                  6. Repeat steps 3-5 on a different day
                  7. Repeat step 6.

                  This should give us 27 measurements that are likely to produce repeatable results, when averaged.

                  Any ideas and suggestions on the plan are welcome. smile

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Why not just use one of the lamps like the ones in that Mythbuster video with those optical filters? They do release both IR and normal light.

                    Start them all off at room temperature, set up the booths with those filters and shine the light on them.

              2. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I did, actually. You just chose to argue that visible light absorbed by the surface somehow does not get re-emitted after being absorbed. Exactly what you think happens to it instead is not entirely clear. tongue

                1. Misha profile image74
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You did not show that it gets re-emitted as IR, sorry smile

                  I would appreciate you taking a look at the experiment plan a few posts above and making your comments on it smile

      2. Doc Snow profile image96
        Doc Snowposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        John Tyndall discovered exactly this effect back in 1859, so the proof exists.  I've got a Hub telling the tale of Tyndall's life and work, including a diagram of his experimental apparatus.

        Since then, satellite observations confirm that the long-predicted radiative greenhouse effects in the atmosphere are in fact occurring.  (Links on request.)

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "World sizzles to record for the
    year" ... "The world is hotter than ever. March, April, May and June set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration says."

  10. melpor profile image91
    melporposted 6 years ago

    Global warming is a fact. The atmospheric temperature is actually rising gradually due to the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average global temperature has increased by about a couple degrees centigrade as determined by historical meteorological records. There is a monitoring station located on one of the peaks in the Hawaii Islands that measures the daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Currently the carbon dioxide level in the global atmosphere is around 300 ppm and is steadily rising as determined by this station. It was around 50 ppm about 50 years ago when it was first setup. Carbon dioxide is a very good absorber of infrared (heat) energy. This is why there is an increase in global atmospheric temperature.  Venus is a good example of what happen when too much carbon dioxide is trapped in the atmosphere. Over time the carbon dioxide level will probably be reset to a more suitable level through the natural carbon cycle. We have to wait to see if that happens in the future.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OK, so your model is direct heating by the Sun, right? smile

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well you've got to admit it's a more plausible model than indirect heating by hot air expelled by deniers.

      2. melpor profile image91
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is direct heating from the sun that reaches the earth and reflected back into space. But when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere some of that reflected heat is trapped along with the man-made heat. This is the problem, there is a lot more heat from made-made sources now.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you know how much energy comes from Sun, and how much energy mankind produces? Also, the range of long-time variations of Sun energy?

          I think we are better off returning to direct heating model, that does present some interesting challenges. smile

          Dinner break smile

  11. mega1 profile image79
    mega1posted 6 years ago
  12. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Our climate in the Deep South is def changing. Our cold weather is coming earlier than it used to. Whether that's caused by man, is part of a natural cycle, or some of both, I don't know.

  13. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 6 years ago

    Misha wrote:

    "In my everyday life I don't see any evidence that visible light gets somehow converted to heat. . ."

    Really?  You've never felt the Sun's light as warmth upon your face?  Never been in an actual physical greenhouse on a sunny day?  Left some plastic gizmo you shouldn't have on your car seat on a sunny day and had it soften and deform from the heat?

    Sure you have.

    But all of those things are precisely the Sunlight--the great majority of which is in the visible spectrum--being converted to heat by the interaction with the molecules of your face, the plants and walkways, or the plastic gizmo on your car seat.

    In the case of the planetary greenhouse effect, what happens is that the energy from that heat is reradiated as infrared radiation (sometimes called "thermal radiation" for this reason.)

    Because greenhouse gases--water, CO2, methane and so on--interact very efficiently with IR, they absorb it, and are heated by it in turn.  They collide with the much more numerous oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, heating them.  All these molecules can  then reradiate in those same IR frequencies, and they do so, with the radiation headed in all directions.  ("Isotropically.")

    The net effect of all this is that the rate of radiation to space slows; energy accumulates, warming the surface and atmosphere.  If the GHGs aren't increasing, a new equilibrium temperature will be reached as outgoing radiation increases to balance the slower transmission.

    There are other ways to think about this, too, but I believe that's a fair formulation.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sun light contains a lot of IR radiation, and it is what is responsible for heating the objects on a way smile

  14. megs11237 profile image78
    megs11237posted 6 years ago

    Honestly this is a pointless conversation. It is very insane to think that someone who calls themselves educated would have to be convinced of a simple determination made years ago by many different people, before climate change every became a big hoopla.

    1896 Swedish Scientist published a paper on burning fossil fuels adds increase to temperature.

    1930 See work of G. S. Callendar

    Studies in 1950 on weather, using Cold War funding, agreed and was verified later in 1960 with measurement of gases that showed they were indeed rising.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas as in it effects the weather. Period.

    What should be done about is still up for debate.

    Yes things exist in the natural environment outside of us and yes we can effect them. CO2 has fluctuated over the last 650,000 years but has been way above levels and has not seen a drop to normal fluctuation levels in quite some time.


    You cannot make such simple statements as we feel warmth from infrared radiation. While that is one component it is not the whole truth which makes me wonder we you learned this one aspect of the process without the rest....How can you understand infrared radiation without greenhouse gases??

    But here is some info for you

    "Infrared radiation beaming up from the surface is intercepted by "greenhouse" gas molecules in the lower atmosphere, and that keeps the lower atmosphere and the surface warm. The radiation that finally escapes is mostly emitted from higher levels of the atmosphere, levels that are indeed well below freezing

    The nitrogen and oxygen gases that make up most of the atmosphere don't intercept infrared radiation. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was observed to be rising rapidly, and the only reasonable explanation was that this was due to the enormous emissions from human activities." Spencer Weart historian, physicist, astrophysicist.

  15. mrpopo profile image87
    mrpopoposted 6 years ago

    Natural cycles of solar activity? How is that most likely, Misha?

    And are you suggesting that despite rising CO2 levels the climate is getting warmer? How much warmer should it be if CO2 levels were at normal levels?

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is not me who says CO2 plays a major role in warming/cooling. Ask them, please smile

      1. mrpopo profile image87
        mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you yourself stated that more CO2 would mean a cooler climate, so that would be where I got the idea.

        "If the heat gets trapped in a form of preventing of IR radiation to pass through the atmosphere, and there is no conversion of visible light into heat by Earth, then more CO2 would mean cooler climate, because it would reflect more IR back the the Sun than back the the Earth, just because much more IR comes to atmosphere from the Sun"

        What about my first question? I am really curious to know how you can determine the probability that global warming is either man-made or a natural cycle. I think you can, but I think the probability is higher for a man-made scenario, given all of the evidence.

        If you could compare the current effects to previous stages of this cycle cycles and find enough of a comparison then it might strengthen your point.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you see "if" there, at the beginning. This is the operative word smile

          As for the first question - not sure I see what is to be answered there? You asked what could be the culprit, and I said I think most likely it is natural cycles. How is that most likely? Cause I think so, without any determination. I do not know for sure, and I am content with not knowing it, there are millions of things I do not know.

          Remember, it is you who is trying to convince me that god exists, so I make certain corrections to my lifestyle because of it - so this is your job to prove the grounds for your demands. I do not demand anything from you. smile

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I assumed that we had agreed that heat does get trapped by gases like CO2, and that the only issue left was the conversion of visible light into heat. So you disagree - heat does not get trapped by CO2? That Mythbusters experiment shows otherwise. All that's left is the conversion of visible light into heat, and for me lasers do a pretty good job of that.

            There must be some reason for that inclination. I could just as easily say I think fairies did it, but I don't have much reason for saying so. Purely thinking on probabilities though, it makes more sense to assume that the recent climate changes can be attributed to man. This video makes a few intriguing points, so if you have the time I suggest watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1A … re=channel

            I am not trying to convince or demand you of anything, I am merely attempting to dissect at this theory and come up with a basic understanding. Besides, the grounds have been proven sufficiently, have they not? The only kink in the armor (based on the previous thread's discussion) was the visible light conversion into heat, but lasers have put that to rest and most likely a better version of your flashlight experiment can produce a similar result. What more do you disagree with?

            1. Misha profile image74
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, MB experiment was quite poorly designed, and shows only that ice figure placed into the atmosphere with some arbitrary concentration of CO2 gets heated by stage lamps faster than in two other arbitrary gas mixtures. I did not argue against it cause I don't want to steer off topic and waste my time and effort. smile

              Lasers on the other hand is something to think about as I already admitted, though I am not ready to comment on it yet, I need some time to think and research.

              I do doubt very much that grounds have been conclusively proven, for a mere fact that there is not enough reliable temperature data to draw any conclusion if this temp rise is something extraordinary in Earth history or not. The abundance of models offered just in this thread does not come across as a settled agreed upon theory either. But I am curious to about it, too - hence me posting here. smile

            2. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Having been through this conversation with Misha myself recently, also bear in mind that the greenhouse effect does not depend on visible light directly causing warming, it depends on infrared being emitted by the surface of the Earth and reflected back towards the surface by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

              ANY electromagnetic radiation of ANY wavelength that is absorbed by the Earth's surface would be re-emitted (primarily) as infrared because the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation depends on the temperature of the object that emits it, not on the wavelength the radiation was initially absorbed as.

              1. Misha profile image74
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Nah, you did not show it. smile

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  At this point, physics is on my side, Misha. You agree that the earth's surface absorbs varying amounts of visible light, but offer no explanation for what it does with it. An object cannot just continually absorb energy and remain at thermal equilibrium. That defies the laws of physics. Either it must get warmer, which you claim is impossible, or it must use or re-emit the energy in some way.

                  If it re-emits the energy, Earth's ambient temperature ensures that the majority will be emitted at infrared wavelengths. The wavelength the energy was initially absorbed as has no effect on the wavelength it is re-emitted as.

                  If the absorbed energy gets used in a chemical reaction of some sort, it is still likely to get released as heat at some point. Photosynthesis uses the energy of visible light to produce ATP, which releases the stored energy as heat when it is metabolized.

                  Any way you look at this, you lose.

                  1. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nah Kerry, empty rhetoric. You are putting many "science" words there that just muddy the waters instead of clearing it. smile

                    Remember, this is you who want me to believe into your god, not vice versa, so I don't have to prove anything, all the burden is on your side. And so far I did not see a conclusive evidence.

                    Though I am ready to make a step towards you and perform the experiment I mentioned a few posts above. If set up properly, it should be able to answer the question. Do you have anything to say about this experiment plan? smile

              2. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah that was my initial assumption from what little I knew, but I wanted to see where this conversation would lead.

                Apparently either global warming is true or the fundamental laws of physics are being broken...

  16. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    At last an interesting and informative thread !

    I must say from just arriving on the scene - part of the whole problem is that the whole thing is complex.  Misha needing a proveable experiment for light heating the atmosphere is exactly the way to go I would say. When that experiment can be described and reproduced this thread at least has something real to consider instead of the over-exagerration of promotion and the under-exagerration of the oil lobby.

    When the atmosphere heating issue is put to bed - I always thought the increased carbon dioxide (which is not in dispute I think) caused heating of the earth surface by all the various heat in the light spectrum from the sun that reaches us in a straight line (90 degrees angle) reflecting back at shallower angles that are then reflected back down again and so preventing it escaping from the atmosphere - as a greenhouse works, hence the name of the effect ?

    1. megs11237 profile image78
      megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please read about the experiments I listed...

  17. Rabid Puma profile image60
    Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago

    "Now that that's cleared up, what would be a better experiment to demonstrate that visible light does in fact heat up objects?"

    A laser is the easiest and most convincing example. Lasers are monochromatic, so they are not emitting any infrared (unless it's an IR laser, of course). High-power lasers are routinely used for cutting and welding. Here's a you-tube video of a green laser burning paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te7rS3-4 … re=related

    1. mrpopo profile image87
      mrpopoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely, that's the first thing that came to mind.

      I saw a few Youtube videos as well but I became discouraged to find that the specific model I saw also emitted IR radiation and that most similar models emitted far more IR radiation than they claimed, and did not use an IR filter. I think I gave up too quickly.

      Now that we have some solid evidence for the power of light in the visual spectrum, I don't think we have any issues with the model and have safely put to rest any doubts.

      Thanks for all your input Puma, I think it'll help clear a lot of things up.

    2. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now that is something to ponder about and make some research. smile

    3. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OK, this was easy. There are three types of lasers used for cutting and welding - CO2, Nd, and Nd:YAG. All three are IR lasers. smile

      Next version, please smile

      1. Rabid Puma profile image60
        Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Those lasers are often used because of their high efficiencies (also the absorption efficiency of the target at a given wavelength is important), but you can use visible lasers also. The youtube video in the post you quoted shows a visible laser inducing burning.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Source, please. And no, youtube is not the reliable source. You do not know what laser was used in this video, likely it was frequency doubled Nd:YAG without IR filter, based on its green harmonic. You can educate yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_harmonic_generation , pay attention to "other uses" section.

          1. Rabid Puma profile image60
            Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If it's a frequency-doubled Nd:YAG the first harmonic is not going to be very important regardless of whether there's an IR filter; much of the point of going to the second harmonic is increasing power density. Search "Polyethylene welding by pulsed visible laser irradiation" and you'll get a recent paper that uses visible light for polymer welding.

            The wattage of the laser is directly proportional to the temperature change regardless of the wavelength of light (assuming identical absorption coefficients at each wavelength).

            1. Misha profile image74
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Cool, this looks much more legible - and promising. So, after much searching we finally found one isolated case, at least. Though, before we can move any further, we need to establish that absorption and emission properties of polyethylene are materially similar to soil and ocean water. smile

  18. uncorrectedvision profile image60
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    Since Global Warming is caused by human activity,

    and there is a significant number of people and governments world wide that want those activities stopped,

    and the cessation of those activities by that significant proportion would have a profound impact on the human causes of Global Warming,

    Than all of those insistent on solving Global Warming should immediately stop what ever activity they, personally are doing that contributes to Global Warming.

    What would those things be?  Driving, heating their homes, cooking their food, using their computer, drinking coffee(unless you have a coffee bush in your back yards,) and most significant of all - reduce both CO2 and water vapor by holding their breath.

    It is not a solution to Global Warming these people want it is control over everyone's actions.  Their numbers are significant enough that if they stopped breeding, eating, driving, defecating, breathing there would be a reversal of Global Warming.

    My recommendation is that all those who sincerely think that Global Warming is occurring and is caused by human activity immediately stop all human activity thus solving the problem.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can we spare the most attractive women though? Just a few, please? big_smile

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Misha,  the most cruel cut of all is they are called "hot" for a reason.  They tend to increase the out put of water vapor and CO2 among panting men.  Sorry, chilly, vile, ice queens like Nicole Kidman are as close as you will get to a really hot woman.  Good bye Raquel Welch - probably the actual cause of Global Warming since she has been hot for over 40 years.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ROFLMAO big_smile

    2. megs11237 profile image78
      megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think people who believe in Climate Change are realistic to the dependency on our world as it is built. It is absolutely asinine to imply that just because we believe in our responsibility in things and we believe in change that we should cease everything we do. What we should do is work together for a better way to do things and take steps on our own.

      I understand that change is difficult but why would you ever want to continue a behavior that could have such bad repercussions??

      Please read about " Tragedy of the Commons" this is what you sound like:
      "Let us continue doing things they way we are doing things because "I" think it is easier for "me" even if it means bad things for others or the world we know."

      Why not " what little steps can we all take to do better, be better, and make a better world for ourselves, others, and our children"?

      We can start by simply insisting our country go further in advancing clean technology etc for a start.

  19. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    With mass deforestation of this planet over the last century, combined with vast population growth, and pollution being pumped into the atmosphere by all of the industrial and automotive machines, how could our climate not get increasingly warmer.

    The ice man thawed out in the Alps after being frozen hard as a carp for over 5,000 years.  This may be more than merely a trend.  smile

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Randy, you are as arrogant as the last religionist tongue We are not THAT important, ya know wink

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about you, Misha, but I'm a legend in my own mind!  lol

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I guess I am, too - yet I know where my mind ends tongue

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not to mention the pollution caused by cow gas. Do you feed your herd Gas-X?? lol

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, I raise meat eating cows.  They've really cut down on the armadillo population, too!  cool

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LMAO

  20. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Randy is arrogant??

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's the Russian word for "cracker," Holle!  smile

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ROFLMAO this time big_smile

      2. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't get me all riled up, RD! You know I hates that thar word!

  21. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    Misha, have you never heard of Occam's razor? 

    You seem to think that the sun is causing global warming.  In response to mrpopo's question "What else could be accounting for the climate getting warmer?" you say:  "Most likely natural cycles of solar activity."

    Then later when asked how you know you say:  "You asked what could be the culprit, and I said I think most likely it is natural cycles. How is that most likely? Cause I think so, without any determination. I do not know for sure, and I am content with not knowing it, there are millions of things I do not know."

    So.  You are saying that you think, based on no particular evidence, that 150 years of scientific work is not good enough, that all those scientists are wrong because you... just don't believe them. 

    This is why I'm not trying to convince you, because you obviously have your mind made up. 

    Sure, it could be natural cycles that we don't understand or don't know about - but believe me, scientists have been studying this for a long time and looking for alternatives to the greenhouse model. 

    CO2 has increased in the atmosphere due to human activity. 

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    The earth is getting warmer.

    Many converging streams of evidence indicate that it is CO2 causing the observed increase in temperature.

    Many converging streams of evidence show that the warming is not caused by the sun.

    How can you say, your 150 years of evidence is not enough to convince me, I believe it's caused by something that I have absolutely no evidence for?

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Where is your model William? You don't have one, right?

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Where is yours? I've already pointed you to some resources.

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, so you don;t have one. That means that you have no idea what you are talking about, and just parroting whatever you heard/read somewhere. So much for informed opinion. At least I know from now on how to grade your opinions. big_smile

          Ciao big_smile

          1. William R. Wilson profile image60
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wow.  You don't present any reasonable alternative, yet call me ignorant?  Really?

  22. Fluffymetal profile image77
    Fluffymetalposted 6 years ago

    People who can not see that global warming is taking place are ignorant.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Karli smile

      1. Fluffymetal profile image77
        Fluffymetalposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hello.... how are you?

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Being ignorant, by your definition tongue

          How about you? smile

  23. profile image0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    As this thread has sunk to the level of religious style name calling - can I borrow Misha (whose opinion I value) to comment on the Katrina thread ?

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry ChinaMan, I don't have much interest in Katrina aftermath at the moment. smile

  24. Rabid Puma profile image60
    Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago

    Perhaps it would be easier if we start from the other direction.

    Do you disagree with either of the following fundamental laws of physics?

    Energy is conserved.

    Light transmits energy.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Umm, so you recognized you likely won't get anywhere with lasers, right?

      OK, answering the question: I would not call the second statement a fundamental law, but I certainly agree to these statements. Now what? smile

      1. Rabid Puma profile image60
        Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Since you accept both of those statements, anything that absorbs a photon must increase in energy.

        One of three things must happen at this point:

        1)The absorber may re-emit the photon
        2)The absorber may redistribute the energy (heat up, per the equipartition theorem)
        3)The absorber may decompose

        Any colored object falls into the second category. Any light emitted is at longer wavelength than was absorbed (otherwise the object would be white).

        Do you agree?

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have several questions to ask, before I jump to any conclusion. smile

          Yes, here we are on the same page.

          Why only three? Just from the top of my head I can recall photosynthesis and photo-electric effect, may be other forms of energy my feverish mind does not recall at the moment (I am well above 100F now), and may be some forms of energy we do not know about yet. I don't see any need to restrict the choices here.smile
          OK, surely it can, under some circumstances, what would be called reflection on the macro level I guess.
          Here I need your help. Not all people around are making their PHD, some did not complete it and most even never started. For us mortals to understand I would ask you to kindly elaborate on the following points, preferably in high school physics language:
          1. What exactly this scary sounding theorem states?
          2. What are its assumptions?
          3. What are its limitations?
          4. Why exactly you think this theorem and its assumptions are applicable to our case, and its limitations are not?
          Probably yes. Interesting, where the energy goes then?

          Why? Do you mean colored objects do not reflect in the same range they receive, do not have their molecules decomposed, are free of photo-electric effect and photosynthesis? Somehow it does not correspond to my observations, you must live in a completely different reality smile
          Not sure I understand your logic here, do you mind to elaborate? smile

          1. Rabid Puma profile image60
            Rabid Pumaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ejection of an electron ionizes the molecule and is not going to occur in the visible domain. Photosynthesis falls into the category of decomposition (although decomposition is not a great term there - we can broaden it to "inducing a chemical reaction").



            The equipartition theorem states that a molecule will rearrange its energy over all it's various degrees of freedom. So, if you excite it vibrationally and allow it to relax it will increase the rate of rotation and translation also. It's a molecular mechanical principle, so it requires a system in order to thermalize rather than applying to individual molecules. It only loses accuracy at very low temperatures or pressures (for a gas).

            This means that if you put energy into electronic transitions (absorption of visible light) it will redistribute it into vibration, translation, and rotation.


            Depends on the reaction. The products will either be intrinsically higher energy (the energy will be stored in the chemical bonds) or (more likely) heat will be released.


            Color comes from a molecule absorbing specific parts of white light. If the molecule re-emits the photon without modulating the wavelength you couldn't tell that it had absorbed it at all.

            1. Misha profile image74
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You skipped half the questions, and skimmed the rest. This way we never reach understanding. Or may be this is just my fever, so I am off for the night in a hope that tomorrow my brains will work better - or you will be able to put up a more coherent response. Good night. smile

 
working