Is Global Warming Real?

[jordan179]

With the revelation of the British hoax regarding global warming, an obvious question is "Do you think that anthropogenic global warming is real?" And here's my answer:

Comments

[tekroo]

Back in 2002, an MIT professor was able to demonstrate a perfect correlation between temperatures on Earth and solar activity and its side effect on cosmic radiation. Fluctuations in solar radiation do have an effect on temperatures, but not quite enough to explain the recent temperature rise and subsequent fall.

Clouds have a cooling effect however, and a major component of cloud formation is cosmic radiation. Higher solar activity results in slightly higher temperatures and also stronger solar winds which greatly reduce the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the Earth and less cloud formation. Less clouds allow higher temperatures, enough to make up the difference. The math works out perfectly, unlike the highly massaged and even faked data Al Gore and the IPCC has produced. Unfortunately, every time this guy has tried to say anything or anyone tries to quote him, the response is the usual "Baaawwww you just wanna throw Big Mac wrappers out your car window" and other Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals techniques

[jordan179]

Fluctuations in solar output clearly do have the dominant effect on Earthly climate, followed in no particular order by albedo and greenhouse effect. The reason why we focus on CO2 is that it is the main way that human activity can affect the global climate.

The current short-term cooling phase (which we entered around a year ago) is entirely due to reduced solar output -- the Sun is in a "quiet" phase (an earlier and more dramatic example being the famous Maunder Minimum of the mid- to late-17th century, which intensified the Little Ice Age). The thing is, this quiet phase will end, and if we've ramped-up CO2 too much in the interim, we will be right back to global warming, and at an accelerated rate.

IMO the long-term solution to global climate problems is for Man to take charge of the global climate through a system of orbital shades and mirrors, to reduce or increase insolation on the Earth as required. When this happens, we will no longer be at the mercy of climate fluctuations (aside from the very long-term brightening of

[gothelittle]

Unless, of course, the ice ages and global warming periods are in some way necessary for the health of the planet. Your orbital mirrors idea reminds me of continuous hormonal birth control. It'll stop the cycle, but that cycle is natural and there are problematic side-effects when it's forced to not happen.

[jordan179]

That's quite possible. On the one hand, we've only had regular glaciation cycles for the last 2.58 million years: most of the Age of Mammals has been uniformly warm by modern standards. On the other hand, "the last 2.58 million years" covers most of the time that Genus Homo has existed, and our species has spent most of its life during glaciations. So who knows?

[scottks]

Have we ever seen a MSM video or article about how France handles their nuclear waste? I always wonder, as a person with zero knowledge of nuke physics and the industry, why the feared nuclear waste, if it is so dangerous for hundreds or thousands of years -- why cannot be used to produce more power? If something is that dangerous -- then it seems it should still be powerful enough to do some good or converted into something more harmless.

[jordan179]

I always wonder, as a person with zero knowledge of nuke physics and the industry, why the feared nuclear waste, if it is so dangerous for hundreds or thousands of years -- why cannot be used to produce more power? If something is that dangerous -- then it seems it should still be powerful enough to do some good or converted into something more harmless.

This is part of the reason why I think the attempt to render it safe for "hundreds or thousands of years" is more than a bit silly: as our civilization advances, it's likely that we'll mine the nuclear waste dumps for rare isotopes. In particular, some of the wastes will be useful for nuclear thermocouple batteries ("SNAP cells"). And who knows what the technology of even a century hence will do with them?

To put this in perspective, a hundred years ago we had only recently discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity, and had dim science-fiction notions of someday harnessing it as an energy source.

[gothelittle]

They're called 'breeder reactors' and they are illegal in the United States.

France reprocesses their nuclear waste

[luagha]

To be more clear, France reprocesses their nuclear waste into more fuel

[prader]

An excellent post on this topic. Your conclusions seem to match mine despite my not knowing much about the subject. It's almost as if the statists have latched on to a phenomenon that turns out to be real, but have no intention of placing solutions on the table for serious discussion that don't, completely coincidentally, increase their own authority while diminishing the people's. I may not understand Global Warming, but my gut recognizes a power grab when I see one.

Mind if I link to this?

[jordan179]

I love it when people link to me, go right ahead! :)

[x_eleven]

Trust your gut. When it comes to "global warming", the science takes the backest of back seats. It's part and parcel of the Marxist strategy to weaken the sovereignty of the nation states (as the individual states of the United States are a bulwark against Federal power, the nation states operate as a check and balance on a world scale) to transfer wealth from the developed world to the undeveloped world (think welfare on a global scale) to destroy the Middle Class (personal wealth is personal independence and liberty). You can't subjugate a population until you make that population dependent.

They have been at this for a very long time now. First it was global cooling and a new ice age that was going to get us. When that didn't fly, it was magically global warming. These assholes are elitists and our overlord wannabes. When have they been anything else?

[x_eleven]

PS: They don't want clean energy, they want less energy -- lots less.

[spiffystuff]

Climate change is real!!!

Because... it changes. Sometimes. (doubt any current climate change would be caused by humans, tho)

[metaphorsbwithu]

I've written dozens of posts on the subject and believe this it the biggest scam in the history of the world.

I have no doubt some climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Their belief, however, can affect their objectivity ... as has been demonstrated in "Climategate."

There is no scientific justification for saying an increase of CO2 from one part in 3,500 to one part in 2,600 will cause an increase in temperature of 1 degree C over 100 years

[jordan179]

Just because the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the percentage of O2 and N2 is small does not mean that its effect on climate is proportionately small. Because of the size and shape of CO2 molecules, they absorb infrared light, and keep heat from re-radiating from the Earth. (Methane, CH4, is present in even smaller quantities and has an even bigger effect per molecule, because it is an even better infrared absorber). If some disaster removed all or almost all the CO2 from our atmosphere, the Earth would swiftly sink into a deep Ice Age!

The question is not, therefore, whether or not CO2 greatly affects our climate. It is known science, known at the level of physics, that it does. The question is whether or not the human-caused INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 resulting from the Industrial Revolution affects the climate ENOUGH to constitute a PROBLEM. This is a much more specific and complex question, and it is one to which we do not yet know the answer

[metaphorsbwithu]

I disagree with your premise entirely.

CO2 doesn't "trap heat" it delays the release.

There is still no scientific evidence to suggest that CO2 in such a minute amount causes anything but a tiny fraction of the "greenhouse effect." And man's contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule.

Fossil-burning CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased because vegetation, tres, etc. don't like that particular isotope and they don't get reabsorbed in favor of other isotopes.

Much less than water vapor, methane, etc.

CO2 has been pinpointed as the target because it is the only one we can control.

The Supreme Court, the government, and the media have been successful in getting people to believe that CO2 is a pollutant That that billowing smoke from smokestacks is, in fact, CO2 when it is mainly water vapor.

If CO2 were a primary determinant in raising temperatures, we would not have had a decrease in temperature over the last 11 years.

CO2 levels over history have always followed temperature fluctations, not caused them

Effects of Atmospheric CO2 (I)

[jordan179]

CO2 doesn't "trap heat" it delays the release.

By "trap heat," I meant "delays the release." For obvious reasons of thermodynamics, it is impossible to "trap heat" eternally. Delaying the release of heat, however, is enough to increase the temperature of an object. That's the principle on which feathers, fur and clothing all operate.

There is still no scientific evidence to suggest that CO2 in such a minute amount causes anything but a tiny fraction of the "greenhouse effect."

Indeed, but the release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels means that CO2 long sequestered by geologic cycles is re-entering the atmosphere long in advance of when it would normally be released, concentrating it in time. (Without human intervention, that CO2 would eventually be subducted into the mantle and released by volcanic action). And nobody is claiming that it does cause anything but "a tiny fraction" of the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps you're not aware of the size of the total "greenhouse effect." It's something on the order of 60 degrees