Which of these is fraud. ?

[Derek]

Hi All,
It is a bit since we had a new poll, so how about this one.

Which of these is fraud. ?

A) The earth's surface recieves solar radiation, and back radiation from the atmosphere.
(It also recieves geothermal input from below - but let's not complicate this too much just yet.)
The radiation warmer than the earth's surface warms it (mostly solar input),
the radiation at a lower frequency (temperature) cools it (mostly atmospheric back radiation).
The earth's surface temperature is the sum of these plus and minus radiation inputs recieved at the surface relative to the earth's surface temperature.

OR,

B) We just add up all the radiation recieved at the earth's surface as plus figures,
assuming therefore without ever actually saying, the earth's surface must be at absolute zero.
Ignore geothermal inputs.
AND, hope no one notices.

or,

C) Niether both are fraud.


Difficult one this isn't it.........

[HarpoSpoke]

(02-17-2010 06:36 AM)Derek Wrote:  Hi All,
It is a bit since we had a new poll, so how about this one.

Which of these is fraud. ?

A) The earth's surface recieves solar radiation, and back radiation from the atmosphere.
(It also recieves geothermal input from below - but let's not complicate this too much just yet.)
The radiation warmer than the earth's surface warms it (mostly solar input),
the radiation at a lower frequency (temperature) cools it (mostly atmospheric back radiation).
The earth's surface temperature is the sum of these plus and minus radiation inputs recieved at the surface relative to the earth's surface temperature.

OR,

B) We just add up all the radiation as plus, assuming therefore without ever actually saying, the earth's surface must be at absolute zero.
Ignore geothermal inputs.
AND, hope no one notices.

or,

C) Niether both are fraud.


Difficult one this isn't it.........

B certainly sounds more "fraudy". A sounds like "we probably don't know everything yet".

Could have locked me into a "D: Natalie Wood was gorgeous" (I'm on a Natalie Wood kick this month.)

[Derek]

Oooops, I forgot to add D) - must have been otherwise engaged..

May I suggest a more gentlemanly approach might be more productive..

[JohnWho]

OK, I'm confused -

there's fraud in anthropogenic global warming climate science?

I did not know that.

[Sunsettommy]

D) is for dunno.

[Richard111]

Fraud or mistake? Dunno!

Any IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface CANNOT be a plus.

It can and does effect the NET radiation FROM the surface.

Over 90% of the atmosphere below the tropopause is BELOW FREEZING.

Much of the atmosphere above the tropopause is VERY HOT. It radiates down as well as up. But non of that radiation reaches the surface. Why?

Because of "greenhouse gases".

[Derek]

(02-18-2010 12:06 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Fraud or mistake? Dunno!

Any IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface CANNOT be a plus.

That is why I used the word fraud.
"They" know this.
Does anyone know of an IR budget, or greenhouse effect explanation
where back radiation is NOT added to the earths surface. ?

You have made / raised other good points as well Richard111,
please feel free to vote as you think best.

The point I'm trying to make is option A) will
most probably get very few votes.
If options B and D get a lot more votes, then
"we" do not think the science is settled, and
climate change discussions should start afresh, discarding AGW based fraud.

[Richard111]

I voted C because my gut feeling is all methods are wrong.

The simplified explanation is radiation from sun warms planet, planet radiates to space. Any imbalance will result in warming or cooling.

Radiation from the sun is not constant. Over the last 4.5 billion years the output from the sun has increased by a massive 30%. It is still increasing and in about 1 billion years more this planet will be uninhabitable.

Only in the last 20,000 years or so has the global climate reached comfortable for life as we know it.

People who claim they must make laws to control the behavior of one species of animal on this planet, thereby controlling the climate, have a serious credibility problem.

People who believe these laws will "save" the planet deserve everything they are going to get.

The concept of "educated caveman living in peace" is laughable.

Anyway, the timescales proposed by the AGW crowd are meaningless against the problems of population that WILL occur over the next 40 years.

Again, my gut feeling is that the AGW scam is simply a tool devised by governments to take control of people so the coming population problem can be addressed with the force it will require.

[Derek]

The most interesting answer yet.
I'm not going to steadfastly take the position that I agree or disagree, but it is the most interesting reply so far.
Excellant answer Richard111.

I didn't think anyone would go for C, I was wrong.

[HarpoSpoke]

(02-18-2010 07:15 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I voted C because my gut feeling is all methods are wrong.

The simplified explanation is radiation from sun warms planet, planet radiates to space. Any imbalance will result in warming or cooling.

Radiation from the sun is not constant. Over the last 4.5 billion years the output from the sun has increased by a massive 30%. It is still increasing and in about 1 billion years more this planet will be uninhabitable.

Only in the last 20,000 years or so has the global climate reached comfortable for life as we know it.

People who claim they must make laws to control the behavior of one species of animal on this planet, thereby controlling the climate, have a serious credibility problem.

People who believe these laws will "save" the planet deserve everything they are going to get.

The concept of "educated caveman living in peace" is laughable.

Anyway, the timescales proposed by the AGW crowd are meaningless against the problems of population that WILL occur over the next 40 years.

Again, my gut feeling is that the AGW scam is simply a tool devised by governments to take control of people so the coming population problem can be addressed with the force it will require.

Interesting theory there.

I am not one to put much stock in any doomsday predictions by nature....thus I also doubt the "population bomb" thing. I know the predictions from the 70s were all wrong and birthrates have been falling fast enough to cause future population predictions to be adjusted downward over the years. (Currently predicted to peak under 10 billion mid-century and fall thereafter) The Club of Rome and Paul Ehrlich misunderstood the adaptability of the human race and thus failed in their predictions. Rachael Carson also got it wrong.

It seems like the problems we actually do face are those that no one predicted. Most doomsday predictions require a prediction of future human behavior...including any advances we might make....so they are "doomed" to fail. You can't "model" that.

My mind also has a hard time with the idea that more people being able to live on this planet....longer and healthier lives no less...is an indication that something is going badly. Our population hasn't increased because we have been making things worse.

Not meant to offend. Especially since we agree on the rest of your post. Here's hoping we use the rest of that 1 billion years you mentioned to evolve past this need for doom-saying that we appear to be addicted to.

[Derek]

Dam, I forgot the REAL cause of global warming.
Baby boomers going through the menopause...
(admit it, none of us here thought of that..)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ6Ps8ITbzE

[Richard111]

(02-18-2010 09:40 AM)Derek Wrote:  Dam, I forgot the REAL cause of global warming.
Baby boomers going through the menopause...
(admit it, none of us here thought of that..)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ6Ps8ITbzE

Hah! Too true Derek, only we are beyond the baby boomers. My wife is 72 and suffers badly from hot flushes. STILL!!! NHS flatly refuses to help quoting cancer scares. Read the statistics! Doctors no longer follow the Hippocratic way, they have become bureaucratic dispensers of government sponsored medicines according to TARGETS defined by the treasury.

Anyway, wife claimed she must be responsible to some of the global warming a while back now.

No offence taken Harpo. My opinions have minimal effect on the real world.

I haven't checked the UK Daily Mail web site but in today's paper, page 12, headline "£9m climate change stunts" I quote:

Large grants went to councils, schools and youth groups for "attitude modification" programmes and to assure the public that man-made global warming is an established scientific fact.

This is the sort of thing Hitler used to do back in the 1930s.

[Derek]

"We" can still blame you and your wife for "contributing" some time ago though...