Is this an accurate description of the "Greenhouse Effect"?

Question

Is this an accurate description of the "Greenhouse Effect"?

Answer 1

Yes it is, but there is some real scientific evidence to bak it up. But i believe that all this about us being responsible, is complete crap, we might contribute to it, but the Earth is just goin through a warm phase. It'ii cool down in a century or two.

Answer 2

That's the way it goes, isn't it? When practically all the scientists in a particular field disagree with you, there's no consideration of the fact that you maybe, just might be wrong.

Nope, the reason all the scientists disagree with you must be because they're conspiring! They've devised the whole thing with sole intent of causing mass hysteria, as this will somehow net them a larger salary!



It's just like with those pesky facts. When they disagree with my personal beliefs, it's obviously the facts that are wrong, and not my opinion.





::Edit:: at mbs1960 below.

I would just like to point out that there is absolutely no reason to believe that Cosmic Rays do in fact affect cloud cover at all.

For starters, the correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is very weak. Unless you're looking at the doctored graphs used in TGGWS, they really don't match up at all.



Second, it hasn't even been shown that cosmic rays can act as condensate nuclei at all. They're far too small. Of course, the cosmic ray weather theorists side-step this by saying that they're 'building blocks' of cloud condensate nuclei. But even this has ever been demonstrated. There is absolutely no reason think that they will aggrandize.



Third, they've never shown that an increase in cloud condensate nuclei will result in a significant change in cloud cover!



Fourth, and more importantly, they've never shown that if the change in cloud cover did occur that it would have any significant effect on radiative forcing.



Last, and this is the real biggie, to show that cosmic rays have had any sort of effect on the recent warming, they would have to show that there has been a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over the last few decades, and unfortunately for their theory, there hasn't been (see this graph: http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg ).



The entire theory of cosmic ray-driven weather is nothing more than speculation. They haven't a scintilla of evidence to back up any of it.

Answer 3

1) All the scientific studies use to have any expermintal evidence or logical reasoning. But, ur argument is not supported by either.

2) Moreoever its better to read Assessment reports produced by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which are based on the scientific work all over the world.

3) If suppose, for a moment we agree with u, even then there is no harm in adopting a preventive approach.

Answer 4

I think you can make a better argument for what you believe. You could back it up with some facts. I think the global warming during the industrial revolution when every plant and mill burned coal and produced steam should have produced more global warming and the proof from Ice core samples proves there was an effect but not all that great. We are making CO2 like crazy and nothing is changing maybe it will happen in twenty years and it is a long term effect. It sounds weird to believe all this. For me I am the kind of guy that may just adopt a few new religions if I were told it could be the end, because I just want to keep the bases covered. If it is all a lie what trouble would it cause to be prepared?

Answer 5

ok here is the most accurate im gettin carbon dioxide methane and other gases are released into atmoosphere then they can all compkletly leave and as they thicken its harder for heat and gases to escape and hold heat in and warm our planet but its all lies if u ask me

Answer 6

In response to your query, I would have to say: YES! Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere. The hype over A.W. has more to do with Collectivism and efforts to sequester more than just your CO2.



To paraphrase Churchill: 'Never have so many, been asked by so few, to do so much, for so little'



also kudos on getting all worked-up and rabbid all these ecco-chicken littles.



Edit to Disgrace (posting previous)



Sunspot activity has been recorded for hundreds of years. Sunspots are a function of the strength of the Sun's magnetic field, It's intensity controls the aggerate rate of Cosmic Ray impacts on the Earth. Cosmic Rays in addition to ionizing the upper atmosphere, strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature. Poster 'Disgrace' you speak about the uncertainty of the Cosmic Ray Theory yet fail to admit that the entire global warming theory rests on the foundation of the "Greenhouse Effect" theory. The Vostok ice core data shows conclusively that over 450,000 years there has never been an incidence of atmospheric CO2 concentration changes preceding temperature changes. Not once. Temperature always changes first and then the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

Answer 7

LOL. Can't argue with the truth, presented so logically! YES!



Did you know that if environmentalists hadn't stopped our cars from emitting SO2, all of that solar energy would be reflecting back into space right now?

Answer 8

NO. i don't think you are grasping the reality of the waste we all make every day. Do you really, i mean REALLY, realize the amount of people, cars, factories, etc. that are putting waste out into our earth, atmosphere and water? I haven't seen any "mass panic and hysteria". If anything, we are all way too complacent and underprepared when something serious is, or is about to, happen. I would like an example of some of these lies coming from politicians and scientists, please. Feel free to email me, this is an interesting debate.

Answer 9

I thought Al Gore was in a mental health institution. Seriously, global warming or global cooling. There is scientific support for both sides, and no one really knows. We do know that the planet earth is dying, all part of the cosmic cycle. When the water is gone, so are the humans and all life as we know. Then earth will become a dead planet like our moon.

Answer 10

Not at all. While it was, for the most part, grammatically correct, it is neither a valid description of the greenhouse effect or global warming theory. It displays a very large amount of ignorance on your part, and is essentially accusing the entire scientific community of fraud. If you have any evidence whatsoever to support your position, I would simply love to hear it.



VC, Martin Durkin is the producer and filmmaker responsible for the Great Global Warming Swindle mockumentary that appeared on the UK's Channel 4 recently, which apparently everyone in the anti-GW community has seen recently (which is why I, probably incorrectly, assumed you had). And Rush Limbaugh does, in fact, have a great deal to say on global warming. In fact he is partly responsible (along with others like Michael Crichton and Timothy Ball) of starting the whole 'global warming is a vast liberal conspiracy to destroy freedom and democracy' nonsense.



Anyway, I have looked at, what I believe to be, every single contrarian argument against GW theory ever devised. I have read the entire Fraser Institutes's response to the IPCC's report several times over, I have seen the Swindle documentary twice now, I have read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, and have read every article Timothy Ball has written, as well as a good many by the person who is quite probably the only respected climate scientist left who doesn't accept AGW theory, Richard Lindzen. However, I have also read highly effective, fully verifiable and scientifically supported counter arguments to every objection these people have ever raised against the theory (in those select few instances where I, after briefly reviewing the data, wasn't able to counter myself), and I have yet to hear them respond to a single one. In fact, most of their arguments were refuted long before these people were even *born*. Which has left me with no choice but to accept anthropogenic climate change as a valid scientific theory.



That said, if you feel you have evidence that invalidates anthropogenic global warming theory I would very much like have a look at it. Although bear in mind that I will very likely try and refute it if it's just the same old contrarian arguments scientists have dealt with with decades ago.