Is some global warming due to increased radio and TV broadcasts in the past century?

Hi Paul It's my belief it is causing warming On the day side the sun provides the energy to heat the earth and create the greenhouse effect . The sun provides no energy (heat) of a night our com's and detecting goes on 24/7 day and night So of a night there's way more energy released into the atmosphere by man then the sun. Most people here are only trying to distract you away from this truth you have come across. There's a few links and a bit more info here http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai... Cheers and have a good day

"I ran across a website which proposes that radio and TV waves and energy broadcast over the last century have affected the atmosphere or ozone layers and caused some global warming...graphs show a correlation between radio-- TV broadcasts over time and temp data. "

There is also similar correlation between US Congressional total pay, and global warming.

Most such transmission is lost to space. And claiming that "some" global warming is caused by an increase in something that increases with human population... right. Who cares? We control population, and we don't need as much broadcast power.

"How much energy per year is directed into the sky by the use of radio and TV signals or any other devices and how would this affect ozone or precipitation or water vapor levels as the site claims?"

Negligible. Compare the local climate as you move away from a broadcast tower.

"Do climate models account for increased EM effects?"

Yes. Look at efforts to control reflectivity of rooftops. You have a broadcast tower's worth of electrical power as light striking the average rooftop. Global warming is all about EM.

Simple answer is no.

Radio and TV broadcasts are Electro-magnetic waves. they aare also minutely small compared to the Earth's magnetic field. Addittionally, I owuld readily argue that the correleation is strictly accidental and cooincidental.

You can also add in the same correlation to clothes, shoes, newspapers etc. As all of these will have had similar trends as radio and television. They are all dramatically increasing over the same time periods. Pick anything linked to human activity and you will have the same correlation as human population and the changing lifestyles of humans have been reflecting inceases for the same period of time for all of these activities. How about visits to the Zoo. It will have the same trend line. More zoos, more people going to zoo, zoos growing etc.

What I am saying is you have found a false arguement with no known physical linkage between what you are siting and the results that they "correlate with". It also helps this correlation that the data set is only about 70 years long. The earth has beenn generally warming over this timeframe sine radio and TV were invented.

No. Radio and TV broadcasts are only a small fraction of the energy humans release and the energy which humans release is only a small fraction of what Earth gets from the yellow ball in the sky.

Electromagentic waves have as uch invluencd on global warmign as cow farts do...

Man-Made climate change is a farce, its built on "soaking" companies and consumers with costs. The proposed $2 Trillion dollar "glaobal warming credits" market is all abotu makign a slect few VERY VERY RICH

If its REal Climate Chage based on the earths cycles and how much the sun is warming us, then that is a totally different story.

Unfortunatley we only have enough data to go back 50- maybe 100 years of the temperatures of the earth, there is simply NOT enoough data out there from 50+ years for them to compare with the numbers they are coming up with today. (We have no temp data form 200, 500, 1000, 10000 etc years ago)

Lastly, a lot of these "findings" are based on computer models which use data that are basically based on best guesses, they need data that is exact, but much of it is variabes of their choosing, which is not TRUE SCIENCE.

climatolgy is not a true science wherein you can go into a lab and prove it, its almost all hypothesis that is why their are so many people who doubt Climate Change is real

Well, only if you factor that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a handful of other radio/TV personalities(?) were very successful in keeping people misinformed about science, then yes.

There is too little energy involved, as already noted, to have had any significant impact on global warming. Hurricane Sandy alone had more energy released than Rush Limbaugh in his best year. :)

This is a simple answer. Radio station's antenna ratings are in Watts. Add all radio station's power and figure 3% loss due to heat. (In some frequencies water molecules will raise that somewhat but over the spectrum 3% is a little excessive.) Now figure all that wattage up and it is a pittance of what the Sun affects are.

Maybe 1/100 of 1% if even that.

Seconded.

Although it is an interesting thought.

My opinion is no.