You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The real purpose of global warming?
- Thread starter jeafl
- Start date
The list you have here is full of deception. I'm an investor, not a politician or a climate scientist so I cannot go over your list one by one.
You cannot say it is full of deception either. If you donât have a science background (like I do) you are likely unqualified to comment much on the scientific method or scientific evidence. And you are certainly unqualified to make blanket statements to the effect that 90% of the worldâs scientists believe in global warming.
Look at travel documentaries, some of the people without modern farming seem to be magnificently healthy and by many standards of measurement they are. I am not sure how big the food vector is in the sum of their health but I want to find out for myself.
I have ancestors who were either farmers or who lived in farm communities and some of them lived into their 70s or 80s as far back as 2 centuries ago. One of my great-grandmothers (who had been a farmer since she got married in the early 1920s) lived to be almost 104. I cannot say that she always relied on what we would call heirloom varieties (technically a crop variety that is 50 years old), but I know that until she got into her 90s (when her youngest child gave up farming in his 60s) she never ate fruit or vegetables from the grocery store. She didnât give up her cows (and thus had her own milk) until she was in her late 70s and still had laying hens into her 90s.
Actually he has a point. Consider a fallen log. As it decays it releases the carbon dioxide that is in it. This will take a very long time. Now if you burn that same log, you will release the same amount of CO2, but at a much faster pace.
And if you are smart, you plant a tree to replace the log and thus use up the carbon dioxide that log produces. There are more practical ways to combat global warming that simply strangling business and industry as so many global warmongers want.
Quote from jeafl:
Do you have documentation for this? If carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for a hundred years, how can it be accessed by plants?
The residence time is a measure of how long it will take for co2 increases to be removed, not a specific molecule of co2.
What does this have to do with the question I asked? How does this residence time indicate that greenhouse gases are evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere?
But if co2 emissions stopped it would take hundreds, possibly thousands of years for co2 levels to return to what they were 100 years ago. [urk]http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html[/url]
What is the source for this article? What science credentials do the authors have? Since carbon emissions have never been stopped, what empirical evidence do we have that it would take hundreds or thousands of years for carbon dioxide levels to fall to what they were 100 years ago?
If greenhouse gases are evenly distributed, shouldnât all parts of the atmosphere have an equal ability to trap heat?
Yes
So why has the earth not had even temperature rises?
Because different regions react differently to increased radiative forcing and also there is regional variation. Some regions that are naturally cooling due to shifts in wind or precipitation will appear to warm less (or even cool) compared to other regions.
You still donât get it. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect, all parts of the earth should be warming because of the way heat naturally moves. The heat build up should eventually overwhelm the limited ability of wind and ocean currents to bottle it up in certain regions; an even temperature would effectively shut down the wind and ocean currents that distribute heat because it is differences in temperature that cause the currents to begin with. Even if currents move heat from hot places to cold places the cold places would eventually heat up- that is unless the heat can leave the atmosphere once it reaches the cold regions, which would mean the greenhouse gases are not evenly distributed in the atmosphere. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere, then cold regions would get hotter and hotter as wind and ocean currents deliver heat to them. But this is not what we observe.
Why are cities warmer than rural areas if the atmosphere over both can trap heat equally?
Cities are warmer because the urban heat island effect.
Duh! If the regions around urban weather stations are paved and built on so they hold heat, then the temperatures recorded at these stations will naturally go up. But how does this equate to global warming? Shouldnât the heat that is stored in cities spread out to the surrounding countryside if it cannot pass through the atmosphere above the urban center due to greenhouse gases?
But, this has not happened. Rural areas have either stayed the same or gotten cooler over the past few decades.
Rural areas have warmed as well
Not according to the data I have seen. There is no guarantee that either set of data is accurate, thus is the nature of trying to conduct science on a global scale. But, it does indicate the foolishness of being dogmatic either way because science cannot tell us the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.
So how do you know this warming trend is due to greenhouse gases and not urban sprawl? [/B]
Because the oceans, lower troposphere, and rural stations show warming indicating that the earth is warming on average.
Supposedly you can determine oceanic temperatures for past periods by studying coral. Iâve seen a study that indicates the oceans were 2 degrees warmer in the 19th century than they are now even though the amount of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then was only a fraction of what it is now.
Yes I can and yes I am. I have a PhD in physics and have taught college physics courses. Based on this, would you agree that I have a science background?Quote from jeafl:
You cannot say it is full of deception either. If you donât have a science background (like I do) you are likely unqualified to comment much on the scientific method or scientific evidence. And you are certainly unqualified to make blanket statements to the effect that 90% of the worldâs scientists believe in global warming.
I have a PhD in physics and have taught college physics courses. Based on this, would you agree that I have a science background?
I don't think you have made this clear before. But if you do have such a background I would expect you to have more respect for the scientific method than you have displayed. Scientists can explain their observations only on the basis of experimental data, not the dictates of political correctness. If hundreds, if not thousands of scientists do not believe there is any man-made global warming, what makes you so certain that such global warming is really taking place?
Quote from jeafl:
I don't think you have made this clear before. But if you do have such a background I would expect you to have more respect for the scientific method than you have displayed. Scientists can explain their observations only on the basis of experimental data, not the dictates of political correctness. If hundreds, if not thousands of scientists do not believe there is any man-made global warming, what makes you so certain that such global warming is really taking place?
1. You don't have any clue what scientific method is.
2. It was you who showed absolutely no respect for scientific method nor any respect for logic repeatedly in your posts. Your overriding guidance had been the political aim of opposing the "global warmongers."
3. If you think those petitions were signed by hundreds of "scientists," then your were badly deceived by your political masters. As I showed in my earlier posts, either the petitions were signed by TV announcers, or they were not petitions about global warming. I don't think you were lying, because you don't know enough to know how to make up these lies.
Quote from jeafl:
What does this have to do with the question I asked? How does this residence time indicate that greenhouse gases are evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere?
What is the source for this article? What science credentials do the authors have? Since carbon emissions have never been stopped, what empirical evidence do we have that it would take hundreds or thousands of years for carbon dioxide levels to fall to what they were 100 years ago?
You still donât get it. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect, all parts of the earth should be warming because of the way heat naturally moves. The heat build up should eventually overwhelm the limited ability of wind and ocean currents to bottle it up in certain regions; an even temperature would effectively shut down the wind and ocean currents that distribute heat because it is differences in temperature that cause the currents to begin with. Even if currents move heat from hot places to cold places the cold places would eventually heat up- that is unless the heat can leave the atmosphere once it reaches the cold regions, which would mean the greenhouse gases are not evenly distributed in the atmosphere. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere, then cold regions would get hotter and hotter as wind and ocean currents deliver heat to them. But this is not what we observe.
Duh! If the regions around urban weather stations are paved and built on so they hold heat, then the temperatures recorded at these stations will naturally go up. But how does this equate to global warming? Shouldnât the heat that is stored in cities spread out to the surrounding countryside if it cannot pass through the atmosphere above the urban center due to greenhouse gases?
Not according to the data I have seen. There is no guarantee that either set of data is accurate, thus is the nature of trying to conduct science on a global scale. But, it does indicate the foolishness of being dogmatic either way because science cannot tell us the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supposedly you can determine oceanic temperatures for past periods by studying coral. Iâve seen a study that indicates the oceans were 2 degrees warmer in the 19th century than they are now even though the amount of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then was only a fraction of what it is now.
Do you ever learn? In this one post, you make one incorrect statement, and two false claims of data.
First of all, it is a scientific fact that a warmer globe means larger temperature fluctuations. Remember the analogy a few posts back I made using water in a stream connected to a pond? If you block the exit of the pond to raise the water level in the pond, that will also create ripples throughout the pond. Clearly, global warming does not mean uniform global warming. Your attempt to use the absence of uniform warming to deny global warming is one of the typical anti-science techniques used throughout scientific history.
You are also equating your ignorance of the global temperature data with the absence of reliable data. Of course, this doesn't bother you since you have no clue what logic is.
I do not believe your claim of data showing the oceans are colder today than 19th century. You show the data, or you will be called a liar.