The real purpose of global warming?

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

A moonbat teaching at the university level....what a surprise.

Other than insults and personal attacks, do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

 

[jeafl]

Quote from hapaboy:

A moonbat teaching at the university level....what a surprise.

If JBIII is a moonbat, did the Moonbat Union lower its entry requirements without telling anyone?

JBIII is just a typical internet leftist, like the hundred or so others I have encountered over the years. He claims he is against global warming, but he won’t accept the proposals I make which could combat global warming because I don’t accept his global warming dogma. If he were really concerned with the earth, he should welcome my proposals with open arms. Instead he engages in lame attempts to ridicule me; he puts being a leftist ahead of being an environmentalist. His real goal is to destroy capitalism, not end global warming.

 

[Nihilanth]

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?

Because if any gas is present in the atmosphere long enough it will disperse evenly.

What is the source for this article? What science credentials do the authors have?

They cite the scientific literature, which is about as good a source as you can get - parts bolded:

The persistence of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be estimated with such a simple model because exchange with the ocean and sediments leads to a more complex behavior. Model simulations of oceanic CO2 uptake provide response times associated with CO2 gas exchange at the ocean surface of approximately 10 years [Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Toggweiler et al., 1989]and downward mixing of surface waters on the order of decades to centuries [Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann, 1987; Sarmiento et al., 1992]. But even when these oceanic CO2 removal processes are allowed sufficient time in the models to reach their maximum capacity, they can remove only about 70 to 85% of the anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere[Archer et al., 1998; Broecker and Peng, 1982; Sarmiento et al., 1992]

Additional CO2 might be removed by burial in soils or deep sea sediments through mechanisms that, although poorly understood, are generally believed to require times extending to thousands of years [Harden et al., 1992; Schlesinger, 1990; Stallard, 1998]. Removing some of the anthropogenic CO2 by this mechanism may require reactions with carbonate sediments in the deep sea that occur on timescales of thousands of years [Archer et al., 1998; Boyle, 1983; Sundquist, 1990]. On the basis of such analyses, it is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years.

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?

Knowledge of how fast sinks can absorb carbon and how much they would have to absorb.

You still don’t get it. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect...

Heat can leave the atmosphere - just not as much.

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.

So when sun output has increased in the past and the earth has warmed did that shut down the wind and ocean currents?

There is half the world in summer while the other half is in winter, then on top of that you have half the earth in night while the other half is in day. Then you have geographic differences like high altitude mountains which are colder, and different regions depending on geography will recieve different amounts of rainfall or snow. Then you have things phenomenon like el ninos which effect local climate. You will never get even temperature across the entire globe no matter how evenly you apply heat.

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.

Heat can leave the atmosphere. It isn't all reflected by greenhouse gases, only some of it. If it was all reflected we would be even hotter than venus and would be burnt to a cinder.

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.

Yes if they are paved and built on. But many urban stations are located within parks. Not all parts of a city are subject to uhi effect either. If it were a big influence then urban temperature trends would be much higher - not just an increase of 0.7C which is similar to ocean and satellite measurements.

But how does this equate to global warming? Shouldn’t 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?

It does spread out, but temperature falls exponentially the further from the heat source so the countryside is not warmed by cities in this way.

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 on the otherhand you have ocean measurements and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, as well as borehole data showing a mean global temperature rise over the last 100 years.

But, it does indicate the foolishness of being dogmatic either way because science cannot tell us the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is precisely what science is good at. And what is beyond reasonable doubt is that the average temperature of the earth has increased in the last 100 years.

Supposedly you can determine oceanic temperatures for past periods by studying coral. I’ve 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.

Which study?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Other than insults and personal attacks, do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

You mean like picture after picture of evil Bush?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

You mean like picture after picture of evil Bush?

Hmm, wonder why would jokes about Bush gets on your nerves? Are you related to him?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Hmm, wonder why would jokes about Bush gets on your nerves? Are you related to him?

Doesn't get on my nerves.

I just think it's hilarious that a supposed Ph.D holder who teaches science at a university cannot debate the points of a basic article and instead posts picture after picture mocking the President.

You are a poster child for the decline in the quality of education in this country's supposed institutions of higher learning.

Have a nice day, "Professor."

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

Doesn't get on my nerves.

I just think it's hilarious that a supposed Ph.D holder who teaches science at a university cannot debate the points of a basic article and instead posts picture after picture mocking the President.

You are a poster child for the decline in the quality of education in this country's supposed institutions of higher learning.

Have a nice day, "Professor."

"The points of a basic article?" You're too funny. Calling people "moonbats" has a "point?" There are 10 times more points in the pictures I posted than your hate-filled "article." Give me an example of how one should debate the moonbat "point," and I'll call you "Professor."

And by the way, what is the point of you barging into this thread? I don't see you saying anything sensible about the topic under discussion. Do you know what we are discussing here? The only thing you seem to be doing is to attack people.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

"The points of a basic article?" You're too funny. Calling people "moonbats" has a "point?" There are 10 times more points in the pictures I posted than your hate-filled "article." Give me an example of how one should debate the moonbat "point," and I'll call you "Professor."

Not only are you a moonbat professor, but apparently you're a moonbat professor who cannot even make his way through a basic article.

You want points - how about the author's points regarding Hezbollah, the conflict with Israel, and the point of view of Air America's hosts?

And by the way, what is the point of you barging into this thread? I don't see you saying anything sensible about the topic under discussion. Do you know what we are discussing here? The only thing you seem to be doing is to attack people.

What was the point of you barging into the Air America thread? I didn't see you saying anything sensible about the topic under discussion, just posting picture after picture mocking Bush. Do you know what was being discussed there? The only thing you were doing was attacking Bush.

There, you can now call me "Professor."

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

Not only are you a moonbat professor, but apparently you're a moonbat professor who cannot even make his way through a basic article.

You want points - how about the author's points regarding Hezbollah, the conflict with Israel, and the point of view of Air America's hosts?

And the author's points were that Air America's hosts were moonbats because of their views on those issues. If you forgot, let me remind you that the author did not say anything about his own views on any of those issues. So there were no points to be debated except the point of being called moonbat.

What was the point of you barging into the Air America thread? I didn't see you saying anything sensible about the topic under discussion, just posting picture after picture mocking Bush. Do you know what was being discussed there? The only thing you were doing was attacking Bush.

There, you can now call me "Professor."

You didn't reply the question "How should one debate being called moonbat" so you didn't earn your "Professor" title. Try again.

 

[jeafl]

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?



Because if any gas is present in the atmosphere long enough it will disperse evenly.

Under ideal conditions, i.e., conditions not found in the real world, any gas will naturally expand so as to fill its container. If greenhouse gases are evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, then the atmosphere would have a continuous layer of greenhouse gases and this layer would have an even thickness. Therefore, if greenhouse gases trap heat, then the entire atmosphere would trap heat, i.e., heat would be trapped by the atmosphere regardless of what part of the earth’s surface the atmosphere is over. The poles should trap as much heat as the equator. So if heat cannot leave the atmosphere the entire earth would eventually heat up. But that is not what is happening. Either the greenhouse effect is not severe enough to create global warming or greenhouse gases are not evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere which leaves places over the earth’s surface where the atmosphere has a drain through which heat can leave the earth- which negates the possibility of global warming.

What is the source for this article? What science credentials do the authors have?



They cite the scientific literature, which is about as good a source as you can get - parts bolded:

Anything is any of this scientific literature based on experimental evidence? For the sake of argument I am willing to consider that the earth is getting warmer, but without experimental data what tells you that human activity is the cause?

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?



Knowledge of how fast sinks can absorb carbon and how much they would have to absorb.

And this knowledge is based on what? Isn’t the amount of vegetation on earth directly proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide that is available? If humans put carbon dioxide into the air, what keeps vegetation from making use of it and thereby increasing its biomass by removing carbon dioxide from the air? Didn’t the age of the dinosaurs have giant-sized plants? Where did all of the carbon dioxide these plants needed come from since humans were not around to burn fossil fuels?

BTW: Do you know if a young tree uses carbon dioxide at a faster rate than a mature tree does? If so wouldn’t it be in our best interest to cut down all of the old and inefficient old growth forests and replace them with young trees that can absorb carbon dioxide more quickly?

You still don’t get it. If heat cannot leave the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect...



Heat can leave the atmosphere - just not as much.

Then the greenhouse gas is not as bad as the environmental left would have us believe. How much greenhouse gas can we put into the atmosphere and still have heat leave the atmosphere in enough quantity to stave off global warming?

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.



So when sun output has increased in the past and the earth has warmed did that shut down the wind and ocean currents?

Depends on how much heat is involved. Consider how air currents are formed. Hot air rises into the upper atmosphere thus creating a vacuum near the earth’s surface. Wind flows into this vacuum to fill the void. The hot air will eventually cool down and sink, thereby helping wind flow to fill the vacuum that was created when the hot air rose to begin with. Ocean currents work the same way. It takes a temperature difference (either from place to place on the earth’s surface or from height to height in the atmosphere/ocean) to set up the pressure gradients that cause the currents. The currents would stop should the temperature differences be equalized (hot or cold).

There is half the world in summer while the other half is in winter, then on top of that you have half the earth in night while the other half is in day. Then you have geographic differences like high altitude mountains which are colder, and different regions depending on geography will recieve different amounts of rainfall or snow. Then you have things phenomenon like el ninos which effect local climate. You will never get even temperature across the entire globe no matter how evenly you apply heat.

And none of this would matter if the earth is truly getting hotter and the existing currents were to even out the earth’s temperatures and there by stop.

BTW: You just admitted that the heat output from the sun can go up and down. So how do you know that the global warming we supposedly now have is really due to manmade greenhouse gases and not simply increases in the sun’s heat output?

BTW: Some Young Earth Creationists believe that during the creation process God placed a layer of water vapor around the earth’s atmosphere. They say this water vapor caused a greenhouse effect that gave the entire world a topical or subtropical climate. Considering the fact that fossils for tropical plants and animals have been found in Antarctica, these Creationists may be on to something.

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.



Heat can leave the atmosphere.

So greenhouse gases are not uniform as you suggested before.

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.



Yes if they are paved and built on. But many urban stations are located within parks.

How many and where. If you’ve seen the maps that National Geographic put out a while back showing what the U.S. looks like at night from space now versus what it looked liked 20 years or so ago, you’d see how bad urban sprawl is. It doesn’t really matter if a weather station is located in a park if that park is surrounded by roads, parking lots, buildings et cetera.

But how does this equate to global warming? Shouldn’t 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?



It does spread out, but temperature falls exponentially the further from the heat source so the countryside is not warmed by cities in this way.

So? What keeps the heat generated in, stored by and trapped over cities from spreading out to the countryside to the point that the cities cool off?

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 on the otherhand you have ocean measurements and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, as well as borehole data showing a mean global temperature rise over the last 100 years.

Aren’t there also studies that indicate ocean and atmospheric temperatures have cooled over the past few decades?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

“Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html

“The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021113070418.htm

"’Climate models constructed here at Texas A&M University were used to analyze ocean surface temperature records in the tropical Pacific since 1950. The results suggest that as much as one-half of all global surface warming since the 1970's may be part of natural variation as distinct from the result of greenhouse gases,’"

But, it does indicate the foolishness of being dogmatic either way because science cannot tell us the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.



That is precisely what science is good at. And what is beyond reasonable doubt is that the average temperature of the earth has increased in the last 100 years.

See above. Define reasonable doubt.

Supposedly you can determine oceanic temperatures for past periods by studying coral. I’ve 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.



Which study?

I ran across a reference to this study several months ago. I haven’t been able to find it again.