Quote from jeafl:
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 earthâs 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 earthâs surface where the atmosphere has a drain through which heat can leave the earth- which negates the possibility of global warming.
Wong again. Even if the greenhouse gas is uniform, the temperature is not because the incoming from the sun is not uniform. Here is my advice to you: Think before talking.
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?
As I said before, observation is as good as experimentation. Can anyone say that the earth is not round because we haven't experimented with a flat earth? Stop being silly.
And this knowledge is based on what? Isnât 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? Didnât 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 wouldnât 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?
Here your ignorance of science is exposed again. The earth started out with very little oxygen in the atmosphere and a lot of CO2. In that atmosphere a human would die in minutes. It took billions of years for the plants to take the carbon from the CO2, and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere, to change the atmosphere into what it is like today. It's a very slow process. Do you have any idea how long a billion years are? The carbon eventually ended up as fossile fuels. We're on pace to spend in a few hundred years all of the carbon that the plants saved in a billion years. No amount of plant on earth today can keep up with it. On this scale, the difference between young trees and mature trees is insignificant (what, you can shorten 1 billion years into half a billion years.)
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?
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 earthâs 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 earthâs 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).
And none of this would matter if the earth is truly getting hotter and the existing currents were to even out the earthâs temperatures and there by stop.
Wonderful, you never understand what logic is. Let me repeat again, hotter is not the same as uniformly hotter. You set up a strawman that the earth is getting uniformly hotter, then you argue that it cannot possibly be uniformly hotter, therefore there is no global warming.
Well, the reality is, global warming does not happen uniformly. The ocean temperature raises by only a small fraction of the amount on land. So your strawman is completely irrelevant.
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 sunâs heat output?
Because we have the scientific data on the sun's heat output. We know exactly how much the sun has been putting out. Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean there is no data. Sheesh!
BTW: Some Young Earth Creationists believe that during the creation process God placed a layer of water vapor around the earthâs 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.
They may well be on to something. If that's your evidence, then use it. Don't hide behind fake science and lies.
Since when
opinion and
realclearpolitics are called science? You were deceived by these guys and you don't even know it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021113070418.htm
"âClimate 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,â"
I haven't seen the original article but based on the news story this one seems legit. However, this certainly confirms that the temperature is rising. It says
as much as half of global warming may be due to natural variation. In my dictionary, that means less than half. Does that mean something different in your dictionary?
I ran across a reference to this study several months ago. I havenât been able to find it again.
Like I said before, if you base your argument on a study, you'd better be prepared to show it. Otherwise people will call you a liar.
