Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: The world is getting warmer.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Heart of England
    Posts
    9,023
    Thanks
    1,649
    Thanked 1,483 Times in 1,084 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leftylib View Post
    CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. Just look what it has done to Venus.
    Venus, cracking example at 67 million miles from the Sun receiving double the amount of heat as us and we have no idea why there is massive CO2 volumes there. It could be the Venusians killed themselves by their industry.
    Humanity has for some time been pumping large quantities of this into the atmosphere. As it has been doing so global temperatures have been increasing.
    But global temperatures have not been increasing proportionately to CO2 levels, have they? You only need to track back 100 years for that. We have no idea what the CO2 levels were in the ice age, we can only surmise and assume that what happened then is faithfully recorded in some ice cores.

    Join the dots. It isn't rocket science.
    And, finally, you are right, it is not rocket science.
    Temperatures on earth have varied in modern times between about -90 and +70 degrees Celsius. So you might say the average is -10C. But it isn't it's 14C and has been for ages.
    Even agreeing on how to collate and present temperature data is worse than rocket science. Do you take hourly readings and average out, or take daily max and min and average out. Is it at sea level or at 1000m?
    So, yes, it's not rocket science. It's so complicated it is open to manipulation and misrepresentation at all levels. So they do.
    As an example, see if you can find the world average temperature in degrees C for August this year. Have fun!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,025
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 145 Times in 119 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Venus, cracking example at 67 million miles from the Sun receiving double the amount of heat as us and we have no idea why there is massive CO2 volumes there. It could be the Venusians killed themselves by their industry.

    But global temperatures have not been increasing proportionately to CO2 levels, have they? You only need to track back 100 years for that. We have no idea what the CO2 levels were in the ice age, we can only surmise and assume that what happened then is faithfully recorded in some ice cores.



    And, finally, you are right, it is not rocket science.
    Temperatures on earth have varied in modern times between about -90 and +70 degrees Celsius. So you might say the average is -10C. But it isn't it's 14C and has been for ages.
    Even agreeing on how to collate and present temperature data is worse than rocket science. Do you take hourly readings and average out, or take daily max and min and average out. Is it at sea level or at 1000m?
    So, yes, it's not rocket science. It's so complicated it is open to manipulation and misrepresentation at all levels. So they do.
    As an example, see if you can find the world average temperature in degrees C for August this year. Have fun!
    So because it is complicated it must be being manipulated, eh? To what purpose? Most scientists are seekers of truth not pursuers of an agenda. That 97% of them are convinced of the reality of global warming is pretty persuasive to me. I put it to you that each and every one of them are more knowledgeable in this field than you or I.

    And you are manipulating data something chronic in your desperate need to believe that God is in full control. You suggest that because a doubling of CO2 has not led to a proportionate doubling of temperature - which from a baseline of absolute zero would mean temps in excess of 250 C - this disproves the notion of global warming. But you have not addressed any of the relevant facts pointed out to you with relevant sources provided. Just stuck your fingers in your ears singing "nah nah nah I cant hear you"

    For your information, CO2 is only a small proportion of all greenhouse gasses. Water vapour makes up 95% of it, and we are not directly increasing that, though warming itself is to a small extent. This is why doubling CO2 does not double temperatures. It is only a small percentage of all greenhouse causes. Anyone ought to be able to work that out. But it clearly it is having an influence proportionate to it's percentage.

    The facts provided - complete with sources - not just by me but by Streetwalker too - which you have blatantly ignored, do tend to spell it out.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Heart of England
    Posts
    9,023
    Thanks
    1,649
    Thanked 1,483 Times in 1,084 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leftylib View Post
    So because it is complicated it must be being manipulated, eh? To what purpose? Most scientists are seekers of truth not pursuers of an agenda. That 97% of them are convinced of the reality of global warming is pretty persuasive to me. I put it to you that each and every one of them are more knowledgeable in this field than you or I.

    And you are manipulating data something chronic in your desperate need to believe that God is in full control. You suggest that because a doubling of CO2 has not led to a proportionate doubling of temperature - which from a baseline of absolute zero would mean temps in excess of 250 C - this disproves the notion of global warming. But you have not addressed any of the relevant facts pointed out to you with relevant sources provided. Just stuck your fingers in your ears singing "nah nah nah I cant hear you"

    For your information, CO2 is only a small proportion of all greenhouse gasses. Water vapour makes up 95% of it, and we are not directly increasing that, though warming itself is to a small extent. This is why doubling CO2 does not double temperatures. It is only a small percentage of all greenhouse causes. Anyone ought to be able to work that out. But it clearly it is having an influence proportionate to it's percentage.

    The facts provided - complete with sources - not just by me but by Streetwalker too - which you have blatantly ignored, do tend to spell it out.
    Such confused waffle and misrepresentation of what I wrote. Not really worthy of a reply. Oh, and who mentioned God - you.
    You are banned now, so looks like I get the last word with you on this one. Goodbye LL. Happy New Year.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,499
    Thanks
    972
    Thanked 749 Times in 623 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Leftylib View Post
    Most scientists are seekers of truth not pursuers of an agenda. That 97% of them are convinced of the reality of global warming is pretty persuasive to me.
    Bless you for your sweetness and simplicity Lefty.

    Most scientists are convinced of the need to keep the grant cheques coming, so simply agree with the current orthodoxy. By and large those members of the scientific community who support global warming are employed by universities and such and don't intend to upset the apple cart. Those who think that it is bollocks tend to be retired and without jobs to lose.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Southport
    Posts
    872
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 115 Times in 85 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Leftylib View Post
    CO2 levels were typically at 200 parts per million (ppm) during the last ice ages and 280 ppm in the warmer interglacial periods. They now stand at over 400ppm.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_res...arbon-dioxide/

    The last time CO2 levels were this high, we did not exist and sea levels were 100 feet higher.

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/t...nt-exist-15938

    There have been times in the past when - due to things like high volcanic activity levels - the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was substancially higher. In the Cambrian era 500 years ago it was as high as 4000ppm, though this was a time of no life on land and everything living in the warmer seas. And since the Sun is getting gradually hotter over time, it would have been significantly cooler that long ago, so giving out less heat to be trapped in the first place.

    During the age of the dinosaurs CO2 levels reaches as high as 2000ppm, but in consequence this was a hothouse earth where reptilian and tropical life flourished. Were we to have a similar climate today, most of our plant and animal life would die because it is not adapted for such conditions.

    Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at 0.041%, but this is twice as much as during pre-industrial times. And whilst the percentage is small, it is a very powerful greenhouse gas and proportionally small temperature increases can be very significant. Because the temperature baseline is not 0 C as many assume, but absolute zero which is minus 273 C, or 0 Kelvin (K)

    So the average ambient temperature of the Earth is somewhere about 300 K (27 C). A 5 degree increase would be utterly devastating, yet would only represent an increase over the baseline of some 1.7%. The 2 C rise being spoken about most often at the moment represents only about a 0.7% increase in overall temperatures, but the climatic impact could be substantial.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...27s_atmosphere

    There is also a time lag between emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the full impact being felt. That time lag is greater the larger the emissions. So we are not yet feeling the full effects of the CO2 already pumped out. That is already in the pipeline and unstoppable...

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/10/3/031001

    As for climate science being wrong, it is an ongoing process with a more accurate picture emerging as more knowledge is gained, so some earlier assumptions can be wrong. That is par for the course.

    The fact remains that all I have posted above is true today, the vast majority of scientists - whose judgement in the field is likely to be rather more accurate than yours methinks, lol - accept the reality of global warming because the scientific evidence is solid. And many of the small number of dissenters are actually in the pay of the oil companies and other major CO2 polluters. THIS is where scientists are selling their souls for money.

    Now I have shown far more science - including links to sources - than you have. Not a single link from you thus far. Just your own unconvincing words.
    All these facts about about C02 may be correct but the underlying fact that you have not addressed is the fact that C02 lags temperature by between 600 and 800 years. That means that C02 is a product of temperature not the driver.

    In the YouTube film I have linked below you have the likes of Patrick Moore, the founder of Green Peace arguing against the IPCC.

    A must watch for anyone with an interest in the truth about Global Warming.

    https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
    I can explain it to you, but I canít understand it for you.

Similar Threads

  1. UK and World Population
    By Know it in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-01-2018, 12:17 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21-10-2015, 11:29 AM
  3. World Not Ending day!
    By DaveUK in forum United States Politics Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 27-05-2011, 07:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •