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. 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. 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.) 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. 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! 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. 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? 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.
I would ask you to prove it, but considering how little you understand science, I doubt that youâd know how. Did the Telegraph webpage not report: âConsider 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).â A study by a research unit of a university is opinion? Considering that you have proven to be a waste of my time (you apparently don't even read what I post), this will be my last response to you.
Did you mean this temperature record from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ Like I said, unless you go to the source of the data, opinions are just opinions. More often than not, you will be deceived by them. Were they looking at the picture upside down?
IMO, the ozone layer is the main factor in the global environment (next to the appalling pollution) . The theory of temperature equilibrium in an environment may have some validity, but to look at , for example, industrial btu's without really looking at ozone depletion is a bit simpistic. Is the earth a "closed system"? That cant be right, as you do have very different levels of ultraviolet impacting some of the most fragile areas. Ultraviolet-the stuff that burns your skin to a nice brown in solariums. If "sunspot" activity can effect mobile reception, i wouldnt be prepared to wager massive holes in the stratosphere arent going to change things up on a macro environment scale.
This is one place where we're making progress. Due to the bans in the early 90's of several ozone depleting chemicals, the ozone layer is healing. The hole has gotten much smaller. The problem is, the hole in the ozone layer had slowed down the warming trend because it allowed more heat to escape. Now the hole is getting smaller, it is expected (but not yet observed) that the warming trend will accelerate.
Sad, so sad, that you're a university "professor." Since you have a Ph.D but the mentality of a pre-schooler, I'll explain it to you in very simple language: 1) The article is about the Air America hosts' points of view on Bush, morality, Israel/Hezbollah, and war in general. Those points can certainly be debated, specifically their pro-Hezbollah/anti-Israel musings and their "make peace not war" stance. 2) Nowhere does the author use the term "moonbat." 3) The author's point of view is obvious to anyone, and certainly should be to a Ph.D holder. Call me "professor," and give yourself the title of "unhinged."
Good theory, but how much smaller? I recall a significant test around sep11, where scientists measured ground temperatues across the us, as they had been doing for ages. The first time in decades no air traffic for a fewe days, and subsequently tens of thousands of tons of high altitude gas wasnt obscuring sunlight, and the temps were, (it seemed to me) significantly hotter. Not to do with ozone as such, it just appears boffins with thermometers may not be the experts people think they are.
I recall that September being no warmer than normal for my part of Florida. If anything it was cooler than normal.
You continue to miss the point. I don't know whether you have difficulty understanding or you're doing this intentionally. 1. The title of of your post was " "A week with the Left" WARNING: May be offensive to moonbats." Yes, you quoted someone else's article but the point was to ridicule the moonbat through the post. 2. The point of the article is that the opinions of the left is ridiculous. Although the word "moonbat" did not appear in the article itself, your usage of "moonbat" in the title is consistent with the article. 3. Although anyone can guess that the authors held opinions opposite of those described in the article, those were not the "points" of the article. If the author doesn't take his own "points" seriously, how can you demand others to take them seriously? 4. You will earn your "Professor" title if you answer the question "How do you debate an insult (moonbat)?" If you keep dodging the question your grade will be an "F."
It was a few days. nobody is going to notice 1-6 degrees difference, ground temperature-over the entire continent. Boffins with thermometers-and fools with air conditioning. Did i mention, the first time in decades, that had been measured? Go on-by all means, attempt to measure these temperatures, SANS topospheric/stratospheric thermocline effect. Go on, try it.........oh wait, you cant, because nobody can just shut down all air traffic for any period of time. Except al queada..........