The real purpose of global warming?

Many greenhouse gases such as CO2 are well-mixed gases meaning that they are evenly distributed. Their high residence time in the atmosphere is the reason for this. CO2 molecules can stay resident for about a hundred years.

One greenhouse gas that is not well mixed is water vapor. It's residence time in the atmosphere can be measured in weeks.

Uniform rise in temperature is not expected. There are lots of factors at play: wind, precipitation, etc. If the earth warms due to external influence not all areas will warm uniformally. For example the arctic has warmed a lot, but the antarctic has slightly cooled.

As for urban heat island, rural areas have got warmer:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
The last paper also separates rural temperature stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (Peterson and Vose, 1997) from the full set of stations which, in common with the other three analyses, have been screened for urbanisation effects. While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80°C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92°C/century). However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant

 

And what about the scientists, including climatologists, who say there is no global warming?

Since when are the facts of science determined by majority opinion? Consider the fact that at one time every scientist in Western Europe thought the sun revolved around the earth even when it did not.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000713slouching_toward_sci.html
“Many respected climate scientists, including some who work for NOAA, believe the organization's official line on the link between global warming and hurricanes is wrong. What's more, there is reason to believe that NOAA knows as much. In the broader scientific community, there is grumbling that NOAA's top officials have suppressed dissenting views on this subject--contributing to the Bush administration's attempt to downplay the danger of climate change. Says Don Kennedy, the editor-in-chief of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ‘There are a lot of scientists there who know it is nonsense, what they are putting up on their website, but they are being discouraged from talking to the press about it.’"

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.html
“Indur Goklany, of the U.S. Department of Interior, shared with us the letter reproduced below which he submitted to Nature and had rejected for publication, as is of course their prerogative. However the letter is interesting enough that we thought it to be worth sharing, with his permission. It is a response to an article by Patz et al. which appeared in Nature last November. Patz et al. repeated WMO claims that human-caused climate change causes over 150,000 lives annually, which comes from McMichael et al. 2004 (here in PDF). Last year we commented on this WHO report, taking a somewhat different perspective than Goklany does below. Have a look, it is an interesting letter. Goklany has also had some smart things to say in his publications about adaptation and climate change.
“Goklany Letter
“Sir - It is astonishing to find a review article in Nature (Patz, J.A., et al., Nature 438, 310; 2005), henceforth "the Review", whose major conclusion is taken from an analysis whose authors themselves acknowledge did not "accord with the canons of empirical science". Specifically, its estimate, that anthropogenic climate change already claims over 150,000 lives annually, is based on the Review's reference 57 which notes (on p. 1546)(1) that:
‘Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring.While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future’ [Emphasis added.]
“In other words, science was sacrificed in pursuit of a pre-determined policy objective. But, absent serendipity, one cannot base sound policy on poor science. Sound science is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for sound policy.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa329.pdf

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674
In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue. Neither a statement or corporate interests, nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.
Also in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying "such policies (greenhouse global warming theories) derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement cited a survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, "confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century." The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."
In 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration in answer to the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany that year. In part, the Declaration says; "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
In 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.
In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue.

 

I understand that you are here advocating policies that would drive down the value of the stocks you say you invest in.

 

Actually your best option is fresh providing that the time and distance from farm to table is not too great.

BTW: I’ve often wondered if there is any nutritional difference between heirloom crops and modern crop varieties that are bred so their produce has a uniform size, shape and color while being suitable for long-term storage and long-distance transport.

 

Just exposing more of your ignorance. If you don't know anything about investing, you don't have to let everyone know about it.

 

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? If greenhouse gases are evenly distributed, shouldn’t all parts of the atmosphere have an equal ability to trap heat? So why has the earth not had even temperature rises? Why are cities warmer than rural areas if the atmosphere over both can trap heat equally?

BTW: If carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for so long instead of being incorporated into living things, what does this do to radiocarbon dating?

The laws of thermodynamics dictate that heat energy flows from regions of higher concentration to regions of lower concentration. If we were to plug up the atmosphere so it retains heat equally over all places on the earth’s surface, the heat that is trapped should move about until it is in equilibrium, i.e., all places on the earth’s surface would get hotter. But, this has not happened. Rural areas have either stayed the same or gotten cooler over the past few decades. Heat is not evenly distributed across the earth’s surface so the atmosphere over the earth cannot have equal heat-trapping ability. So how can greenhouse gases be evenly distributed?

Consider how urbanization has effected temperature measurements. Where I live official weather records are made at the international airport which was built about 40 years ago. At the time it was completely surrounded by woodland and swamp for miles and miles. There were very few roads, houses or other buildings. But since the 1980s the surrounding region has been taken over by housing developments, highways, shopping centers, warehouses, parking lots and office parks- all of which store heat. So naturally the official temperature records have shown a warming trend. So how do you know this warming trend is due to greenhouse gases and not urban sprawl?

 

Wow, I don't believe you can prepare this entire list in one evening. Given that you're not an investor or a trader, it's apparent that your purpose here is to spread political propaganda.

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. But of the few I know about, they are either fake, deceptive, or mixed in for the purpose of deception.

For example, sponsors of the Heidelberg Appeal included the asbestos and tobacco industries. The latter continued sponsorship of the principal proponents of the Appeal, in research directed to discredit concerns over environmental tobacco smoke. How many people now deny the harmfulness of secondhand smoking? Unlike what you implied, though, the Heidelberg Appeal did not make any mention to the problem of global warming. OTOH, the majority of those Nobel laureates who signed the Appeal also signed the "World Scientists Warning to Humanity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity
which specifically states "We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water."

More on the next post.

 

Both Leipzig declarations (there were two of them) were pretty much discredited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
"According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified."
In fact, many of these so-called "climatologists" were actually TV weathermen. What a joke!

The Gallop poll was the same nature. It wasn't a poll of scientists, but a poll of TV announcers. Who are you kidding to call these people scientists?

The Oregan Petition was organized because the criticisms to the two Leipzig Declarations. However, it was done in a very underhanded way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
The article was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article ... is a reprint and has passed peer review," when in fact it was never peer reviewed. It also contained incorrect data on global temperature that was well documented.

It's clear that the oppenents of science cannot carry out an honest debate, but rely on lies and deceptions.

 

Yes, we were assuming time and distance to be a factor.

Regarding heirloom crops, I have eaten some. I used to go to Chico's ranch in Malibu and buy heirloom potatoes and fruit. Chico was a Gypsy from North Africa and had brought over heirloom seeds. He was illiterate but a friend of his transcribed a book for him on organic farming. I still have it somewhere. That food was way, way different than the stuff from the supermarket. I would feel "something" like it was coursing through my veins an hour after I ate. I could only afford an occasional trip there at the time.

One of my dreams is to have a Chef and have him run my organic farm with heirloom produce. The yield is way less with heirloom plants, a potato is a little thing maybe an inch and a half in diameter, an apple is only a little bigger. 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.

 

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.