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 wonât accept the proposals I make which could combat global warming because I donât 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.
Because if any gas is present in the atmosphere long enough it will disperse evenly. They cite the scientific literature, which is about as good a source as you can get - parts bolded: Knowledge of how fast sinks can absorb carbon and how much they would have to absorb. Heat can leave the atmosphere - just not as much. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Which study?
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.
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? 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."
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. You didn't reply the question "How should one debate being called moonbat" so you didn't earn your "Professor" title. Try again.
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. 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? 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? 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. 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? 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. So greenhouse gases are not uniform as you suggested before. How many and where. If youâve 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, youâd see how bad urban sprawl is. It doesnât really matter if a weather station is located in a park if that park is surrounded by roads, parking lots, buildings et cetera. 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? Arenât 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 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 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html âThe National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century.â 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" See above. Define reasonable doubt. I ran across a reference to this study several months ago. I havenât been able to find it again.