Global warming, what it actually means
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You havent explained anything and neither has that video.
Video explains what GW is, and how we know man was the cause.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
aimed at children, simplistic and lacking in any insight into the mechanism of GH gasses
The mechanism of the GH is explained at the beginning of the video. It is at the level of children since you have proven to have trouble with basic economics, history, and reasoning in general :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Now, why dont you come back with something that refutes what I have stated, that GH gasses warm during cold periods and places. Or is your understanding that of a childs? :)
There's the ad-hominem again :D Venus already disproved your "suggestion"; doesn't have much cold places. Also, the radiation is trapped either way - the difference of hot and cold will be more depending on local variables. Those close to see will not notice extreme changes, since those are tempered by the seas.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Video explains what GW is
How does that refute what I stated? The video did not mention the fact, well known by climate scientists, that GH gasses cause their warming during cold places and periods. Oh, and re Venus, you have no idea. Its albedo is very high so very little light reaches the surface, hence it's day to night temperature doesnt change. This rules out the GH mechanism as causing venus' warming because by its very nature the short wave visible light has to be turned into long wave energy, and this needs surface warming to happen. Perhaps Tysons video didnt explain that well enough to you, go back and watch it again.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Video explains what GW is
How does that refute what I stated? The video did not mention the fact, well known by climate scientists, that GH gasses cause their warming during cold places and periods. Oh, and re Venus, you have no idea. Its albedo is very high so very little light reaches the surface, hence it's day to night temperature doesnt change. This rules out the GH mechanism as causing venus' warming because by its very nature the short wave visible light has to be turned into long wave energy, and this needs surface warming to happen. Perhaps Tysons video didnt explain that well enough to you, go back and watch it again.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The video did not mention the fact, well known by climate scientists, that GH gasses cause their warming during cold places and periods.
It does mention how that "idea" is wrong in the first few minutes.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Oh, and re Venus, you have no idea.
Looking forward to your "proof" and scientific reveal to the larger community. I'll be the first to call that you need a nobel-prize for your "effort" (again, if you can prove it).
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The video did not mention the fact, well known by climate scientists, that GH gasses cause their warming during cold places and periods.
It does mention how that "idea" is wrong in the first few minutes.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Oh, and re Venus, you have no idea.
Looking forward to your "proof" and scientific reveal to the larger community. I'll be the first to call that you need a nobel-prize for your "effort" (again, if you can prove it).
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It does mention how that "idea" is wrong in the first few minutes
No it doesnt. It doesnt even mention this effect at all!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
if you can prove it
I dont need to prove it, Venus is demonstrating that the surface warming is not due to sunlight, therefore no GH effect is taking place there. It has a temperature of about 470 C, day and night. A day that is something like 90 earth days. It is so hot it is almost emitting energy in the visible range. It has an atmosphere of almost pure CO2. As does mars. Mars has a very cold surface, a very thin atmosphere, with a day to night range of about 0 C to - 100 C. What is the difference? The atmospheric pressure. Venus is about 90 times heavy as that of earths. Mars about 8% as heavy as earths. Hey, you dont suppose lapse rate has anything to do with it do you?
-
Oh, after all this debating you dont care? :)
-
It comes down to this. I have experience. You have the internet. Good day.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
ZurdoDev wrote:
It comes down to this. I have experience. You have the internet. Good day.
Don't worry - that won't stop him from making stuff up.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
It comes down to this. I have experience. You have the internet. Good day.
Don't worry - that won't stop him from making stuff up.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Well, he responded within minutes. Which means he googled for what he wanted, and of course found it since everything is on the internet, but then didn't research any further.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Well, he responded within minutes. Which means he googled for what he wanted, and of course found it since everything is on the internet, but then didn't research any further.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Actually, he has a serious troll component to his posts. Ultimately, self satisfied with his own wit, he perceives himself the winner of these posting wars. Climate change is one of his very favorites as he can always fall back on a cadre of misinformation to spout with assurance that he's proven his point. Even when it's totally wrong.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
Bad insects
And good ones too. Such as bees, on which we depend for all our fruit.
ZurdoDev wrote:
Fruit trees need a certain amount of cold time to produce fruit well
Now that sounds like a massive load of bollocks to me. Lets check... :) Apple Tree Climate Conditions - Wikifarmer[^] "Old farmers claimed that the apple tree could only produce good yields when cultivated at a certain altitude (above 1600 ft. or 487m.) and only if the tree had experienced annually some hundreds of hours of cold (cold is defined as the temperature below 42 oF or 5,5 oC). This was partially true for the varieties that were popular at that time. However, nowadays, the resiliency and adaptability of apple tree in general combined with careful variety creation and selection have enabled growers to cultivate commercially apple trees even in Africa" BZZT! FAIL! :) And of course the apple is the one fruit that is grown in cold climates. If you consider citrus fruits and bananas and tomatoes, and custard fruit, and bread fruit, and cumquats, and lychees, and peaches, and melons, and on and on and on, and on, and on, your statement is clearly wrong. These all grow only in warm conditions.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And of course the apple is the one fruit that is grown in cold climates. If you consider citrus fruits and bananas and tomatoes, and custard fruit, and bread fruit, and cumquats, and lychees, and peaches, and melons, and on and on and on, and on, and on, your statement is clearly wrong. These all grow only in warm conditions.
Incorrect of course. Gains in food production in the last century are based solely on improvements in process and technology. Farmers can better predict what to plant, can control that planting, optimize the process of growth, harvest at an optimal time and store and deliver it to markets optimally. All of that is based on the optimal determination of predictable weather. Along with large areas being optimized for growing certain crops based on that. Almost all of the major losses in US agriculture for probably 50 years have been based on problems with the weather and disease. And the second of those is tied to weather also. Because of all of that citrus grows in florida and wheat grows in the midwest. If the weather changes significantly then that optimization is lost. One cannot plant an apple tree in the spring and harvest in the fall. Nor can one open large apple farms in Alaska even if the weather was perfect because support structure does not exist there (storage, transportation, etc.) And that supposes that one immediately understands what the new weather patterns are. Weather prediction relies on an extensive, centuries in some cases, historical record to make predictions. So the problem becomes even if apples would grow ideally somewhere new how are hundreds of farmers going to know where those zones are? And how will the displacement of the existing crops from those areas know where there new zones are? It isn't a matter of whether it can be adapted for it is matter of how significant the disruptions will be and for how long if major disruptions occur.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And of course the apple is the one fruit that is grown in cold climates. If you consider citrus fruits and bananas and tomatoes, and custard fruit, and bread fruit, and cumquats, and lychees, and peaches, and melons, and on and on and on, and on, and on, your statement is clearly wrong. These all grow only in warm conditions.
Incorrect of course. Gains in food production in the last century are based solely on improvements in process and technology. Farmers can better predict what to plant, can control that planting, optimize the process of growth, harvest at an optimal time and store and deliver it to markets optimally. All of that is based on the optimal determination of predictable weather. Along with large areas being optimized for growing certain crops based on that. Almost all of the major losses in US agriculture for probably 50 years have been based on problems with the weather and disease. And the second of those is tied to weather also. Because of all of that citrus grows in florida and wheat grows in the midwest. If the weather changes significantly then that optimization is lost. One cannot plant an apple tree in the spring and harvest in the fall. Nor can one open large apple farms in Alaska even if the weather was perfect because support structure does not exist there (storage, transportation, etc.) And that supposes that one immediately understands what the new weather patterns are. Weather prediction relies on an extensive, centuries in some cases, historical record to make predictions. So the problem becomes even if apples would grow ideally somewhere new how are hundreds of farmers going to know where those zones are? And how will the displacement of the existing crops from those areas know where there new zones are? It isn't a matter of whether it can be adapted for it is matter of how significant the disruptions will be and for how long if major disruptions occur.
jschell wrote:
Gains in food production in the last century are based solely on improvements in process and technology
BZZT! WRONG! About 30% of the increase in crop yields inthe last century is estimated to be due to man mane CO2. The fact that wild forest growth has increased, and man doesnt fertilize these, should give you reason to know you are wrong.
-
jschell wrote:
Gains in food production in the last century are based solely on improvements in process and technology
BZZT! WRONG! About 30% of the increase in crop yields inthe last century is estimated to be due to man mane CO2. The fact that wild forest growth has increased, and man doesnt fertilize these, should give you reason to know you are wrong.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
About 30% of the increase in crop yields inthe last century is estimated to be due to man mane CO2.
Wrong as I have stated repeatedly in other posts and provided the studies that demonstrate it as well.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The fact that wild forest growth has increase
First it isn't "forest" but rather vegetation. Second that has nothing to do with crop yields.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
About 30% of the increase in crop yields inthe last century is estimated to be due to man mane CO2.
Wrong as I have stated repeatedly in other posts and provided the studies that demonstrate it as well.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The fact that wild forest growth has increase
First it isn't "forest" but rather vegetation. Second that has nothing to do with crop yields.
No you havent, and plants are plants, they have everything to do with each other.
-
No you havent, and plants are plants, they have everything to do with each other.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
No you havent
Yes I have. Crop yields increases have been specifically tied to improvements in process and technology. NOT CO2.
Bullshit. And you know it.
-
Bullshit. And you know it.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And you know it.
I know what I said is right because I read the studies that actually were intended to figure out exactly what the causes of increased crop yields were. Unlike your assertion that has no support at all about crop yields.