|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 1, 2023 13:30:46 GMT
Humans have repurposed 75% of the Earth's land surface since 1970 - mainly by deforestation, creating monocultures of crops and building towns and cities. Look at pictures taken from space over the years. All energy comes from the Sun but - before humans interfered - large amounts of this energy was captured and stored by various means. That's why rural areas are very much cooler than urban areas. Have you heard of the "Urban Heat Island" effect? Urban areas don't capture the Sun's energy (and convert it to carbohydrates, for example) - they absorb the energy and heat up. That's why they raise the temperature of the planet. And it doesn't just raise the temperature of these areas by 1C - it's a lot more than that. Yet this effect is dismissed by the CO2 fanatics. The reason they dismiss this effect is because they say that the amount of the Sun's energy that is reflected (the albedo) is pretty similar for rural and urban areas - and it's very complex so they don't have the data to calculate it anyway. But the difference is that rural areas capture more of the energy and lock it in, while urban areas capture the energy and heat up. That's why they're warmer. Yet this effect is ignored as our politicians demand more and more building to house larger and larger populations. And it's also worth pointing out that this progressive urbanisation means that the weather stations that we rely on to record temperatures are now in more urban areas than they were before - which means that they're bound to record higher temperatures. As for the 95% figure, show me the survey that came up with this figure. (BTW I know where the figures came from and they're completely discredited). Simply repeating yourself does not make this true. Humans have not repurposed 75% of the land mass since 1970. That's simply untrue. Perhaps you could link me the blogger you got it from. Oh god. And now we have to go through the whole list of crappy reasons for global warming, one at a time dismissing each while without skipping a beat you jump to the next. Can we just go straight to alien lizard creatures using death rays? We all know they are warming the earth so they can take over. 🤪 |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 2, 2023 9:05:23 GMT
Humans have repurposed 75% of the Earth's land surface since 1970 - mainly by deforestation, creating monocultures of crops and building towns and cities. Look at pictures taken from space over the years. All energy comes from the Sun but - before humans interfered - large amounts of this energy was captured and stored by various means. That's why rural areas are very much cooler than urban areas. Have you heard of the "Urban Heat Island" effect? Urban areas don't capture the Sun's energy (and convert it to carbohydrates, for example) - they absorb the energy and heat up. That's why they raise the temperature of the planet. And it doesn't just raise the temperature of these areas by 1C - it's a lot more than that. Yet this effect is dismissed by the CO2 fanatics. The reason they dismiss this effect is because they say that the amount of the Sun's energy that is reflected (the albedo) is pretty similar for rural and urban areas - and it's very complex so they don't have the data to calculate it anyway. But the difference is that rural areas capture more of the energy and lock it in, while urban areas capture the energy and heat up. That's why they're warmer. Yet this effect is ignored as our politicians demand more and more building to house larger and larger populations. And it's also worth pointing out that this progressive urbanisation means that the weather stations that we rely on to record temperatures are now in more urban areas than they were before - which means that they're bound to record higher temperatures. As for the 95% figure, show me the survey that came up with this figure. (BTW I know where the figures came from and they're completely discredited). Simply repeating yourself does not make this true. Humans have not repurposed 75% of the land mass since 1970. That's simply untrue. Perhaps you could link me the blogger you got it from. Oh god. And now we have to go through the whole list of crappy reasons for global warming, one at a time dismissing each while without skipping a beat you jump to the next. Can we just go straight to alien lizard creatures using death rays? We all know they are warming the earth so they can take over. 🤪 Usual stupid response. Try this link: linkAlternatively you can google pictures of Earth from space (or satellite pictures) showing the astonishing changes that man has made to the planet. And which YOU think have made no difference to the planet's temperature. It's all CO2 according to you. And you still haven't addressed what I said about albedo - the fact that urban areas are so much warmer than rural areas. Do you think that the fact that we've been massively expanding urban areas in the last several decades might have possibly led to some warming? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 2, 2023 21:34:15 GMT
Simply repeating yourself does not make this true. Humans have not repurposed 75% of the land mass since 1970. That's simply untrue. Perhaps you could link me the blogger you got it from. Oh god. And now we have to go through the whole list of crappy reasons for global warming, one at a time dismissing each while without skipping a beat you jump to the next. Can we just go straight to alien lizard creatures using death rays? We all know they are warming the earth so they can take over. 🤪 Usual stupid response. Try this link: linkAlternatively you can google pictures of Earth from space (or satellite pictures) showing the astonishing changes that man has made to the planet. And which YOU think have made no difference to the planet's temperature. It's all CO2 according to you. And you still haven't addressed what I said about albedo - the fact that urban areas are so much warmer than rural areas. Do you think that the fact that we've been massively expanding urban areas in the last several decades might have possibly led to some warming? There is no mention of 1970 in the NG article. Further repurposing is only a small part of the equation they discuss, they speak of pollution destroying land, of deforestation accounting for 10% of greenhouse emissions. They make no attempt to claim AGW is not to blame. Indeed they say AGW is a great part of of the degradation. So to the point. I have never even hinted that I don't think deforestation has not played a part (we agree that reducing vegetations ability to adsorb co2 will only quicken the process of global warming. None of this changes the fact that excessive Co2 production is the primary cause of global warming. As you insist on this path. Yes urban are are warmer than rural ones, which if you give it even a moments thought demonstrates that as the rural areas remain colder than urban areas that these are not the cause of global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 3, 2023 7:58:39 GMT
Zanygame said: "1. None of this changes the fact that excessive Co2 production is the primary cause of global warming.
As you insist on this path. 2. Yes urban are are warmer than rural ones, which if you give it even a moments thought demonstrates that as the rural areas remain colder than urban areas that these are not the cause of global warming."
I know you don't understand science, but you don't need to understand science to be able to recognise the logical contradiction between those two statements. You acknowledge rural areas are colder than urban areas - where both areas share the same concentrations of CO2. Yet you say that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. You're beyond help.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 3, 2023 19:30:18 GMT
Zanygame said: "1. None of this changes the fact that excessive Co2 production is the primary cause of global warming. As you insist on this path. 2. Yes urban are are warmer than rural ones, which if you give it even a moments thought demonstrates that as the rural areas remain colder than urban areas that these are not the cause of global warming." I know you don't understand science, but you don't need to understand science to be able to recognise the logical contradiction between those two statements. You acknowledge rural areas are colder than urban areas - where both areas share the same concentrations of CO2. Yet you say that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. You're beyond help. Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 3, 2023 19:54:33 GMT
Zanygame said: "1. None of this changes the fact that excessive Co2 production is the primary cause of global warming. As you insist on this path. 2. Yes urban are are warmer than rural ones, which if you give it even a moments thought demonstrates that as the rural areas remain colder than urban areas that these are not the cause of global warming." I know you don't understand science, but you don't need to understand science to be able to recognise the logical contradiction between those two statements. You acknowledge rural areas are colder than urban areas - where both areas share the same concentrations of CO2. Yet you say that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. You're beyond help. Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. Well how much does it cause atmospheric warming? One of the points as regards urban heat islands is that for many weather stations correction factors have to be applied to the modern readings and these correction factors had to calculated. If we cannot accurately measure how much the planet is actually warming then assessing how much CO2 contributes is at best I would suggest extremely difficult. I think many of us do not understand the science but that does not stop one thinking that we are being sold a pup. Why, is the question |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 3, 2023 20:33:52 GMT
Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. Well how much does it cause atmospheric warming? One of the points as regards urban heat islands is that for many weather stations correction factors have to be applied to the modern readings and these correction factors had to calculated. If we cannot accurately measure how much the planet is actually warming then assessing how much CO2 contributes is at best I would suggest extremely difficult. I think many of us do not understand the science but that does not stop one thinking that we are being sold a pup. Why, is the question All those factors existed before and are measured and accounted for, what makes you think you are exclusive in your observations and that the entire scientific community has missed. I think you're delusional. And as far as accurately measuring just how much each molecule of Co2 will warm the earth, you are right we cannot. What we can do is tell it is warming and that the warming is due to Co2. WE can measure the warming, we can dismiss as frivolous tiny things like urban warmth for the energy involved in this is minute on a global scale. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 3, 2023 20:44:26 GMT
Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. Well how much does it cause atmospheric warming? One of the points as regards urban heat islands is that for many weather stations correction factors have to be applied to the modern readings and these correction factors had to calculated. If we cannot accurately measure how much the planet is actually warming then assessing how much CO2 contributes is at best I would suggest extremely difficult. I think many of us do not understand the science but that does not stop one thinking that we are being sold a pup. Why, is the question God this is pathetic now you are trying to claim we measure earths overall temperature from old weather stations that might be wrong. So how do these effect the sea temperatures, satellite measurements. Anyway I know you love a good conspiracy theory and you're harmless as the vast majority of us can see with our own eyes the effects of that warming. The only sad things is that the idiots held credibility just too long. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 4, 2023 8:20:31 GMT
Zanygame said: "1. None of this changes the fact that excessive Co2 production is the primary cause of global warming. As you insist on this path. 2. Yes urban are are warmer than rural ones, which if you give it even a moments thought demonstrates that as the rural areas remain colder than urban areas that these are not the cause of global warming." I know you don't understand science, but you don't need to understand science to be able to recognise the logical contradiction between those two statements. You acknowledge rural areas are colder than urban areas - where both areas share the same concentrations of CO2. Yet you say that CO2 is the primary cause of warming. You're beyond help. Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. I'll try to explain it very simply - but I think you're incapable of logical thought so it's probably useless. The main reason that urban areas are warmer than rural areas is not because people have their heating on (which is not true in Summer anyway). It's because urban areas absorb the radiated heat from the Sun and act as giant storage heaters emitting the heat later. Whereas rural areas absorb roughly the same amount of radiated heat from the Sun (the albedo is roughly the same) BUT plants do NOT store the heat and emit it later. Instead they very efficiently use this energy to drive a chemical reaction (photosynthesis) to create sugars - so the energy is locked away. (This is the energy that we eventually get back from fossil fuels). It's a very cheap and effective form of carbon capture. That's why you'll notice that houses are hot in sunshine and roofs and roads are very hot but vegetation remains cool. That's why rural areas are so much cooler. Rural areas trap most of the Sun's energy while urban areas radiate it. So I'll ask again, do you think that the fact that we've built so many large cities and towns all over the world could be a reason for the Earth warming up? Remember, even with all the fiddling the IPCC can do, the Earth has only warmed up by 1.5C since 1850. How much of that 1.5C do you think is due to huge expansion of urban areas? The answer is that we don't know because no one has done the work to calculate it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 4, 2023 8:39:17 GMT
Well how much does it cause atmospheric warming? One of the points as regards urban heat islands is that for many weather stations correction factors have to be applied to the modern readings and these correction factors had to calculated. If we cannot accurately measure how much the planet is actually warming then assessing how much CO2 contributes is at best I would suggest extremely difficult. I think many of us do not understand the science but that does not stop one thinking that we are being sold a pup. Why, is the question God this is pathetic now you are trying to claim we measure earths overall temperature from old weather stations that might be wrong. So how do these effect the sea temperatures, satellite measurements. Anyway I know you love a good conspiracy theory and you're harmless as the vast majority of us can see with our own eyes the effects of that warming. The only sad things is that the idiots held credibility just too long. That is the point the entire Scientific Community is not of one mind, much as people try to say it is, they are realistically all over the place as regards what is going on. People can see with their own eyes the effects of that warming but only if that is the direction they are pointed. We saw just stop oil stating clearly that the 40C and the Pakistan floods were clear evidence of catastrophic climate change. They used their own eyes and came to a conclusion that they were directed to by all those who wanted it to be so. Yet both have serious questions as to their cause being specifically global warming, and this is the important point, that have not been adequately addressed. The rainfall records in Pakistan go back 150 years and that data does not indicate a change in the rainfall pattern or a gradual increase in rainfall or any other anomaly that such floods would expect to see have happened. The floods were largely a consequence of poor planning, poor operation and population increase and a not exceptionally unusual rain falling in a place that only happens occasionally in the records. Pakistan shouted loud and hard about climate change to cover its own serious shortcomings. The problem is you swallow it whole without question. You have to be a bit sceptical but climate change has the elemental aspects of a cult and that is when truth and science become co-opted to the cause. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 4, 2023 9:14:37 GMT
Well how much does it cause atmospheric warming? One of the points as regards urban heat islands is that for many weather stations correction factors have to be applied to the modern readings and these correction factors had to calculated. If we cannot accurately measure how much the planet is actually warming then assessing how much CO2 contributes is at best I would suggest extremely difficult. I think many of us do not understand the science but that does not stop one thinking that we are being sold a pup. Why, is the question God this is pathetic now you are trying to claim we measure earths overall temperature from old weather stations that might be wrong. So how do these effect the sea temperatures, satellite measurements. Anyway I know you love a good conspiracy theory and you're harmless as the vast majority of us can see with our own eyes the effects of that warming. The only sad things is that the idiots held credibility just too long. This is hard work. The data used is collected from all over the place and satellites only from the 70s. I am not sure how you think temperatures were measured before this. Old stations were built around, or moved and to give a consistent reading correction factors had to be applied and these had to be verified by other stations used as datum points. If only it was all nice and simple and neatly packaged so you could say look CO2 increasing ipso facto climate change warming and it must be man made. The world is a much more complicated place and sometimes hunting whales does not lead to catching them Cap'n Ahab. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 4, 2023 23:14:02 GMT
Seriously? You think this is an argument? Blimey. Well my gas stove is warmer than my porch but both contain similar levels of Co2. Which proves absolutely nothing. Co2 causes atmospheric warming, adding warmth from household heating in urban areas does not change that one bit. I just love the way you blandly claim I don't understand science directly after making that claim. Its beyond hilarious. I'll try to explain it very simply - but I think you're incapable of logical thought so it's probably useless. The main reason that urban areas are warmer than rural areas is not because people have their heating on (which is not true in Summer anyway). It's because urban areas absorb the radiated heat from the Sun and act as giant storage heaters emitting the heat later. Whereas rural areas absorb roughly the same amount of radiated heat from the Sun (the albedo is roughly the same) BUT plants do NOT store the heat and emit it later. Instead they very efficiently use this energy to drive a chemical reaction (photosynthesis) to create sugars - so the energy is locked away. (This is the energy that we eventually get back from fossil fuels). It's a very cheap and effective form of carbon capture. That's why you'll notice that houses are hot in sunshine and roofs and roads are very hot but vegetation remains cool. That's why rural areas are so much cooler. Rural areas trap most of the Sun's energy while urban areas radiate it. So I'll ask again, do you think that the fact that we've built so many large cities and towns all over the world could be a reason for the Earth warming up? Remember, even with all the fiddling the IPCC can do, the Earth has only warmed up by 1.5C since 1850. How much of that 1.5C do you think is due to huge expansion of urban areas? The answer is that we don't know because no one has done the work to calculate it. OMG we're onto tarmac, still atleast we're getting through the list quite quickly. Urban areas cover only 14% of the earths land mass compared to 25% mountainous and 20% desert. That small 14% is not anywhere near large enough to change the climate by storing enough ultraviolet light and emitting infrared light to increase the temperature of the planet. And areas concreted or tarmacked only 0.625% The reason it hasn't been measured in relation to global warming is because its insignificant. Can't remember what comes after tarmac, so its like an adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 4, 2023 23:23:27 GMT
God this is pathetic now you are trying to claim we measure earths overall temperature from old weather stations that might be wrong. So how do these effect the sea temperatures, satellite measurements. Anyway I know you love a good conspiracy theory and you're harmless as the vast majority of us can see with our own eyes the effects of that warming. The only sad things is that the idiots held credibility just too long. This is hard work. The data used is collected from all over the place and satellites only from the 70s. I am not sure how you think temperatures were measured before this. Old stations were built around, or moved and to give a consistent reading correction factors had to be applied and these had to be verified by other stations used as datum points. If only it was all nice and simple and neatly packaged so you could say look CO2 increasing ipso facto climate change warming and it must be man made. The world is a much more complicated place and sometimes hunting whales does not lead to catching them Cap'n Ahab. It doesn't matter how temperatures were measured in the 1970's, every modern measurement shows the earths temperature is rising. Now make up your mind. Is the earths temperature rising or not? A post ago you were agreeing it is rising, but apparently due to urbanisation. Now you say we can't tell because of inaccuracies in measuring. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 5, 2023 7:27:29 GMT
Zanygame said: "Urban areas cover only 14% of the earths land mass compared to 25% mountainous and 20% desert. That small 14% is not anywhere near large enough to change the climate by storing enough ultraviolet light and emitting infrared light to increase the temperature of the planet.
And areas concreted or tarmacked only 0.625%
The reason it hasn't been measured in relation to global warming is because its insignificant".
If all these factors are so insignificant, why are urban areas so much hotter than rural areas? They're up to 10 degrees C hotter. That's because urban areas act as giant storage heaters.
Of course the Met office say that they don't affect overall temperature because they try to avoid measuring temperatures in urban areas (except of course record temperatures). However there's such a thing as "wind". If you have an urban heat island nearby it will heat up your rural area.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 5, 2023 8:52:18 GMT
This is hard work. The data used is collected from all over the place and satellites only from the 70s. I am not sure how you think temperatures were measured before this. Old stations were built around, or moved and to give a consistent reading correction factors had to be applied and these had to be verified by other stations used as datum points. If only it was all nice and simple and neatly packaged so you could say look CO2 increasing ipso facto climate change warming and it must be man made. The world is a much more complicated place and sometimes hunting whales does not lead to catching them Cap'n Ahab. It doesn't matter how temperatures were measured in the 1970's, every modern measurement shows the earths temperature is rising. Now make up your mind. Is the earths temperature rising or not? A post ago you were agreeing it is rising, but apparently due to urbanisation. Now you say we can't tell because of inaccuracies in measuring. It matters how you measure and have measured temperatures because one is undertaking comparisons of those measurements to indicate global warming. Once again I repeat no one is disputing there is a current warming trend as far as I am aware although there does appear to be a current hiatus that is continuing and has been ongoing for about 8 years. The temperature increases per decade are at approx 0.134C since 1978. Nowhere near the 1990 IPCC predictions for no change in emissions, and we all know they have increased. The point as ever is that there is very little settled science, with very little consensus and I am trying to show you that measurements are far from definitive and the point about urbanisation is not so much that it in itself causes climate change (but who knows) but that its existence will tend to skew measurements of temperatures upwards artificially, unless one is very careful. The interesting point is we can spend billions trying to save the planet from warming and our effect on the warming trend will be miniscule to a millionth part of a degree levels. |
|
