|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 13, 2023 13:05:18 GMT
Just scientific opinions. 1.You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. 2. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. The first point is that the facts are NOT determined by scientific opinion. Otherwise the Sun would be orbiting the Earth. On point 1, the reason why forests cause cooling is that the process of photosynthesis uses the Sun's energy to create sugars (to grow in other words). They do ALSO reduce CO2 but there's no unequivocal evidence that shows that this reduces warming. There is plenty of unequivocal evidence that forested areas are MUCH cooler than other areas. Care to put some values on that claim. I think you'll find the far larger effect is removal of Co2, but I await with baited breath. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 13, 2023 14:13:47 GMT
The UK has just launched a CO2 satellite. It can measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in real time and map it in 3D. This would be a far better thing to measure than surface temperature because surface temperature is a proxy. What we are trying to understand is to what extent are CO2 concentrations building up. As we can map the albedo of the earth we can use Stephan's law to work out the theoretical increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2 over a time period. This leaves out the 'noise' of the weather data, which as sceptics point out, is a complicated thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 13, 2023 15:08:16 GMT
The first point is that the facts are NOT determined by scientific opinion. Otherwise the Sun would be orbiting the Earth. On point 1, the reason why forests cause cooling is that the process of photosynthesis uses the Sun's energy to create sugars (to grow in other words). They do ALSO reduce CO2 but there's no unequivocal evidence that shows that this reduces warming. There is plenty of unequivocal evidence that forested areas are MUCH cooler than other areas. Care to put some values on that claim. I think you'll find the far larger effect is removal of Co2, but I await with baited breath. That's idiotic - even by your standards. Forested areas are much cooler than urban areas - that's a fact. And the difference in temperature is up to about 10C. Yet the concentration of CO2 in the air in a forest is the same as the that in urban areas. And you're the guy who needs to find "some values" on their claims. No one has yet proved the CO2 warming theory in the Earth's system - and the models built on that hypothesis don't work. It's very easy to prove that areas with forests or vegetation are cooler. And the reason they're cooler is because the plants absorb the Sun's energy and lock it up in the stuff that we burn later (fossil fuels). They lock up a lot of energy. If there's no vegetation as in an urban area the energy is simply absorbed and radiated into the Earth's atmosphere causing large amounts of warming. You've never grasped even the basics of this stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 13, 2023 16:43:08 GMT
Care to put some values on that claim. I think you'll find the far larger effect is removal of Co2, but I await with baited breath. That's idiotic - even by your standards. Forested areas are much cooler than urban areas - that's a fact. And the difference in temperature is up to about 10C. Yet the concentration of CO2 in the air in a forest is the same as the that in urban areas. Didn't think you'd know. You just spout rubbish like all the other deniers. No substance, just copy/paste crap you've read while pretending you know stuff. Of course its cooler under a tree canopy its shady and leaves reflect sunlight better than tarmac. No go and read up on the climate change effects of forests. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 13, 2023 16:44:39 GMT
The UK has just launched a CO2 satellite. It can measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in real time and map it in 3D. This would be a far better thing to measure than surface temperature because surface temperature is a proxy. What we are trying to understand is to what extent are CO2 concentrations building up. As we can map the albedo of the earth we can use Stephan's law to work out the theoretical increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2 over a time period. This leaves out the 'noise' of the weather data, which as sceptics point out, is a complicated thing. More data always helps. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 14, 2023 8:27:35 GMT
That's idiotic - even by your standards. Forested areas are much cooler than urban areas - that's a fact. And the difference in temperature is up to about 10C. Yet the concentration of CO2 in the air in a forest is the same as the that in urban areas. Didn't think you'd know. You just spout rubbish like all the other deniers. No substance, just copy/paste crap you've read while pretending you know stuff. Of course its cooler under a tree canopy its shady and leaves reflect sunlight better than tarmac. No go and read up on the climate change effects of forests. More bollocks. Keep avoiding the obvious question that I've asked you. You just make stuff up. Trees actually reflect less radiation than tarmac - i.e they have a lower albedo. As I've told you several times the difference is that leaves absorb radiation and use it to create sugars (which causes cooling) while things like tarmac and houses absorb radiation and heat up. Plants don't go to the trouble of growing leaves and holding them up to the Sun, only to reflect the radiation. They absorb nearly ALL of it (all except green usually). Yet they don't get hot! Think about it -if you're capable of thought. You don't understand the basic principles Zanygame. That's why your posts are nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 14, 2023 9:23:48 GMT
Didn't think you'd know. You just spout rubbish like all the other deniers. No substance, just copy/paste crap you've read while pretending you know stuff. Of course its cooler under a tree canopy its shady and leaves reflect sunlight better than tarmac. No go and read up on the climate change effects of forests. More bollocks. Keep avoiding the obvious question that I've asked you. You just make stuff up. Trees actually reflect less radiation than tarmac - i.e they have a lower albedo. As I've told you several times the difference is that leaves absorb radiation and use it to create sugars (which causes cooling) while things like tarmac and houses absorb radiation and heat up. Plants don't go to the trouble of growing leaves and holding them up to the Sun, only to reflect the radiation. They absorb nearly ALL of it (all except green usually). Yet they don't get hot! Think about it -if you're capable of thought. You don't understand the basic principles Zanygame. That's why your posts are nonsense. By far the largest effect vegetation has on the climate is the extraction of Co2 from the atmosphere. Play around the edges all you want you are wrong. BTW Trees do adsorb sunlight, just not as much as tarmac, they reflect more. The next step is that the leaves do not emit infrared radiation (The one that Co2 traps) Whereas tarmac does emit infrared radiation, (The one Co2 traps). |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 14, 2023 23:03:24 GMT
Well, on this sunlight Bollox
Did you know a black person absorbs more sunlight than a white one
A bizarre revelation from a Neil Degrasse Tyson ‘startalk’ but actually factually accurate
But FFS don’t tell Greta she’ll be demanding we exterminate the white people and fill the land mass with blacks to save the planet
Mind you that might explain Twathead Dickfords Nation of Sanctuary Policy, fill every square metre with black skin and reduce reflected radiation and resultant atmospheric heating
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 14, 2023 23:27:04 GMT
Well, on this sunlight Bollox Did you know a black person absorbs more sunlight than a white one A bizarre revelation from a Neil Degrasse Tyson ‘startalk’ but actually factually accurate But FFS don’t tell Greta she’ll be demanding we exterminate the white people and fill the land mass with blacks to save the planet Mind you that might explain Twathead Dickfords Nation of Sanctuary Policy, fill every square metre with black skin and reduce reflected radiation and resultant atmospheric heating Wrong way round John. Greta will want the blacks exterminated as they adsorb sunlight and release it as infrared. While good white folk reflect it back into space. you are a very sick man my friend, seek help before its too late. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 15, 2023 7:22:42 GMT
Well, on this sunlight Bollox Did you know a black person absorbs more sunlight than a white one A bizarre revelation from a Neil Degrasse Tyson ‘startalk’ but actually factually accurate But FFS don’t tell Greta she’ll be demanding we exterminate the white people and fill the land mass with blacks to save the planet Mind you that might explain Twathead Dickfords Nation of Sanctuary Policy, fill every square metre with black skin and reduce reflected radiation and resultant atmospheric heating Wrong way round John. Greta will want the blacks exterminated as they adsorb sunlight and release it as infrared. While good white folk reflect it back into space. you are a very sick man my friend, seek help before its too late. Move away from the mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 15, 2023 7:53:23 GMT
More bollocks. Keep avoiding the obvious question that I've asked you. You just make stuff up. Trees actually reflect less radiation than tarmac - i.e they have a lower albedo. As I've told you several times the difference is that leaves absorb radiation and use it to create sugars (which causes cooling) while things like tarmac and houses absorb radiation and heat up. Plants don't go to the trouble of growing leaves and holding them up to the Sun, only to reflect the radiation. They absorb nearly ALL of it (all except green usually). Yet they don't get hot! Think about it -if you're capable of thought. You don't understand the basic principles Zanygame. That's why your posts are nonsense. 1. By far the largest effect vegetation has on the climate is the extraction of Co2 from the atmosphere. Play around the edges all you want you are wrong. 2. BTW Trees do adsorb sunlight, just not as much as tarmac, they reflect more. The next step is that the leaves do not emit infrared radiation (The one that Co2 traps) Whereas tarmac does emit infrared radiation, (The one Co2 traps). 1. That's what is to be proved in order to justify the statement that CO2 is the primary driver of warming. You can't just assert it, because as yet no one has proved it. So where's your evidence? The models that are built on the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming don't work, and no one has ever demonstrated CO2 driven warming in the Earth's system except at the ice caps or in a desert. Wherever there's greenery around the experiments fail. So you're wrong. 2. Radiation CANNOT be adsorbed. You mean absorbed. Don't try to be clever by using scientific words when you have no understanding of their meaning. Adsorption is a process whereby molecules are attracted to the surface of materials (like catalysts for example) with no chemical reaction taking place - which is NOT what's happening when leaves or roads absorb heat. So again you're wrong. And the albedo of urban areas and rural areas is broadly the same, but trees reflect less than roads. But the main point is - as I said - that trees use the energy that they absorb (which is nearly 90% BTW) to drive a chemical reaction to create sugars. That's why they cool the planet - and why rural areas are noticeably cooler than urban ones. While houses and infrastructure absorb energy and do nothing with it but heat up - and dissipate that heat like a storage heater. That's why urban areas are considerably warmer than rural ones. All of which conclusively proves that utbanisation is warming the planet. We're still looking for proof that CO2 causes significant global warming. Unless, of course, you have the evidence Zanygame.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 15, 2023 9:15:24 GMT
1. By far the largest effect vegetation has on the climate is the extraction of Co2 from the atmosphere. Play around the edges all you want you are wrong. 2. BTW Trees do adsorb sunlight, just not as much as tarmac, they reflect more. The next step is that the leaves do not emit infrared radiation (The one that Co2 traps) Whereas tarmac does emit infrared radiation, (The one Co2 traps). 1. That's what is to be proved in order to justify the statement that CO2 is the primary driver of warming. You can't just assert it, because as yet no one has proved it. So where's your evidence? The models that are built on the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming don't work, and no one has ever demonstrated CO2 driven warming in the Earth's system except at the ice caps or in a desert. Wherever there's greenery around the experiments fail. So you're wrong. 2. Radiation CANNOT be adsorbed. You mean absorbed. Don't try to be clever by using scientific words when you have no understanding of their meaning. Adsorption is a process whereby molecules are attracted to the surface of materials (like catalysts for example) with no chemical reaction taking place - which is NOT what's happening when leaves or roads absorb heat. So again you're wrong. And the albedo of urban areas and rural areas is broadly the same, but trees reflect less than roads. But the main point is - as I said - that trees use the energy that they absorb (which is nearly 90% BTW) to drive a chemical reaction to create sugars. That's why they cool the planet - and why rural areas are noticeably cooler than urban ones. While houses and infrastructure absorb energy and do nothing with it but heat up - and dissipate that heat like a storage heater. That's why urban areas are considerably warmer than rural ones. All of which conclusively proves that utbanisation is warming the planet. We're still looking for proof that CO2 causes significant global warming. Unless, of course, you have the evidence Zanygame. 1, You keep clinging to that, its all you've got. 2, absorbed is not a clever scientific term. But yes I used the wrong one. Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb. So long as you keep pretending that because the Co2 modelling does not work perfectly, this must mean that its not the primary cause of global warming, then you are stuck. You are stuck with blaming other effects while knowing that all of them combined have nowhere near the global effect we are seeing. You are left with refusing to publish your data, skipping from one cause to the next as each is shown wanting. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 15, 2023 20:57:06 GMT
1. That's what is to be proved in order to justify the statement that CO2 is the primary driver of warming. You can't just assert it, because as yet no one has proved it. So where's your evidence? The models that are built on the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming don't work, and no one has ever demonstrated CO2 driven warming in the Earth's system except at the ice caps or in a desert. Wherever there's greenery around the experiments fail. So you're wrong. 2. Radiation CANNOT be adsorbed. You mean absorbed. Don't try to be clever by using scientific words when you have no understanding of their meaning. Adsorption is a process whereby molecules are attracted to the surface of materials (like catalysts for example) with no chemical reaction taking place - which is NOT what's happening when leaves or roads absorb heat. So again you're wrong. And the albedo of urban areas and rural areas is broadly the same, but trees reflect less than roads. But the main point is - as I said - that trees use the energy that they absorb (which is nearly 90% BTW) to drive a chemical reaction to create sugars. That's why they cool the planet - and why rural areas are noticeably cooler than urban ones. While houses and infrastructure absorb energy and do nothing with it but heat up - and dissipate that heat like a storage heater. That's why urban areas are considerably warmer than rural ones. All of which conclusively proves that utbanisation is warming the planet. We're still looking for proof that CO2 causes significant global warming. Unless, of course, you have the evidence Zanygame. 1, You keep clinging to that, its all you've got. 2, absorbed is not a clever scientific term. But yes I used the wrong one. Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb. So long as you keep pretending that because the Co2 modelling does not work perfectly, this must mean that its not the primary cause of global warming, then you are stuck. You are stuck with blaming other effects while knowing that all of them combined have nowhere near the global effect we are seeing. You are left with refusing to publish your data, skipping from one cause to the next as each is shown wanting. I think it is a bit more than the models not working perfectly, so far they seem to predict warming at twice what is actually occurring. If they were predicting the top speed of a car you would be disappointed in the extreme, or the return on your investments, the price of a coffee in the cafe, the time it takes for a train to reach its destination, the amount of rain falling in the afternoon, the temperature at midday in your holiday destination, the number of migrants arriving in small boats. However what they are predicting is catastrophe and it is just not happening by any measure. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 15, 2023 22:13:59 GMT
1, You keep clinging to that, its all you've got. 2, absorbed is not a clever scientific term. But yes I used the wrong one. Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb. So long as you keep pretending that because the Co2 modelling does not work perfectly, this must mean that its not the primary cause of global warming, then you are stuck. You are stuck with blaming other effects while knowing that all of them combined have nowhere near the global effect we are seeing. You are left with refusing to publish your data, skipping from one cause to the next as each is shown wanting. I think it is a bit more than the models not working perfectly, so far they seem to predict warming at twice what is actually occurring. If they were predicting the top speed of a car you would be disappointed in the extreme, or the return on your investments, the price of a coffee in the cafe, the time it takes for a train to reach its destination, the amount of rain falling in the afternoon, the temperature at midday in your holiday destination, the number of migrants arriving in small boats. However what they are predicting is catastrophe and it is just not happening by any measure. Which model was that Sandy, must be a very old one? Was it the one where they didn't know the Atlantic escalator would draw heat down to the depths for a decade, or where they didn't know we'd have a solar maunder? I'd say we'd been dead lucky. Still you might be thinking of something entirely different. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 16, 2023 8:35:58 GMT
Zanygame said: "Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb".
I've never seen any analysis of the cooling effect of trees/plants. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't been done. It would require a vast amount of data that we simply don't have. However the facts can be easily deduced from the fact that the temperature of wooded areas is much lower than that of urban areas. Since both areas share the same concentration of CO2 in the air (and very similar albedo - in fact the reflectivity of urban areas is slightly greater than rural) the cooling effect of the rural area's absorption of the sun's energy can be roughly measured by the difference between the temperatures of equivalent rural and urban areas (equivalent in terms of altitude and location).
If we go along with your claim that most of the warming of the planet, since the pre-industrial period (1850), is caused by CO2, then that's about 1.1C.
Since rural areas are up to about 10C cooler than urban areas I'd say it was "no contest".
|
|
