Which statement about greenhouse gases and global warming is false?

a) global warming increases with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere


b) planting trees would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide


c) global warming can cause flooding, weather changes, and changes in agricultural patterns


d) human activity is the sole source of atmospheric carbon dioxide


e) computer models are used to predict future global temperature changesWhich statement about greenhouse gases and global warming is false?
d)


We are a part of nature and we need to take responsibility for our part.Which statement about greenhouse gases and global warming is false?
The only true statement is (e), except that it does not imply that their predictions will come any close to truth. All the first four statements are false, maybe except the first one, which would require a substantial quantification.





Yes, increase of a greenhouse gas may increase the magnitude of greenhouse effect, but only if the corresponding height of infrared opacity (produced by this particular gas) is situated BELOW tropopause, where ';higher'; means ';colder';. If not (like with most absorption lines of CO2), the increase might have an opposite effect, like the ';stratospheric cooling'; for example.
a) global warming increases with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. False. We have cooled in recently in spite of increased CO2 so obviously it isn't necessarily so. CO2 doesn't drive the climate. It just bumps the temperature up slightly from the natural trend.








b) planting trees would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide


False. It might and might not. It depends on what was there before.





c) global warming can cause flooding, weather changes, and changes in agricultural patterns


False. Without a defintion for global warming, it cannnot be blamed on anything. If the defintion is ';the warming caused by humans'; then none of these things can be blamed on humans. They can be guessed at by alarmists but there is no scientific evidence that man is to blame. It is a ridiculous theory.





d) human activity is the sole source of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This one is false and it is the one alarmists will agree on (the smarter ones anyway)





e) computer models are used to predict future global temperature changes


False! They may attempt to predict but scattering and reading chicken bones is about as reliable as their models.
Just this week the scientist who went out to measure the arctic sea ice found that the previously unmeasured, but computer model predicted ice thickness was off by 100%. The computer generated measurement said it would be 2 meters (6ft) while the actual bore holes found 4 meters (12ft).





ASK YOUR TEACHER WHY IS GLOBAL WARMING CALLED A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND NOT FACT! Because the facts are based on a computer model that can't predict today's temps and ice thickness, but we're suppose to believe that the doom and gloom predictions are real.
a) global warming increases with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere


False


got it backwards: increased temperature causes CO2 to be released from the oceans. CO2 does not significantly contribute to global warming





d) human activity is the sole source of atmospheric carbon dioxide


False


There are a tremendous number of CO2 sources. Human activity is a very minor contributor. Volcanos are a significant contributor. All animal life produces CO2. And the ocean is a big contributor as it absorbs/releases CO2 with temperature changes.
a. Not by any measurable amount.


b. Not really. As they die off, they would release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Except, if you cut the tree down and make it into furniture, that could help. In the short run, planting trees would absorb CO2 as any plant does. Plants actually grow 20 to 40% better in high CO2 environments.


c. Absolutely NO evidence to support this claim so false.


d. NONONONONONO. Humans are a minute portion of CO2 in the atmoshere. The oceans are the largest source.


e. Sort of. They do in fact spit out projections, which to this day have been wrong.
a) False, pollution increases.





b) True, plant life absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen.





c) False, solar flares and natural phenomenon cause fluctuations in weather.





d) False





e) True, however not 100% accurate.
A is false


b is true


c.. global warming does not cause flooding or weather changes. It could cause minor changes in agriculture, if it existed.


d is false


e computer models predict false results for future temps
D is tho only false one. Humans are a factor, but aren't the sole cause.
D





We are the cause of abnormal CO2 levels, but not the sole cause of CO2
a) false





b) true





c) false





d) false





e) true
D is false.
d is false.
A). Known for years and reproducible in a laboratory





B). True the way you state it (plant a tree and use CO2). Covering more of the landscape with trees would temporarily reduce CO2 concentrations until equilibrium is reached. But it really depends on the vigor of the tree. Trees produce CO2 during respiration just like people (the respire during the dark cycle and roots respire). Growth requires respiration. Young trees that are well matched to their environment take in CO2 and store lots of food for growth. Old trees may be a CO2 producer. Very young trees (seedlings and saplings) may be close to the balance until they get established in the site and grow vigorously.





Algae in the ocean make ~80% of earth's O2, and theerfore use the most CO2.





C. True on balance. The magnitude of the events depends on location and the amount of warming. They may be non-existent, slight, or extreme. The thought is that the balance of impacts world-wide will tip toward teh negative - hence the scientific consensus by the IPCC and most of the unbiased scientific community.





D. False. Natural factors (decay for example) still emit lots of CO2. The human contribution is important because it cause an upset in the carbon cycle. CO2 that has been sequestered out of the system is extracted from the earth and released into the atmosphere through combustion. If this were not the case, the rate of global warming would not be faster than the natural rate of warming. Then we could be confident that our ecosystems could adapt. Human are significant (release 100 times more CO2 in recent years on average than volcanoes), but not the sole source.





E. True. General circulation models incorporate the law of physics to simulate weather every hour of every day for 1/2 degree lat-long cells for about 10 layers of the atmosphere. The weather values are not accurate. We can't predict weather nearly that precisely, but the weather values are representative of reasonable values given the initial boundary layer conditions. The values are averaged over long periods to estimate what climate is likely to be. The time-averaged estimates are more accurate than the hourly estimates of weather.





These are deterministic models, not based on statistical relationships that require supercomputers to solve simultaneous equations for every part of the earth and every layer of the atmosphere. They are coupled with ocean response models to try to capture important aspects of the oceans influence, and years ago they were working on terrestrial response models. Also, they incorporate models to work on aerosol and cloud effects. It has been 20 years since I have even looked at this stuff.
First, remember this, academia is blind to temperature.





a. False, how can you blame C02 for trapping heat when we are generating extreme atmospheric heat on the surface of the planet. Here is a link to the latest temperature research showing buildings being ';radiated'; instead of reflecting solar radiation. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h鈥?/a>





b. We clearcut forests and sell the lumber to the world, why wouldn't C02 be elevated? true, except the best form of planting is to leave things natural so we don't interfere with the ecosystems that sustain life. Once again, removing ground cover allows the surface of the planet to be ';radiated'; Go to the following link and look at the temperature of the radiated cutblock in April. In my province, we have 50,000 square miles of devasted forest by Pine Beetle and that has created a radiated heat sink that changes the weather formula. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h鈥?/a>





c. True and not only are we radiating buildings where they generate extreme heat, we are reacting to the symptoms with more emissions, mercury emissions, acid rain, polluted babies and ecosystems. Go here and see buildings cooking the atmosphere immediately after sunrise. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h鈥?/a>





d. False, there are other sources with people more qualified to answer that. However, we are the only cause of global warming, we have been radiating buildings for decades and we are still doing it when a coat of paint would eliminate the problem. California and others are being knocked off the electrical grid treating symptoms of radiation. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h鈥?/a>





e. ridiculous to predict future temperatures unless you have all the required data and we don't. The whole political world jumped on the C02 bandwagon without knowing buildings and development are being radiated. That is what happens when administrators, politicians and economists get together without the science. If a building is generating atmospheric heat close to boiling temperature before it produces C02 or other emissions, why are we taxing us on C02. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h鈥?/a>





I am a temperature specialist for 30 years and I see electron flow in my business. Impossible to ';predict'; electron flow in the future while we keep putting up heat sinks called buildings.





How is our thermography different? Here is a link to a Flu Screening Press Release. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?鈥?/a>