Have any of you listened to Steve Bohr's comments on this subject?

Stephen Bohr on Climate Change, Is it Real?

.

I admit, I have not listened to Bohr since he called the Sabbath an arbitrary test.

Here is something to read:
https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

The person who wrote that article is suffering from insanity. The question he should ask himself is why is the Sahara desert hot and dry but the Amazon, around the same equatorial latitude, wet and flourishing? He needs to visit Israel, Dubai and India to witness the wonder of desert reclamation by the simple act of planting trees. With the trees, come the rain and with the rain, the animals and with the animals, a return to the Garden of Eden.

Contrary to his strident rhetoric, global warming does NOT cause the entire ocean's temperature to rise, but its surface temperature. We scientists speak of the rise in ocean temperature as short hand for surface temperature on average. For example, in the summer there are hot days and humid days and warm days and cool days, but year upon year, global warming results in increasingly hot, humid days over warm, cool ones. The change is imperceptible yet real, like noon to midnight, unless one measures it or (as in the latter case) one lives through the day.

The large-scale industrial culture of releasing carbon dioxide from nature's products above and beyond what is being absorbed does trap heat close to earth which results in catastrophic changes in weather patterns, i.e. global climate. People need to plant more trees and STOP spewing gas.

I read a fiction story on that, "The Man Who Planted Trees". But do you have some references for such things being true?

Change requires a comparison. We can compare last year to this year, but would that comparison conclude whether the earth is warming? So what would you compare? How many years, given the earth is 6000+ years old, would be a fair amount to determine if something is "changing"? Statistics require a randomized sample to make a conclusion on the whole. If we are only looking at the tail end, how big a sample would be required to make any type of conclusion?

Which do you think sequesters more CO2: Trees or grass?

i suggested he visit Israel, Dubai and India, didn't I? It's right there in the text. I hope you can visit too. I'd be an eye-opener for you.

Interesting.

By visiting a place, I can see that it's the result of "the simple act of planting trees".
The scientific approach.

Strange that the writing was talking about sea warning and the example was lands. Huh.

Does one plant trees in the sea? Surely you're not going to toe his line of reasoning (so called). Now about the oceans, I specifically said:



as you can see, it's about SURFACE temperatures (whether land or sea). Or do you also read five words and immediately send off a tweet?

That is not what the global warming community is saying... But hey, don't let the true interfere with your belief...

The reason governments claim GLOBAL warming

Interesting argument about warming ocean's surface. I wonder how much heat would be needed to just warm the first inch of ocean surface? If you had an indoor swimming pool, and only turned on the air heating, how much heat before the surface of the pool raised 1 degree? Spread that over the whole ocean and .... I'm finding it hard to believe.