Does Science Reveal Truth?

We were originally talking about burning wood, not deforestation. People burn wood without deforestation all the time. It is called a selective cut.

Humy clearly changed the subject from burning wood to deforestation because his assertion failed him. Deforestation is a digression to avoid admitting burning firewood did not cause temps to start rising before the industrial age.

All that just to blame man for natural causes bringing us out of the little ice age. He doesn't want to accept nature brought us out of the little ice age because he wants to blame man for all of it even though it is impossible. That shows how desperate he has become.

It is apparent when a person is losing a debate. They grasp at straws in desperation to avoid looking stupid, only to look even more stupid later.

@metal-brain said
We were originally talking about burning wood, not deforestation.

No, you and I were talking about both. But then you change the subject. Obviously, I was NOT ever talking about the burning of wood specifically WITHOUT deforestation involved, because that would be irrelevant to our current topic.

@humy said
No, you and I were talking about both. But then you change the subject. Obviously, I was NOT ever talking about the burning of wood specifically WITHOUT deforestation involved, because that would be irrelevant to our current topic.

We were only talking about burning wood. You changed the subject to digress. Burning wood is part of the natural carbon cycle. Termites dwarf wood burning when it comes to CO2. You have no point.

@metal-brain said
We were only talking about burning wood.

Nope

@humy said
Nope

You didn't even bring up the subject. You interjected and attempted to digress into deforestation because you were foolish enough to butt into a losing debate about burning more wood than coal.

Remind us all of what you are trying to prove.

@metal-brain said
debate about burning more wood than coal.

What debate about "burning more wood than coal"? I never said that. -Yet another new straw man of yours. WOW you must be desperate!

@humy said
What debate about "burning more wood than coal"? I never said that. -Yet another new straw man of yours. WOW you must be desperate!

The debate with wildgrass you butted into. You didn't start this debate. You were trolling.
You are lying again. You must be really desperate.

@metal-brain said
We were originally talking about burning wood, not deforestation. People burn wood without deforestation all the time. It is called a selective cut.

Humy clearly changed the subject from burning wood to deforestation because his assertion failed him. Deforestation is a digression to avoid admitting burning firewood did not cause temps to start rising before the industr ...[text shortened]... e. They grasp at straws in desperation to avoid looking stupid, only to look even more stupid later.

Prior to the name calling, you had implied that anthropogenic climate change drivers didn't exist prior to 1800. We were then talking about human changes to land before 1800, which included a lot of clear cutting. Since land use is a huge component of the climate change equation and half of Europe and the Eastern US was clear cut by humans, this deforestation was human-caused climate change. The wood burning you brought up as a related important issue.

Obviously people sometimes do logging differently now, but you can't rewrite history.

@wildgrass said
Prior to the name calling, you had implied that anthropogenic climate change drivers didn't exist prior to 1800. We were then talking about human changes to land before 1800, which included a lot of clear cutting. Since land use is a huge component of the climate change equation and half of Europe and the Eastern US was clear cut by humans, this deforestation was human-caus ...[text shortened]... tant issue.

Obviously people sometimes do logging differently now, but you can't rewrite history.

"Since land use is a huge component of the climate change equation and half of Europe and the Eastern US was clear cut by humans, this deforestation was human-caused climate change.

What is your source of information? Sounds like a weak hypothesis out of desperation to me. Did it affect CO2 levels? When? Where is your proof? What do the ice core samples prove?

@metal-brain said
"Since land use is a huge component of the climate change equation and half of Europe and the Eastern US was clear cut by humans, this deforestation was human-caused climate change.

What is your source of information? Sounds like a weak hypothesis out of desperation to me. Did it affect CO2 levels? When? Where is your proof? What do the ice core samples prove?

Your questions aren't very specific. It is well-established that land use affects climate. If you are actually interested in reading source materials, this layman's article contains several references and links for further reading [1]. Instead of reading to identify statements in which you already disagree, please try to read with an open mind for absorbing new and potentially-interesting information. Let's identify areas in which we agree.

Here's another article that contains a confusing, but potentially informative, chart on the relationship between land use and climate [2]. Note that most of these possible mitigative response options can be done at no cost, so please stop bringing up taxes.

I was talking about land use, not CO2. You brought that up. I am not clear from you question what an ice core sample would say about land use? Were you responding to someone else's post?

[1] https://enviroliteracy.org/air-climate-weather/climate/land-use-changes-climate/
[2] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/9/20791617/climate-report-2019-un-land-ipcc-solutions

@wildgrass said
Your questions aren't very specific. It is well-established that land use affects climate. If you are actually interested in reading source materials, this layman's article contains several references and links for further reading [1]. Instead of reading to identify statements in which you already disagree, please try to read with an open mind for absorbing new and potentia ...[text shortened]... https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/9/20791617/climate-report-2019-un-land-ipcc-solutions

" It is well-established that land use affects climate."

Nope, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture are significant, but the assertion that it affects climate is an hypothesis. It could be CO2 or maybe not. Maybe it is all of the above or maybe none of them. We don't really know.

A hypothesis is not a fact. You need to accept that. Just because it is popular to assert certain things as fact doesn't make it fact. I used to hear GPS confirmed Einstein's relativity. I heard it a lot and it isn't even true.

Gossip doesn't prove anything.

@metal-brain said
" It is well-established that land use affects climate."

Nope, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture are significant, but the assertion that it affects climate is an hypothesis. It could be CO2 or maybe not. Maybe it is all of the above or maybe none of them. We don't really know.

A hypothesis is not a fact. You need to accept that. Just because it is ...[text shortened]... d Einstein's relativity. I heard it a lot and it isn't even true.

Gossip doesn't prove anything.

I've never asserted anything as fact anywhere on the Science forums. Please read the posts before replying.

Thanks!

@Metal-Brain
About GPS CONFIRMING GR, what I know is GR equations HAVE to be installed in ALL GPS sats BECAUSE of the velocity they are traveling compared to ground and the change in time flow because of the height above Earth and therefore at a lower gravity field and therefore two competing effects complicating exact time of flight of radio signals.
If GR equations were not included in all that, there are several consequences that would ruin the accuracy of GPS which even at worse is say 10 feet or so and some specialty units can be accurate within a centimeter and therefore able to directly chart the movement of Earth's crustal plates. Without GR correction none of that would be possible. Because time flow varies with velocity AND distance from the center of a large gravity well the rates at which a signal leaves Earth and arrives at a GPS sat and going back down to Earth to an Earthbound receiver, without GR correction the location information could be off by a kilometer which would make GPS less accurate than a modern map.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
About GPS CONFIRMING GR, what I know is GR equations HAVE to be installed in ALL GPS sats BECAUSE of the velocity they are traveling compared to ground and the change in time flow because of the height above Earth and therefore at a lower gravity field and therefore two competing effects complicating exact time of flight of radio signals.
If GR equations were ...[text shortened]... cation information could be off by a kilometer which would make GPS less accurate than a modern map.

"About GPS CONFIRMING GR, what I know is GR equations HAVE to be installed in ALL GPS sats"

What is your source of information?

@Metal-Brain
Again you go on with the intellectual laziness inherent in a true metal brain.
This took me about ten SECONDS to find:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
I know you don't like to read, but just read the last couple of paragraphs.