Global Warming

Viktor

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2013
5,848
6,569
1,930
Southern California
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
 
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
Sure, the thing is most of these events can be investigated and usually a cause or causes, since it's seldom a single thing that influences a change in climate, can be determined. Only the current determination by scientist isn't accepted by the politicians ( not scientists )in a single country. Even your article has this paragraph.
However, Mankind's activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the "Urban Heat Island Effect" are likely creating more harmful pollution. Yes, we believe we should be "going green" whenever and wherever possible.
So can I ask why you accept this graphical representation, but not one of their conclusions? Why you would accept the determination of science of previous climate trends, but not the current one?
At best you have provided SOME doubt about the cause of global warming.
 
Last edited:
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
 
CO2 causation is a theory.

And anyway......the cost of being able to possibly combat it is not at all feasible. Only an idiot would disagree......the same idiot doesn't think costs matter when this kind of thing is discussed.

And we know nobody is interested at all in opening up their wallet based upon some hail Mary theory.......the lack of climate change action is beyond laughable. The science isn't mattering.

Indeed........when people see elephants and giraffes standing around in a roaring snowstorm in the middle of Africa in August, freezing their balls off, they aren't going to have climate change action on top of their list of things to do!!:deal::cul2::cul2:
 
Last edited:
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
 
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?
 
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?
For that you need a Michael Mann. He does not need a highly accurate thermometer to tell you within 1/10 of a degree accuracy what the temperature was....but is unwilling to show the raw data.
This leaves the rest of the scientists wondering how he does that:
hockeystick-800x533.jpg


F2.large.jpg

Apparently he can measure tree rings within fractions of a millimeter accuracy, like in 0.1 mm increments which is 4/1000 of an inch. It`s impossible to machine wood to within 4 thou. You can do it with metal on a precision lathe but not with wood because 1 single hardwood fiber is 10 times thicker than a "Michael Mann" temperature increment:
Slide50.GIF
 
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.


From a Nobel Laureate in Physics: "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"


 
Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?
For that you need a Michael Mann. He does not need a highly accurate thermometer to tell you within 1/10 of a degree accuracy what the temperature was....but is unwilling to show the raw data.
This leaves the rest of the scientists wondering how he does that:
hockeystick-800x533.jpg


F2.large.jpg

Apparently he can measure tree rings within fractions of a millimeter accuracy, like in 0.1 mm increments which is 4/1000 of an inch. It`s impossible to machine wood to within 4 thou. You can do it with metal on a precision lathe but not with wood because 1 single hardwood fiber is 10 times thicker than a "Michael Mann" temperature increment:
Slide50.GIF
For that you need a time machine. There is no way no how ever, that you can prove what the weather was 5000 years ago. Ever. All the squiggly lines and computers don't mean shit!
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.
 
Last edited:
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
And yet the observed evidence shows this is not happening.... You folks and your broken models..
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.
Please provide proof that mans influence can be discerned from natural variation... Even your cited paper admits "mans 'suspected' influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system"
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
And yet the observed evidence shows this is not happening.... You folks and your broken models..
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jnorris/files/caltechweb.pdf
Observed changes, not a model. It shows the amount of clouds has increased. It does NOT support the conclusion that it increases the temperature yet.
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.
Please provide proof that mans influence can be discerned from natural variation... Even your cited paper admits "mans 'suspected' influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system"
The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
The kind of graphical representations here are NOT disputed and show a good correlation between increases in CO2 levels and temperature. Furthermore even IF the case would be less clear, isn't it reasonable to assume the worst when talking about something that has severe consequences for the world and act accordingly?
 
Last edited:
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
And yet the observed evidence shows this is not happening.... You folks and your broken models..
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jnorris/files/caltechweb.pdf
Observed changes, not a model. It shows the amount of clouds has increased. It does NOT support the conclusion that it increases the temperature yet.
Again CERN does not support your fantasy. Cloud coverage can change 2-5 % in one hour so this is also within natural variation boundaries. Everything you post is within NV norms. So I ask you again to show me proof of your assumptions. By the way, atmospheric water vapor content has dropped over the last 25 years as well so that also disproves your hog wash..
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.
Please provide proof that mans influence can be discerned from natural variation... Even your cited paper admits "mans 'suspected' influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system"
The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
The kind of graphical representations here are NOT disputed and show a good correlation between increases in CO2 levels and temperature. Furthermore even IF the case would be less clear, isn't it reasonable to assume the worst when talking about something that has severe consequences for the world and act accordingly?
LOL

The IPCC fantasy models again... Please enlighten me as to why the forcing has gone from 6 deg C per doubling to a mere 0.6 deg C per doubling (1.1 Deg F) of CO2 this year... By the way, this places any warming within NV norms and can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.
 
The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
The kind of graphical representations here are NOT disputed and show a good correlation between increases in CO2 levels and temperature. Furthermore even IF the case would be less clear, isn't it reasonable to assume the worst when talking about something that has severe consequences for the world and act accordingly?
LOL

The IPCC fantasy models again... Please enlighten me as to why the forcing has gone from 6 deg C per doubling to a mere 0.6 deg C per doubling (1.1 Deg F) of CO2 this year... By the way, this places any warming within NV norms and can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.

I applaud your efforts Billy Bob, but you sort of look silly even though you're absolutely correct. Here's why....



I am not trying to belittle you in anyway, I realize you're far more intelligent than the Homer Simpson character, but you are doing exactly what he is doing in the cartoon, and it's just as much of a waste of time for the exact same reason.


.
 
All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that?
Who disputed that? Did I ?...when I asked you to show me a spectral absorption % increase per ppm CO2 increase....of the same gas
And then to your "scientific" source:
Researchers have also studied how these climate changes – particularly increased temperatures and higher rainfall – have impacted the severity of hurricanes and other storms. While evidence does not show that these types of factors are the primary cause of damaging weather events, Washington Post reporters Emily Guskin and Brady Dennis noted that many researchers are very confident that climate change does contribute to more frequent and more intense storms.
Let me get that straight, there is no evidence which shows that but all it takes is for some WaPo reporters to say "many researchers are very confident"...to substitute for the lack of physical evidence.
In plain English all they have is the phony consensus based on statistics the ex-cartoonist from Australia constructed.
Geezus how hard can it be for anyone with a normal level of math skills to think it through how long it would take to just create 1 single extra Hurricane, never mind a record number of them with just 1 extra Watt/m^2.
And I am being overly generous here because it`s way less than 1 Watt.
The average Hurricane is 100 miles wide (156 km) and tracks for ~ 3500 km. This sucks up 600 Tera Watts for a duration of about 9 days...the average duration of a typical Atlantic hurricane.
The same area which supplies the energy for one of these can get it only back at a rate of 5.46 * 10^11 Watts if CO2 would actually give you a whole watt/m^2 and not just a fraction of that.
So for a 1 week Hurricane you would need about 1200 weeks of "extra" energy to get enough for just 1 extra Hurricane per season. Hmm....How many weeks (or months) long is the Hurricane season ?


 
The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
The kind of graphical representations here are NOT disputed and show a good correlation between increases in CO2 levels and temperature. Furthermore even IF the case would be less clear, isn't it reasonable to assume the worst when talking about something that has severe consequences for the world and act accordingly?
LOL

The IPCC fantasy models again... Please enlighten me as to why the forcing has gone from 6 deg C per doubling to a mere 0.6 deg C per doubling (1.1 Deg F) of CO2 this year... By the way, this places any warming within NV norms and can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.

I applaud your efforts Billy Bob, but you sort of look silly even though you're absolutely correct. Here's why....



I am not trying to belittle you in anyway, I realize you're far more intelligent than the Homer Simpson character, but you are doing exactly what he is doing in the cartoon, and it's just as much of a waste of time for the exact same reason.


.
I'm generally dealing with physicists and real scientists so I do talk above most peoples ability to function.. And your right, dealing with parrots does not require rational thought.. No matter how many times you try and explain the problem to a parrot they are incapable of rational, cognitive, thought and continue to spout the same garbage over and over again.

I would have greater impact using a 2 x 4...
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top