Global Warming

[elektra]

CO2, again everybody posts their favorite "graph", or links to something they find on google. A serious joke. I see one glaring error. Some folks are stating that C02 is 3% of our atmosphere. It is not, it is around .04% CO2 does not trap the heat. If anything, all that extra CO2 makes that Earth cooler. Any radiation that heats a molecule of CO2 will lose energy. It will not gain energy, it will not retain energy longer. It will become weaker or at best stay the same. 99.96% of the radiation that enters our atmosphere never ever encounters or strikes or comes close to a molecule of CO2. It passes right on by. There is simply too little CO2. Any theory of CO2, any math, however you calculate, it is all a fools errand. CO2, it makes great ice.

 

[cnm]

Your 'climatologist', ladies and gentlemen. Otherwise known as another raving loony.

This year the Coeur d’Alene Press, a US daily newspaper which serves the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho area, covered chemtrails/geo-engineering in an illuminating series owing to the work of Cliff Harris, one of the top climatologists in America.

Harris, who has been a climatologist for about 60 years, runs the website LongRangeWeather.com and operates a weather station in Coeur d’Alene. In April-May this year he had a series of three refreshingly candid articles published in the Coeur d’Alene Press, which exposed that those lingering aircraft trails are comprised largely of aluminum, barium and strontium, are toxic to the environment and human health, plus may be linked to increased cases of asthma, alzheimers, dementia, strokes and possibly even autism.
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com​

 

[cnm]

Where some of the data on which the chart was based on comes from.

The information on this website shows weather and historical trends from approximately 600 B.C. to the present day. Much of this data was put together by the Weather Science Foundation in Illinois back in the early to mid 1970s. At one time, over 60 people were employed to gather worldwide data.

Unfortunately, funding for this project evaporated and the Weather Science Foundation shut down its operation. However, some of this unique information was given to Climatologist Cliff Harris. By an agreement, Cliff did not use or publish any of this information for 30 years.
U.S. Weather Records & Climate Extremes​

 

[cnm]

Any radiation that heats a molecule of CO2 will lose energy. It will not gain energy, it will not retain energy longer.

Amusingly, that is because the energy has been transferred to the CO2 molecule. Which effectively is the greenhouse gas theory.

 

[elektra]

Any radiation that heats a molecule of CO2 will lose energy. It will not gain energy, it will not retain energy longer.

Amusingly, that is because the energy has been transferred to the CO2 molecule. Which effectively is the greenhouse gas theory.

That is not greenhouse gas theory. Not even a little bit.

 

[cnm]

That is not greenhouse gas theory. Not even a little bit.

Yeah? Educate me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Any radiation that heats a molecule of CO2 will lose energy. It will not gain energy, it will not retain energy longer.

Amusingly, that is because the energy has been transferred to the CO2 molecule. Which effectively is the greenhouse gas theory.

You don't have a clue... Stop while your behind..

 

[cnm]

It will become weaker or at best stay the same. 99.96% of the radiation that enters our atmosphere never ever encounters or strikes or comes close to a molecule of CO2. It passes right on by.

Oh, seen what's going on. It's not the UV coming in, it's the IR going out that is hindered by CO2/greenhouse gases.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.


.

Another dumb lying fuck. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. That is a larger gain than that from glacial, 180 ppm, to interglacial, 280 ppm. And we are seeing the results of that right now.

 

[Pilot1]

So now the Liberal/Progressive wealth re-distributors want to deny that there have been ICE AGES, and extreme tropical periods on Earth prior to Man, and prior to Man's Industrialization. That is moronic, and shows their MMGW religious zealotry.

 

[forkup]

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 ?

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 ?

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental. Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong, means you take as many precautions as possible. In the case of global warming the risks are global, long term and very, very serious if those scientists are right. If you are right what happens? So isn't it good policy to err on the side of caution?

 

[elektra]

That is not greenhouse gas theory. Not even a little bit.

Yeah? Educate me.

I just did, you got it wrong. Now go buy a book.

 

[elektra]

Oh, seen what's going on. It's not the UV coming in, it's the IR going out that is hindered by CO2/greenhouse gases.

CO2 does not hinder anything, there is too little. The opinion you just expressed is not supported by fact or experiments.

 

[Pete7469]

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.


.

Another dumb lying fuck. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. That is a larger gain than that from glacial, 180 ppm, to interglacial, 280 ppm. And we are seeing the results of that right now.

Wrong bed wetter. It's called weather. That's what we're seeing. Our impact on the planet is so infinitesimal that if we all ceased to exist tomorrow it would carry on the same way it would have if we doubled the population tomorrow, and guess what? ITS ALL GOING TO CEASE TO EXIST ONCE THE SUN FLARES UP IN A MILLION YEARS OR SO YOU FUCKIN PUTZ.

For whatever reason the globalist collective agenda really does want a significant population reduction, so I suggest you just hurry up and do as your programmers desire. If all of you global warming zealots quit "contributing" CO2 to the world tomorrow, On Monday the planet would be the coolest place in the universe by any possible calculation.

Fucking vacuous drones.

 

[elektra]

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.

How do you know, cause you read a google link? Cause you heard it on TV? Or they dictated so in school? You believe, but you do not know.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be

So you are parroting things you do not understand.

Great! Now go find an experiment which shows 400ppm making atmospheric temperature rise faster than an atmosphere of 280ppm... You wont find one because water vapor doesn't allow it. Your IPCC gods are doing a wealth distribution scheme because the physics and physical observation say it can not warm.

 

[cnm]

I just did, you got it wrong. Now go buy a book.

Jesus. Could you surrender any more completely? No, no you couldn't.

 

[cnm]

CO2 does not hinder anything, there is too little.

Ffs. What 'little' CO2 is there is heated by what IR radiation hits it. Therefore some radiation escape is hindered, by definition. You are batshit crazy or don't know what words mean, either/or. You yourself said that radiation lost its energy when it hit a CO2 molecule. The only way that can happen is for the energy to be transferred to the CO2 molecule.

Any radiation that heats a molecule of CO2 will lose energy. It will not gain energy, it will not retain energy longer.

edit...Oh, of course, I've over thought that. You just are scientifically illiterate. My bad.

 

[polarbear]

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 ?

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 ?

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental. Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong, means you take as many precautions as possible. In the case of global warming the risks are global, long term and very, very serious if those scientists are right. If you are right what happens? So isn't it good policy to err on the side of caution?

Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong,
If you are familiar with that concept then you should know that nuclear weapons, certain chemical processes are without even a shadow of a doubt dangerous and if intended to be a weapon designed to be exactly that: high impact !
CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications most of the chemicals we use to produce the objects you take for granted.
yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming unless you consider Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics plus all the engineering in all these fields as "non relevant". That "way more" is only true if you reduce science to tree ring readings etc. Without these highly dubious methods it is not possible to show a CO2 versus global temperature correlation.
Which is why the alarmists always piggy-back this statement in order to sell their pseudo science: and believe the consequences (of global warming) will be detrimental.
Which is supposed to insure that no reasonable person can argue with any of the nonsense that preceded it.

 

[forkup]

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 ?

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 ?

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental. Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong, means you take as many precautions as possible. In the case of global warming the risks are global, long term and very, very serious if those scientists are right. If you are right what happens? So isn't it good policy to err on the side of caution?

Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong,
If you are familiar with that concept then you should know that nuclear weapons, certain chemical processes are without even a shadow of a doubt dangerous and if intended to be a weapon designed to be exactly that: high impact !
CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications most of the chemicals we use to produce the objects you take for granted.
yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming unless you consider Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics plus all the engineering in all these fields as "non relevant". That "way more" is only true if you reduce science to tree ring readings etc. Without these highly dubious methods it is not possible to show a CO2 versus global temperature correlation.
Which is why the alarmists always piggy-back this statement in order to sell their pseudo science: global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
Which is supposed to insure that no reasonable person can argue with the nonsense that preceded it.

CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications

For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue that hurricanes can't get more serious this is either a terrible misreading of what I claim or a deliberate one. I am not talking about the hazard classification of CO2. I'm talking about the GENERAL predicted consequences of global warming. Rising sea levels, Extreme rainfall, forest fires ,mass extinction, etc. Reducing it to the hazard classification of CO2 is dishonest.

There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming

Well the UN disagrees. And since ALL countries except the US accept the findings of that UN permit me to call bullshit on this claim. Hell even NASA has an entire website dedicated to it.NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.

Pacific Island nations are slowly being eaten away
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
A few examples of it happening.
-Your country sinking in the waves I consider detrimental don't you?
-Living in California has become a bit more dangerous. Detrimental don't you think?
I also noticed you failed to address my premise.
If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?