The Evolution of "Manmade Global Warming"

[CrusaderFrank]

To show you how big a fraud AGW is, I'm going to quote from their Bible, a peer reviewed study on how an additional wisp of CO2 was going to destroy the planet.

"But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air, or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as the greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90 percent of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the earth back toward space..." -- Al Gore, "Earth in the Balance" page 92

I highlighted the key passage where Gore blames water vapor as the culprit.

H2O =/= CO2

Do you see that?

Water vapor is the culprit that traps the heat, not CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

The "man-made" part of global warming is 100% engineered..........brilliantly I might add!!

 

[Old Rocks]

That is correct. Engineered as in coal fired generating plants, and transportation dependent on the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

Did you read the op? I think not. Gore attributes 90% of the "warming" to water vapor, not to CO2

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

Did you read the op? I think not. Gore attributes 90% of the "warming" to water vapor, not to CO2

Crap, Frankie Boy, are you incapable of understanding English? Is it your second language? Water vapor is a feed back from CO2. And, yes, it is the most powerful GHG.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

Did you read the op? I think not. Gore attributes 90% of the "warming" to water vapor, not to CO2

Crap, Frankie Boy, are you incapable of understanding English? Is it your second language? Water vapor is a feed back from CO2. And, yes, it is the most powerful GHG.

You're making progress!

How much additional water vapor is there from say 20 years ago?

Can't use the Vostok Ice cores now can we?

What do Mann's tree rings have to say about the additional water vapor?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rocks, did you just realize your monumental fuck up and decide to avoid this thread?

 

[flacaltenn]

Worse yet -- is that water vapor is responsible for both Negative and Positive feedback. If it all went to clouds -- It would be negative and the earth would cool. It becomes a GHG when it is distributed and well mixed. Could this be a major reason why the Climate Sensitivities are REGIONAL and even SEASONAL?

It is in effect in the Arctic this minute actually. The greater sensitivity of the Arctic is not because of CO2 distribution. It's because of water, ice, and water vapor --- isn't it? Of course it is..

The Arctic isn't melting because of a 0.25degC change due to CO2 warming. It's been amplified by water, ice albedo change and vapor cycling. Something that the Arctic has plenty of.. We've probably underestimated the ability of these water based feedbacks for ANY increase in forcing function especially solar irradiation.

Doesn't matter how long water vapor stays in the atmosphere. There is an ample supply being converted every moment by excess surface temp. BTW: CO2 doesn't reside in the atmos for 100 years.. It starts getting cycled as soon as it's released. SOME FRACTION might persist for 100 years, but the bulk is very likely long gone after 20 or 30 yrs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe all that water evaporating from the ocean is whats causing the oceans to turn "Acidic"

(LOL)

 

[mamooth]

So, you two guys "feel" that is has to be water vapor instead of CO2, even though you have no data, no science, or even the slightest bit of common sense to back that claim up.

Basically, Frank hates Al Gore, so he's on a sputtering crusade to hate whatever he thinks Al Gore likes. OTOH, the rational people pay no attention at all to Gore, because Gore is not a scientist. Only the political cultists are obsessed with Gore, or Hansen, or any single personality.

 

[westwall]

rocks, did you just realize your monumental fuck up and decide to avoid this thread?

yup!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you two guys "feel" that is has to be water vapor instead of CO2, even though you have no data, no science, or even the slightest bit of common sense to back that claim up.

Basically, Frank hates Al Gore, so he's on a sputtering crusade to hate whatever he thinks Al Gore likes. OTOH, the rational people pay no attention at all to Gore, because Gore is not a scientist. Only the political cultists are obsessed with Gore, or Hansen, or any single personality.

Did you read the OP?

Did you actually read and understand the quote?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you two guys "feel" that is has to be water vapor instead of CO2, even though you have no data, no science, or even the slightest bit of common sense to back that claim up.

Basically, Frank hates Al Gore, so he's on a sputtering crusade to hate whatever he thinks Al Gore likes. OTOH, the rational people pay no attention at all to Gore, because Gore is not a scientist. Only the political cultists are obsessed with Gore, or Hansen, or any single personality.

Al Gore, in his peer reviewed AGW Bible blames H2O for the warming.

You see that, right?

 

[skookerasbil]

That is correct. Engineered as in coal fired generating plants, and transportation dependent on the burning of fossil fuels.

Indeed.............which will be around for decades and decades I might add. Shit........even Germany is scuttling all the green crap and going back to coal and its Merkel who's doing it.

Coal is cheap Ray........its what the world needs, and what is this notion of bending over backwards to screw the poor of the world by pushing this expensive enegy crap down their throats. Nobody but nobody screws over the poor more than the radical environmentalist contingent.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWb6ZDcwJts]Environmental policies hurt the poor - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mamooth]

Let's talk about the evolution of denialism.

1. There's no warming!

2. Okay, there is warming, but it's not human-caused!

3. Okay, there is warming, but only some of it is human-caused!

4. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's a good thing!

5. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's not that bad, and it costs too much too fix.

6. Okay, humans are causing the warming, and it's awful, but we can't do anything, so it's everyone for themselves!

The denialists here fall in various places on this scale. They've all abandoned 1 by now. Some are still stuck on 2, but since even that looks increasingly ridiculous, they'll have to retreat to 3 soon. And later, they'll fall back again, to 4 and 5 and 6.

 

[westwall]

Let's talk about the evolution of denialism.

1. There's no warming!

2. Okay, there is warming, but it's not human-caused!

3. Okay, there is warming, but only some of it is human-caused!

4. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's a good thing!

5. Okay, humans are causing the warming, but it's not that bad, and it costs too much too fix.

6. Okay, humans are causing the warming, and it's awful, but we can't do anything, so it's everyone for themselves!

The denialists here fall in various places on this scale. They've all abadoned 1 by now. Some are still stuck on 2, but since even that looks increasingly ridiculous, they'll have to retreat to 3 soon. And later, they'll fall back again, to 4 and 5 and 6.

Yes let's!

1. Nowhere do sceptics claim no warming (other than that windbag Rush), we merely claim it is nothing new or unusual. In fact the MWP and the RWP are well known to paleoclimatologists, it's only the AGW cultists who tried to excise them from the historical record.

2. Ahhh, yes, now we come to the crux of the issue. Human causation...so far there is not one single bit of empirical data to show that man is having an effect. Not one. There are PLENTY of observations that show the warming we experienced was entirely natural cyclic activity...but you can't get the government to give you hundreds of billions of dollars on that can you.

3. Now, as far as your predictions go, you guys claim that GW will make the world warm. Then when winters got real cold you claimed that GW was causing that too. Then when it was wet (flooding) that was caused by AGW, now that we are having a drought...that too is the fault of AGW. Hmmm, seems to me you guys are claiming that AGW can cause every possible weather related effect the world has ever seen.

How do you test that hypothesis? Now do a little research and see what a non testable hypothesis is called....here's a hint, scientists call that "pseudo science"...look it up.

 

[mamooth]

1. Nowhere do sceptics claim no warming (other than that windbag Rush),

They certainly did make such claims, all the way up until this summer. After this summer, it just became too ridiculous to hold that position, so they abandoned it.

we merely claim it is nothing new or unusual. In fact the MWP and the RWP are well known to paleoclimatologists, it's only the AGW cultists who tried to excise them from the historical record.

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

2. Ahhh, yes, now we come to the crux of the issue. Human causation...so far there is not one single bit of empirical data to show that man is having an effect. Not one.

You are deeply ignorant of the science. Again, the direct atmospheric heat flux measurements.

There are PLENTY of observations that show the warming we experienced was entirely natural cyclic activity...

Then why can't anyone on your side demonstrate even one cause for these magical natural cycles?

but you can't get the government to give you hundreds of billions of dollars on that can you.

Grasping more tightly on to the kook conspiracy theories isn't helping your case.

3. Now, as far as your predictions go, you guys claim that GW will make the world warm. Then when winters got real cold you claimed that GW was causing that too.

Don't be absurd. No one said that. Scientist say that warming causes warming, not cooling. That's why it's called "global warming".

Then when it was wet (flooding) that was caused by AGW, now that we are having a drought...that too is the fault of AGW. Hmmm, seems to me you guys are claiming that AGW can cause every possible weather related effect the world has ever seen.

No, that's your misrepresentation of what we say. I'm not obligated to refute what no one ever said.

How do you test that hypothesis?

If it gets colder over the long term, global warming is disproved. Duh. Pretty damn easy to test that hypothesis.

Or, if _more_ heat started leaking out of the atmosphere over the greenhouse absorption frequencies, that would also disprove it.

There are more, but you get the drift. Because AGW science is actual science, of course it's testable.

Now do a little research and see what a non testable hypothesis is called....here's a hint, scientists call that "pseudo science"...look it up.

Pseudoscience is all you've done, and all you will ever do. Handwaving about magical natural cycles is pure pseudoscience.

But by all means, post your theory here, and we'll see how falsifiable it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Senile ol' Walleyes continues to ignore the fact that the American Institute of Physics has a very informative site that explains exactly how CO2 works. In detail.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

But according to Walleyes, the scientists are at the AIP are all in on some monsterous conspiracy to fool all of us about this issue. In on it with every other Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the whole world.

But he claims that he is a geologist, a scientist.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Warming became "climate change" and "climate variability" when the winters of 2009/10 hit and the temps had stopped accelerating. NOW -- you'll find "Global Weirding" being used even on NASA/NOAA websites. And Hansen has jumped the shark that OldieRocks rides with blaming every weather headline on his cause.

As for "natural causes" --- Does THIS look like .2W/m2 change to YOU between 1750 and 2000?

Of course it doesn't.. Yet that's the claim in the IPCC reports. Because they "rationalize" the literature to allow them to BLESS the lower number. What you see there is MORE THAN 1/2 of the surface heat forcing that we're looking for in Global Warming. And that's before we do all the arm-waving and claim that since W/m2 increases -- water vapor predominates in the GHG heating and the effect is amplified.

Why is it that ALL the surface heating is credited to CO2 and man-made forcing? How much is due to the EXPECTED water vapor increase that would come from EITHER "natural" (solar) or "man-made" (C02). The water vapor doesn't care what's doing the forcing does it?

Then WHY is a 0.6W/m2 SOLAR TSI change CONSTANTLY discounted, misrepresented and obfuscated?
And WHY does the IPCC accept a solar observatory "correction" that the designers and operators of that measurement platform reject? Because it shows TSI continuing to increase over the 1990 -- 2010 timeframe --- that's why...