How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[Rigby5]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.

I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.

Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth

Actually that is not true.
Several reputed scientists have said that climate is automatically self correcting, and that concerns are misplaced.
I personally don't think it is worth the risk, but their point is that instead of water vapor adding a runaway increase in temperature, it will increase cloud cover, albedo, and that will provide the negative feedback necessary in order to end the global warming crisis.

The reason I do not agree is that it may take a long time to come into that equilibrium, with a lot of hardship in the mean time, and also I do not want a permanent cloud cover. I like seeing the stars.

 

[Rigby5]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

With more water vapor in the atmosphere, there will eventually be more clouds.
Water vapor is the same thing as clouds if the water vapor gets high enough to where the temperature drops enough for it to start to condense back again.

The only problem with the increased albedo concept from clouds is that it may take a long time to decrease global temperatures, and it will ruin astronomy from the surface of the earth because the cloud cover would be perpetual.

 

[Crepitus]

Several reputed scientists have said that climate is automatically self correcting, and that concerns are misplaced.

Nope.

 

[ding]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

I know. What's your point? Are you suggesting they are unrelated? Do you even PVT?

 

[Crick]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well I never had a boss and depended on no one. That is smart....Very smart.

But is is it smarter than 100,000 PhDs?

Liar. It's 74.

Idiot. How many times have you been told of the raft of polls and surveys of thousands of scientists, published scientists and their works? Yet you STILL try to imply the consensus is based on Doran's 74 out of 77 (which later surveys have shown to have been completely accurate) The most recent survey of the literature:

"James Lawrence Powell* reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[151] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%[152]."

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

151. Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
152. Powell, J. (2019). Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

James Lawrence Powell (born July 17, 1936 in Berea, Kentucky) is a geologist, author, former college president and museum director. He chaired the geology department at Oberlin College later serving as its provost and president. Powell also served as president of Franklin & Marshall College as well as Reed College. Following his positions in higher education, Powell presided over the Franklin Institute and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.

Powell served 12 years on the National Science Board and is currently the executive director of Graduate Fellowships for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Diversity.

His book, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, explores the scientific debate regarding dinosaur extinction. In Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences, Powell addresses dinosaur extinction in addition to three other scientific debates: deep time, continental drift and global warming.

Powell has posited that the scientific consensus on global warming nears universality and he actively counters climate change denialism in his research and other publications.

 

[ding]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

With more water vapor in the atmosphere, there will eventually be more clouds.
Water vapor is the same thing as clouds if the water vapor gets high enough to where the temperature drops enough for it to start to condense back again.

The only problem with the increased albedo concept from clouds is that it may take a long time to decrease global temperatures, and it will ruin astronomy from the surface of the earth because the cloud cover would be perpetual.

On sunny days when clouds block the sun it feels 10 to 15 degrees cooler instantly just like on mornings with cloud cover it feels 10 to 15 degrees warmer than mornings without cloud cover. So seems to me the effect is immediate.

 

[mamooth]

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... ...

Here's a Trenberth Diagram. Note the "convection" arrow. What you say isn't taken into account is always taken into account.

 

[mamooth]

What's your point?

That you don't seem to understand the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity.

 

[Crick]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

With more water vapor in the atmosphere, there will eventually be more clouds.
Water vapor is the same thing as clouds if the water vapor gets high enough to where the temperature drops enough for it to start to condense back again.

The only problem with the increased albedo concept from clouds is that it may take a long time to decrease global temperatures, and it will ruin astronomy from the surface of the earth because the cloud cover would be perpetual.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... ...

Here's a Trenberth Diagram. Note the "convection" arrow. What you say isn't taken into account is always taken into account.

As has the latent heat of all that water vapor condensing into water droplets.

 

[Rigby5]

Several reputed scientists have said that climate is automatically self correcting, and that concerns are misplaced.

Nope.

Here is one scientist saying that man made increase in CO2 was not the cause of current warming, but that it was caused by a decrease in planetary albedo.

{...
It's albedo

"Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. The most interesting thing here is that the albedo forcings, in watts/sq meter seem to be fairly large. Larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined." (Anthony Watts)
...}

Here is another suggesting increased albedo will cause negative feedback that will counter act global warming naturally.

{...

The Unsettled Science of Albedo​

“Clouds are very pesky for climate scientists…”
Karen M. Shell, Associate Professor, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, writing about cloud feedback for RealClimate

Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. The albedo effect when applied to the Earth is a measure of how much of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space. Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect. (The term ‘albedo’ is derived from the Latin for ‘whiteness’).
...

Conclusions​

Albedo is a subject needing a lot more research. It’s an important feature of our climate, and a complex one. It is not yet possible to make definitive statements about what the future may hold. In fact, it is a good example of the ‘unsettled’ nature of climate change science.

We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change - positive or negative - it may make.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

With more water vapor in the atmosphere, there will eventually be more clouds.
Water vapor is the same thing as clouds if the water vapor gets high enough to where the temperature drops enough for it to start to condense back again.

The only problem with the increased albedo concept from clouds is that it may take a long time to decrease global temperatures, and it will ruin astronomy from the surface of the earth because the cloud cover would be perpetual.

There you go ... maybe you should take convection into consideration as well ... ...

Here's a Trenberth Diagram. Note the "convection" arrow. What you say isn't taken into account is always taken into account.

As has the latent heat of all that water vapor condensing into water droplets.

Don't think the heat given off by condensing clouds is a problem because it is high up enough so that it is more likely to radiate off planet.
That essentially is the heart of the problem from increased CO2, that at the high altitudes where the heat could re-radiate off planet, the CO2 converts it to vibratory energy instead of photonic, so prevents as much outward radiation as there had been with less CO2.
If more heat starts to move higher, both by reflection and clouds, then the global warming problem is solved.

That only reasons I do not like that is we don't know how long that would take, what temperatures will be reached in the mean time, and a constant cloud cover will ruin astronomy.

 

[Rigby5]

What's your point?

That you don't seem to understand the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity.

More important is pressure and temperature, as to how humidity manifests.

 

[ding]

What's your point?

That you don't seem to understand the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity.

How did you arrive at that conclusion exactly?

 

[ding]

What's your point?

That you don't seem to understand the difference between absolute humidity and relative humidity.

More important is pressure and temperature, as to how humidity manifests.

Exactly. PVT.

 

[mamooth]

How did you arrive at that conclusion exactly?

You claimed that increased humidity makes for more clouds. Absolute humidity is increasing, but not relative humidity, and it would take increasing relative humidity to form more clouds.

Also explain why you keep rambling about "PVT", as if it means something.

 

[ding]

How did you arrive at that conclusion exactly?

You claimed that increased humidity makes for more clouds. Absolute humidity is increasing, but not relative humidity, and it would take increasing relative humidity to form more clouds.

Also explain why you keep rambling about "PVT", as if it means something.

Is that what I said? Can you link to that post?

You don't know what PVT is?

 

[ReinyDays]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

More water vapor --> more condensation -- > more clouds --> higher albedo --> less energy reaching the surface ...

Logical ...

 

[mamooth]

More water vapor --> more condensation -- > more clouds --> higher albedo --> less energy reaching the surface ...

Logical ...

And again, a confusion between absolute and relative humidity.

 

[mamooth]

Is that what I said? Can you link to that post?

You:

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds

Stop it with the games. They're not interesting. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

And stop assuming that everyone knows what your special cult lingo means. If you're going to use your own special made-up terms, you have to define them.

What is "PVT" supposed to mean? Do you even know yourself? Can you explain it in your own words?

The fact that you can't would seem to indicate that it's just some buzzphrase you were told to repeat.

 

[ReinyDays]

ummmm.... more water vapor more clouds less energy reaching the surface?

Water vapor and clouds are _not_ the same thing, you know.

With more water vapor in the atmosphere, there will eventually be more clouds.
Water vapor is the same thing as clouds if the water vapor gets high enough to where the temperature drops enough for it to start to condense back again.

The only problem with the increased albedo concept from clouds is that it may take a long time to decrease global temperatures, and it will ruin astronomy from the surface of the earth because the cloud cover would be perpetual.

It's roughly 100,000 years between interglacial maxima and glacial minima ... I admire a poster who would not consider that a long time, it's not, just a blink of the eye ... but then again we're only talking about tiny increases in temperature, 2ºC ... so we should only expect a tiny increase in cloud cover, 1% ... and this type of negative feedback mechanism meshes well with our ice core history ... just need to figure out why this reverses at 100,000 years and near instantly rise back up for this mechanism to kick in again ...

Many of the first stars born into our universe are expected to shine for a trillion years ... which makes the universe still in her infant state ... so what does that make of "a long time"? ...