Don't tell me that global warming alarmism isn't a religion for some--they even claim prophets!

NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'

Quote :

"'We're toast if we don't get on a very different path,' Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. 'This is the last chance.'"

Quote :

"But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, 'Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.' "

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3NLY5naFMJIsbKHNeiWIKMTsEiQD91G3IBG0

The "last chance"? Yeah, the last chance for increased taxes, fees, loss of freedoms, and so on.

6/24/2008 8:09:54 AM

Hansen's a pawn, he's been discredited in the past.

6/24/2008 9:21:08 AM

Quote :

"Ah yes. IF ONLY C02 WERE THE ONLY VARIABLE IN THIS EQUATION, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT! Now, again, please explain why CO2 increases FUCKING LAG TEMPERATURE INCREASES. That's all we're asking here, dude."

WILL PEOPLE PLEASE DISPENSE WITH THIS STRAWMAN?!

I, in absolutely no way, need to explain why CO2 increases lag temperature temperature increases. Why? Because my argument never had and never will depend on it.

More CO2 increases the magnitude of the greenhouse effect by empirical evidence. This can be verified to account for an increase of some 1 degree C today and with unchecked future increases, 2-3 degrees in 100 years. Then, peer reviewed research shows a high likelihood that feedback effects will double or triple this effect. The dangers associated with this would be obvious to a 1st grader.

The fact that politicians use this to advance their own career, institute regulations that do not help the situation, or are in general low-intelligence douchebags does not change the severity or credibility of global warming. Incorrect arguments of non-scientists should never discredit conclusions of real scientists. The fact that democrats are calling for world government also does not affect the scientific reality. Physics does not care about our petty quibbles, and can easily kill a large fraction of us all.

6/24/2008 9:31:45 AM

Methane


Nitrous Oxide

6/24/2008 9:34:48 AM

and for the repost:

6/24/2008 9:38:00 AM

^how come that doesnt mention water vapor? seems kind of disingenuous

6/24/2008 9:39:25 AM

lol, you mean clouds?

Is that a variable?

6/24/2008 10:20:25 AM

its kind of the most significant greenhouse gas

care to comment? do you disagree with the graph?

6/24/2008 10:33:52 AM

The "disingenuous" chart actually did cover water vapor/clouds to the extent that they're variable:

"stratospheric water vapor from methane"

"aerosols: effect on clouds"



[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 10:40:26 AM

Quote :

"stratospheric water vapor from methane"

hmmm...thats odd...since 99.99% of water vapor is in the troposphere, i dont see why only factoring in a tiny bit of water vapor in the stratosphere is anything less than disingenuous

Quote :

"aerosols: effect on clouds"

uh, what? how does anyone equate aerosols with water vapor??

so again i ask, don't you think its disingenuous to just leave out the most important greenhouse gas?

6/24/2008 10:51:53 AM

so what effect are you saying water vapor has on the idea of global warming? We should just assume that it'll be a negative feedback and just fix any change we introduce?

Maybe we should fund some scientists or something to investigate the effect of this...

6/24/2008 10:58:06 AM

Quote :

"We should just assume that it'll be a negative feedback and just fix any change we introduce?"

what?

water vapor absolutely and empirically is the most significant gas in our planet's greenhouse effect...are you having trouble understanding the bar graph i posted? it seems pretty easy to understand

6/24/2008 11:00:48 AM

Quote :

"uh, what? how does anyone equate aerosols with water vapor??"

Water vapor collects around particulate matter. Thus forming clouds, Professor Science.

Quote :

"so again i ask, don't you think its disingenuous to just leave out the most important greenhouse gas?"

And again, I'll ask: how is it a natural variable? Does the evaporation point of water vary over time?

6/24/2008 11:02:03 AM

Quote :

"Water vapor collects around particulate matter. Thus forming clouds, Professor Science. "

what does that have to do with the aerosol spray cans mentioned in the chart? is your right guard spray deodorant the same thing as water vapor? sounds like thats what you're implying

Quote :

"how is it a natural variable?"

because its naturally occurring and it has a greater impact on the greenhouse effect than any other gas??

6/24/2008 11:04:33 AM

do you know what "variable" means?

6/24/2008 11:05:41 AM

yeah thats almost as dumb a question as "how is it a natural variable"

seriously...water vapor...biggest impact of any gas on the greenhouse effect on planet earth...look it up...i dont have time for your idiotic trolling and complete idiocy on this topic as usual

maybe if you ever had the ability to look at this from a scientific perspective instead of a political perspective (and if you understood science in the first place) you wouldnt always come across as the biggest moron in every climate change thread that you post in

6/24/2008 11:07:12 AM

Water vapor insulates the Earth. We know that.

But how could it be responsible for an increase in Earth's temperature? Did the evaporation point of water suddenly drop over the past couple decades?

Quote :

"maybe if you ever had the ability to look at this from a scientific perspective instead of a political perspective (and if you understood science in the first place)"

Says the guy who doesn't know what a variable is.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason : I have a fever! It must be the blanket I use every night]

6/24/2008 11:12:44 AM

let me simplify it even more for you so you might understand

1. Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?
2. If so, wow come only CO2, NH4, and N2O are listed on the chart as greenhouse gases ("The Major Forcings)"?

6/24/2008 11:25:13 AM

Because they're variables.

In that, their concentrations have varied.

Is it starting to sink in?

6/24/2008 11:27:08 AM

i guess you dont want to answer my two straightforward questions...i dont know how much more simply i could phrase them

(co2, nh4, and n2o concentrations also obviously vary...)

I'd love for you to find something that explains why we shouldn't factor h2o into the greenhouse effect just like we do the other greenhouse gases

6/24/2008 11:28:11 AM

Quote :

"I'd love for you to find something that explains why we shouldn't factor h2o into the greenhouse effect just like we do the other greenhouse gases"

It's not a variable. I've been saying this for half a page.

If you want to continue, you have to at least acknowledge that you've comprehended what I just said.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM. Reason : "Hey, I have a fever! It must be the blanket I use every night!"]

6/24/2008 11:32:54 AM

how is water vapor not a variable???? please explain

6/24/2008 11:33:53 AM

It's a result of pressure and temperature. Not a cause.

6/24/2008 11:35:56 AM

i'm gonna call bullshit on that.

i mean, i dont' know the intricacies of climate modeling, but i know about chemical models, and the individual components of a gas mixture (say for instance water vapor in air) are usually variables, or at least they can be in a more complete model of the reaction/mixture.

6/24/2008 11:41:22 AM

6/24/2008 11:42:53 AM

^^ Well I'm sure it's something that was tested-- but apparently it's undergone no significant change and has no significant impact.

So I'm still wondering how water vapor could be the variable that's causing climate change? Did water suddenly start evaporating at lower temperatures?

6/24/2008 12:01:17 PM

boone, tsk tsk on the strawman. we were merely saying that it is a variable in the complex system of the climate.

6/24/2008 12:05:31 PM

Quote :

"apparently it's undergone no significant change and has no significant impact."

aside from the fact that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is constantly fluctuating (ie varying), it has a more significant impact on the greenhouse effect than any of the other greenhouse gases combined...

6/24/2008 12:08:49 PM

^So then explain to me how it's causing climate change.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ^^ strawman to you, not tree.]

6/24/2008 12:16:33 PM

well water vapor has much more of a warming effect on our planet than co2 does

your claim and many others' claim is that co2 is the cause of climate change

water vapor affects the climate much more than co2...yet its not even mentioned in that disingenuous chart? dont you see something wrong with this picture? leaving out the most important greenhouse gas? the most important variable?

6/24/2008 12:21:50 PM

Quote :

"water vapor effects the climate much more than co2...yet its not even mentioned in that disingenuous chart? dont you see something wrong with this picture?"

Not if it's not causing climate change.

You're taking this figure and looking at it in the most simplistic way possible. Yes, it insulates the earth-- but is it the cause of change? If so, how?


My heat pump is the number one reason I stay warm. Therefore it must be the cause of any fevers I get, right?

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 12:25:02 PM

Well, human industry does introduce a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere. Hell, a power plant operating its cooling towers on a hot day probably evaporates more water than all the lakes in North Carolina. Not to mention all the water vapor produced by burning natural gas, oil, coal, etc. All this extra water vapor should have a warming effect on the planet, but other than the fact that we keep putting more in it should be a non-compounding effect. Of course, if only the world's plants could keep up then the CO2 we pump into the air would also be a non-compounding effect.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/24/2008 12:35:31 PM

Quote :

"My heat pump is the number one reason I stay warm"

by heat pump, do you mean homeostasis?

6/24/2008 12:39:00 PM

Yeah, let's get nit-picky instead of addressing the metaphor.

Awesome-- I've reached the last stage

6/24/2008 12:44:50 PM

Quote :

"More CO2 increases the magnitude of the greenhouse effect by empirical evidence. This can be verified to account for an increase of some 1 degree C today and with unchecked future increases, 2-3 degrees in 100 years. Then, peer reviewed research shows a high likelihood that feedback effects will double or triple this effect. The dangers associated with this would be obvious to a 1st grader."

As its been stated C02 is such a small minor percentage of the atmosphere. So as more and more is introduced into the atmosphere its impact given percentage only drops.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : k]

6/24/2008 12:46:58 PM

couldn't global warming also be introduced by all the exothermic reactions that man made processes utilize. Harris lake is remarkably warmer than it would be naturally bc of the nuclear power plant.

6/24/2008 1:10:21 PM

and boone resorts to posting an obsessive picture and finally gives up his trolling

he only wasted an entire half of a page all because of his refusal to even acknowledge that water vapor was a variable in climate change models...i ask mrfrog (who actually understands science) why water vapor isnt in the chart...and boone acts like aerosols are water vapor and then proceeds to call me out for not knowing what a variable is when its clear he is the clueless one

i really dont know why he posts in this thread at all when its clear how little he understands about science

6/24/2008 1:14:51 PM

Quote :

"and boone acts like aerosols are water vapor"

Did I? "Water vapor collects around particulate matter. Thus forming clouds, Professor Science." Meaning aerosols affect how water vapor affects the climate. Did you not understand that?

Quote :

"i really dont know why he posts in this thread at all when its clear how little he understands about science"

You've yet to back up your bluster, Dr. Science. How is water vapor increasing (as opposed to maintaining-- you seem to be confusing the two) global temperature?


Actually, I'll help you out-- from what I've read it's actually exacerbating climate change, since increased temperatures = higher water concentrations = more greenhouse gases.

I'm still very interested to hear why water vapor has anything to do with the origin of climate change, though.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 1:20:24 PM

Quote :

"How is water vapor increasing (as opposed to maintaining-- you seem to be confusing the two) global temperature?"

Its AFFECTING global temperature...increasing, maintaining, decreasing, whatever...it is a factor or VARIABLE in global temperature

Therefore, I think a chart that supposedly lists all factors of climate change would list it, don't you?

notice mrfrog hasnt had any more questions regarding this particular aspect of the discussion...only you...i mean fuck, all you do in this thread is troll...you would still be arguing that water vapor isnt a variable in climate change if sarijoul hadnt bothered to saying what i'd been saying all along, except from his screenname instead of mine...i mean the fact that you kept saying "It's not a variable. I've been saying this for half a page" and then as soon as someone you agree with basically says "yeah Tree's right" then you start trolling something else

Quote :

"I'm still very interested to hear why water vapor has anything to do with the origin of climate change, though."

the origin of climate change? when exactly was the climate not changing? climate change has an origin? is that like 4 billion years ago? the only thing you're still interested in is trying to stir up shit and troll about stuff you don't understand

6/24/2008 1:32:01 PM

Quote :

"I think a chart that supposedly lists all factors of climate change would list it, don't you?"

It did. "stratospheric water vapor from methane."

Quote :

"you would still be arguing that water vapor isnt a variable in climate change if sarijoul hadnt bothered to saying what i'd been saying all along, except from his screenname instead of mine"

He made it clear to me that there was a misunderstanding over terms. If that's what you were trying to argue, we weren't being very affective at it.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 1:37:21 PM

99.99% of the water vapor in our atmosphere is in the troposphere (the lower level where all the weather occurs)

the NH4 water vapor in the stratosphere is at maximum 0.01% of the water vapor in the atmosphere

so no I wouldn't say that chart listed all the factors

6/24/2008 1:39:01 PM

They were listing the factors causing forcing.

Apparently low-level water vapor isn't having a net effect.

6/24/2008 1:40:36 PM

Quote :

"Apparently low-level water vapor isn't having a net effect."

exactly...apparently, ACCORDING TO THAT CHART, water vapor isn't having a net effect...but do you know what? It really IS having an effect. A huge effect. Therefore, that chart is misleading and disingenous

Just like I said in my first fucking post in this thread today before you started trolling shit you don't understand

The fact that the concept that water vapor is a factor in climate change is somehow something new or unfamiliar to you is yet another example of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about when it comes to UNDERSTANDING science

6/24/2008 1:42:05 PM

Quote :

"It IS having an effect."

But is it having a NET effect? That's what the argument's been over. That's what the chart is displaying.

I assume you have some evidence supporting its NET effect on temperature?

Quote :

"The fact that the concept that water vapor is a factor in climate change is somehow something new or unfamiliar to you is yet another example of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about when it comes to UNDERSTANDING science"

The fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas is not new to me. The fact that it's responsible for the recent increase in temperature is new, however. Apparently it's new to all the scientists studying climate change, too.



[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 1:44:12 PM

lol, you mean clouds?

Is that a variable?

6/24/2008 1:46:36 PM

Quote :

"But is it having a NET effect? That's what the argument's been over. That's what the chart is displaying. I assume you have some evidence supporting its NET effect on temperature?"

That chart explains that water vapor is 99.5% of the reason why we're not a frozen planet. Not why the temperature is currently increasing.

I get it-- you think "greenhouse effect" = net rise in temperature. You're misinterpreting the graph.


And if you're going to remain steadfast on your misinterpretation, then it'll be a matter of Scientific American v. the West Virginia fossil club.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 1:48:24 PM

Quote :

"That chart explains that water vapor is 99.5% of the reason why we're not a frozen planet."

Even though we know that concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere are constantly changing, you are content in thinking that the most important greenhouse gas has zero effect on a recent short term warming trend? Try answering this question again since the first time your answer was that water vapor isn't a variable in climate change

Quote :

"I'd love for you to find something that explains why we shouldn't factor h2o into the greenhouse effect just like we do the other greenhouse gases"

If CO2 and its greenhouse properties are supposedly raising our temperatures over the last 100 years, are you content with ignoring a greenhouse gas thats 100's of times more significant when discussing warming? You can't have it both ways. They don't put water vapor on that chart, not because it doesn't have a net effect on climate but because they don't know the net effect...its confounding...and when you conveniently leave it off a chart, its disingenuous and gives people like you warped understandings of the factors that influence climate

I already tried giving you an analogy of a vehicle being pulled by strings, but you didn't get it so I won't try again...I will say water vapor is by far the largest and most influential string of all the greenhouse gases in the system though

6/24/2008 2:35:13 PM

Quote :

"you are content in thinking that the most important greenhouse gas has zero effect on a recent short term warming trend?"

Why should it be responsible? Have water vapor levels changed? Where's the evidence that it's had any impact.

Quote :

"If CO2 and its greenhouse properties are supposedly raising our temperatures over the last 100 years, are you content with ignoring a greenhouse gas thats 100's of times more significant when discussing warming?"

Just because it's more significant doesn't mean it's the cause of change. Again-- where's the evidence?

Quote :

"They don't put water vapor on that chart, not because it doesn't have a net effect on climate but because they don't know the net effect...its confounding...and when you conveniently leave it off a chart, its disingenuous and gives people like you warped understandings of the factors that influence climate"

Oh, please. Now we're getting into black helicopter territory. Any evidence that they're doing this?



And I just want to be clear that we're both interpreting your chart correctly-- assuming it's correct, it's demonstrating that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect; a natural occurance, not the additional greenhouse gasses attributed to climate change.

6/24/2008 2:46:46 PM

Water vapor...

Yeah it's there. Does it change? Yes. Did human activity change it? Yes.

However, why it's changing is very strongly misrepresented on this page. Water vapor rains down, CO2 does not, even though it is absorbed more slowly by trees, oceans, etc. So, we have direct emissions of water vapor, you breathing right now for instance. We also directly add to the heat production term of the Earth. Both of these, however, are a drop in the bucket compared to the net heat flows through the Earth.

Harris lake has a cooling tower next to it that produces water vapor and a power plant that directly produces heat. But both of these factors PALE in comparison to the effect of simply building the manmade lake in the first place. Regardless of the temperature of the lake, much of it evaporates, whereas if we had not built the lake that water would have just made it to the ocean. Furthermore, the lake absorbs/reflects a different amount of light than the vegetation previously there. These energy flows dwarf the primary effects of human activity.

Land use is seriously taken into account for the IPCC models. Urbanization decreases the amount of water the land holds, agriculture has a huge effect, and deforestation is probably the largest factor of all. But this does not bode well. Such activities usually decrease the ability of the Earth to cope with changes. For instance, you can't count on trees to suck up much CO2 if you just cut them all down.

it's there in surface albedo



But we now get back to something else I was saying - the feedback loops. I was saying that direct human activities doesn't affect water vapor levels right? What affects it the most? What did we change that will affect water vapor levels? The answer:

CO2, NH4, N2O, the usual suspects

These have a small effect on the temperature of the Earth, namely increasing temperature (duh). That temperature change affects water vapor in the atmosphere - it increases it. In fact, it increases it FAR BEYOND ANY OTHER RECENT HUMAN OR NATURAL INFLUENCE.

Any accusation that they did not take that into account in the relevant research is just wrong. That is exactly how they get alarmist claims beyond what direct radiative forcing gives. Also, the ice melting is another feedback loop, and together those make the two largest 'feedbacks' to the extent of my knowledge.

So yeah, I don't understand these arguments that go; water vapor period.

^^ it's not on the chart because it's a secondary effect. Does that sound reasonable?

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2008 2:47:38 PM

I heard some dangerous substance known as Di-hydrogen Monoxide was leaking into our ground water ; i think this require immediate action by congress to fix this problem.

6/24/2008 6:06:52 PM