As loathe as I am to turn aside a realistic assessment of my towering brilliance, the reason Gigo knows so much more about this stuff than I do is that he has gone to the trouble to do so.
[wolfish grin]
AGW is still doublespeak … “human caused global warming” is always a better way to say it.
Canada and Siberia are unlikely to feed 20 billion, or anywhere near that figure, for at least two reasons: crops grown today are adapted to certain day/night hours. (I could never get good sweet corn to grow in Hawaii) and will have to be GM’ed to grow at high latitudes, with days up to 24 hours long. Also: the sunlight falling on high latitudes is at an extremely oblique angles, and may not be of the proper angle or frequency for the crops grown now.
That is not what scientists that look at the issue refer to. You are pointing at a definition that only deniers would look at. The term is Anthropogenic.
First you do need to learn that your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is broken.
Remember to follow the “**Bricker **standard”, if you do not acknowledge the problems of the ones you are following after a few posts you are in bed with the ones posting flawed reports. Or in the case of FX, (and looking at the subject, the case of the think thanks and politicians pushing idiotic ideas) you need to go to the other threads and recognize that I’m not acting here in a vacuum, you are in favor of jerks with stupid ideas regarding this subject.
A bit of interesting and positive knews from our good friends at Daily Kos: reporting a hundred fold drop in the price of solar powered electricity.
On the downside, there is yet no resolution to the question of what to do once we have drained the source of solar energy…Bummer, man. Brown barrell.
Never fear, the merchants of doubt are on the case… to prevent or slow down that progress :rolleyes:
Does “human caused global warming” include warming which results from changes in land use?
Does “human caused global warming” include modest warming resulting from CO2 emissions which is not necessarily amplified?
If you interpret the phrase “human caused global warming” literally, it includes both of these things.
I believe in “human caused global warming” if that phrase is interpreted literally. And yet I have been labeled a “denier.” So the warmists presumably mean something else when they refer to “global warming.” And yet they refuse to define what exactly it means to them.
Ah, the brazil nut just pretends that we forget that he denies the basics of feedbacks like water vapor, he pretends that just accepting the warming from CO2 alone makes him different from the other deniers out there. For many of them, the ones that are still being taken with some seriousness that is, the warming caused by humans is not a concern because it will be only increase the temperature by 1 or 2 degrees, just what many think thanks and “serious” contrarians are falling back when confronted by repeating already debunked points.
Unfortunately it is not just models what tells the scientists that the water vapor feedback with the CO2 will increase temperatures more than the low temperatures the current lukewarmers report.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
That’s because you want to talk about science and define what shit means, rather than repeat scary stories and bitch about how rich people are destroying the world and how “they” are stopping the good people from preventing this from happening.
You know, what this topic is supposed to be about.
Watchwolf Standard … if you say it’s a problem, but can’t explain why and insist it is true, then you are a … religious zealot. It’s appalling to not even want to know.
From the top: What “special property” of carbon dioxide causes it to be the sole arbiter of global climate … in your own words, please? If you say you don’t know, I promise not to bite you … or yell at you … or any other nasty thing … okay?
As noticed, (on the water vapor feedback alone) the breakdown of your “intelligent-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant” radar is even more damaged that the one from watchwolf49. There is lots of willful ignorance moves and behavior that you ignore about brazil84, he deserves the infamy that he has in the SDMB
All human activity, including many more things than two (like cow farts). Using hydroelectricity to make ethanol out of sugar cane probably wouldn’t be included though. But all of Holland screaming in delight come July 13th would be [hehe] that’s a lot of hot air.
It is not the sole arbiter, that should be the first clue about how far you are from the truth. What scientists report is that thanks to human activity it is turning to be the one currently driving the increase in warming.
I have seen your maneuver before, pretend that the opinion of a poster in a message board is the best way to measure how religious this issue is, in reality I use logic. I look at how experts report on the issue. Again, if you are correct I hope you never get sick of the stomach and declare that the ones telling you to follow the advise of a doctor are following religion and that you should follow the herbalist. (It should not be surprising to learn that many herbalists when confronted to provide evidence of herbs being more effective than medicines resort also to claim that pharmaceutical companies are the enemy and they are telling you to use medicines based on religious ideas)
Having said that, what I know is that in laboratory settings and in atmospheric tests with satellite and surface measurements scientists observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
My meta point stands from way back then, after reading what Evans and others found it is clear that you insist that I should reinvent the wheel and explain again what people with better grammar that I have can and do.
Many years of this shows me that the reason is just to find nits on what a poster comes with, the reports of the scientists then are happily ignored.
So, I do know because I do check what scientists report, not what fossil fuel, related companies and extreme ideologues are telling you thanks to the money they offer to think thanks like the Heartland Institute.
I’m intimately familiar with water’s feedback mechanism, so be warned, you’ve entered the realm of Fluid Mechanics. That was indeed the pair of ace’s up my sleeve, as it were, Water is thrice the greenhouse gas CO2 is and it’s 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere … plus, it fucking condenses. Oh right, it’s 40% by mass of the products of combustion.
Take your carbon dioxide and shove it where the sun don’t shine, PURE WATER is the pollution here (or actually the energy it releases haha).
Not impressed, at all, if you have such dizzying 
intellect you should then publish and face your peers.
As mentioned before, scientists reviewing the data and experiments from MIT and others agree that the feedback can not be ignored.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm
Of course the point can be made here that if you are correct you are really very irresponsible, you have wasted a lot of time pushing (unrelated to the water vapor) nonsense on a message board when you should had publish and convinced the scientists of their folly.
My mistake on that link, I was preparing how the IPCC reports mentioned what was suspected then, and how later groups like the ones from Texas A&M reported experimental data that shows that it is unlikely that water vapor will be a negative feedback.
So, if you continue to be irresponsible at least take your “research” to NASA to show it to them so they will then dismiss Andrew Dessler and discredit him and others at Texas A&M.
Not holding my breath for that one.
Thank you, stupid motherfucker, I really appreciate you yarding up these scientific papers confirming what I say. Oh, you didn’t notice that, that’s because you’re a stupid motherfucker. NASA? I guess I’m going to find out why stupid motherfuckers don’t think NOAA is the right place to go.
… useless ape …
Of course then it shows that you continue to tell others to do the opposite of that the papers imply we should do. Indeed, Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour has also a positive feedback and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. What brazil and you will never demonstrate in a peer review setting is that that positive feedback is not there.
Well then, tell it to NOAA, but not holding my breath for you doing anything about it too. See, I’m easy.
What on Earth are you talking about?
BTW **watchwolf49 **I did notice that the jerkitude of FX caught you too in the other thread where I decided not to go again, you see FX did post in the other thread a quote from me to give the impression that I was posting again in that thread, after I told all over here the reasons why I was not posting anymore in the “I’m sick of this global warming”. A clear effort from FX to claim that I do not pay attention or stalking.
If you continue to think FX is the “beesnees”, your intelli-anti-jerk-anti-ignorant radar is broken beyond repair.