I think we should cut down on water emissions. If we don’t, we’ll probably have a skyrocketing water vapor content in the atmosphere (especially in the bone dry state of Florida, check out its average relative humidity to see how much more potential for extra water vapor there is.)
Plus, once you release water vapor into the air, you can’t scrub it from the air like you can carbon dioxide. It’s gonna stay up there for decades.
First of all, the question is wrong. CO2 is not the sole arbiter of climate. It has been recognized as one of the primary drivers (others including for example the sun) of climactic temperatures. Why? My layman’s understanding would say primarily it’s molecular absorbtion range and relative frequency in nature, plus how feedback loops with water vapor work. But it’s not simple. AGW is rather difficult science, and I think we’d all appreciate it if you spent some time looking it up on your own.
As you can notice, the idea from contrarians here is to claim that scientists or a poster are dumb for not noticing all that water vapor, the tap dancing is that they claim to follow science because “only they do notice” that, what about the feedback water vapor has with CO2? “water vapor is the most dominant gas, end of story!”
Well you should let the goddamn genius at the SS blog ride to the rescue!
Problem solved. Because clouds are made of water vapour. If there were no clouds, well, then we would freeze, because that means no water vapour to trap the heat. Goddamn, that blog is fucking genius I tell you.
Of course if this was a pseudoscience it would be difficult to find many other sources (many supplied by you too) that support what I say, your reason for disliking Skeptical Science is stupid indeed because they do link to the science, specially in the intermediary or advanced sections.
That has links or it refers to published scientific papers that support what they claim:
Of course, that does not fit your narrative that the articles are full of fail, but that is ok, the point than is that it shows that you are full of trash.
You jest of course, but the water vapor going into the stratosphere, a very dry part of our atmosphere, is huge compared to the “natural” amounts there. And while we don’t know the rate that water vapor can leave the stratosphere, it certainly isn’t quickly.
Of course it’s also CO2 and NO2, but the water vapor dwarfs the effects of both those gases in the stratosphere. Since the vast majority is being injected over the polar regions, where the stratosphere is much lower than near the equator, it’s no small effect on the planet.
One has to see the end of the Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (166MB) (PDF) to see that they base their report on published science.
You complete loser. There is nothing about stratospheric moisture, aircraft exhaust, much less the long term effects of adding all that water vapor to the dry atmosphere over the poles.
Nah, the loser is you, you are claiming a lot but you need to cite who is telling you that those items are so important that override what most scientists agree is going on.
I’ve been following the stupid motherfucker’s links … some of the science is backward but enough follows: carbon dioxide has absorption spectra up the yingyang, but so does water. Now I have a hundred-fold mass with water … explain to me again why just the 60% mass of combustion is a problem (see equation above)?
Methane (Natural Gas) is completely inert at these wavelengths. Everything I’ve read so far about CO2 cannot be applied to CH4. I looked, I tried, but it just wasn’t there. I’m serious about “Watts per square meter”, I don’t know what that means. If someone shoves it up my nose, I’m going to ask: can’t answer, I’m going to be pissed.
Useless calculations, way over his head, therefore the experts on the matter are inventing this… :rolleyes:
:sigh:
There is a reason why you should ask your questions to the experts, there are many universities or researchers where you can sent your questions and stop pretending that you are making any good arguments.
How about stopping with the back and forth insults for a minute and telling my if my post (183) (that Siberia won’t feed the world). Is mistaken, stupid, or maybe correct?
(speaking of insults, you should notice who is resorting to the personal M-F bombs, in general I degrade stupid ideas)
AFAIK it is possible, the big fly in the ointment (and you should see the size of those suckers in the summer close to the arctic circle) is the timing.
And this is where the issue of controlling emissions enters the picture, until we can control our emissions what will take place in locations like Siberia will be a moving target. And in the meantime going towards that goal will only mean more weather uncertainty and not very productive until we are sure about how much we will end up emitting.
Can do … Moderator Miller … I’m genuinely pleased to see that list of prohibited expressions fully enforced here. You can expect my full co-operation.
First of all, there may not be more than 15 billion to feed. Second of all, I probably should have said 2 billion eh? The point being, there’s a lot of flatland up there that could be leveed and drained … and still stay below the Arctic Circle. We can do amazing things with GMO’s, but 24 hour days would be a long shot, for sure. I believe that the angle of the sunlight is not a problem, it’s powerful enough to burn your eyes out even at sunset (so don’t do it). It should be enough for photosynthesis. The measure used is the degree-day, and it’s based on temperature and time. As I understand it, if there’s enough degree-days in a given season to grow wheat, then you can.
Aye … I feel like I’ve jumped into the middle of something I maybe shouldn’t have. Sei-la-vie. I’ll say you are probably correct in your post #183, or maybe mostly correct is the better phrasing. Now, if thinking of just one single benefit makes me a climate change denier … pah … I don’t know what to say … but it smells like theology to me.
Happy New Year to all and we’ll try again next time this subject is pitted.