I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[watchwolf49]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I don’t think water vapor is the star of the show. The issue as I understand it is that human activity is causing higher CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) concentrations. This is what drives changes in the climate and causes things like melting arctic ice. This probably will have some effect on how water vapor behaves in the atmosphere, but predicting or not predicting that doesn’t change the fact that the issue starts with human greenhouse gas emissions.

From Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997, we have 60% of the energy radiated into space by the Earth as coming from water vapor, 26% from CO[sub]2[/sub]. So water vapor is the star of the show, at least when seen from space … and certainly not negligible. I think it’s a mistake to say that man-kind’s CO[sub]2[/sub] pollution is causing climate change and melting ice caps. More correct is to say that man-kind’s CO[sub]2[/sub] pollution is contributing to climate change and melting ice caps. At this time, we don’t know how much.

There’s a couple dozen factors that effect climate. To focus on just one and say that’s the only thing to consider is wrong. For example, solar output is notoriously unpredictable, so any prediction based on this factor will be speculative at best, completely bogus at worst.

The issue starts when we pump the stuff out of the ground, releasing plumes of toxic gas that is killing people living downwind. Then we fill railroads cars full and have them explode in some small community, killing half the people and burning the whole joint down. How about these pipelines springing leaks flooding residential neighborhoods with crude oil? I don’t know, my friend, coastal communities having to add three feet to their seawalls in the next 100 years isn’t a problem, the Dutch have been doing this for over 750 years and they’ve thrived.

The citation above used to be found at the University of Texas, but it is currently giving a “reset” error. The full reference is Kiehl, J.T. and Trenberth, Kevin E.; “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”; Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 78, Issue 2 (February 1997): pp 197-208

[FXMastermind]

The heat and water vapor are both considered transient, neither “sticks around” long enough to influence climate. Certainly they both alter local conditions, as does damming rivers (giant reservoirs alter local climate, dams change river temperatures, stop delta formation, irrigation turns desert to lush farmland, etc), but the heat from burning and the water vapor is ignored by models.

Even water vapor in the stratosphere from aircraft is considered to “balance out” with the cooling in the day balanced by warming at night, though none of it ios considered settled science.

[FXMastermind]

@watchwolf49

There’s a couple dozen factors that effect climate. To focus on just one and say that’s the only thing to consider is wrong.

Of course, but it’s the one factor that alarmist can feel good about. After all, they aren’t using any fossil fuels.
:rolleyes:

[brazil84]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Skeptical of what claim? You’re cagey about your “point” about water vapor to such an extent that I don’t know what you’re even talking about.

Umm, try actually reading what I post. Here’s what I said:

The critical issue in the actual dispute is water vapor feedback.

Of course you were also free to ask me for clarification if somehow you don’t understand this. But instead you simply conclude that I’m being “cagey.”

Don’t tell me my position.

Say what? You implied that water vapor feedback was not important. Are you abandoning that now?

And will you or will you not agree for the sake of argument that water vapor feedback is minimal or non-existent?

If you have a point to make about water vapor, spit it out. What do you think, and why?

I think water vapor feedback is critical because without water vapor feedback there will not be enough warming to cause significant harm.

Now please stop being evasive:

Will you or will you not agree for the sake of argument that water vapor feedback is minimal or non-existent?

Of course. Sea levels were as much as 350 feet higher then because there wasn’t much glaciation.

I see. It’s interesting that you consider a 350-foot difference in sea levels to be “similar” to even the worst case doomsday predictions which are far far less. But anyway, can I take that you agree that a small increase in energy, resulting in a small rise in sea levels (according to your theory), not enough to cause significant harm, is no problem? Also, what is your evidence that claimed higher sea levels during the Carboniferous Era were due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere?

The evidence that we are heading that way now is the extensive documentation of melting glaciers and ice caps and the associated rise in sea levels. That ice would not, could not melt without an energy input. And guess where that energy is coming from?

My guess it is coming from the same source which caused the Earth to emerge from the Little Ice Age. What’s your guess?

And assuming that your guess is “CO2,” what’s your guess as to the force which caused the Earth to emerge from the Little Ice Age and why do you think it clicked off at some point in the last 50 or so years?

Sure, simply following through on the reasoning wrt what we know about the behavior of CO2 and its changing concentration in the atmosphere.

And how much sea level rise could one expect based simply on looking at such behavior?

That’s the scientific consensus.

I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Please show me proof.

Now if you don’t mind, tell me what the eff is your point about water vapor, and I’ll tell you if I’m skeptical, in agreement or what.

No need to use profanity. It’s not as though you asked politely and I ignored your polite request. The critical issue is water vapor feedback, i.e. the hypothesis that additional CO2 will result in warming, which will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will result in more warming still, and so on, until the amount of extra warming due to CO2 is greatly magnified.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

We aren’t talking about the same thing. My point is that the issue revolves (mostly) around carbon. Going on about water vapor feedback of carbon pollution doesn’t change that. If there is a point you’d like to make about water vapor, post a cite and I’ll be happy to read it. Probably we’ll just go for another round of ‘alarmist’ and ‘warmist’ instead, and I don’t really want to play that game when there are so many better threads to read.

[brazil84]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

We aren’t talking about the same thing.

It’s not clear what you are talking about. See below.

My point is that the issue revolves (mostly) around carbon. Going on about water vapor feedback of carbon pollution doesn’t change that.

Ok, so your position is that even in the absence of water vapor feedback, additional retention of energy due to man’s CO2 emissions are sufficient to cause significant negative impacts. Is that correct?

Also, please answer my questions from before:

1. Do you agree that a small increase in energy, resulting in a small rise in sea levels (according to your theory), not enough to cause significant harm, is no problem?

2. What is your guess as to the cause of recent increases in sea level?

3. What is your guess as to the cause of the Earth’s emergence from the Little Ice Age?

4. What is your evidence that claimed higher sea levels during the Carboniferous Era were due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere?

5. How much sea level rise can one expect simply based on the behavior of additional CO2 in the atmosphere without reference to secondary effects?

6. What is your evidence that the scientific consensus is that the claimed high sea levels during the Carboniferous Era were not due to causes apart from higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

If there is a point you’d like to make about water vapor, post a cite

I already made my point. As mentioned before, I don’t go searching for cites unless somebody represents to me that they are seriously skeptical of my point. That’s my way of preventing people from wasting my time for rhetorical purposes.

Probably we’ll just go for another round of ‘alarmist’ and ‘warmist’ instead, and I don’t really want to play that game when there are so many better threads to read.

No need to play games, just provide answers to my questions. I am trying to get a clear understanding of your position so that I can scrutinize it.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Cite?

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

No need to play games, just provide answers to my questions. I am trying to get a clear understanding of your position so that I can scrutinize it.

But that is the last thing an alarmists wants. If they clearly state what they think, what they believe, then they might have to think. And debate.

[FXMastermind]

Or it could be ignorance. There is very little frank and open discussion about the global warming theory, the predictions and mechanisms of it, and what we have observed compared to what we expect to observe.

The fluid and changeable nature of “global warming” is why it’s not considered a scientific issue. If anything can be used to claim global warming, it doesn’t actually matter what global warming is.

Hellfire, you got idiots claiming global warming is still going on just as the models predicted. That level of ignorance is impossible to counter with science.

[ralfy]

To recap, global warming refers to an increase in global temperature anomaly, and that has been shown. The definition was given in my previous posts. Any pauses are short term, as seen in the blue trend lines of a graph presented earlier. The long red trend line shows an increase, which confirms global warming. More details in my previous posts.

The question is whether or not it is being driven by CO2 emissions. The NAS argues it is so, as seen in its final report. An independent study funded by skeptics confirms the same. Over 20 positive feedback factors have been identified, and the list was shared earlier. See also the various arguments against this that have been countered. Links to all of these points were shared in my previous posts.

The next question involves the effects, but arguments about these do not counter the claim that global warming is not taking place. More details can be found in the NAS final report.

[brazil84]

@FXMastermind

But that is the last thing an alarmists wants. If they clearly state what they think, what they believe, then they might have to think. And debate.

Well they might discover that their position doesn’t make much sense if it’s laid out in black and white and looked at carefully.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@brazil84

No need to play games, just provide answers to my questions. I am trying to get a clear understanding of your position so that I can scrutinize it.

There seemed to me some kind of misunderstanding about how AGW could be accurate at the same time there were cold winters. I explained how CO2 traps heat, where the CO2 comes from (us, mostly), and gave an example of a period when CO2 levels were rather high on Earth. I pointed out that, as I understand it, AGW theory is about a total increase in the climate system over a long period of time and explained where that energy is going.

My explanation of how the climate system contained more energy during the Carboniferous was construed as a prediction that sea levels will rise 350 feet. Who knows? We’re heading that way, but a lot can happen between then and now. Are you going to acknowledge that I proved the point about a more energetic Carboniferous or not? What I predict is that energy in the climate system will continue to rise as long as we keep increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, and for some time after that, other things being equal.

If you’d like to make the case that there was no ice during the Carboniferous because of phogiston, I’m sure plenty of people on this board would enjoy that. I don’t have time to fool around with some mystery point about water vapor. I have my own unanswered questions on this issue, but clearly you guys aren’t the ones to ask. When I have time I’ll get around to the IPCC report- you might want to check it out if you’re struggling with this issue, and maybe break it down to one or two points if you think you’ve found a flaw and present it on this board, with specifics.

I’m on FX’s ignore list now, so there isn’t much point continuing. But good luck and I hope you’re right that this is all a big liberal conspiracy or religion or something.

[brazil84]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

There seemed to me some kind of misunderstanding about how AGW could be accurate at the same time there were cold winters. I explained how CO2 traps heat, where the CO2 comes from (us, mostly), and gave an example of a period when CO2 levels were rather high on Earth. I pointed out that, as I understand it, AGW theory is about a total increase in the climate system over a long period of time and explained where that energy is going.

I think the misunderstanding is yours . . . as I understand things, FxMastermind’s argument is that we need to look at what was actually predicted by the warmists; not their after-the-fact explanations.

If the warmists predicted warmer winters, and we are observing colder winters, that’s evidence against the warmist position. It might not disprove it, but it’s evidence.

Anyway, I asked you a number of simple, reasonable questions in an effort to make your position clear. Unsurprisingly, you have ignored them and instead tried to distract.

Among other things, I asked you the following:

Ok, so your position is that even in the absence of water vapor feedback, additional retention of energy due to man’s CO2 emissions are sufficient to cause significant negative impacts. Is that correct?

This was a simple, reasonable question which you chose to ignore.

I have no interest in engaging with people who insist on hiding their positions behind a cloak of ambiguity. So welcome to my ignore list.

Bye.

[watchwolf49]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

Cite?

I’m going to need a citation for that comment … if you please.

[FXMastermind]

Fun ball trollin. I don’t understand why trolls troll as they do. The science and arguments over it are way more fun. And educational.

The mentality of the climate believer is baffling.

[FXMastermind]

@brazil84

Probably we’ll just go for another round of ‘alarmist’ and ‘warmist’ instead, and I don’t really want to play that game when there are so many better threads to read.

No need to play games, just provide answers to my questions. I am trying to get a clear understanding of your position so that I can scrutinize it.

**Better threads?

**Where?If there is a single scientific thread here about climate, please link to that fucker. Just show me one thread that hasn’t ended with the exact same sputtering out.

[brazil84]

@FXMastermind

The mentality of the climate believer is baffling.

I think it’s not baffling if you keep in mind that for some people beliefs are like clothing in that they serve both functional and social purposes. See here:

Are Beliefs Like Clothes?

In various circles, it’s very fashionable to believe in the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming. Since the belief is primarily motivated by social considerations, there is no need to actually have a clear understanding of what is being believed, what is predicted by the theory, or what evidence exists to support the belief. And indeed, my experience is that most warmists have little understanding of the theory in which they so fervently believe.

[ralfy]

@brazil84

I think it’s not baffling if you keep in mind that for some people beliefs are like clothing in that they serve both functional and social purposes. See here:

Are Beliefs Like Clothes?

In various circles, it’s very fashionable to believe in the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming. Since the belief is primarily motivated by social considerations, there is no need to actually have a clear understanding of what is being believed, what is predicted by the theory, or what evidence exists to support the belief. And indeed, my experience is that most warmists have little understanding of the theory in which they so fervently believe.

Global warming was defined clearly in previous posts.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I’ve been put on ignore by a racist and a raving nutjob. Even down to the details, it is exactly like the GOP’s approach to the science behind this issue!

Cite. (And, somebody pass this along to Brazil please)

[Great_Antibob]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

(And, somebody pass this along to Brazil please)

No need. B84’s “ignore” is like a sociopath’s “list”. It’s not the board’s built-in function. There’s plenty of evidence that he’s read posts from posters he’s put on “ignore” but won’t directly engage with them. It’s basically an admission you are too intelligent to deal with directly, i.e. you can successfully debate at the level of a 10 year old child.

Congrats and welcome to the club (which by now must contain at least half the board’s regular posters).