You seem to be focused on me. How many times have you called me an idiot now?
I'm just curious if you can refute the argument that water vapor rains out and therefore is not a forcing effect.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
You seem to be focused on me. How many times have you called me an idiot now?
I'm just curious if you can refute the argument that water vapor rains out and therefore is not a forcing effect.
Quote from bigdavediode:
1-You seem to be focused on me. How many times have you called me an idiot now?
2-I'm just curious if you can refute the argument that water vapor rains out
3-and therefore is not a forcing effect.
1- not nearly enough Dave. You seem to be missing the significance of the whole term. Stalin used it describe liberals in America - mostly the very intelligent ones - as being useful idiots cuz they were suckers that didn't know that they were being conned into supporting communism. That's an apt description for you. Smart, but a sucker.
2- when it's raised artificially, like the article ACTUALLY says? It's called equilibrium, Dave. Why would I refute that? Are you trying use this misreprentation to say that water vapor will just "rain out" and therefore will have no long term effect? That's it, right? See, I know the MMGW believer's arguments. You can't use it cuz it will then ignore equilibrium.
3- LOL. Since you misrepresented the quote, I won't bother. Bring your proof. And this time, don't go to your Word doc and select out a passage to copy/paste again, eh?
Quote from Haroki:
1- not nearly enough Dave. You seem to be missing the significance of the whole term. Stalin used it describe liberals in America - mostly the very intelligent ones - as being useful idiots cuz they were suckers that didn't know that they were being conned into supporting communism. That's an apt description for you. Smart, but a sucker.
Well on my side I have a preponderance of experts in climatology, the IPCC, NASA, a variety of journal articles, established science regarding CO2 absorption, the Keeling curve and ground level temperature measurements around the globe.
You have a 96 year old tobacco scientist with dementia, an 80 year old man using 50 year old information, incorrect information from satellites discredited years ago, partial chunks of graphs from 1999 and a petition about climatology that allows signatures from dentists and MDs.
2- when it's raised artificially, like the article ACTUALLY says? It's called equilibrium, Dave. Why would I refute that? Are you trying use this misreprentation to say that water vapor will just "rain out" and therefore will have no long term effect? That's it, right? See, I know the MMGW believer's arguments. You can't use it cuz it will then ignore equilibrium.
You can't raise water vapor too much as it (roughly) varies with temperature and rains out when high humidity occurs, therefore it's not a forcing effect. However it can be a powerful amplifier of CO2 warming.
3- LOL. Since you misrepresented the quote, I won't bother. Bring your proof. And this time, don't go to your Word doc and select out a passage to copy/paste again, eh?
What did I misrepresent?
Quote from Haroki:
So you admit that you're a fraud, and that in order to have responded that quickly, you have a whole list of stock answers ready to copy/paste?
As opposed to you, who only delivers his own scientific research every time post? Where do you think people get information and facts? Through their own original work or from published sources?
Sorry, but all I see is Global warming Skeptics "not true! don't agree! that agency is clueless!!! I read somewhere that there are some 'scientists' who disagree! this obscurewhine!whine!whine!"
Sorry, but global warming is the overwhelming and prevailing opinion amongst most world governments, scientists, agencies and, not just Al Gore. And I am a conservative Republican (not a greenie or liberal) and have a degree in Biology. I have done and recognize valid academic or institutional work and studies. What is being floated by the handful here is not of that caliber.
Almost all of the anti-CO2 claims are scientifically invalid. Saying them over and over and loudly does not change the consensus or the facts. It just makes you loud and repetitive.
Quote from bigdavediode:
1-Well on my side I have a preponderance of experts in climatology,
2-You can't raise water vapor too much as it (roughly) varies with temperature and rains out when high humidity occurs, therefore it's not a forcing effect.
3-However it can be a powerful amplifier of CO2 warming.
4-What did I misrepresent?
1- if you include Hansen in that group, remember that NASA proved that they indeed know science very well when they declared his findings to be crap. And since much of the so called facts that you like to copy/paste are rooted in his report, they are equally crap.
2- what's your point? Equilibrium is temp dependent, yes. It rains out only if it's NOT in equilibrium, like in the artificial experiment you cited. This doesn't happen in nature, since it isn't an artificial experiment. Define "high humidity". Too vague.
3- Wrong. Your own sources point out that wv is the most poweful GG. You agree. Solar radiation will heat up the atmosphere. You imply that you agree when you cited your "solar minimum" blunder. Your sources agree. there is disagreement about whether or not wv or CO2 is the driver.
4- your article stated that humidity would rain out if artificially increased beyond equilibrium, but you asked be to prove something else. Naughty.
Quote from bigdavediode:
What would you like to know about the temperature? That it has increased massively? It has. If you want to say that it's not due to the massive increases in CO2, you can't, as it's been shown by laser absorption spectroscopy that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation extraordinarily efficiently.
I don't think anyone is worried about the positive effects, but the negative ones.
But we have controlled the climate, without even being aware of it. Mankind has generated billions of tons of CO2, which is proven, and CO2 absorbs high amounts of infra-red energy, which is also proven.
So we can, we did, and now we need to do so again.
Yes it has gone up massively. In the last 10,000 years the polar ices caps which extended all the way down to New York State have receded. Its well documented. Over 90% of the warming that occured was before humans burned fossil fuels. So saying that the temp changed is a weak argument. It proves nothing about MMGW.
You point about positive and negative effects highlights my point exactly. MMGW cultists are only worried about the effects that support their view and disregard the effects that don't support their view. How about we don't make political judgements about it, and we just study the effects? This seems to be too much to ask from alarmists like you.
Your claim that we controlled the climate is absolutely in left field. It is one of the most bizarre claims I have heard in awhile. If humans controlled the climate please tell me who decided what the temp should be and when exactly they decided it. Why did they decide that 1998 would be hotter than 2008? Who and when decided what the Earths temp would be? Please cite a source. How come I wasn't told? Since I wasn't told, it stands to reason the human climate controller didn't feel my carbon contribution mattered and as such I should be allowed to use as much fossil fuel as I want.
Quote from TraderZones:
As opposed to you, who only delivers his own scientific research every time post? Where do you think people get information and facts? Through their own original work or from published sources?
Sorry, but all I see is Global warming Skeptics "not true! don't agree! that agency is clueless!!! I read somewhere that there are some 'scientists' who disagree! this obscurewhine!whine!whine!"
Sorry, but global warming is the overwhelming and prevailing opinion amongst most world governments, scientists, agencies and, not just Al Gore. And I am a conservative Republican (not a greenie or liberal) and have a degree in Biology. I have done and recognize valid academic or institutional work and studies. What is being floated by the handful here is not of that caliber.
Almost all of the anti-CO2 claims are scientifically invalid. Saying them over and over and loudly does not change the consensus or the facts. It just makes you loud and repetitive.
Dude your degree is in biology? Your opinion does not count. Just ask BigDave. According to BigDave if your degree is not in climatoligy then your opinion is worthless.
How old are you? If you don't meet BigDaves age standards then it does not matter what your degree is, your opinion does not count.
Thats the way it works around here. BigDave sets the rules over who gets an opinion. He has friends who control climate, and he will control you also.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Not at all. Posting "lower atmosphere" temperature measurements from satellites that aren't directly capable of measuring the "lower atmosphere" didn't convince me.
The "lower atmosphere" temperature measurements were compiled by a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. Let me guess, he uses a car that uses gasoline so he is clearly in bed with Big Oil.