Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[captain morgan]

Instead of spending billions subsidizing non-economic alternate (wind and solar) energy, adding billions to our mushrooming national debt, we could instead be realizing billions in lease and royalty payments from the production of natural gas, oil and coal to help reduce our national debt.

The billions currently being collected are (indirectly) subsidizing green tech... That in itself is not bad, however, the current trend sees the subsidizing the installation of these inefficient technologies that cannot stand on their own economically. What is very concerning is that these subsidies will need to be applied for the life of the facility.

Considering the above, one of the results is that the cost of powering the US economy (and communities) is higher due to the necessary and ongoing operating subsidy. In addition, the infrastructure required is immense. This is a necessary evil, but at this point in time combined with the current state of the US economy, it is an expense that will add more crushing weight to the current debt load.

Well do some research. Half the problem is making a decision without knowing why. It's the same close-minded mentality that deniers use that keeps them ignorant.

Sounds to me like you have the necessary depth and understanding of the machinations and systems that drive the entire global climate system.

That makes you the only person on the planet that possess this level of knowledge.

There are scientifically credible studies out there that make a good case for our involvement. And these same studies take the time to also factor in natural climate change. Despite that, they overwhelmingly agree that the most prominent factor of climate change in the last 40 or so years is anthropogenic.

There are many studies that offered by respected scientists that suggest otherwise, but the alarmist lobby has deemed their perspective as "junk science"... It kinda makes for a self fulfilling prophecy when the only perspective that you are willing to consider is one that only supports a pre-conceived result.

Lastly, you might want to check your eco-facts against the prevailing wisdom of the IPCC. Their document identifies water vapour as the most prominent factor that impacts the climate.

 

[mentalfloss]

Rhetoric.

If you want to prove something, prove it. Develop a case that has an introduction with well documented examples and a successful conclusion. Until you do that, your words are pretty meaningless.

 

[ironsides]

Oh **** I forgot we don't adapt and evolve due to environmental change anymore. .

We do complain about it though.

 

[Tonington]

No question man is accelerating global warming, the question is can man prevent it?

Of course we can. Whether or not we do is another matter.

 

[captain morgan]

Rhetoric.

Your standard response when you lack a response.

If you want to prove something, prove it. Develop a case that has an introduction with well documented examples and a successful conclusion. Until you do that, your words are pretty meaningless.

Your position requires that I prove a negative. Perhaps you ought to debate this with an individual that boasts a PhD in philosophy.

 

[mentalfloss]

How about you pull up your pants and prove the IPCC "identifies water vapour as the most prominent factor that impacts the climate", and then we'll talk. Until then, you can enjoy my contrails.

 

[JLM]

]No question man is accelerating global warming[/B], the question is can man prevent it? Within 100 years or so we will have climate change, rising seas etc. We (man) are at least 50 years to late, the billions of have nots now want to have, and we won't give up what we have, any change's we may do will not make a difference we will have to adapt to living in a different environment.

I think it's a wee bit early to jump up and down and say that is carved in stone. Where is the proof? Of course it's possible but so far I'd say it's just another theory. :smile:

 

[captain morgan]

How about you pull up your pants and prove the IPCC "identifies water vapour as the most prominent factor that impacts the climate", and then we'll talk. Until then, you can enjoy my contrails.

Have you ever even read your eco-bible? It's stated in there quite clearly.

You sure are a hoot Chester. When you don't have an argument, you piss and moan that it's everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong, assuming of course, that you are correct.

 

[mentalfloss]

Have you ever even read your eco-bible? It's stated in there quite clearly.

Proof?

Oh yea, I forgot you can't read, lol. Seems to be the same comprehension problem you had when we asked you to point out evidence from the Royal Society doc. It's probably the same psychosis that led you to forget those numerous peer reviewed studies we posted to help you broaden your horizon. You know, the ones that are based on proven, accepted science.

Unfortunately for you, I don't forget your shortcomings. It's a shame that your amnesia coupled with your lack of comprehension confines your ability to actually learn something. Maybe one day you'll be able to bark something more constructive. Until then, you should at least know that if you're going to make a claim, have the common decency to provide something credible for it.

 

[captain morgan]

Such a theatrical diatribe that goes no where in addressing the issues at hand.

If you want the proof, then go read the IPCC report for yourself Chester. Don't be so lazy such that you rely on others to do your homework... Hell, maybe there's a youtube video that will explain it to you via a puppet show or something.

 

[mentalfloss]

Like I said, I've got nothing to prove. I've read the report and there's not one mention of condensation having any significant influence. But since you're the one making the claim, you might want to re-read it. Or maybe read it for the first time.

 

[captain morgan]

Like I said, I've got nothing to prove.

.... And have proven nothing

Let me give you a little help on this Chester;

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.

 

[Tonington]

Captain, if you actually read any climate science, or the IPCC review, you'd know that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, but that it responds to temperature. It's a feedback, not a forcing. If you read the IPCC you'd know that, they don't include water vapour in their list of forcings.

 

[mentalfloss]

Water vapour is not a driver of the greenhouse effect. It is a function of temperature. It will amplify the greenhouse effect, but it doesn't come a priori - it's not a driver. The hotter the existing temperature, the faster evaporation occurs and the stronger the amplification of warming. The cooler the existing temperature, the slower the evaporation, and the weaker the amplification in warming. And so it's whatever drives the initial temperature before this amplification occurs, which is the true driver for warming. That driver is C02.

Your deception and lies bit you again captain. Try to do your research before instigating next time.

 

[Tonington]

Dr. Lewis' letter of resignation and a petition signed by over 30 thousand U.S. scientists objecting to the Kyoto Treaty and global warming alarmism.

If we do nothing, we will all be ripped off by those businesses, academics, universities, politicians and individuals that have learned how to exploit the global warming alarmism that inflicts the Left and their supporters in the Democratic Party for their own gain at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist, one of the world's leading experts in hurricanes, and a skeptic of AGW-hurricane links, nailed this nonsense before Hal Lewis even put his pen to paper on AGW:

But it turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict. Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists. These are a toxic brew of retired physicists, TV weather forecasters, political junkies, media hacks, and anyone else willing to tell an interviewer that he/she is a climate scientist. Typically, they have examined some of the more easily digestible evidence and, like good trial lawyers, cherry-pick that which suits their agendas while attacking or ignoring the rest. Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique. Intelligent readers/viewers should demand to know the actual scientific backgrounds of these posers and recognize that someone with a background in particle physics or botany may in fact know very little about climate science. Does he/she have a background in atmospheric physics? Can they answer elementary questions about radiative and convective heat transfer, or about the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere? More precisely, does their expertise actually bear on the particular points they are making? It may sound elitist these days, but there is a point to credentials.​

 

[captain morgan]

Captain, if you actually read any climate science, or the IPCC review, you'd know that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, but that it responds to temperature. It's a feedback, not a forcing. If you read the IPCC you'd know that, they don't include water vapour in their list of forcings.

Tonnington,

Vapor is both a feedback and a forcing all at the same time, the effect perpetuates itself through its own cycles. The effect that it can have will be expressd in variations in the climate and temperature record. That effect is evident in the historical record as expressed in the many ice-ages and the consequent warming periods that realized the recession of the glaciers.

The quote that I posted is directly from the IPCC report. Further, the IPCC has speculated that total CO2 comprises 1 part per 4000 atmospheric molecules whereas water vapor comprises 1 of every 20 molecules. the combined CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing more than a trace element at best, especially when compared to water vapor. As early as 1857, the scientific community (read: John Tyndall) speculated that water vapor was the principle component that was heating the atmosphere. The point being, that this component has been discussed and investigated for 150 years.

Lastly, the IPCC document has had their share of mistakes of which they have made the applicable retractions. That said, to insinuate that the IPCC is somehow an authority is a notion that is very much up for debate.

Your deception and lies bit you again captain. Try to do your research before instigating next time.

Your comment is especially thin considering that you claimed that water vapor was not considered by the IPCC to be the largest contributor to GW.. I believe you stated that you had read the document and challenged the very heart of that comment.

Turns out that you are dead wrong... Again... I suppose that this might be a reading comprehension issue on your part, eh?

So, what was that you were saying about research?

 

[mentalfloss]

I don't think you read our posts cap. Water vapour is a function of temperature. On it's own it does not 'create' global warming. It's not an actual driver for climate change. If you want any more clarification on that, I suggest you take Gr. 10 science again.

 

[Tonington]

Tonnington,

Vapor is both a feedback and a forcing all at the same time

Water vapour in the atmosphere is constrained by temperature, and pressure. It will change in response to other factors changing. Orbital forcing, carbon dioxide forcing, solar forcing, albedo forcing, aerosol forcing...these forcings are not dependent on other factors changing.

The quote that I posted is directly from the IPCC report.

Well, as I said, the IPCC doesn't list water vapour in their section on forcings, because it isn't. It's a feedback. The lifetime of water vapour in the atmosphere is about one week. If you pump out a whole lot of extra water vapour into the atmosphere, it will condense as rain or snow and the atmosphere will quickly stabilize. You can't force climate change with water vapour. You will get more climate change because of it though, because it is a strong feedback.

Further, the IPCC has speculated that total CO2 comprises 1 part per 4000 atmospheric molecules whereas water vapor comprises 1 of every 20 molecules. the combined CO2 in the atmosphere is nothing more than a trace element at best, especially when compared to water vapor.

Yes, well not all molecules are the same when it comes to radiative forcing on a per molecule basis. I'm sure you're aware that methane is about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide. When this is accounted for, the greenhouse effect on this planet is still dominated by water vapour, at about 36-66%, carbon dioxide at about 9-26%. Pretty good for a trace gas.

 

[captain morgan]

I most certainly did read your comments. Like I told your buddy, water vapor is both a cause and effect in terms of influencing the temperatures... What you are suggesting via you comments is akin to stating that one snow flake is not an avalanche, therefore avalanches contain no snow.

I believe that it is fair to say that the combined scientific community can not completely (accurately that is) identify all of the inputs into the system, fully understand those variables, let alone comprehend the dynamic interactions.... But this has all been said before and ultimately fallen on deaf ears with the answer lying in statistical modeling.

... But all this is an aside, considering that you made a very big deal about having studied the IPCC document so thoroughly, I am still interested in hearing your answer that explains your comments regarding that water vapor was not included in the IPCC report.

Water vapour in the atmosphere is constrained by temperature, and pressure. It will change in response to other factors changing. Orbital forcing, carbon dioxide forcing, solar forcing, albedo forcing, aerosol forcing...these forcings are not dependent on other factors changing.

I will argue the point that while those constraints affect the concentration of vapor in the atm, the water vapor itself will alter the ambient temps during the corrective/adaptive/responsive process. You have made the point on numerous occasions that cloud formation has a significant impact.

Well, as I said, the IPCC doesn't list water vapour in their section on forcings, because it isn't. It's a feedback. The lifetime of water vapour in the atmosphere is about one week.

... But they recognize it as the most abundant and important ghg.

Yes, well not all molecules are the same when it comes to radiative forcing on a per molecule basis. I'm sure you're aware that methane is about 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide. When this is accounted for, the greenhouse effect on this planet is still dominated by water vapour, at about 36-66%, carbon dioxide at about 9-26%. Pretty good for a trace gas.

Considering the ppm analysis, the next logical question is to determine if CO2 is 200 times more potent than water vapor on a per molecule basis.

 

[petros]

Some can't see the skies for paperwork but me I see no silks, gold sticthing or silver embroidery of a monetized CO2 market saving the planet from nothing at all.

The Emperor has no clothes!