Search results

How much CO2? You suck at quantification. By the way I asked you about irrigation. Try to pay attention, I know the posts are flying by now. But it shouldn't be that hard to read before you post.

How about you first establish the quantification of irrigated foods effects on atmospheric water vapour. We can talk about the costs after that.

Yes. Nobody ever said irrigation won't produce water vapour you prat. There was contention about it's impact, and contention about your reversal of causal structures in relationships well known.

Lie.

Yes, that what's you have. You're missing premises all over the place. It's not controversial to say clouds trap and reflect energy. It's not controversial to say irrigation will provide more water vapour. But you're jumping the shark with causality. When the global temperature dropped after...

What models? It doesn't help Petey's model...:lol: Water as vapour is the only phase that is a greenhouse gas, it matters not if the rest of the water is liquid or ice, the fraction as vapour (which I said in earlier posts) remains fixed dependent on the pressure and temperature. Ice crystal or...

Sure, but ice crystals aren't water vapour. Ice crystals aren't a greenhouse gas. At the temperatures where you get ice crystals, there is very little water vapour left to trap the long-wave radiation. It's a complete red herring for someone who was mentioning irrigated farm land and water...

Yes, you failed again. Unless of course you think most of the world's irrigated agriculture is growing year-round at 0.01°C. That would be an epic fail.

Yeah, because you were talking about transpiring plants and water vapour. The presence of ice crystals or water droplets won't change the capacity of air to hold the vapour you durpy fool. That fraction is fixed as a dependency on temperature and pressure. Unless of course you're growing plants...

55 minutes by the forum software, but then math isn't a strong point of your's either. Are you going to be brave or a coward? Let's hear what you think I've missed.

I'll check back in an hour to see what lame explanation you've concocted. Get busy Durpy.

You've been ignoring physics from the start. water vapour cannot drive temperature, as the amount the atmosphere can hold is a function of temperature and pressure. You just don't seem to get it. You're giving me an hour so you can scramble to try to find some explanation that supports your...

Yes, it's your understanding that is the problem.

Sure you have, in fact missed the most important details. You have never even acknowledged that the fraction of water that can exist in the atmosphere as vapour is a function of temperature and pressure. You can't deny the physics there. Well you can but it just makes you look even more foolish.

Oh, well here's the one wiki gives you for water: That blue line? That's the phase boundary for water vapour. As the temperature goes up, along the x-axis, the curve bends up. As temperature goes down, the curve bends down. If you add more water vapour without increasing temperature or...

Notice where it says vapour or gas? The line curves downward as you move along the x-axis towards the origin. As temperature goes down, so too does the amount of vapour a parcel of air can hold.

No...the atmosphere has physical constraints for how much water it will hold... you've been told this a number of times now. Without CO2, then something else would have to warm the planet (or increase the pressure) to get more water vapour in the atmosphere. More transpiration from plants absent...

Yes. That's not a bad thing. Science is self-correcting. Sure. But can you explain why charging a few cents for a bag will produce a greater behavioural change than say, a few cents on a litre of gas? I'll grant that at the moment there aren't many alternatives. But I've never been one who...

Yes I know about H2S. It can be a problem on poorly managed fish farms. But I was responding specifically to CM's question about the carbon cycle. If anyone wants to hear more, from an expert, they can listen to Richard Alley's lecture at the Amercan Geophysical Union meeting in 2009...

But in the meantime nothing is done with the externality of pollution. That pollution will have costs and they are not being borne by the consumers.