Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I guess that means you won't be stepping out of your troll shill box?
I think it's really cute that there are no antroprogenic sources of water vapour and only CO2 can increase it by raising atmospheric temps.
Hey, you can finally play the skeptic for once.
Why don't you do your homework and find out the other varying causes and their degree of influence?
Yeah, Bear's pretty good about that. And sometimes adds some good humor along with it, too.
Yep. Loads of that nonsense on all sides.
I wouldn't have said "discredited", I would have said "criticised and supported".
Yes, it has, and quite a lot of information has come from ice cores, as well. What it seems to show is that it is a relatively delicate balance of warming surges alternating with cooling surges. The problem this time is that it appears this particular warming period has been extended longer than the previous ones even if it hasn't been the hottest one. And the data suggests it is an upset in the balance caused by a higher saturation of the atmosphere by compounds such as methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, CFCs, low-level ozone, et al, and as the temperature warms, water vapor (which is a feedback rather than a forcing). It may not be much in quantity, but it does not take much to upset a balance sometimes.
I agree there's a whack of exaggeration done by both sides.
Well, certainly. It has to because that's the nature of the cycle. But in the meantime, we have to learn to adapt to the warming and see if we can figure out how not to impact the balance like we have been doing.
Yeah, consensus does not mean much. We used to have a consensus that said the universe revolved around Earth, too.
As far as I can tell, we can fairly accurately date back to at least 800,000 years through geologic data and data from ice cores, and somewhat less data from years before that.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
partially.
There are quite a few; GHGs emitted naturally and now from human activities, fluctuations in solar irradiance, etc.
Yesterday we had no water vapour from irrigation only CO2 driven increases. Today we do. Who failed?
IPCC says that irrigation has indeed increased water vapour by 1%. Considering H2O factors in far heavier than CO2 as GHG, what percentage of warming is that 1% directly responsible for?
IPCC says that irrigation has indeed increased water vapour by 1%. Considering H2O factors in far heavier than CO2 as GHG, what percentage of warming is that 1% directly responsible for?
That says exactly what Ton was saying and you don't comprehend what even the abstract says. Simply put, as warming rises, it causes more airborn vapor. It is not an initiating cause of warming. It is only a contributor subesequent to it. That is called a feedback. If the planet wasn't warming the atmosphere simply wouldn't accept as much water vapor.Either way, you are simply adding to the fact that humans have impacted climate change.
lol Go back to digging in the dirt and planting wheat. You don't seem to have the capacity to comprehend much in this issue and what makes it worse is your donkeylike stubborness in not accepting simple scientific principles.
As I said before, I tried to explain this to him multiple times.
His inner skeptic must be having some trouble accepting the truth.
I'm ignoring water vapour being a heavy hitter on the grand scheme of global warming?
Noooooo that would be the IPCC.who are ignoring the 1% increase in water vapour from irrigation alone.
.
Noooooo that would be the IPCC.who are ignoring the 1% increase in water vapour from irrigation alone.
.
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.
I gave you a suggestion on how to vindicate yourself.
Seems like you don't want to be skeptical enough to try.
That's a shame.
How much cash should we ding consumers who eat irrigated foods to reverse the 1% water vapour increase??
How about you first establish the quantification of irrigated foods effects on atmospheric water vapour. We can talk about the costs after that.
Well? A 1% increase in water vapour has a far bigger impact than CO2, so what policy will reverse that?
But Tonnington, what does the 1% of fish steaming the water vapour causing global warming mean to the future of the universe?