Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue

[L Gilbert]

You're the one ignoring water vapour as a GHG. Anus of Green Gables and Flossy made an attempt to prove me wrong on a point and failed. If you wewre part of this you'd understand. **** off until you do understand and know what has been talk about yesterday and today.

lmao Whatta foocking dipshyte you are. I repeat, "And just to remind you, I already said that I agree with your comment that water vapor is a contributing factor to warming. " 3 times now.

But keep trolling anyway. It's hilarious.

 

[mentalfloss]

You're the one ignoring water vapour as a GHG. Anus of Green Gables and Flossy made an attempt to prove me wrong on a point and failed. If you were part of this you'd understand. **** off until you do understand and know what has been talked about yesterday and today.

I said the same thing that Tonn and L Gilbert said on this matter - which is that C02 raises the temperature which then creates water vapour. The water vapour amplifies the warming effect, but the actual cause of the warming is the initial C02 which raises the temperature.

Then you went on about irrigation, calling people anuses and Bear went off on his own ridiculous rant about how I'm misleading when it comes to AGW. He got his beat down on that front and now he is habitually forced to continue his mad posts (see below).

 

[CDNBear]

Now that we're done proving that you posted a troll pic...

It was one of yours. You didn't like it?

Was it trolling when you posted it?

... can we get back to the topic now?

Honestly and openly? Or by your narrow comfy parameters?

 

[Tonington]

Anus and flossy won't because it ****s up the CO2 thing.

No it doesn't. The radiative impact of water vapour doesn't conflict with the radiative impact of carbon dioxide. That's ridiculous!

If you add 1% more water vapour to the atmosphere, it's just going to come back out as precipitation. The equilibrium will be less than two weeks. What part of temperature and pressure dependence do you not understand?

 

[petros]

I said the same thing that Tonn and L Gilbert said on this matter - which is that C02 raises the temperature which then creates water vapour. The water vapour amplifies the warming effect, but the actual cause of the warming is the initial C02 which raises the temperature.

Then you went on about irrigation, calling people anuses and Bear went off on his own ridiculous rant about how I'm misleading when it comes to AGW. He got his beat down on that front and now he is habitually forced to continue his mad posts (see below).

CO2 is just one of the causes of increased water vapour. It's not the only is it? Are there more sources of non-temp/CO2 induced water vapour?

 

[mentalfloss]

CO2 is just one of the causes of increased water vapour. It's not the only is it? Are there more sources of non-temp/CO2 induced water vapour?

Remember I asked you to put on your skeptic's hat and find out other sources earlier?

Yea, that was 3 pages ago.

 

[petros]

Remember I asked you to put on your skeptic's hat and find out other sources earlier?

Yea, that was 3 pages ago.

I know of other sources and I even posted them. Did you miss those posted sources?

 

[L Gilbert]

Anyway, to answer the question of how much a 1% increase in atmospheric water vapor increases global temperature:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming

 

[petros]

Thanks I already knew it is +0.03 W m–2.

 

[Tonington]

Thanks I already knew it is +0.03 W m–2.

Carbon dioxide alone is +1.66 W per square meter.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Maybe Cabbage will weigh in on this special case. He seems to have many of the answers to those questions that vex the common man

Indeed I do! I will leave it, though, to the one who can explain it in terms of science, while Petros brushes off that "fairy dust."

 

[L Gilbert]

Thanks I already knew it is +0.03 W m–2.

Well, you asked so I answered - not much; and I added a link to show why I said that.

 

[CDNBear]

Indeed I do! I will leave it, though, to the one who can explain it in terms of science, while Petros brushes off that "fairy dust."

What an entertaining and illuminating dodge.

 

[Tonington]

Well, you asked so I answered - not much; and I added a link to show why I said that.

A link, what a novel idea!

 

[L Gilbert]

It seems to be pretty novel for some, for sure.

 

[CDNBear]

"A Link to Far" by C. Abbagehead

An interesting read, but lacked credibility.

 

[L Gilbert]

rofl

 

[petros]

blech

 

[CDNBear]

blech

I see you read it... ;-)

 

[petros]

Indeed.