What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear. Here's a thermal conductivity chart to give you an idea of the radiative qualities of each of the gases found in the atmosphere. As you will notice CO2 is kind of a disappointment given all the hoopla you guys make it out to be.
The article posted by the OP is clickbait. The scientific studies are not.
Yes, that IS a hypothesis that hasn't been definitely disproven, though it's a minority view. Might be, might not be. It seems awfully foolish though to burn oil without restraint on the basis of an unproven hypothesis; it's little better than wishful thinking at this point.
That's an awfully strange comeback. What do YOU think makes water vapor?
I think you misunderstood what Capn Jack was saying. Whatever increases temperature will increase the saturation concentration of water vapor, since the saturation point is temperature dependent. CO2 is one kind of forcing that increases temperature via the greenhouse effect. (I hope you aren't arguing against that, as that IS one part of the science that is settled.) As you yourself have stated, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, so more water vapor leads to higher temperatures. In other words, water vapor acts as a POSITIVE feedback.
Yes. Diatomic nitrogen and oxygen are the main causes of the wavelength-dependent scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere (Rayleigh scattering) that makes the sky appear blue.
Not everything is open for debate. Some laws of physics are well established and we're quite sure we won't find violations of them on the scale of our ordinary experience. If you claim to invent a machine that can generate electricity without any kind of energy source, most scientists will ignore you straightaway. Another way to get branded a kook is to argue that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as a couple of Russian (?) physicists did a few years back.
By "account for" I meant in keeping track of the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, not in modeling future climate. Yes, CO2 is only one factor and there is apparently some physics going on that they aren't able to properly account for. Another factor is the coarseness of the spatial grids used in the models. But that's another subject.
The article posted by the OP is clickbait. The scientific studies are not.
Hahaha. You can't resist responding to my posts even though you said you didn't want to interact with me.
What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear. Here's a thermal conductivity chart to give you an idea of the radiative qualities of each of the gases found in the atmosphere. As you will notice CO2 is kind of a disappointment given all the hoopla you guys make it out to be.
That's one of the problems in the world today (and in the past). We have to be on sides, against each other.I'm just trying to get you to pick a side!
You think you know, but my opinion is probably more nuanced than you imagine.(although we all already know)
convection
And a very poor one at that.
That's what they're trying to clean up and make more uniform as we speak. Still going to be many years before we have any conclusive results, and even then it still won't be perfect.
Yep, the fallacy that educated people in Columbus's day thought the world is flat has been debunked so thoroughly that no one teaches it to elementary school kids any more. In fact that knowledge predates Eratosthenes: Aristotle knew the Earth was round, based on the shape of its shadow on the Moon during eclipses, and also because the constellations visible from a given location varies with latitude. I always thought it was strange that he didn't use the argument you mention of how ships disappear in the distance, as that should have been (and probably was) a well known fact in his day. Anyway the medieval Catholic Church based much of their natural philosophy on Aristotle, so it was well known that the Earth was round.
Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the most dangerous chemicals on earth. Many thousands of people die from it each year, but yet we hear no mention of any boycotting, protesting, or government sponsored scientific studies on what we can do to make that nasty chemical more friendly to the environment. But noooo... they'd rather pick on CO2 and make it the bad guy even though only a small handful of people actually die from it each year.
Huh???
Care to explain that?Relatively poor compared to water vapor, true. But you can't just pump water vapor into the atmosphere to produce more warming because once air saturates, the water precipitates out. That doesn't happen with CO2 under conditions that exist on Earth.
No, I think the AGs who are going after Exxon and others believe that the company did wrong. I am not convinced.
Actually in a sense it does. It just takes way more time. Think about it.
No it doesn't. CO2 can't exist as either a liquid or a solid under naturally occurring conditions on Earth. So there is no equilibrium between different phases like there is with water. If you're referring to the slow removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, those are very different processes and you CAN increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by pumping more into it. That's exactly why we can alter the climate with CO2 and not with water vapor.
Okay... it's a well established fact among the climate change zealots that mankind is the all mighty and has the power to change the weather and climate patterns.
Saying you have evidence that there is warming is one thing. Saying that you want to create subsidies, taxes, and restrictions by passing laws because you have evidence of warming is another thing entirely.
My degree sez doctor of philosophy (petroleum engineering) so am I a scientist, an inginear, or a philosopher?
By making that statement I wanted to test the climate change zealots here on their knowledge of history. Seems they all love to disregard history and the associated facts thereof, and would much prefer to live in their little fantasy world of "here and now" .
I am certain about my uncertainty about this matter.You're just confused.
What does Biosphere II have to do with the discussion surrounding climate change? If I recall correctly, it was originally designed to test the feasibility of setting up a self-contained terrestrial ecosystem on another planet such as Mars. If the point is simply that Nature is a lot more complex than our naive thinking would lead us to believe as a first guess, I don't think anyone here would dispute that.By making that statement I wanted to test the climate change zealots here on their knowledge of history. Seems they all love to disregard history and the associated facts thereof, and would much prefer to live in their little fantasy world of "here and now" .
Years ago just down the road from me there was a controlled "climate change" experiment that was publicized worldwide. It was called Biosphere II. Many of the nation's top educated fools got together and decided they were going to try and replicate Mother Nature and her ecosystem. Naturally as climate scientists, none of them had a pot to p*ss in, so they had to go begging for money to finance their little experiment. The irony of it all is... a bunch oil guys got together and gave them the money to play their little games.
I won't bore the people here with the details, but let's just say it was one of the most massive failures in scientific history. What's really funny is that Google has scrubbed much of the hard data and the white papers of why it was such a massive failure. Once again going to prove, that climate change zealots and their ilk hate history!
Exactamundo! For those that think mankind has even an inkling of understanding Mother Nature's entire ecosystem, and even worse yet; to think we even have a modicum of control over those systems... is utterly preposterous! As I've stated many times before... we're just temporary guests on this planet. Mother Nature will destroy us long before we destroy her!
Nothing wrong with studying and trying to understand our ecosystem. I fully support and encourage it. It's when those studies and the wildly exaggerated claims thereof (with no valid or supporting evidence whatsoever), evolve into a religion/cult based on political or monetary influences. At that point it becomes nothing but junk science, and then you lose all credibility with those of us who actually do know how to think for themselves.
That's a good way of putting it. Control implies that we can exert an influence in a predictable way. We certainly don't know enough to do that, but it's clear that we're at least capable of having an influence on the climate, and it's likely that we already are doing so, though to what extent we can measure it at this point is debatable. More study is exactly what is needed; the current administration's stance is very much as you say, burying our heads in the sand so that we won't be able to tell whether we are approaching a catastrophe.
Agreed 100%. We are almost certainly having an effect, but how much and how detrimental it will be for us is not fully known yet.
That's another thing I wonder about, will the Trump administration (or more accurately, Congress acquiescing to them) table the various NEO search missions already in progress and being planned? I don't know the exact funding route for those projects so I'm not sure if the requested cuts to NASA would affect them. But if they are cut, that would be a very short-sighted move IMO.
Hardly a peer-reviewed journal, and as good a source as the link that started this thread.
It actually shows up a lot just on the journal name in a google search. However, it shows that the journals publish information contrary to the MGW theory (others in this thread have claimed otherwise, and have created a mysterious cabal with their base under KDEN) and it also shows that is is possible to get funding for papers contrary to MGW (as I asserted earlier).
