General Climate Discussion

[lazs2]

LOL..  you get better and better with every implosion hortlund...

for a long time now I have heard you cry and rant and pout about man made co2...you show all kinds of charts and graphs and we do have something to talk about...  Not once do you ever mention man made water vapor.

now.. that c02 is losing credibility... you dodge to water vapor... everything I read says we have little or no effect on the amount of water vapor in the air..

I ask you to show me where anyone is saying what you are saying.    

You tell me about catalytic converters and tea pots.

I ask you to show me the numbers.. you call me names.

I ask you to tell me what to do about water vapor..  you ignore the question.

This whole man made water vapor thing is interesting...  I will admit...  It is just that in the years of looking at the whole global climate cause debate...

I have always heard.. from both sides.. that water vapor is not affected by man.

If you have real evidence that this is wrong..   some explanation or numbers for the amount of water vapor that is added to the atmosphere by man..

I would be interested in seeing it...  

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL..  you get better and better with every implosion hortlund...

for a long time now I have heard you cry and rant and pout about man made co2...you show all kinds of charts and graphs and we do have something to talk about...  Not once do you ever mention man made water vapor.

now.. that c02 is losing credibility... you dodge to water vapor... everything I read says we have little or no effect on the amount of water vapor in the air..

I ask you to show me where anyone is saying what you are saying.    

You tell me about catalytic converters and tea pots.

I ask you to show me the numbers.. you call me names.

I ask you to tell me what to do about water vapor..  you ignore the question.

This whole man made water vapor thing is interesting...  I will admit...  It is just that in the years of looking at the whole global climate cause debate...

I have always heard.. from both sides.. that water vapor is not affected by man.

If you have real evidence that this is wrong..   some explanation or numbers for the amount of water vapor that is added to the atmosphere by man..

I would be interested in seeing it...  

lazs

Laz's version of implosion (rhetorical self-impressed nonsensical expression) is way cooler ^. Just ask him.

[AKH]

LOL Arlo.

[Sabre]

More water vapor released into the atmosphere generates more cloud cover, cooling the planet and allowing the oceans to absorb more water vapor, thereby...etc, etc, etc.  In other words, the planetary climate is self-regulating (an amazing design, from an engineering standpoint).

So, please answer me this:

1) Why do the ice cores, which Al Gore and others tout as evidence that rising CO2 causes increased global temperatures, show that CO2 levels LAG changes in temperature by 800 to 1000 years?

2) Why did the most of the warming recorded in the previous century take place before man-produced CO2 output began to rise significantly?

I understand the postitive feedback argument, that CO2 is a forcing function that throws the system out of balance.  But that does not explain the ice core data, which shows the correlation between temps and CO2 is the opposite of what is claimed by MMGW apostates.  The fact is, solar activity appears to map more precisely to global temperature changes than CO2, and with the correct cause-effect relationship.

[lazs2]

hmm.. still no data?   I am finding nothing that says that water vapor is not self balancing...   that if we get too much... it rains.

show me the figures for man made water vapor.  

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

maybe arlo has some numbers on water vapor for us?  No?  

lazs

[lazs2]

akh... finds arlo amusing..  do you also now abandon your previous co2 theory and now think it is man made water vapor that causes global warming?

This seems odd because in the years I have been reading the alarmists and the links provided by the acolytes here...

Not one mentioned man made water vapor as a problem till just a few days ago.

You got to admit...you guys are starting to sound desperate.  like..

"ok... maybe it isn't so much co2 but it is man made water vapor... just think of all the tea kettles man uses!"

lazs

[Angus]

Increased water vapour is a normal result of a warmer air. And BTW, cloudforming will take more available water vapur to be equal to what it was at a lower temperature. A hotter climate means more carrying capability from the atmosphere. So, increased vapour is a result of atmospheric warming.
And although CO2 is reported to be lagging (from the icecores), CO2 and warmer climate hold hands up and down the curves like a couple in highschool. Warming over a certain level will also tend to increase CO2, - sort of a ping-pong effect.

[lazs2]

thats the story you are sticking too this time?

link me to the charts on man made water vapor and it's affect on global warming.


There are some simple facts.. co2...

There are coal fires burning underground all around the world... just one in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and trucks in America.. if you really think co2 is the boogey man... put out the fires.

increased co2 has increased crop yeilds up to 15%   more land is available not less.. the warming so far has been nothing but benificial.

co2 lags not leads.  it has been higher in the past following natural warming cycles.   Then things cooled.

The nasa data available for the last 18 years.. the only data.. for the US shows that north America has not had an average gain in temp.. in fact.. it has cooled ever so slightly.

man contributes very little to greenhouse gas.. about 0.28%  of all greenhouse gas.. including water vapor.    if we reduced that by a draconian 30% it would be an insignificant amount reduction on an insignificant amount.

relax angus.. you are living in the good times.. warmer climate is better... we will get colder soon enough.. in the meantime...enjoy the milder winters.

lazs

[Angus]

When CO2 was at it's peak, nature did not prompt any intelligent life, as well as the climate at those time would be devastative to mankind today.
And as for the underground coal fires, I will ask you 2  1/2 question, that you can surely answer

1. Where does an enclosed underground fire get oxygen?
2. Can you promote a source of your claim?
2 1/2. What happens to a coal fire that gets no oxygen?



And, BTW, Lazs, nothing personal, but:
I think I am beginning to understand why Hortlund pounds at you like he does, and furthermore, why it didn'd get him PNG's so far.....

[AKH]

Lazs, thinking back over this ongoing debate, I can't recall one single occasion when you have substantiated any of your wild claims with anything that remotely approaches credible evidence.

Conversely, many have demonstrated that the "expert opinions" you repeat are nothing more than blatant fallacies, yet you continue to regurgitate them as though a denial of reality and sheer bloody-mindedness will win you the argument.  It won't, but if you feel that you must resort to such cheap tricks in order to be seen to win, so be it.

I find Arlo's comment amusing because he hit the nail squarely on the head.

[john9001]

underground coal fires are a fact of life. some of the fires have been burning for 40 years.


Fire in the Hole
Picture an abandoned coal mine—there are thousands of them in Pennsylvania. Although much of the coal has been removed, plenty still remains—perhaps just not in a configuration that’s easily extractable. Miles of tunnels, their ceilings shored up with columns of unexcavated coal, lie empty. Though the entrance to the mine may have been sealed, that seal was by no means complete or airtight. And suppose some of the coal lies very close to the surface—or is even visible in an exposed seam. Now something happens to ignite the coal. It may be a natural cause—lightning, for instance, or even spontaneous combustion given the right conditions. Or maybe a forest fire, or someone burning garbage.

Once the coal begins burning, it feeds off the air in the tunnels and the ventilation shafts that were used to supply air to the miners. Still more air seeps through natural cracks in the rock. Coal burns very easily, requiring only a tiny amount of oxygen—and with millions of tons of fuel handy, it soon spreads beyond the existing tunnels and into the thick strata of coal that lie under immense tracts of land. When enough of the coal burns through, the ground above it collapses—an effect known as subsidence. The newly formed cracks or pits allow more air in, accelerating the fire’s spread. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide, smoke, and steam escape, killing plants and making the area’s air unsafe for humans and wildlife.

http://itotd.com/articles/346/pennsylvania-coal-fires/

[Angus]

Excuse me, but do you realize that for CO2 you need 2 atoms of oxygen for one of charbon?
C+O+O, or rather C + O2???????????

There is no way to explain this as a contribution to CO2 emissions in any measure without that much flow of Oxygen INTO the fire. I guess old mine-vent shaft suck you straight in. And better still, with such humongous underground fires, there is no reason that mineworkers suffocate so quickly in case of fire in the shaft, - but they do!

Then in case this is the case, - this adds to man-made CO2.

[john9001]

i was just posting facts, and i have no idea what you just said.

[Angus]

OK. You posted, and I'll take the "fact" part of it with a teaspoon of salt, as well as a tablespoon, since there is no data promoted.
As for you not understanding the simple physics I posted, which are something I had to go through in school when I was just a kid, - well maybe you should read up a bit. This is really simple. If a coal fire like that only needs a tiny amount of oxygen, it CANNOT contribute much for CO2. Capiche?

[john9001]

angus, there are old coal mines burning in Pennsylvania. You can believe it or not.