General Climate Discussion

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'll concede you didn't bother to read and understand my post and answered rashly. I'll concede you either don't understand your mistake or are unwilling to admit it. There ya go, two concessions for the price of one.

That sounds like the PeeWee Herman "I know you are but what am I?"
approach. Not a very good one.

Nor is projecting concession upon the one who you debate with rather than creating an argument that forces a concession.

If you want to doggedly cling to your claim that the single event of increased cloud cover and it's effect on clobal climate is entirely unknown (the only claim of yours I challenged), by all means. But denying what I backed my challenge with by accusing me of not understanding it is not a strong debate stance when you're unable to prove so or when you, yourself quote the subject material but show you took it out of context.

 I concede all the time ... when someone's argument merits it. Not before. And certainly not just because they want me to. IF this is your stance step away from the silly and proceed with presentation.

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
In fact.. most of their highly scientific computer models don't even include water vapor or clouds.    ruins the co2 effect ya see.

There you go again - spreading misinformation as though it's fact.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
I doubt those you catagorize in your first sentence sit at the UN. I'm all for sanctions on China to deal with emissions globally.

Many of them vote in this country and the typical liberal here seems anxious to relinquish our autonomy to the UN. It wasn't a hollow statement. I see you're ready to start meddling in China's affairs. I bet you're one of the ones who thinks the problems in the middle east are the result of US meddling?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Many of them vote in this country and the typical liberal here seems anxious to relinquish our autonomy to the UN. It wasn't a hollow statement. I see you're ready to start meddling in China's affairs. I bet you're one of the ones who thinks the problems in the middle east are the result of US meddling?

That's some convoluted reasoning. What in the world has international cooperation in reducing emissions globally got to do with "relinquishing autonomy?" Do you somehow believe that international cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation is also "relinquishing autonomy?" Meddling in China's affairs? Since when is global climate China's affair and China's alone?

I bet you're one of the "ones" that let agenda do your thinking for you. (See how well relying on rhetoric works?)

[SD67]

We just got our quarterly power bill, it's over $700!
Our carbon footprint is huge! something like 4.35tonnes per 1/4.  The world certainly knows we're here.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
That's some convoluted reasoning. What in the world has international cooperation in reducing emissions globally got to do with "relinquishing autonomy?" Do you somehow believe that international cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation is also "relinquishing autonomy?" Meddling in China's affairs? Since when is global climate China's affair and China's alone?

I bet you're one of the "ones" that let agenda do your thinking for you. (See how well relying on rhetoric works?)

I think anyone who claims the US is responsible for the middle east mess and believes we have no right to meddle there is a hypocrite if they want us attempting to influence any other country's industrial programs.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
I think anyone who claims the US is responsible for the middle east mess and believes we have no right to meddle there is a hypocrite if they want us attempting to influence any other country's industrial programs.

Actually, it's obvious we see things 180' on that, as well. I'd say the hypocricy lays with anyone who denies the U.S. bears any responsibility for it's long term policies in the Middle East and shares no liability for the current state of affairs there (even though you're adding that red herring to the subject at hand to apparently "make a point" or sumpin'. )

I never said there was no place for influence. I do say there's a right and wrong way to do it.

Hypocricy never comes from owning up and having standards .... it always comes from denial and double standards.

And, ironically enough, a major part of what you live in denial about revolves around meddling in other country's industry and resources. But don't confuse global cooperation over climate change as such. I'm sure you've seen countries discussing sharing industrial technology.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
Actually, it's obvious we see things 180' on that, as well. I'd say the hypocricy lays with anyone who denies the U.S. bears no responsibility for it's long term policies in the Middle East and shares no liability for the current state of affairs there (even though you're adding that red herring to the subject at hand to apparently "make a point" or sumpin'. )

Hypocricy never comes from owning up and having standards .... it always comes from denial and double standards.

And, ironically enough, a major part of what you live in denial about revolves around meddling in other country's industry and resources. But don't confuse global cooperation over climate change as such. I'm sure you've seen countries discussing sharing industrial technology.

So, it's ok to tell China or whoever what they can and can't do with their industry in the name of your religion or cause but it's not ok to influence a middle eastern country to help secure needed oil supplies. I see how it is.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
So, it's ok to tell China or whoever what they can and can't do with their industry in the name of your religion or cause but it's not ok to influence a middle eastern country to help secure needed oil supplies. I see how it is.

Sadly, no, you don't. And I explained my position as carefully as I could. Please, don't play obtuse with the rhetoric and think it's either putting others in their place or being insightful (or is it designed to be inciteful? - heh). Thanks.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... what data are you using that says that we are a major..or even minor.. contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere?

[/b]

Basic chemistry. When any sort of fossil fuel is burned, part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. This is third grade chemistry stuff lasz...which Im sure is why you didnt know about it.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

So what are the numbers again for man made water vapor?  

Well gee lasz, back to basic chemistry again.

Fossil fuels are burned witht "normal" air (instead of with pure oxygen). Air contains about 79% nitrogen. This nitrogen is not consumed/combusted in the process. This means that the smoke from most fossil fuel fires is unburned nitrogen. Then comes CO2, which is 10-15% or more of the smoke. Then comes water vapor created by the combustion of the hydrogen in the fuel with atmospheric oxygen. Much of the smoke seen pouring into the air is those water vapors forming a cloud as it contacts cool air.

So, look around you, at all the coal burned, or natural gas burned power plants. Look at the smoke, there is your man made water vapor.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hortlund


Basic chemistry. When any sort of fossil fuel is burned, part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. This is third grade chemistry stuff lasz...which Im sure is why you didnt know about it. [/B]

It is also quite basic that the 7/10 of the earth's surface is water, and much of that which remains is covered with some sorth of growth that transpires water vapor.

Well over 99% of water vapor comes from natural sources.  There is an argument that the increasing surface temperature causes the ocean to evaporate more water into the atmosphere, but still the vast majority, still over 99% if you take into account the recent warming, is natural.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is also quite basic that the 7/10 of the earth's surface is water, and much of that which remains is covered with some sorth of growth that transpires water vapor.

Well over 99% of water vapor comes from natural sources.  There is an argument that the increasing surface temperature causes the ocean to evaporate more water into the atmosphere, but still the vast majority, still over 99% if you take into account the recent warming, is natural.

So? When are you guys going to understand that the atmosphere consists of a mix of gasses, the balance of these gasses determines how much heat from the sun that will be trapped in the atmosphere. The amount of clouds and ice also determines how much heat from the sun that will bounce back into space.

What we are doing is changing the balance of gas in the atmosphere, this change causes more heat to be trapped, and the temperature rises. As the temperature rises, the oceans emit more water vapor into the atmosphere, changing the balance yet more. As the temperature rises the ices melt, making the reflective surface smaller, thus letting more heat get trapped in the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, areas that were once frozen melts, and these melting areas release more gas into the atmosphere, methane, which is a very very evil greenhouse gas...causing yet more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

All of this is basic science, and it is plain for everyone with half a brain to see. Yet you guys sit there, trying to shove your heads deeper into the sand (did I say sand? I meant "your a ss").

It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle. What IS relevant is that MAN is changing the balance of those gasses in the atmosphere, and because of that, we are changing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

But you wont understand that, because you dont WANT to understand that. How difficult it is to make a man understand something, when his salary or his percieved lifestyle depends on him not understanding it.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hortlund
It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle.

What IS relevant is that MAN is changing the balance of those gasses in the atmosphere, and because of that, we are changing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

How do you know we are upsetting the balance if the natural cycle and it's mechanisms are completely irrelevant?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How do you know we are upsetting the balance if the natural cycle and it's mechanisms are completely irrelevant?