General Climate Discussion

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

Yes... we can make water vapor.   and yes it is an insignificant amount so far as the total greenhouse gas.

Your problem lasz, is that you dont understand that what determines the greenhouse effect is the balance between all the contents of the atmosphere.

It is very simple, and very basic really. When you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere changes the amount of heat from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere.

This is pretty basic.

What you are doing is saying "but there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, shouldnt you worry about water vapor instead". And the answer to that is yes, there is more water vapor than co2 in the atmosphere, but that is irrelevant since the balance between co2 and water vapor is changing because of our pollutions, and it is the change of this balance that causes more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere...causing global warming.

Then this warming have other consequences...less ice means less sunlight reflected into space, means more sunlight trapped in our atmosphere...melting of permafrost causing methane to be released into the atmosphere, creating another balance-shift to the worse, meaning more global warming... etc

[lazs2]

hortlund... and what you don't understand is that man is not making a significant amount of the water vapor.

What about "mans contribution to water vapor is insignificant" do you not understand.

twist and squirm all you want but water vapor is out of our control.  

If you do not believe that then show me proof that it is otherwise.



lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... and what you don't understand is that man is not making a significant amount of the water vapor.

What about "mans contribution to water vapor is insignificant" do you not understand.

twist and squirm all you want but water vapor is out of our control.  

If you do not believe that then show me proof that it is otherwise.



lazs

So when are you going to understand that what I said was that the water vapor, and the causes of those vapors are irrelevant to the discussion?

Whats next...are you going to argue that mans contribution to nitrogen in the atmosphere is insignificant?

[lazs2]

nooo... but I will say that mans contribution to nitrogen is insignificant.  

I admit that water vapor is the major player in greenhouse gas.   I don't have a clue as too how much of a player greenhouse gas is.. neither do you but...

I admit that in "greenhouse gas" water vapor is the major player.

I also say that...  man has an insignificant effect on water vapor.

are you still following me or should I go slower?

lazs

[lazs2]

and.. you want my prediction?

I predict that in the next few years the high priests of MMGW are gonna do a 180 and shift from man made co2 to man made water vapor and ask us to quit sacraficing goats to the alter of co2 and start sacraficing sheep to the man made water vapor altar.

They may do some kind of bait and switch with the interaction of the two but it is apparent that they can't go on saying that man made water vapor is insignificant and... at the same time say that the greenhouse effect is real and that we are altering it enough to change the climate of the planet.

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
nooo... but I will say that mans contribution to nitrogen is insignificant.  

I admit that water vapor is the major player in greenhouse gas.   I don't have a clue as too how much of a player greenhouse gas is.. neither do you but...

I admit that in "greenhouse gas" water vapor is the major player.

I also say that...  man has an insignificant effect on water vapor.

are you still following me or should I go slower?

lazs

Well, considering that you are heading into the same dead-end as usual, I dont think I should be following you.

Your problem lasz, is that you dont understand that what determines the greenhouse effect is the balance between all the contents of the atmosphere.

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
Oh come on now... this is getting pretty weak....

What does it take to pin us deniers down??  Like arguing with the banjo kid from Deliverance.

If you read it one way then ALL the fires in china are more than all of mans co2 contribution "According to this Coal Fire website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires."

either way... the coal fires in all the world are somewhere between as much as all of mans contribution to co2 to many times more our contribution.

Really? I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.  I suspect that you made it up by utilising your "common-sense" and mathematical skills.  One thing is a given: the error bars will be enormous.

Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund.

Ah - the Lazsian philosophy revealed.

and.. you want my prediction?

No, but you're going to "enlighten" us anyway.

I predict that in the next few years the high priests of MMGW are gonna do a 180 and shift from man made co2 to man made water vapor and ask us to quit sacraficing goats to the alter of co2 and start sacraficing sheep to the man made water vapor altar.

Put your hands in the air and step away from the crack pipe!

[Angus]

Lazs, I thought you WERE the Banjo kid from Deliverance

[lazs2]

so you guys got nothing?    or are you still on co2.. er... man made co2?

lots of "you are wrong cause I say so"  but precious little data to back you up.

Put out the damn coal fires if you think co2 is a big deal... in the meantime I, and the rest of the world, will enjoy the increased crop yeilds from increased co2.

I can see why you guys are so angry tho..   your priests are getting caught with their hands in the altar boys and donations are down.

lazs

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
lots of "you are wrong cause I say so"  but precious little data to back you up.

We can always rely on you to gather up an interesting collection of information, to perform some truly outstanding analysis of the data on hand and come up with revolutionary hypotheses that you will advocate with vigour.

Personally, I admire the courage of your convictions; how you can emotionally attach yourself to your conjectures to the extent that you will not let them go, even when repeatedly refuted. That takes real intestinal fortitude.  

Unfortunately,  your last post was a bit lame - it must be time for your nap.

[lazs2]

and I can always rely on you to make claims without backing them up with anything more than... "I don't like the messenger"

lazs

[AKH]

Chicken little me?

[lazs2]

akh... I find it telling that even your sig line is dishonest.  

You and I both know that I said it to crock-it when he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown because I simply wouldn't "feel" the fact of MMGW and how unfair it was that I was bringing data into the whole thing.

I would say you are in the same boat.. sooo.. I will give you some more sig material...  for you... If you don't want your religion shaken then don't debate people who might have looked into it and found it wanting.

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Intelligent design encompasses evolution. If you really want to get into this another thread may be in order.

Intelligent design is a matter of faith, evolution a matter of science,  encompassing a matter of viewpoint.

Noooo .... not another thread on this! (heh)

[Angus]

News update Lazs.
I was on a meeting today. Professionals in the farming business. Expert growers as well as scientists. Lots of thinkers, and well travelled and read-up people from various branches of agriculture.
As I expected, there was absolutely nobody that doubts GW. To my careful surprize, nobody doubted MMGW as well, except perhaps myself putting it a little on the weight.
There were some news on the functions of data presentations of powerful corporations. Corporations that have scientists on their payroll for research of impacts of new products, and the effects of this and that, - the theme was both GW as well as the impact of man (not carbon footprint, but ecological footprint). Anyway, our main focus was on genetically engineered plants and their effects. Hot matter in Europe. Adapted in the USA, and in widespread use.
What baffled us was finding out that the corporates edit the reports of their own scientists. So, "uncomfortable" sides, downsides are damped or dumped, while positive sides are emphasized. There is already plenty of data on this.
This brings me around to these threads, where some people, completely castrated in the sense of understanding base physics, stand up on the soapbox and shout about the GW fraud, and attempt to debunk the data behind it. While there is the freedom of expression, there is also the freedom of making an idiot of yourself.