General Climate Discussion

[AKIron]

Seems to me that many of the ones claiming the US is responsible for all the ills in the middle east and elsewere due to our meddling are the same ones wanting to restrict the c02 producers. Can anyone imagine the results if the UN attempted to restrict China in this regard? China in comparison makes the middle east look like a sand box. Can anyone say irony?

[Louis XVII]

So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor

Lazs, ever wonder why the catalytic converter on a car is sometimes known as a "three-way cat"? It's because the output from the exhaust is broken down into three main compounds - CO2, pure Nitrogen, and (you guessed it) - water vapor! But don't tell anyone. We don't want the govt to know that cars output water vapor, else the girly men of the socialist left would want to ban cars.

Oh and have you ever looked up into the sky at a passing jet airliner? Ever see those white trails coming from the engine exhaust? Well 85% DUH - it's not cotton wool you know. I'll let you figure it out.

[Angus]

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?

And even more telling.. are you now off of co2 and onto man made water vapor as the cause of this so called "MMGW"?

lazs

I'll give you a poser Lazs. What is your force of contribution when you turn on your stove under a pot of water?

[AKIron]

Some of you are turning the water vapor thing into a red herring. Clouds both reflect the sun's energy and keep the earth's energy in at night. My original statement (which has been sorely abused) was that warming air due to global warming would probably result in more clouds. However, since different types of clouds have different effects on overall temperature I said that the end result of the increase in clouds due to the warmer, moister air really isn't known. Arlo jumped in and said it is known and posted a link which clearly says that it isn't.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor

Lazs, ever wonder why the catalytic converter on a car is sometimes known as a "three-way cat"? It's because the output from the exhaust is broken down into three main compounds - CO2, pure Nitrogen, and (you guessed it) - water vapor! But don't tell anyone. We don't want the govt to know that cars output water vapor, else the girly men of the socialist left would want to ban cars.

Oh and have you ever looked up into the sky at a passing jet airliner? Ever see those white trails coming from the engine exhaust? Well 85% DUH - it's not cotton wool you know. I'll let you figure it out.

Contrails are not "manufactured"by the airliner I'm afraid. And you don't even need a jet engine for the job. Nor Kerosene, - petrol will do.

[Curval]

Originally posted by AKIron
Who isn't for emission reduction? Study is good if you aren't trying to further a political agenda with the results.

I've read thread after thread of people here claiming MMGW is a myth and then state they they fully intend to go out to their gas guzzling 4 X 4 (their words not mine) and rev it up a bit.

I've seen the same people actually advocate GW is a good thing.

Those guys are the ones who aren't for emission control...and there is a whole bunch of 'em in this thread and many others.

FWIW My stance on the subject is identical to Arlo's.

[AKIron]

When I talk about wanting to reduce emissions I mean pollutants and not c02.

[lazs2]

Still waiting on those numbers for the amount of aerosols (water vapor) that we add to the greenhouse gas.

It should be easy.   Everything I have read says that it is natural and nothing we can do about it.

This is the first time I have heard that man made water vapor is the cause.

this seems desperate to me.. like rats deserting a sinking co2 ship.

But go ahead... explain about the tons of water vapor we put into the air every year from...  OMG... catalytic converters????  

not water droplets that don't aerosol.. but real water vapor.

lazs

[Angus]

You don't need to add water vapour since most of the planets surface is already covered with water in the first place...
(BTW, wasn't it you that once emphazised that water vapour was a powerful greenhouse gas?)
What you need is increased temperature. If you can raise temperature by a greenhouse gas that you can't even see, like co2 and methane, it is like swithching on your stove.
So, if you want a damp kitchen, you don't have to jump around throwing water about, - you just put the kettle on

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Who isn't for emission reduction? Study is good if you aren't trying to further a political agenda with the results.

Have you taken any steps to reduce emissions personally?

Sure. I take advantage of mass transit. I don't waste energy. I maintain my car and it's on the lower end of emission production and it's used only for necessity which MT doesn't provide. I recycle. And I've changed my diet in order to fart less.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Seems to me that many of the ones claiming the US is responsible for all the ills in the middle east and elsewere due to our meddling are the same ones wanting to restrict the c02 producers. Can anyone imagine the results if the UN attempted to restrict China in this regard? China in comparison makes the middle east look like a sand box. Can anyone say irony?

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.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor

 

Quotes to back?

[lazs2]

yes angus it was me.. well.. not me.. but me who linked the articles that said that most of the greenhouse gas is water vapor..  that we can do nothing about btw.

So what are the numbers again for man made water vapor?  will we have to wait till co2 is completely debunked for the scientists to try to foist this one off on us... complete with terrifiying movie and charts and graphs and such?

for now, alas.... they just aren't as ahead of it as you are.  they obviously have never boiled water for tea.

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

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Arlo jumped in and said it is known and posted a link which clearly says that it isn't.

Arlo posted a link which shows the effect of clouds is known. The effect of clouds with higher pollutant particles is known. That specific factor is known. What I'd hoped you'd do at that point is concede that much in order to explore the bigger pic. Especially since it offered you an opening with the gobal dimming vs global warming factors.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
Arlo posted a link which shows the effect of clouds is known. The effect of clouds with higher pollutant particles is known. That specific factor is known. What I'd hoped you'd do at that point is concede that much in order to explore the bigger pic. Especially since it offered you an opening with the gobal dimming vs global warming factors.

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.