Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
nice rebuttal.

not really though.
Click to expand...
since words dont seem to work i thought pictures might get through that wooden block you call your head

there is 100x more water vapour in the air than Co2.
both are greenhouse gasses
therefore even if they were both equally good at trapping heat, water is 100x more of a factor than Co2

the conditions of the statement are well satisfied


but in fact, water kicks Co2's ass on a mole for mole basis

the resulting comparison of Co2 vs water vapour makes Co2's warming effect vanishingly small
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
since words dont seem to work i thought pictures might get through that wooden block you call your head

there is 100x more water vapour in the air than Co2.
both are greenhouse gasses
therefore even if they were both equally good at trapping heat, water is 100x more of a factor than Co2

the conditions of the statement are well satisfied


but in fact, water kicks Co2's ass on a mole for mole basis

the resulting comparison of Co2 vs water vapour makes Co2's warming effect vanishingly small
Click to expand...
well your conjecture is great and all, but you don't address the fact that water vapor has nowhere near the staying power of CO2, thus the whole "effect" part is left completely unaddressed.

still waiting on your citation.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well your conjecture is great and all, but you don't address the fact that water vapor has nowhere near the staying power of CO2, thus the whole "effect" part is left completely unaddressed.

still waiting on your citation.
Click to expand...
you are hopelessly stupid.

it doesnt matter if the water vapour trapping heat is a week old, an hour old, or three millennia old

it still does the same job.

the same goes for Co2

their respective ages as a molecule are irrelevant to their function.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
you are hopelessly stupid.

it doesnt matter if the water vapour trapping heat is a week old, an hour old, or three millennia old

it still does the same job.

the same goes for Co2

their respective ages as a molecule are irrelevant to their function.
Click to expand...
you completely miss the point of a feedback cycle.

water vapor comes and goes like the weather, relatively stable based on region, about 4% in the wettest tropics, about 2% in the driest and coldest areas, so on and so forth.

CO2 no go. CO2 stay long time. CO2 take many many moon to go to tree or ocean. trees and oceans finite.

take millions and billions of years of sequestered CO2 and put it in air over 100-200 years, CO2 go way up. CO2 go way up and no go away. trap more heat.

trap more heat create more water vapor. more water vapor trap more heat in turn. feedback cycle intensifies.

we are talking about EFFECTS, not AMOUNTS.







 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
i need more of a citation than "i saw it on a popular TV show this week"

if everything on a popular TV show is now fact, when Walking Dead's new season starts we will be fucked
Click to expand...
Comparing the validity of statements made on "the walking dead" zombie series with something said by one of the leading scientific minds in the world on an information based show is something I would expect from buck.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Comparing the validity of statements made on "the walking dead" zombie series with something said by one of the leading scientific minds in the world on an information based show is something I would expect from buck.
Click to expand...
he is right on that though. it's still just TV, tends to simplify sometimes.

i'd trust black science man more in a non-TV environment.

BigNBushy said:
I'm more on your side on this issue than not; how does that make you feel?

Is global warming now a racist issue?
Click to expand...
i honestly hate myself a bit more to be in agreement with you on anything.

but it's pointless until we complete the search for the paper that details the claim that red repeated from somewhere (aka the citation i keep asking for). i'm looking for it too, can't seem to find it.

i also want citation of NLXSK's claim that "forest fires cause global cooling". the closest i have found has said that forest fires cause local cooling, which is what kynes is saying from experience, but i see nothing about global cooling. but after 80 years, the local cooling might average out the CO2 output of that fire caused, according to a 2009 study involving 22 scientists.

all other papers i have found claim that forest fires lead to global warming, and they are more recent, but i did not review them as they did not pertain to this debate. this silly, retarded, sad little debate about forest fires cooling the globe.

i just want to see the inevitable bad source that red is repeating. it is literally inevitable that red is repeating bad science he found somewhere. last time i busted him on an unsourced claim, it was when he claimed humans only contributed 3% of the overall CO2.

it turned out his study was from a completely political blog (heritage foundation), and the study they cited was from a political front group that used to do the same thing for the 'is tobacco harmful?' debate (national center for policy analysis). the national center for policy analysis is funded by exxon mobil and the koch brothers, among other shady players in this debate.

so it's just funny to watch kynes defend something like this which will end up blowing up in his face. i try not to let your agreement with me ruin my enjoyment of the ride to failtown that kynes is taking.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
The bit about man made co2 being lighter was simple, but I doubt he would make that claim if untrue. There is certainly more to it.

I don't have anything to gain or lose by climate change. I've been paying more attention to it lately. I think it is overblown with respect to the consequences, in an effort to keep funding (employment) for themselves.

Behind closed doors I'll bet these guys laugh at the crazy shit they can envelope into the climate change fallout to get more funding.

That being said, there will probably be some negative impact. And some positive also.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
Of course it has an effect, it acts as insulation. Did you forget about how greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation? That means it blocks it. Well, it slows it's escape, ultimately. And we require it to be slowed to some degree or we'd freeze and that's no good either. What I said previously was that heat is most evident at it's source. Nothing special there. Why would it get warmer first in the upper atmosphere when the primary infrared source is from the surface?



I'm glad you bring up the water vapor. This is a good example. Yes, unit for unit, it does absorb a fuck load more than CO2 does. Absolutely. It adds a great deal to our layer of heat insulation. However, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long as CO2, does it? It's levels could never sustain a 50% overall increase without something else being really out of whack. No, it pretty quickly condenses and stays at a general equilibrium in time and cycle with everything else. CO2 on the other hand can be in the atmosphere for thousands of years before it gets absorbed by a tree or the oceans or something else, and the Earth has a finite capacity of CO2 sinks. All that previously sequestered CO2 has to wait in que to enter the sink. This becomes the positive feedback we are currently setting into motion. Eventually the point comes when it becomes runaway. So we should just ignore that? This much CO2 would never be in the air right now if it wasn't for us. The only practical options we have right now is to try and reduce the rate we put out. Personally, I don't see this being solved until something radical like fusion power comes along. I don't think we could ever hope to produce the amount of glass and aluminum required to replace the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels with things like solar panels and wind turbines. We are way too power hungry as a species. But it's a start, and every bit does count in the end.

I said it previously.. CO2 may be a small factor, but that doesn't make it insignificant.
Click to expand...
If the "insulation" is 100 feet in the air, then thats where the heat is trapped. Water vapor is continually being replaced. You're grasping at straws.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
The bit about man made co2 being lighter was simple, but I doubt he would make that claim if untrue. There is certainly more to it.

I don't have anything to gain or lose by climate change. I've been paying more attention to it lately. I think it is overblown with respect to the consequences, in an effort to keep funding (employment) for themselves.

Behind closed doors I'll bet these guys laugh at the crazy shit they can envelope into the climate change fallout to get more funding.

That being said, there will probably be some negative impact. And some positive also.
Click to expand...
Why would you doubt a religious zealot "would make that claim if untrue."
 
DonAlejandroVega

DonAlejandroVega

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
since words dont seem to work i thought pictures might get through that wooden block you call your head

there is 100x more water vapour in the air than Co2.
both are greenhouse gasses
therefore even if they were both equally good at trapping heat, water is 100x more of a factor than Co2

the conditions of the statement are well satisfied


but in fact, water kicks Co2's ass on a mole for mole basis

the resulting comparison of Co2 vs water vapour makes Co2's warming effect vanishingly small
Click to expand...
all about the specific gravity. there is a plan, not new, to have 3k ships spray sea water into the atmosphere, to blanket us from increased insolation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/albedo-yachts-and-marine-clouds/
 
DonAlejandroVega

DonAlejandroVega

Well-Known Member
personal wealth: not sustainable.
the nuclear family: not sustainable
education: not sustainable
its already here. in your county. watch the video..........
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
That is very funny, Sigmund.

The overall level of panic in cattle. :)

What about the overall level of panic for the Saganists?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top