"Water Vapor Rules"

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:10 pm

Very Very Interesting

If this is accurate, why the f*#@ is there any debate whatsoever about human contributed global warming? This is so stupid, I wanna gouge my own eyes out with an ice cream scooper. Shocked

King (500 kt) Joined: Sep 28, 2007 Posts: 89

Blake, beware of this site, because I find this untrustable, if not uncomprehensive or inaccurate.

Quote:

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.

Just how "small"?

Quote:

DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

It is simply because its effect as greenhouse gas is not yet known. As we know, these water vapor as clouds can reflect incoming solar radiation. AND trap outcoming heat. Whichever is more powerful is not yet known.

Quote:

Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Oh really?? How can you explain the fact that methane has increased largely during Industrial Revolution?(SciAm, Feb. 2007)

Quote:

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

How can you prove that you must drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30% less just because of Kyoto Protocol?? Huh?? You'll be forced to do that because of the increase in the price of fossil fuels, not by Kyoto Protocol!!!

I repeat Blake, DO NOT TRUST THIS ARTICLE!!!

Cherokee (3.8 mt) Joined: Mar 17, 2008 Posts: 402

Here's some info on the articles two main scientific sources and global warming in general:

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1001/1001_feature.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Quote:

Unfortunately, we cannot even say whether natural changes are at this point retarding or reinforcing human-induced greenhouse warming. The situation will be much clearer two decades from now, however, as computer simulations predict an additional 1.5° F warming by the year 2020. If such an increase in global temperatures occurs, there will not be any doubt: natural causes alone would not have been sufficient to account for it. - Broecker, naturalhistorymag.com

Cherokee (3.8 mt) Joined: Mar 17, 2008 Posts: 402

In a nutshell: Wallace Broecker doesn't exclude the possibility of man-made climate change, as the article implies (first link).
And Fred Singer, the articles second main source, is indeed a fierce opponent of man-made gw. According to Newsweek however, he has shady connections to the oil-industry what would make him a somewhat unreliable source (second link).
Also, the effects of vapour on the climate seem to have been taken into account in the gw-models as far as possible (third link). All in all, the article seems a bit questionable

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:49 pm

I found a full article by the same author as your methane article from SciAm source. I looked for the issue you quoted, but could only find the first paragraph of it. Could you post the entire article, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

After reading the link I posted above, it seems to me they don't really know anything for sure. This is the problem I have with all the shove it down your throat greenies

More, from the same guy
Methane is the greenhouse gas which has - apart from the major natural greenhouse gas water - the second greatest effect on climate, after carbon dioxide. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years. Methane is best known as natural gas, currently an important energy source. Nonetheless, only part of the methane uptake in the atmosphere is due to industrial activities connected to energy production and use. More important for the increase of methane in the atmosphere is the increase in so-called "biogenic" sources, e.g., rice cultivation or domestic ruminants related to the rise in the world's population. Nowadays, methane in the atmosphere in fact is largely of biogenic origin.

I just don't agree we should start taxing the crap of out of everyone while the effects of our "intervention" are at the very best, unknown.

I saw a headline this morning, 50% more food needed by 2030. And we're screwing around paying farmers to grow food for fuel. All because of this manufactured idiot hysteria over stuff we don't even understand.

You seem to be pretty adamantly opposed to the original study I posted, but I didn't see any evidence to the contrary other than your opinionated words. And I'm not saying your wrong, I just don't see the evidence to back up what your saying.

I see other people are posting here now, so for clarification this is directed towards raigainusa.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:26 pm

Quote:

Blake, beware of this site, because I find this untrustable, if not uncomprehensive or inaccurate.

Yet the information is backed up by professional science document/paper citations published by climate experts, listed below the article.

I know it's hard for Europeans to not question the Euro-automaton support for human global warming, since it is driven into them every day, also drivenm by socialist politics and expensive fuels ruling Europolitics.

By the way, adding to water (H2O) beyond it's huge concentration to the point of supersaturation called rain at times, it has twice the heat capacity as CO2 at nearly all temperatures.

Cherokee (3.8 mt) Joined: Mar 17, 2008 Posts: 402

Quote:

Yet the information is backed up by professional science document/paper citations published by climate experts, listed below the article.

I know it's hard for Europeans to not question the Euro-automaton support for human global warming, since it is driven into them every day, also drivenm by socialist politics and expensive fuels ruling Europolitics.

Oh, cmon! We Euros aren't that stupid! Rolling Eyes

As I said: That Singer-Guy for example doesn't seem like a more reliable source than our "Euro-Socialists".
Oh, and while we're at automaton-behaviour: Who followed a certain president blindly into a certain war? Wink

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:57 pm

bueschu wrote:

Quote:

Yet the information is backed up by professional science document/paper citations published by climate experts, listed below the article.

I know it's hard for Europeans to not question the Euro-automaton support for human global warming, since it is driven into them every day, also drivenm by socialist politics and expensive fuels ruling Europolitics.

Oh, cmon! We Euros aren't that stupid! Rolling Eyes

As I said: That Singer-Guy for example doesn't seem like a more reliable source than our "Euro-Socialists".
Oh, and while we're at automaton-behaviour: Who followed a certain president blindly into a certain war? Wink

The Iraq War followed alot of drama of Hussein admittedly trying to make USA and ESPECIALLY Iran believe he had the WMDs, and he did admit he was planning to resurrect his programs. His underlings got rid of them in the runup to inspections.

About human global warming, every European weather/climate expert -- all PhDs, better known in this case as Piled High 'n' Deep with political manure -- I know here in this huge university here says it's a no-brainer and proven that human global warming will have a devastating effect. I also know many people of other nations on the Eurocontinent who say the same thing in Europe, and NOBODY can tell them otherwise.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:15 pm

bueschu wrote:

Who followed a certain president blindly into a certain war?

Not that this has anything at all to do with this thread, but....

Only the US, UK, Georgia, S. Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Denmark, Armenia, Macedonia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, Lithuania, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, & Iceland. I guess they were all "duped" by our functionally retarded commander in chief, as some would say. How could a man so stupid fool so many people?

Cherokee (3.8 mt) Joined: Mar 17, 2008 Posts: 402

Quote:

The Iraq War followed alot of drama of Hussein admittedly trying to make USA and ESPECIALLY Iran believe he had the WMDs, and he did admit he was planning to resurrect his programs. His underlings got rid of them in the runup to inspections.
About human global warming, every European weather/climate expert -- all PhDs, better known in this case as Piled High 'n' Deep with political manure -- I know here in this huge university here says it's a no-brainer and proven that human global warming will have a devastating effect. I also know many people of other nations on the Eurocontinent who say the same thing in Europe, and NOBODY can tell them otherwise.

That was your govs version. There were no proofs found for it; means: no wmds. Of course it's possible Saddam got rid of them, but until the weapons are found, this remains a speculation.
Yet you still believe that version seemingly without hesitation, while accusing us Euros of following our leaders (and hundreds of scientists) blindly in the gw-issue.

Quote:

Bulgaria

Yep, my Moms homeland. As she said: "During the Cold War we licked the Russians arse, now we lick the Americans'." Confused

But that's a bit off-topic, I guess.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:19 am

I am not calling Europeans stupid. It's a problem of the pervasiveness of this myth and outright lie, especially where it really matters in circles of influence in Europe.

The WMDs were already admitted by Hussein and other colleagues of his, backed by captured documents, showing that the WMD programs were to be recreated after Hussein's expectation among some bribed European potents -- recalling the long list of agencies, businesses, and politicians bribed in the Oil for Food scam -- that the inspections would go away, and did not.

Of course the majority of people initially supporting the Iraq War were deceived by the huge success of Gulf War I in the 1990s. It wasn't blind following.

King (500 kt) Joined: Sep 28, 2007 Posts: 89

Quote:

Yet the information is backed up by professional science document/paper citations published by climate experts, listed below the article.

I see, it's long. Very Happy

Quote:

I saw a headline this morning, 50% more food needed by 2030. And we're screwing around paying farmers to grow food for fuel. All because of this manufactured idiot hysteria over stuff we don't even understand.

I see, I actually believe that this stupid hype must be stopped or else, we will be starved by environmentalists who argue that "biofuels" are good, without thinking the consenquences. Did they forgot about generating fuels from trash?

Quote:

I found a full article by the same author as your methane article from SciAm source. I looked for the issue you quoted, but could only find the first paragraph of it. Could you post the entire article, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

You mean Frank Keppler?

No, I could not type the entire article, but I could qoute the related one:

Quote:

And analyses of the sources of the gas in the environment indicated the dramatic rise in the methane concentrations since the mid-1800's had stemmed from human industrial activities and increased rice cultivation and breeding of ruminants.

If you could see the chart. Shocked

Totally off-topic, but the main article of the issue is about dark matter and DTV. Very Happy

Quote:

Philippines

We really need someone that will free us of American neocolonialism. But I still love Hersheys.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:00 pm

Quote:

We really need someone that will free us of American neocolonialism.

This is not an accurate statement.

And why do the French love Jerry Lewis films and McDonald's so much? Haha. Maybe McD's overtook local interests because many traditional French fry pomme frites (also known as French fries) in duck fat or horse tallow.

King (500 kt) Joined: Sep 28, 2007 Posts: 89

Quote:

And why do the French love Jerry Lewis films and McDonald's so much? Haha. Maybe McD's overtook local interests because many traditional French fry pomme frites (also known as French fries) in duck fat or horse tallow.

Well, I'm not French? Laughing

Quote:

This is not an accurate statement.

Really?

Quote:

I am not calling Europeans stupid. It's a problem of the pervasiveness of this myth and outright lie, especially where it really matters in circles of influence in Europe.

So what did you just said about the French? Aren't French europeans too?

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:31 am

Quote:

Well, I'm not French? Laughing

Quote:
This is not an accurate statement.

Really? Laughing

Don't laugh so fast. I will explain after the next quotation.

Quote:

Quote:
I am not calling Europeans stupid. It's a problem of the pervasiveness of this myth and outright lie, especially where it really matters in circles of influence in Europe.

So what did you just said about the French? Aren't French europeans too?

I said that as a case example of weather/climate officials I know who have been working among top climate experts, even those of the IPCC. One even has been to the South Pole to collect ice cores, in his so-called "proof" of human global warming.

A country of 60 million people like France certainly has a huge say in terms of Europeans. I can also cite central, eastern, and northern European "experts" as well.

When I have cornered them on issues they always reach for who is funding whom, even when they don't know anything about other climate experts I can cite, because they simply don't care if they are not Europeans who are in on their political games.