Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[juleswin]

no, they do, and that's part of the point, feedback doesn't always catch up with the rate of warming.

How do we know feedback is not catching up to warming, all the record snow, floods in bone try Australia, etc etc etc may just be feedback catching up to warming.

 

[juleswin]

The CO2 constitutes less than 1% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Water vapor constitutes over 97% of green house gasses. Should we forbid water?

Don't forget, the small part of that 1% that is due to humans in about 4% and then you have to consider that the best outcome for CO2 reduction is about 18% and then you realize how little humans CO2 emission affect anything.

 

[pcosmar]

When exactly are you talking about?



You can't first say water is also a greenhouse gas, and then say CO2 isn't in the same breath. Which one is it?

PRB is just trolling again.

No one could possibly be that stupid and still turn on a computer.

 

[PRB]

PRB is just trolling again.

No one could possibly be that stupid and still turn on a computer.

I can be stupid, now answer my stupid question.

 

[PRB]

How do we know feedback is not catching up to warming, all the record snow, floods in bone try Australia, etc etc etc may just be feedback catching up to warming.

your assumption is that only warming is a problem, that cooling and feedback and everything in between can't also be. Putting aside any liberal solutions and taxes they wish to force on us, do you have no expectation of what the near future climate will be? Do you have any preparation for the best and worst?

Forget about whether global warming is happening, do you trust anybody in weather or climate prediction? or is everybody a liar? and they're all as good as guessers?

If Sandy and Katrina could have been predicted even one month in advance, would you ignore it because "it's just alarmists trying to tax us" or would you try to protect yourself regardless of any policies that may be suggested? This is really my question, is your interest in climate and weather based solely on whether regulations and taxes would increase?

 

[pcosmar]

I can be stupid, now answer my stupid question.

You can't first say water is also a greenhouse gas, and then say CO2 isn't in the same breath. Which one is it?

It is both and a few other gasses.. CO2 is such a small percentage of the whole as to be very nearly irrelevant.

The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

And out of that irrelevance,, Mans CO2 contribution is a small % of the existing CO2 content,,, the whole of which has little or no impact on the planets temperature.

Water Vapor,, (Humidity, Clouds) it the main contributing factor of any "greenhouse" effect,, and as shown earlier in the thread,, is cyclical.

Anyone pushing the CO2 factor is an idiot.

 

[pcosmar]

Forget about whether global warming is happening, do you trust anybody in weather or climate prediction? or is everybody a liar? and they're all as good as guessers?
[/B]

To an extent,, some short term weather patterns can be predicted. Certainly not with any long term accuracy.

And NOAA is wrong a very large % of the time. They have an accuracy about equal to a carnival fortune teller.

 

[PRB]

To an extent,, some short term weather patterns can be predicted. Certainly not with any long term accuracy.

And NOAA is wrong a very large % of the time. They have an accuracy about equal to a carnival fortune teller.

is there somebody better at predicting?

 

[Madison320]

How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?

 

[Mini-Me]

Josh_LA, this one is for you.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

 

[PRB]

How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?

the Earth is 4 billions years old, our modern lifestyle is not.

People lived through Sandy, Katrina, recent droughts and floods, and then some, and they can live through many more, people lived without electricity until 1800s. The question here isn't whether we will survive or whether the earth will destroyed. you don't need extinction to suffer inconvenience.

Based on the logic of "the world is more than thousands of years old, things were just fine", why do you complain about taxes and government when people in the past had it much worse, obviously they survived too! I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.

 

[Madison320]

the Earth is 4 billions years old, our modern lifestyle is not.

People lived through Sandy, Katrina, recent droughts and floods, and then some, and they can live through many more, people lived without electricity until 1800s. The question here isn't whether we will survive or whether the earth will destroyed. you don't need extinction to suffer inconvenience.

Based on the logic of "the world is more than thousands of years old, things were just fine", why do you complain about taxes and government when people in the past had it much worse, obviously they survived too! I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.

That's not what I'm getting at. My point is strictly one of logic and statistics. How do you determine a trend exists with such a microscopic sampling? It would be like landing on another planet and taking a 1 inch photograph of the ground and determining the composition of the entire planet.

I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.

As long as its voluntary, that's fine with me. What did you have in mind?

 

[PRB]

That's not what I'm getting at. My point is strictly one of logic and statistics. How do you determine a trend exists with such a microscopic sampling? It would be like landing on another planet and taking a 1 inch photograph of the ground and determining the composition of the entire planet.

are 4 seasons and day and night "microscopic sampling"?

you don't need to know or try to determine the composition of the whole planet to know what may affect you.

Can you predict the next Earthquake? If not, why do you prepare for it? Or do you live your whole life on the assumption it'll never happen? If you live your life based on the assumption it MIGHT happen, what reasoning are you employing?

As long as its voluntary, that's fine with me. What did you have in mind?

voluntarily preparing for disasters, floods, droughts, earthquakes, storms...etc. we may not fix it, but I won't ignore warning signs just because I don't want to pay carbon taxes. my goal is to preserve my fragile modern lifestyle with electricity, cellular communications, stable climate, cheap gasoline. (notice I didn't say environment or animals) if my goal were just to survive, I can ignore all of the weather or climate news, since I'll survive no matter what, no matter how much I suffer, is that your goal? If it were, I also wouldn't complain about government in my backyard, because even taxed to death, I'm better off than people were in stone ages, bronze age, pre-revolution ages, after all, why look only at the past 200 years of political history?

how much you care about climate and politics depends a lot on how much you value your freedom and modern luxuries.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Don't forget, the small part of that 1% that is due to humans in about 4% and then you have to consider that the best outcome for CO2 reduction is about 18% and then you realize how little humans CO2 emission affect anything.

Good point.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

It is both and a few other gasses.. CO2 is such a small percentage of the whole as to be very nearly irrelevant.


And out of that irrelevance,, Mans CO2 contribution is a small % of the existing CO2 content,,, the whole of which has little or no impact on the planets temperature.

Water Vapor,, (Humidity, Clouds) it the main contributing factor of any "greenhouse" effect,, and as shown earlier in the thread,, is cyclical.

Anyone pushing the CO2 factor is an idiot.

Brilliant. Thanks.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?

Good point. It is a scam. Plain and simple. A scam for idiots.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

voluntarily preparing for disasters, floods, droughts, earthquakes, storms...etc. we may not fix it, but I won't ignore warning signs just because I don't want to pay carbon taxes. my goal is to preserve my fragile modern lifestyle with electricity, cellular communications, stable climate, cheap gasoline. (notice I didn't say environment or animals) if my goal were just to survive, I can ignore all of the weather or climate news, since I'll survive no matter what, no matter how much I suffer, is that your goal? If it were, I also wouldn't complain about government in my backyard, because even taxed to death, I'm better off than people were in stone ages, bronze age, pre-revolution ages, after all, why look only at the past 200 years of political history?

how much you care about climate and politics depends a lot on how much you value your freedom and modern luxuries.

The point is that non-logic like yours, wrongly implicating human produced CO2 as the major and key driving factor in climate changed is the SCAM, the lying excuse to impose just such taxes on the whole world, whether you are personally for or against it. It is the scam that we are talking about, and you seem to support the false premise that is used to justify the scam. That's the issue here.

 

[DamianTV]

Great Lakes 90% covered by Ice
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz2v0bMZe1z

Should all the Global Warming peps just "chill out"?

 

[PRB]

The point is that non-logic like yours, wrongly implicating human produced CO2 as the major and key driving factor in climate changed is the SCAM, the lying excuse to impose just such taxes on the whole world, whether you are personally for or against it. It is the scam that we are talking about, and you seem to support the false premise that is used to justify the scam. That's the issue here.

I don't support carbon taxing if that's what you're accusing.

 

[Zack]

From everything that I've seen and read, I can say this: If you took any sharp person, isolated them from any and all politics, philosphy, and society, while raising them in a bubble to learn everything ever discovered about climate science, they -evil corporatist globalists that they are?!- would invent the "scam" of anthropogenic climate change themselves. The data just points in that direction. Search out conservative and libertarian climate scientists. Find retirees or independently wealthy people that have no financial interest in following established scientific consensus. Heck, poll only climate scientists that are explicitly against all policies that hint at regulating carbon output. They will still tell you that the evidence points that way.

To know why, you can simply google each point made in this thread, like "co2 vs water vapor global warming" and you will find articles explaining the science. You may run into some scientists and science journalists that are pretty hacky and/or intellectually incurious/dishonest when it comes to the civics, but you will likely not find much obfuscation in the science.