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

Man, both sides on the global warming issue give me massive headaches. Both seem to be extreme and unwilling to change their viewpoints when facts are presented. All people do is choose from column A and ignore column B, while the other side does the reverse. Yes, there's a lot of alarmism and environmental doom porn, but I think there's also reason to believe that man has negatively influenced/shaped our environmental issues. How much and whether or not it's sustainable is the real question, and I don't think it's possible to know. Now, does this mean we should take drastic preventative measures? Certainly, having the government interfere in these issues isn't the right way to go. We need less government, not more.

Should we be collecting/raising money to stop deforestation, for example, so that private ownership is used as a means to end it? What about gas emissions? Is it worthwhile to reduce it now, or has the damage already been done, if any?

The Earth is going to continue going through cycles regardless what we humans do, but the big question will always be: How big of a role do we play, and how much can we change for the better?
Good points! However notice, that column A and B are not equivalent. Supporters of "Man made global warming hoax" are predominantly and overwhelmingly the supporters of world government with world wide taxation and tyranny.

That, in itself should give you a pause about the column they subscribe to. The people who are against the "man-made global worming" hoax, predominantly are for liberty.

This is a KEY difference.

MASSIVE difference.
 
So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?
No, you got it wrong. The proper comparison is this: You have TWO tumors: one is 200 lbs, the other is much less than 20 lbs.

Which one is likely to have the greater effect upon you?

(Of course to have a 200 lbs tumor you probably must weigh over 300 lbs, but for the sake of example, lets use the number).
 
Last edited:
I suppose if we're going to have a global warming thread we should study a little history on the topic. Check out the 1 minute video that can bring you up to date.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

Actually it could this manipulation is meant to stem some of the problems we are going to face down the road if everyone starts going all ape-y with energy consumption the way we do here. If so, perhaps an upfront approach explaining the goals should be presented instead of them once firing up the fake money presses to dictate their will.

Besides, in today's situation all honest business has been brought to its knees through the stealth back door socialism we are all headed to be homeless, country-less nomads wandering the countryside always prodded into being on the move.
 
Last edited:
No, you got it wrong. The proper comparison is this: You have TWO tumors: one is 200 lbs, the other is much less than 20 lbs.

Which one is likely to have the greater effect upon you?

(Of course to have a 200 lbs tumor you probably must weigh over 300 lbs, but for the sake of example, lets use the number).

lol. Trying to use logic with an Obama supporter?
 
[FONT=times-bold, times]
icon-star.gif
Satellite data from Australia's national science agency shows that rising levels of carbon dioxide is causing increased foliage in desert regions around the world. [Increased CO2 allows plants to grow larger and faster with less water. Of course, the global-warming myth-makers will ignore this and continue to claim that CO2 is the enemy.] Principia-Scientific Posted 2013 Jul 13 (Cached)
[/FONT]


From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html
 
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

[Lying, Rothchild's paid for, prostitute "scientists" at UN's IPCC are caught red-handed! ]
  • Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
  • BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
  • Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html


Human CO2 caused global warming is a FRAUD. Fraud with the agenda of global taxation and global tyranny.
 
Last edited:

Link

Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.

To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

-Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
-Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean


Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.

Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:

F5.large.jpg


Shepherd et al. 2012

Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):

nature11621-f1.2.jpg


King and others, 2012
Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear if the increase in mass in Antarctica is a short-term phenomena due to a particularly snowy period (Boening and others, 2012) or if it is a long-term trend. Increased snowfall in East Antarctica has long been predicted in a warming climate, so this is an important region to continue monitoring.

The land ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not due to surface melting, as the summer temperatures in Antarctica are generally always below freezing, and measured changes in precipitation cannot explain it either. Instead, the melting is occuring due to warm ocean water melting the land ice around its edges, resulting in a spreading of this ice loss inland:

nature10968-f3.2.jpg


Pritchard and others, 2012

Figure 3: Rates of lowering of land ice and its floating extensions in West Antarctica, 2003–2008 (Pritchard and others, 2012). Floating extensions of the land ice (ice shelves) that are labelled are Venable (V), Abbott (A), Cosgrove (C), Pine Island (PI), Thwaites (TH), Crosson (CR), Dotson (D), Getz (G), De Vicq (DV), Land (L), Nickerson (N) and Sulzberger (SZ). Arrows highlight areas of slow-flowing, grounded ice. Bathymetry landward of the continental-shelf break is in greyscale. The divide between floating and grounded ice is shown in white. The inset shows the location of the figure (green box) overlaid on the outline of Antarctica.

The influx in warm water onto the continental shelf in this region is not entirely understood but is probably at least partly linked to increased westerly winds that have occured as a result of reduced stratospheric ozone levels since the mid-20th Century (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.


Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

Antarctica_Sea_Ice.gif


Figure 3: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). An increase in melting of Antarctic land ice will also contribute to the increased sea ice production (Bintanga et al. 2013).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.
 
Last edited:
water vapor and methane is far more effective as green house gas. methane release in artic thundras will be bad ;p.
 
In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.
To which I will say, Is warming usually accompanied with INCREASE of ice?

article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg


Have you lost the last of your logic under a mountain of lies?

To paraphrase you: "Math is a complicated science, so 2 + 2 is not 4."
Are you out of your mind?
 
Last edited:
Water is the most potent green house gas, followed by methane, and then CO2. There are various other gases, but these three are the most prevalent.

If global warming is real, then it is a runaway reaction with water vapor. More water vapor in the air, the hotter it gets, the more ice melts and water evaporate, thus creating more water vapor to making it hotter. So if it is real, we can't stop it. What will they do? Ban water?
 
And after studying it for a topic in Biology, it turns out rain forests have adapted and can soak up more CO2 than ever before. One theory is that the trees only used to consume a little CO2 because that was all that was available, but since it has become much more plentiful, the trees and plants can feel free to consume as much as they want for photosynthesis and other operations. It's pretty cool.

It's pretty simple really. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2. Giving them more CO2 makes them stronger, like giving us more oxygen.
 
So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?

exactly, they're measuring % of gases by volume, as if all else are equal.
 
It's pretty simple really. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2. Giving them more CO2 makes them stronger, like giving us more oxygen.

only if there's enough plants to process it. I'm sure you've heard of people dying from drinking too much water or sufficated from too much oxygen.
 
Back
Top