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

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

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.

No, it does not. The data points the OPPOSITE way, THAT is the point.

Even though a first uneducated glance may suggest this hypothesis, an actual look at the data clearly shows that anthropogenic activity is causing global warming no more than wet sidewalks cause rain!

Science is NOT a matter of opinion, which you seem to suggest. THAT is the point!

 

[PRB]

Search out conservative and libertarian climate scientists. Find retirees or independently wealthy people that have no financial interest in following established scientific consensus.

No financial interest in establishing consensus does not mean no financial interest in his/her own agenda or incentive to lie. Conservatives and libertarians have more than enough incentive to be biased, their agenda is cheap fuel, no regulations, no carbon taxes, and more use of coal, oil.

an easy way to illustrate this would be, libertarians need not be in the industry that financially benefits from gay marriages, abortions or birth control pills, they only need to want such choices to be available because they want less government. this is enough reason to be biased for a goal.

 

[Zack]

No, it does not. The data points the OPPOSITE way, THAT is the point.

Even though a first uneducated glance may suggest this hypothesis, an actual look at the data clearly shows that anthropogenic activity is causing global warming no more than wet sidewalks cause rain!

Science is NOT a matter of opinion, which you seem to suggest. THAT is the point!

I certainly agree that science is not a matter of majority opinion. I've seen a crapload of articles and videos like the ones in this thread. I wish I could say I've seen something convincing. The video you link to is actually unusually good by climate change skeptic standards. So much so that it, perhaps accidently, isn't very skeptical. The video itself says that 9-27% of the total greenhouse gas effect is due to CO2. Now combine that with the the sudden increase in CO2 to 400ppm, and the rest is just arithmetic. Then the argument gets boiled down to "Maybe most of that increase isn't man-made", but that's an even harder argument to make realistic, and isn't usually what climate change skeptics try to go with.

 

[Zack]

No financial interest in establishing consensus does not mean no financial interest in his/her own agenda or incentive to lie. Conservatives and libertarians have more than enough incentive to be biased, their agenda is cheap fuel, no regulations, no carbon taxes, and more use of coal, oil.

an easy way to illustrate this would be, libertarians need not be in the industry that financially benefits from gay marriages, abortions or birth control pills, they only need to want such choices to be available because they want less government. this is enough reason to be biased for a goal.

I think you might be combining two of my sentences into one? I certainly agree that people of various backgrounds have various motivations and biases.

My point was only that even among climate scientists with no bias, or even a contrary bias, you would still see that they generally find themselves in agreement with the current scientific consensus, due to the preponderance of evidence.

 

[PRB]

I think you might be combining two of my sentences into one? I certainly agree that people of various backgrounds have various motivations and biases.

My point was only that even among climate scientists with no bias, or even a contrary bias, you would still see that they generally find themselves in agreement with the current scientific consensus, due to the preponderance of evidence.

Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.

 

[PRB]

I certainly agree that science is not a matter of majority opinion. I've seen a crapload of articles and videos like the ones in this thread. I wish I could say I've seen something convincing. The video you link to is actually unusually good by climate change skeptic standards. So much so that it, perhaps accidently, isn't very skeptical. The video itself says that 9-27% of the total greenhouse gas effect is due to CO2. Now combine that with the the sudden increase in CO2 to 400ppm, and the rest is just arithmetic. Then the argument gets boiled down to "Maybe most of that increase isn't man-made", but that's an even harder argument to make realistic, and isn't usually what climate change skeptics try to go with.

now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)

as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!"

personally, I cut through the crap by just asking "Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"

 

[limequat]

Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.

*Raises hand*

Not sure what you interpret the correct answer to be, but I care either way.
My son was practicing his reading via a school-recommended online program. The "book" was all about reducing energy usage. Personally, I get pretty tired of people preaching to me or my kids about how we should be living. It's just like the goddamned johavah's witnesses. You wanna be retarded? Fine. Go be retarded on your own time and leave me the fuck alone.

 

[limequat]

now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)

as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!"

personally, I cut through the crap by just asking "Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"

No because historically CO2 lags warming.

No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.

No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.

Global warming is not the question, neither is global cooling. Both happen on regular basis. The question is does human produced CO2 cause it. And the answer to that is resounding NO.

 

[Dr.3D]

Global warming is not the question, neither is global cooling. Both happen on regular basis. The question is does human produced CO2 cause it. And the answer to that is resounding NO.

Yeah, well no more than taking a piss in an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)

as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!"

personally, I cut through the crap by just asking "Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"

Definitely not. The available evidence resoundingly disproves that hypothesis. Human produced CO2 causes just as much global warming as wet sidewalks cause rain.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

No because historically CO2 lags warming.

No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.

No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

Brilliant! Thanks.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Yeah, well no more than taking a piss in an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

Good one.

 

[PRB]

*Raises hand*

Not sure what you interpret the correct answer to be, but I care either way.
My son was practicing his reading via a school-recommended online program. The "book" was all about reducing energy usage. Personally, I get pretty tired of people preaching to me or my kids about how we should be living. It's just like the goddamned johavah's witnesses. You wanna be retarded? Fine. Go be retarded on your own time and leave me the fuck alone.

You just basically said you care because you're being told how to live, what if you were not? Would you still care?

But there isn't a correct answer, just an honest answer & consistent one, I ask because I'm interested in what people believe (and why).

Since you asked, I've not heard a person say "I believe scientists are wrong about global warming, and I have purely scientific reasons why, and I will defend the conclusions based on evidence regardless of whether there will be carbon taxes" EVER.

All I've ever heard was "I only care about global warming because I don't want carbon taxes, if it were shown that global cooling is true, and there would still be carbon taxes on that basis, I'd argue global cooling is false too, I'd always argue for every premise to be re-examined as long as it's used to justify taxes, because my agenda is reducing taxes and increasing freedom, regardless of which direction temperature and climate is going" which logically means "If global warming is an argument to reduce carbon taxes and government, I'd argue that it's true regardless of what scientists say"

Are you an exception? I doubt it.

Logically, one cannot believe both
"global warming isn't happening" and "It's happening but it's natural", or
"global warming isn't happening, it's a scam" and "it's happening, but it's a good thing!" or
"global warming isn't happening, so there's no reason for carbon taxes" and "it's happening, but there's better ways to prepare and deal with it" or
"global warming isn't caused by humans" and "it's caused by humans but it can't be undone"
"global warming can't be undone" and "it can be undone, I just don't want to"
lastly, you can't say "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" and also "but water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, are you going to ban water!!!!"

...........all of these are contradictions (A bit like wanting Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination but also wanting him to run as a third party candidate, or wanting people to vote for Ron Paul but then say elections are all rigged)
You can only BS your position so many times before it becomes obvious, if your goal and agenda is prevent taxes, oppose regulations, I am with you, I don't need to argue with scientists to say I don't want to be told how to live. If you think you need to deny climate science to defend your freedom, you've conceded already that IF scientists are right, you're no better at solving the problem than they are, and you'd defend the liberal agenda of regulations and taxes too.

 

[PRB]

No because historically CO2 lags warming.

www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-basic.htm

No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.

With or without higher temperatures too?

No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

Which models are wrong, and are there good and working models (one thing I've realized here, nobody can tell me who is right in climate predictions, they're good at knowing who's wrong though)

 

[PRB]

Definitely not. The available evidence resoundingly disproves that hypothesis. Human produced CO2 causes just as much global warming as wet sidewalks cause rain.

Chemically, human produced CO2 is no different than naturally occurring CO2, the only difference is rate of production. If CO2 causes warming at all, it wouldn't matter where it came from. So, either you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming, increases heat absorption, or you believe humans don't produce enough of it.

 

[Zack]

Potholer54's youtube videos are generally pretty entertaining. He has 30 just on climate change.

No because historically CO2 lags warming.

No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.

With relatively higher temperatures, at least once you account for lower solar output. see below video about climate change evidence without computer models at about 5 1/2 min.

No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

 

[PRB]

Did he just say there's evidence and he can make predictions, conclusions, using No computer models and no IPCC?!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Chemically, human produced CO2 is no different than naturally occurring CO2, the only difference is rate of production. If CO2 causes warming at all, it wouldn't matter where it came from. So, either you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming, increases heat absorption, or you believe humans don't produce enough of it.

Exactly. Humans do not produce enough of it. There are factors orders of magnitude more powerful than human produced CO2. The point being that even if you eliminate ALL human produced CO2 it will make no more difference to global temperatures than pissing in the pool would change the temperature of the pool.

So HUMAN produced CO2 is the issue here, and its potential in driving global temperatures. The science is clear: HUMAN produced CO2 does NOT drive global temperature movements BECAUSE there is not enough of it to make a significant difference, much like tennis ball bouncing in the trunk of a car does not determine the car’s direction or speed. Why? Because the ball is too small, and there are factors MASSIVELY more important to the car’s movement than the movements of the tennis ball in its trunk.

Now this is a key fact. The proponents of global carbon taxation essentially argue that the movments of the tennis ball (HUMAN produced CO2) will significantly determine the direction and speed of the car. That is a lie. THAT IS THE POINT.

 

[PRB]

Exactly. Humans do not produce enough of it.

Then you must know what is enough, since you know it's not enough now. By the way, can I take this as confirmation that you concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes increased warming, increase heat absorption, your only problem is how much there is and how much is human caused?

Back to this thread title, what is the difference between water vapor, CO2 and O2?

This is basic high school physics, but if there's anything I missed, please feel free to add.

How do you get water vapor? Either allow existing water to evaporate, or burn hydrogen (and products that contain hydrogen). The water cycle is fairly fast and simple, since water exists in 3 phases, and vapor can condense into liquid, the atmosphere releases it as rain when it can't hold more.

Now, CO2, how do you get it? You can release it from places it's trapped in, such as ocean water, but there's a much faster way, which is burning carbon. CO2 cycle? Much slower, since CO2 cannot condense as liquid, it can only deposit as solid if it's cold enough (dry ice). This means, unless and until CO2 gets re-absorbed into water, or plants, which is harder when temperatures are higher, CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

Oxygen? You can electrolize water, or you can ask plants to do it. One requires electricity, the other takes time and as plants decrease, the pace decreases too. The point here, is that gases differ greatly in how fast they can be renewed. This is why soundbytes like "CO2 is plant food" and "Water vapor is 97% of all greenhouse gas" is extremely naive. CO2 being plant food is useless unless plants can process it fast enough, and if it did, we'd have an abundance of O2, which might be great. Water vapor, as explained above, is much easier to cycle, nothing like CO2 which humans have increased and it's not dropping anytime soon.

Here's the question : put aside whether humans "produce enough" CO2 to be problematic, is it true or not true that CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing and hasn't decreased in the past 30 years? Better yet, put aside which direction temperatures are going, can you predict the CO2 concentration any better than current scientists do?