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

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

"The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie."

Wow, you're the liar here. You bought the media lie without even looking at the data.
www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"

Again, your assumption is that volume is the sole determinant of effects. That's why you keep repeating the line "it's only 1%"

How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!

 

[juleswin]

"The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie."

Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"

How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be significantly more effective than the other 99%?

They believe in amplification from CO2 will increase the greenhouse effects of the 97% of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why they believe is a mystery because the climate model predictions that had this CO2 amplification all came back with very exaggerated temperature results.

 

[Kelly.]

well, i tried...

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

They believe in amplification from CO2 will increase the greenhouse effects of the 97% of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why they believe is a mystery because the climate model predictions that had this CO2 amplification all came back with very exaggerated temperature results.

Then I can believe in pink unicorns and magical flying fairy dust. What is the scientific basis for such "amplification?"

 

[Kelly.]

let me try another angle.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty
do you think the climate is stabilizing, or becoming more erratic?

edit:
not looking for links to googled articles.
looking for a reply in your own words.

 

[PRB]

How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!

The same way, according to conspiracy theorists like you, believe that less than 1/10,000 can achieve and earn more than the remaining 99.99%. Some people simply have more power and influence, numbers alone isn't always the answer to everything.

For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.

 

[PRB]

Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"

There's a reason you only post ONE YEAR'S INCREASE, because it doesn't undo the previous years of decrease! Try again.

So the allegedly "15 years" has not been steadily increasing of ice in article circle, if it was, you'd show it (but you can't, the data isn't on your side)

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

"How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!"

For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.

How is the fact that water vapor condenses into liquid makes it less effective as greenhouse gas? When we speak of 97%, we speak of water VAPOR, not liquid. If anything, opaque clouds are more effective at trapping infrared radiation than TRANSPARENT CO2 gas!

You have proven nothing. Water vapor should be more effective at trapping heat than CO2! Try again.

 

[PRB]

First of all it is a lie, and human produced CO2 is NOT a significant factor AT ALL. And secondly, No, taxation is not a just way to deal with it at all. Private Property rights is the right way to deal with any environment issue. NO ONE, has the right to pollute or damage the property of his neighbor. NO ONE. Granting "permissions" to pollute other people's property (via carbon credit scam) is not a just way to deal with pollution of any kind. No one can grant a "permission" to anybody to pollute that which does not belong to them. PERIOD. So, the whole carbon credit scheme is a violation of JUSTICE and a fraud from beginning to end. The premise is fraud, and the implementation is fraud (even if the premise was not, which it is a fraud). So the whole thing is a FRAUD. A fraud based on a LIE. And you support it.

That is a lie. The evidence clearly and irrefutably shows that human produced CO2 never was significant factor in determining global temperatures. The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie.

According to your conspiracy theory, the less than 0.0001 (or .01%) bad guys, elitists, are able to be a major factor in contravention of the remaining 99.99% or more. They, in attempt to further their agenda to force a new tax on innocent freedom loving people, have to lie not ONCE BUT TWICE.

They first lie about humans causing global warming, then they lie about having the best way to solve it. Why bother all the trouble? Why can't they base the latter lie on something that's irrefutable? Or why can't they use the first lie to profit without a new tax?

If they really had the goal to regulate, control and tax, why won't they be a bit more efficient, why lie twice and risk getting caught by a genius who thinks that the warming has stopped for 15 years, one year of ice increase in arctic circle disproves global warming, and 1% can never outdo the 99% because volume is always the only factor?

Keep trying.

 

[PRB]

"How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!"
How is the fact that water vapor condenses into liquid makes it less defective as greenhouse gas?

Oh, easy, because phase changes exchange heat. When water condenses, it releases heat, when water evaporates, it absorbs heat. When it rains, the ground usually cools as a result...all of these phase changes exchange heat much faster than a CO2 cycle.

When we speak of 97%, we speak of water VAPOR, not liquid. If anything, opaque clouds are more efective at trapping infrared radiation than transparent CO2 gas!

Yes, we are talking about water vapor. Opaque clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is as transparent as CO2 gas. (you don't know your basics of this high school chemistry and you're qualified to call scientists liars?)

This is different than saying "Ok, you know your basic physics and chemistry, but that's not the full story". You don't even know the bottom line, which is just sad.

You have proven nothing. Water vapor should be more defective at taping heat than CO2! Try again.

Should? That's not what experiments show and predictions have supported. If you have even one study that can back this up, let us know. You base your "should" entirely on your naive, half ass understanding of gases, which is why you go from volume to color, with no idea what you're talking about.

 

[pcosmar]

let me try another angle.


do you think the climate is stabilizing, or becoming more erratic?

.

As compared to?

The climate is cyclical. meaning that it cycles through warmer and cooler stages. It has done so for thousands of years.

 

[Kelly.]

It has done so for thousands of years.

how can you claim that?

 

[pcosmar]

how can you claim that?

Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.

The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.

I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain.
Though extrapolating possible future events,, the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

There's a reason you only post ONE YEAR'S INCREASE, because it doesn't undo the previous years of decrease! Try again.

So the allegedly "15 years" has not been steadily increasing of ice in article circle, if it was, you'd show it (but you can't, the data isn't on your side)

The point is that we have wild increase in the amount of ice in the space of one year, while CO2 steadily increased according to you. So we have a DROP in temprature that prduced extra 920,000 square miles of ice, combined with INCREASE in CO2. How does it then follow that human produced CO2 is a major factor in global WARMING, when exactly the OPPOSITE occurred? Do enlighten. Or simply admit the FACT that 1% or less of greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 are not at all the driving factor in global warming because we have quite stark COOLING manifested in 920,000 square miles of ice.

So 99% seem to be more important than less than 1%, after all, and the whole theory of HUMAN CO2 DRIVEN global warming is a FRAUD.

 

[PRB]

how can you claim that?

because computer models and reconstructions are golden air tight evidence when it favors HIS argument.

 

[Dr.3D]

Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.

The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.

I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain.
Though extrapolating possible future events,, the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.

I've been freezing my ass off this winter. Mr. Gore had me hoping I was going to be able to make a lawn chair out of my snow shovels. Oh well, perhaps in another solar cycle I might.

 

[PRB]

The point is that we have wild increase in the amount of ice in the space of one year, while CO2 steadily increased according to you.

Find me ONE person who has ever claimed ice will never increase.

So we have a DROP in temprature that prduced extra 920,000 square miles of ice, combined with INCREASE in CO2. How does it then follow that human produced CO2 is a major factor in global WARMING, when exactly the OPPOSITE occurred?

1. Because it's local, and short term
2. Warming isn't the full story, instability is

Do enlighten. Or simply admit the FACT that 1% or less of greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 are not at all the driving factor in global warming because we have quite stark COOLING manifested in 920,000 square miles of ice.

There's a great gray area between "not at all the driving factor" and "the end all answer". I will say neither are true.

So 99% seem to be more important than less than 1%,

No, it isn't. Not unless there's evidence to support it. You're still just looking at numbers without ANY understanding of gas laws.

after all, and the whole theory of HUMAN CO2 DRIVEN global warming is a FRAUD.

Oh, I get it, I call it a fraud and repeat it a million times, maybe once, somebody will forget to correct me, and I win. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

One question nobody has answered so far : if scientists are so bad at predicting climate, who IS good at it? Anybody? Or is it always a coin toss?

 

[Kelly.]

Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.

so you are relying on others data?

what are you seeing with your own eyes?


doesnt anyone have a fucking opinion other than googles on this

 

[PRB]

Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.

The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.

People have died at 30 years old too. People have died from food poisoning too. If it happened in the past ,we must ignore it and let it happen again.

I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain.

I do too.

Though extrapolating possible future events,, the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.

except it's already been different for 30 years.
www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

[juleswin]

The same way, according to conspiracy theorists like you, believe that less than 1/10,000 can achieve and earn more than the remaining 99.99%. Some people simply have more power and influence, numbers alone isn't always the answer to everything.

The same conspiracy theorist will be thorn between believing that small % of greenhouse gas that is CO2 amplifying the effects of the rest of the greenhouse gas and a small group of govt scientists modifying the whether. Just sayings, there more to small groups of things affecting the whole here than just CO2

For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.

The thing is that this CO2 effect theory has to start producing better predictions for anyone to believe it. You have to understand that you are talking to people here that are very distrustful of governments and government scientist. For any of your academic theories to be accepted, it has to be able to prove reliable in real world situations(especially when it comes to climate models). Because when they are widely off the mark in their 10 yr predictions then why should anyone believe their 100 yr predictions which is even that much harder to predict that a 10 yr one.

I think of the quote by Upton Sinclair when I think of government scientists.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it

.