Arete Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ Can you explain what the quote has to do with my post? It appears to be irrelevant.
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) My point was precisely the opposite of what you say here. Water is the same. It acts the same, and there's the same amount of it. Global warming is about CHANGES in the amount of greenhouse gases. (That thing I said about how water vapor well not double, which you either did not read or did not comprehend) So, let's say that water vapor stays constant. Then we can ignore it in our analysis, because we are only interested in quantities that change. But if water vapor doesn't change, it's not going to change the temperature. You would LIKE TO "ignore water vapor in our analysis," but that is clearly impossible. It is impossible because water vapor behaves EXACTLY like carbon dioxide in absorbing radiation. To the extent that once 100% of relevant frequencies have been absorbed by extant gases, whatever they may be, adding 1.36 ppmv MORE will have absolutely no effect on that system. Moreover you have clearly neglected a very critical factor in the dynamic equilibrium. Water vapor is exponentially dependent on the temperature, so AS temperatures increase, so too does the vapor pressure. It's not "constant," it INCREASES. Furthermore, as water temperatures increase, degassification of carbon dioxide takes place, reducing the concentration of CO2 in the ocean, which is a far larger repository of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere. The ocean is ~18.2 times more alkaline than pure water, at pH 7.0. So much for the fraudulent claim of "ocean acidification," also designed to create fear and hysteria. I asked a question, because you said 'THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT "HOLD" WATER' which is is a laughable statement, and sounds a lot like you are saying there is no water in the atmosphere. "It sounds a lot like you are saying".... is YOUR biased interpretation. YOU said "atmosphere holds water." I said "NO IT DOES NOT." You play word games, like all of your friends here, and then smear me with your wordplay. Most unscientific. Let me also point out that I am one and you are hundreds. You take on a large, militant, angry group, intent on twisting your words and science as well, while they keep changing the subject, trying to be hateful and antagonistic. Nobody would behave as you people do in a friendly setting. Nobody. But here it is de rigeur. All of you rather enjoy having someone to hate and attack. I merely pointed out the fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, which clearly omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, and you all come apart at the seams, instead of just even ONE PERSON acknowledging, "You know what? That is a valid point. We never saw that graph before." The collective arrogance and intolerance here is something your group should acknowledge and be ashamed of, but never will. It is part and parcel of the Leftist mentality. Is there anyone here who will admit to having voted for Donald Trump? Anyone who believes God created the heaven and the earth, as stated in the first sentence of the first chapter of Genesis, thousands of years before anyone posited the Big Bang, or as it was called by the Jesuit Priest who first described it as "The Priomordial Atom"? "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable," replied Albert Einstein to Father Georges LeMaitre. But Einstein was wrong. LeMaitre was correct. Oh, please do (give me a science lesson). Is there, or is there not, a limit to how much water vapor you will find in the atmosphere? I mean, big picture here. This is the salient point. I have a volume of air, at 20 ºC and 1 atmosphere of pressure. Can I get an arbitrary amount of water vapor in that volume? (Let's say it's 22.4 liters, if you need a number) ANOTHER science lesson for swansont: You LEAP from "the atmosphere" to the "big picture here, the salient point", viz., 20 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere. 1. The "atmosphere" is not fixed at 20 degrees Celsius, nor 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stop trying to prove that there is no bias, and that the Scary Graph is beyond criticising. "Heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895 "If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true really is true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright, who flew only 8 years later And Orville never went beyond high school, so he was, as all of you would pounce on him, an ignoramus far beneath any of you. Credentialism is SO overrated. Edited July 11, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive -2
beecee Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 "It sounds a lot like you are saying".... is YOUR biased interpretation. YOU said "atmosphere holds water." I said "NO IT DOES NOT." You play word games, like all of your friends here, and then smear me with your wordplay. Most unscientific. Let me also point out that I am one and you are hundreds. You take on a large, militant, angry group, intent on twisting your words and science as well, while they keep changing the subject, trying to be hateful and antagonistic. Nobody would behave as you people do in a friendly setting. Nobody. But here it is de rigeur. All of you rather enjoy having someone to hate and attack. And our obsessed hypocritical knight in shining armour bravely rides on, determined to rid the world of Atheism, evil leftists, and all manner of other god/magic spaghetti monster deniers! "Heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895 "If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true really is true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright, who flew only 8 years later And Orville never went beyond high school, so he was, as all of you would pounce on him, an ignoramus far beneath any of you. Credentialism is SO overrated. Science is a discipline in continued progress.....Lord Kelvin an otherwise great scientist, was wrong....as was Fred Hoyle. Your science lesson for the day is that as science [whether you and your ilk, like it or not] continues to push back the need for any magical spaghetti monster, incumbent theories will be modified, added on to, and in some cases, discarded. That's science young fella! That's why science at this time can give a reasonable good description of the evolution of the universe from 10-43 seconds after the initial event.... Einstein also rejected BHs...but of course Einstein did not have the observational data at his finger tips to indicate otherwise...He also rejected universal expansion, despite the fact that the greatest theory of gravity, GR was telling him exactly that.
Arete Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 BTWs - climate models account for water vapor, e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2267.1 As do empirical observations of historical climate fluctuations, e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035333/full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5568/727 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023624/full and yet, we describe the background behind the prevailing view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the climate research community. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441 All available data demonstrate that observed and predicted increases in global average temperature are not caused by natural phenomena, but by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Also, I'm not sure what one's willingness to point out the shortcomings of Carl Sagan has to do with climate change.
CharonY Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Also, I'm not sure what one's willingness to point out the shortcomings of Carl Sagan has to do with climate change. The only thing I can think of is that a) that is the level of exposure to science (i.e. pop sci) and b) there is the underlying assumption that science as a process has ideological leaders whose words are followed. That, of course, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science as well as how scientists behave. 1
beecee Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 The only thing I can think of is that a) that is the level of exposure to science (i.e. pop sci) and b) there is the underlying assumption that science as a process has ideological leaders whose words are followed. That, of course, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science as well as how scientists behave. As a Lay Person, my Interests in science was peaked by "pop science" presenters such as Carl Sagan, but wanting to learn more I began reading all manner of scientific literature including Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" and Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman's "Gravity's Fatal Attraction" among many others by reputable recognised scientific authors. BTW, I see Carl Sagan as one of the greatest educators of our time. Also, I'm not sure what one's willingness to point out the shortcomings of Carl Sagan has to do with climate change. Probably many reasons including Sagan's video suggesting that any deity was superfluous, and the general achievements of science into pushing any need for any deity into near oblivion. That in my opinion stands out in all of the posts of the person in discussion. Hence the knight in shining armour crusade he is conducting. On climate change, again, I'll say that with regards to any doubt, [if that doubt exists] as to the validity of the models detailing human responsibility for climate change, that it would be prudent to err, [if indeed we were going to err] on the side of caution. At this stage though, I do not believe enough doubt based on science exists. Human induced climate change is happening.
iNow Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Our poster had a hard time tracking the different threads. The Carl Sagan attack was initiated toward me due to my signature in another topic.
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 ! Moderator Note GeniusIsDisruptiuve, The personal attacks /abusive language towards members here is to end. If you continue to ignore moderator warnings on this matter, we will suspend your account.
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 The Global Warming Hoax documentary "The (global warming) reporting has to get more and more hysterical." Indeed.
beecee Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Climate change: How do we know? This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site). The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1 Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3 Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4 Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise Global temperature rise The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 6 Warming oceans The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.7 Shrinking ice sheets The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ignoring the non scientific propaganda from questionable sites, the above facts support what most now consider to be our greatest problem. I saw a while back a doco called "Chasing Ice" https://chasingice.com/ Some short videos and glimpses of this awe inspiring photography and incredible experimental science. If you havn't seen the full doco, I suggest you do now. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: What truly is amazing though, is how any person, can logically believe that environmental orginizations, obviously with limited funds and finance, are somehow in collusion with 97% of the world's scientists, to falsify scientific data, to reflect a possible forthcoming dooms day scenario: Or possibly the giant Oil companies and other dependent allied multinationals, are spending a portion of their ever increasing record profits, to pay right wing groups to vilify, down play the scientific data and in more cases then not, just plainly lie about something that may subtract from the same record profits. Edited July 12, 2017 by beecee 1
swansont Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 You would LIKE TO "ignore water vapor in our analysis," but that is clearly impossible. It is impossible because water vapor behaves EXACTLY like carbon dioxide in absorbing radiation. To the extent that once 100% of relevant frequencies have been absorbed by extant gases, whatever they may be, adding 1.36 ppmv MORE will have absolutely no effect on that system. If water vapor was 15,500 ppm 100 years ago, and is 15,550 ppm today, how much has it contributed to warming? Moreover you have clearly neglected a very critical factor in the dynamic equilibrium. Water vapor is exponentially dependent on the temperature, so AS temperatures increase, so too does the vapor pressure. It's not "constant," it INCREASES. Right. As I mentioned above when I said that water vapor increases due to temperature are a feedback effect in the calculations. "It sounds a lot like you are saying".... is YOUR biased interpretation. YOU said "atmosphere holds water." I said "NO IT DOES NOT." You play word games, like all of your friends here, and then smear me with your wordplay. Most unscientific. "Holds" is a synonym for "contains". I don't really think this is hard to figure out. Let me also point out that I am one and you are hundreds. You take on a large, militant, angry group, intent on twisting your words and science as well, while they keep changing the subject, trying to be hateful and antagonistic. It's not my fault that a lot of people on a science site have an understanding of climate science. It's kind of to be expected. Nobody would behave as you people do in a friendly setting. Nobody. But here it is de rigeur. All of you rather enjoy having someone to hate and attack. I merely pointed out the fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, which clearly omits THE dominant greenhouse gas, and you all come apart at the seams, instead of just even ONE PERSON acknowledging, "You know what? That is a valid point. We never saw that graph before." The collective arrogance and intolerance here is something your group should acknowledge and be ashamed of, but never will. I have conversations where people "attack" scientific conjectures all the time. I'm a scientist. That's what we do. If you have an idea, one of the first things you do is run it by others to see if they can poke holes in it. You review proposals and do the same thing. It is part and parcel of the Leftist mentality. Is there anyone here who will admit to having voted for Donald Trump? Anyone who believes God created the heaven and the earth, as stated in the first sentence of the first chapter of Genesis, thousands of years before anyone posited the Big Bang, or as it was called by the Jesuit Priest who first described it as "The Priomordial Atom"? "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable," replied Albert Einstein to Father Georges LeMaitre. But Einstein was wrong. LeMaitre was correct. We're allegedly discussing science, not politics. ANOTHER science lesson for swansont: You LEAP from "the atmosphere" to the "big picture here, the salient point", viz., 20 degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere. 1. The "atmosphere" is not fixed at 20 degrees Celsius, nor 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stop trying to prove that there is no bias, and that the Scary Graph is beyond criticising. Are you refusing to answer the question? Why? Two possibilities are that you either don't know and don't know how or where to find it, or you do know and realize that it throws a monkey wrench into your position. 2
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 If water vapor was 15,500 ppm 100 years ago, and is 15,550 ppm today, how much has it contributed to warming? It's not my fault that a lot of people on a science site have an understanding of climate science. It's kind of to be expected. We're allegedly discussing science, not politics. 1. You miss the entire point, and of course you do so intentionally.. Focused as you are on the single issue of "change," you overlook the relativism of this "change." Your fatuous pretense that the "change" in earth's climate is singularly or largely so determined by the "change" in carbon dioxide utterly neglects the PERCENTAGE CHANGE in GREENHOUSE GASES. What is 1.36 divided by 15,500 in "CHANGING" the temperature? It is negligable. 2. "A lot of people on a science site have an understanding of climate science." That's a good one, coming from someone who said to me: It is impoirtant, (sic) because if the temperature goes up a degree, then the absolute amount of water the atmosphere can hold will increase. That's the effect to focus on. If you care about the science. "If you care about the science." Oh the insufferable condescension and insolence simply abounds here. And hot on the heels of your remark was this from John Cuthber: But why just add the water vapour? Why not add the oxygen and nitrogen too Were you concerned that such obvious manipulation couldn't be overlooked? People would notice that you are adding apples to oranges; it's not legitimate arithmetic. Was Cuthber concerned that oxygen and nitrogen are NOT greenhouse gases? Or did he simply put me down as a rube who would overlook his obvious manipulation of words and apples and oranges? 3. For you to pretend that science and politics are mutually exclusive is simply another pretension of the highest order. In the future, I will disregard and ignore anything you and Mr. Cuthber have to say. I am tired of your inane banter and don't want to continue responding to anything you have to say. The condescension and pretension around here is rampant, IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CONDESCENSION. AND THE PRETENSION.
DrP Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Have you considered the possibility you may have overlooked something and could be wrong... the discussion between you and Swans about water vapour in particular.. before it started going round in circles I seem to remember (unless I remembered it wrong) that SwansonT said that water vapour was contributing but the levels had been constant (global average I assume) for years. Then you get the rise in CO2 that takes the temp up.... with increased temp comes higher saturation levels and thus more water in the atmosphere and higher temps even still.... cycling round going up.... starting with the CO2 increase. I fail to see what your point is about water vapour. The increased water is from increased temperatures which are from increased CO2. I am no expert and might be wrong... feel free to ridicule me if I have misunderstood it.... or try to correct me. I cannot really defend any position from a point of view of references here, I am repeating what I remember reading (If I understood it correctly).
swansont Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 1. You miss the entire point, and of course you do so intentionally.. Focused as you are on the single issue of "change," you overlook the relativism of this "change." Your fatuous pretense that the "change" in earth's climate is singularly or largely so determined by the "change" in carbon dioxide utterly neglects the PERCENTAGE CHANGE in GREENHOUSE GASES. What is 1.36 divided by 15,500 in "CHANGING" the temperature? It is negligable. If temperature weren't going up, this conversation wouldn't be happening. So the change is the important thing. Nobody is all that concerned that the earth isn't an iceball; we kinda like that it isn't. So the steady-state warming from water vapor (and other effects) aren't the issue. And dividing 1.36 by 15,5000? I'm sure that doing that makes sense to you, for some bizarre reasoning, but it has no basis in any real analysis. If we want to know the effect CO2 has on changing the temperature, we wouldn't divide it by the concentration of water. 2. "A lot of people on a science site have an understanding of climate science." That's a good one, coming from someone who said to me: "If you care about the science." Oh the insufferable condescension and insolence simply abounds here. It's pretty obvious you are here to preach and not to learn. You didn't answer my inquiry about whether you are (un)able to do the calculation or otherwise find the answer I asked for. You just avoided the issue by going off on a rant. Again. Fake outrage isn't the smokescreen you might hope it is. In the future, I will disregard and ignore anything you and Mr. Cuthber have to say. I am tired of your inane banter and don't want to continue responding to anything you have to say. The condescension and pretension around here is rampant, IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CONDESCENSION. AND THE PRETENSION. That would be a mistake (in this context, a probable violation of rule 2.8)
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Have you considered the possibility you may have overlooked something and could be wrong... I fail to see what your point is about water vapour. The increased water is from increased temperatures which are from increased CO2. Let me address the second snippet above before returning to the first. My POINT about water vapor is simply this. The Keeling Curve may be accurate as far as it goes, which is to say, carbon dioxide IS increasing, as shown. HOWEVER, the base is non-zero. The base is ~390 parts per MILLION! The annual INCREASE is 1.36 parts per MILLION! Now the significance of 1.36 parts per MILLION decreases tremendously when you redraw the graph with a zero base. It flattens the *scary graph* into something less frightening. Science should present data honestly, not with the intention to deceive. Now have I overlooked something? Could I be wrong in simply adding THE DOMINANT greenhouse gas to the Scary Graph? If so, please feel free to suggest my errors. So far, the most creative criticism has been from one fellow who suggested that I add oxygen and nitrogen, neither of which are greenhouse gases. Then too the comment was made that rain falls, and old water must somehow be different from new water. Please explain to me how old water vapor differs in its physico-chemical properties from newer water vapor.
swansont Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Let me address the second snippet above before returning to the first. My POINT about water vapor is simply this. The Keeling Curve may be accurate as far as it goes, which is to say, carbon dioxide IS increasing, as shown. HOWEVER, the base is non-zero. The base is ~390 parts per MILLION! The annual INCREASE is 1.36 parts per MILLION! Now the significance of 1.36 parts per MILLION decreases tremendously when you redraw the graph with a zero base. It flattens the *scary graph* into something less frightening. Science should present data honestly, not with the intention to deceive. Now have I overlooked something? Could I be wrong in simply adding THE DOMINANT greenhouse gas to the Scary Graph? If so, please feel free to suggest my errors. So far, the most creative criticism has been from one fellow who suggested that I add oxygen and nitrogen, neither of which are greenhouse gases. Then too the comment was made that rain falls, and old water must somehow be different from new water. Please explain to me how old water vapor differs in its physico-chemical properties from newer water vapor. And the formula for temperature increases depends on the ratio of the log of the concentration, which is one reason people talk of the effect of doubling the CO2 rathe rthan the raw number. (emphasizing million is bizarre. who cares?) The base, furthermore, is not 390, for many of these conversations, since 390 was achieved just a few years ago. If we want to discuss past warming, we use the baseline in the past. Depending on the year, that could be 280 ppm, or 300 ppm, etc. Add to that that this is an effect that takes place over decades before it's noticed. 1.39 becomes 13.9 ppm/decade. Same numbers, but it might perhaps focus the attention a little more. And I've explained twice now why water is a distraction in the way you've presented it. The world has warmed up by almost 1.5ºC since 1850. How much of that warming was cause by water vapor?
DrP Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 QUOTE"...old water differs from new water" It doesn't, as we all know. I think he meant the new water levels... which are higher due to higher temperatures bought on by the increase of CO2. That's how I read it anyway, but I have been known to misread stuff. So 'new' water in this context is water that is extra compared to the old levels... which were constant (or there about??) for a very long time. PS - out of interest.... you know that if you change our minds (mine and most others on here) by using actual facts and statistics we/I will thank you for it and congratulate you right?... If you suddenly realise that you are wrong and change your mind on climate change after looking at the data, will you do the same? Or will you just disappear... most disappear... or get banned for soapboxing before they have a chance to realise that they had misinterpreted something. Anyway - peace out.
Arete Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Now have I overlooked something? BTWs - climate models account for water vapor
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 BTWs - climate models account for water vapor The Scary Graph (Keeling Curve) does not. And BTW, those "climate models" have been reliably worthless and inaccurate. Surely a few hundred billion dollars more in government grants will change everything.
swansont Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 The world has warmed up by almost 1.5ºC since 1850. How much of that warming was cause by water vapor?
GeniusIsDisruptive Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) QUOTE"...old water differs from new water" It doesn't, as we all know. I think he meant the new water levels... which are higher due to higher temperatures bought on by the increase of CO2. That's how I read it anyway, but I have been known to misread stuff. YOU "think he meant." Why didn't he SAY what he meant? Is that too difficult? Again and again, YOUR FRIENDS put words in my mouth and then attack me for the words they put in my mouth. So I quote your friend, and you conveniently try to cover for him in ways nobody has begun to do for me. "Higher temperatures" are NOT brought on by "the increase of CO2." Higher temperatures are the result of seasonal changes, and winds. Whatever "new water levels" are you talking about! So 'new' water in this context is water that is extra compared to the old levels... which were constant (or there about??) for a very long time. Ah, I see. Relative humidity is "constant." It doesn't fluctuate with seasonal temperatures, or wind currents. It's becoming clear to me now. Thank you for the science lesson. PS - out of interest.... you know that if you change our minds (mine and most others on here) by using actual facts and statistics we/I will thank you for it and congratulate you right?... If you suddenly realise that you are wrong and change your mind on climate change after looking at the data, will you do the same? Or will you just disappear... most disappear... or get banned for soapboxing before they have a chance to realise that they had misinterpreted something. Anyway - peace out. Every time I provide facts and statistics, I am misquoted, misinterpreted, browbeaten, castigated and told to "learn" from all those seasoned wits here. Even in such straightforward and incontestible matters as the Prisoner Riddle I posted, not one person in two hundred has had the decency, the courtesy of thanking me for an interesting puzzle that demonstrates how a large group of people, all viewing precisely the same information, can utterly fail to reach the correct conclusion. That was a valuable lesson which nobody on your side of the aisle would acknowledge, much less appreciate verbally. This is a function of your group's refusal to "change their minds" even when the lesson is obvious. They resent and therefore reject the source. Terribly unscientific, terribly political. And the pretense is that these two are mutually exclusive. Edited July 12, 2017 by GeniusIsDisruptive
Arete Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 And BTW, those "climate models" have been reliably worthless and inaccurate. Actually, through hindcasting, the accuracy of climate models has been shown to be generally accurate. They've also accurately predicted changes in land and ocean surface temperatures.
swansont Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 YOU "think he meant." Why didn't he SAY what he meant? Is that too difficult? Again and again, YOUR FRIENDS put words in my mouth and then attack me for the words they put in my mouth. So I quote your friend, and you conveniently try to cover for him in ways nobody has begun to do for me. I wrote what I meant, and thought it was quite clear. The "new" vs "old" was YOUR wording, not mine. It shows you completely missed my point. Water vapor hasn't changed, so it makes no contribution to warming, which is the difference between temperatures at two different times. Put another way, the world has warmed up by almost 1.5ºC since 1850. How much of that warming was cause by water vapor? "Higher temperatures" are NOT brought on by "the increase of CO2." Higher temperatures are the result of seasonal changes, and winds. That's your explanation? Wind? It's hotter because it's windier? How does that work? (seasonal variation means just that. It does not say anything about changes year-to-year) Ah, I see. Relative humidity is "constant." It doesn't fluctuate with seasonal temperatures, or wind currents. It's becoming clear to me now. Thank you for the science lesson. Do you need an explanation of what "seasonal" means? Because you are missing the point. We're talking about changes over the course of decades. Not seasonal differences. Do you have any references that show the worldwide average relative humidity has changed from, say, 1950 to today? (or pick some year, if you need to, that's at least several decades earlier. I'd hate for that particular parameter to be an excuse for not answering) Then too the comment was made that rain falls, and old water must somehow be different from new water. Please explain to me how old water vapor differs in its physico-chemical properties from newer water vapor. That's what you got from the statement? Rather than rain happens, evaporation happens, and the net result is the humidity stays constant over long time scales? (Especially in the context that I was pointing out that there is no difference in the effect of water) Sheesh.
beecee Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) Every time I provide facts and statistics, I am misquoted, misinterpreted, browbeaten, castigated and told to "learn" from all those seasoned wits here. Even in such straightforward and incontestible matters as the Prisoner Riddle I posted, not one person in two hundred has had the decency, the courtesy of thanking me for an interesting puzzle that demonstrates how a large group of people, all viewing precisely the same information, can utterly fail to reach the correct conclusion. That was a valuable lesson which nobody on your side of the aisle would acknowledge, much less appreciate verbally. This is a function of your group's refusal to "change their minds" even when the lesson is obvious. They resent and therefore reject the source. Terribly unscientific, terribly political. And the pretense is that these two are mutually exclusive. Ahaa! Playing the victim card again I see. Why then do you waste your time here? Oh that's right, you said yesterday you will ignore me. Oh the pain of it all! Again the only thing obvious is your false indignation and delusions of grandeur, that sensible people are daring to question what you suggest and of course your obvious motives and agenda. Let me say it again..... What truly is amazing though, is how any person, can logically believe that environmental orginizations, obviously with limited funds and finance, are somehow in collusion with 97% of the world's scientists, to falsify scientific data, to reflect a possible forthcoming dooms day scenario: Or possibly the giant Oil companies and other dependent allied multinationals, are spending a portion of their ever increasing record profits, to pay right wing groups to vilify, down play the scientific data and in more cases then not, just plainly lie about something that may subtract from the same record profits. [from post 35] Edited July 12, 2017 by beecee 1
Recommended Posts