$45 TRILLION dollars to combat "Human Caused" global warming.... Here we go

Yes, but your arguement rests on the assumption that CO2 drives temperature...thus increasing water vapour concentrations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why trying to understand how science works when you admit that you have no clue. Frankly you show exactly the shortcomings of the Hansen prediction, it's based on nothing, only the erroneous notion that CO2 drives climate. So Hansen was wrong when he did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc. That's exactly the point. Thanks for making it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everything goes in cycles, the plantes changing anyways , and, ofcourse pollution is a factor , even if its small, there are alot of factors, some spiritual people would say, its our internally polluted selves... either way... why don't we all just stop driving so much and ride some bikes , it'll help with our mcdonalds diseased nation, and maybe pick up some freaking trash while we are walking our dogs, if everyone cares enough to discuss it , then we are obviously having an impact when theres plastic EVERYWHERE you look...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arctic SuperPowers to Meet in Greenland -Will Global Warming Trigger a WWIII?

 

The argument is as follows:

1)CO2 is a greenhouse gas - support: basic physics, actual measurement in labs, etc.

2) Warmer air takes and hold more water vapor, all else equal. Support is basic physics, lab experiments, field measurements, the experience of many years of weather forecasting, etc.

3) the presence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gas results in warmer air under sunlight, and greater retention of heat at night, all else equal: support is basic physics, measurements in lab and controlled field experiments, satellite observations, etc.

4) the grand conclusion: boosting CO2 will result in a greater taking and holding of water vapor by the warmer air.

5) The reverse is not directly true - boosting water vapor does not result in greater CO2 concentrations, in any simple way like that .

That is what is meant by CO2 "driving" water vapor, and not vice versa.

Similarly with the other climate variables - CO2 reacts to few of them, and slowly. Many of them react to CO2 effects, and rapidly. Retention of solar energy as heat in the atmosphere is enormously influential.

It is not an assumption, it is a deduction.

Now, how big is the sum of all these CO2 effects ? Too big a question here, but the immediate matter is water vapor. We make an observation: in our current climate regime and at current temperature levels, water vapor does not sustain its own concentration - the extra heat it takes to pick up the water vapor is greater than that supplied by that vapor, and any water vapor that precipitates out will on average stay out. How do we know this ? Because if it were not so, the oceans would have boiled dry long ago.

So any greenhouse gas effects from water vapor sustained at current concentrations are at least largely due to whatever driver keeps the water vapor in the air at its current concentrations.

According to the people who have checked and investigated, that driver is CO2.

How big is the effect ? At least a dozen or so degrees C, from the CO2, global average, according to the people who have investigated. That's the difference between a largely glaciated planet and one with huge warm oceans of liquid water exposed to the atmosphere.

Now boost that CO2 concentration by 50%, and what would you expect to happen, in general ? Nothing?

That was not your point. Your point was that Hansen's failure to employ a modern, sophisticated climate model in 1988 for one of his projections, and consequent somewhat greater trend slope on his temperature graph in that 1988 projection than has appeared so far, represent some kind of argument against the entire hypothesis of atmospheric temperature increases and climate effects from the retained heat consequent on CO2 boosting.

That's your point, and it's goofy.

 

This is absurd. Virtually ALL scientific research published by actual geologists and climatologists points to global warming as being human induced. This is not up for debate. Dissenters are an extremely minor part of the scientific community. In addition, ALL major scientific organizations (including the AAPG) support these hypotheses. Don't listen to your politicians and the right wing media, listen to your scientists. If you have heart problems, who would you trust, a cardiologist, or a janitor?

 

Imagine the sort of person who believes the weather channel was intentionally lying when they predicted a fine day, but it rains instead.

Or that if his car doesn't get 22mpg like the sales guy said it would, that's got nothing to do with how he's driving it, it can only be that the guy was lying to him, or didn't do any proper research - cars don't work the way "they" all keep saying they do at all. It must be a conspiracy.

 

lmao



there isn't even 45 trillion dollars in the entire world

 

I need $100 trillion to stop insane totalitarian Liberals. PM me for paypal account.

 

ROFLsauce @ Al Gore's sock puppet. Ever read the Black Swan? I'd trust a janitor before I would trust an insane totalitarian retard like you. Water vapor isn't man made and neither is CO2. Do you know what a volcano is?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Less than 1% of CO2 is man made.

 

Founder of the Weather Channel on the Global Warming Hoax

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

 

Oh christ no.... GLOBAL COOLING!!!!

The graphs have been warning us of this.. but we didn't listen. WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!