Another myth being debunked.

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by TheCainer:
If I am not mistaken, you are a military veteran, correct? If that is so, what do you make of the recent Dept. of Defense report which states that climate change is a major national security issue? I am guessing that your response may be something along the lines that they are strictly in it for the money as well because once again it is in their interest to request governmental funding to fight this new enemy. Am I right?

I have linked to their report for your perusal.

Link: DOD Report. Seems they take CC seriously.[/URL]

Politically motivated - civilians in charge of DOD are appointed by this Admin. The DOD isn't take ping any major actions on CC. Twentynine Palms has a solar plant, but it is because they don't trust the power grid. The Army and Navy are completely dependent on fossil fuels to operate most ships and tanks, using highly fuel inefficient gas turbine engines widely.

The defense budget is being cut thanks to the BCA. Trust me that any dollar we get isn't going towards combating climate change. This is what we call "lip service."
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[qazplm]

No answer yet E?

You're so quick to mock, clearly by now you've come up with the answer and the reason why it's not CO2 for Venus, so please share with us all.

 

[GMM]

You've got it backwards

The burden is on you.

You (and the rest of your greenie cohorts) insisted that you understood how the climate worked. You said the "science was settled". No room for doubt or disagreement. You made predictions about the climate. Not coincidentally, they were predictions of doom. Based on your predictions you said we had to drastically change the way we live our lives. Not coincidentally, the changes fit in exactly with the left's agenda.

Your predictions turned out to be bogus. You couldn't even predict a decade ahead yet you claimed you knew what would happen in the next century.

Its not up to us to understand what you claim to understand. Its up to you to figure out what you don't understand about the climate. I suppose we could waste our time understanding what you claim to understand. What's the point? So we can make incorrect predictions just like you? So we can attempt to insult and condescend just like you?

Its up to you to start living your lives how you insist we live ours. Until you do that, until you can make accurate predictions, we are totally justified in doubting you and mocking you. Just like the co-founder of the Weather Channel has done.

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

No. You made a claim about water vapor. As Gold Five is famous for saying - Stay on target...

Why aren't you willing to address the claim you made? Are you willing do discuss your claim about water vapor?

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards

Let's see, the claim I made was that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.

What's to discuss?

Now, are you willing to discuss why your "experts" got it dead wrong? Does that ever make you question what you claim to undertand about the climate and how it works?

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

You are getting closer.

Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Yes. Demonize it!

Is there far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2? Yes. Demonize it!

What exactly are you driving at here? I'll even stick with your language. Why do think water vapor isn't demonized?

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards

Why do think water vapor isn't demonized?

Because you'd have to blame nature for it and that's not the point. The point is to blame man (especially prosperous, Western societies) so that you can ultimately control the lives of others.

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

Stay on target Gold Leader.

Would you agree that water vapor, by itself, does not increase temperature? Instead, water vapor concentration increases follow a temperature increase.

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards

Would you agree that water vapor, by itself, does not increase temperature? Instead, water vapor concentration increases follow a temperature increase.

Yeah, sure.

Would you agree that carbon dioxide, by itself, does not increase temperature? Instead, carbon dioxide concentration increases follow a temperature increase.

 

[CWS]

Re: You've got it backwards

Reminds me of the cholesterol debate. Some people die and they find high cholesterol. Stop the presses! We must never eat cholesterol! Let's create a food pyramid where we eat mostly grains. Grain farmers and pharma have a hay day. Obesity/diabetes/HTN go gangbusters, but at least we're not eating those evil eggs! Anyone who disagrees with settled since (Atkins) is a fool! Fast forward a few decades and people start to realize that cholesterol was not the cause of the damaged arteries, it was the effect of having damaged arteries and the body's attempt at healing. People, including our media and politicians (lefties and righties) have a difficult time sometimes differentiating cause/effect from correlation and often end up basically saying "I don't know what to do, but I better do SOMETHING", but sometimes the SOMETHING makes problems worse or has no effect. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it is out of a do-gooders mentality (probably most environmentalists in the case of GW). Sometimes it is for political or personal gain (Gore).
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

I'm proud of you! We are making progress.

So now, we have established the following...

1) Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

2) Water vapor concentration is a factor of temperature. Cold air holds less water. Warm air holds more water.

3) Water vapor follows, is a feedback of, temperature. Not a forcing. It amplifies, doesn't push.

Lets continue.

For simplicity, water vapor exists in an equilibrium. Simplicity is for the sake of variation depending upon region. An atmosphere can only hold as much water that is allowed by its temperature. A warming of the atmosphere will allow for more water vapor to be retained. Positive feedback, higher temperatures. Water vapor exists for a very short period of time. Days to weeks. This is called rain and snow. Water evaporates, then falls from the sky. Reference a General Circulation Model for advanced study or the observation of rain forests vs. the arctic.

So now, we arrive at another component of the atmosphere, CO2, methane, and other trace gasses. We have known for a long time now, close to a century, that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere will cause warming. This is basic physics.

What conclusions do you draw from the evidence?







This post was edited on 10/24 10:38 PM by ecouch

 

[ecouch]

Re: No answer yet E?

I'm pretty sure BigE23 won't be making another appearance in this thread. He will probably stay away until he sees another Daily Mail link on Drudge. And the cycle will continue.

 

[Purdue85]

You clearly struck a nerve. The cult is out in full force.*

nt

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards

What conclusions do you draw from the evidence?

Two things:

1) You'll do anything but admit that your "experts" got it wrong. Shouldn't that make you doubt your certainty about how CO2 operates in the atmosphere?

2) You'll avoid answering my question about whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming or whether global warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

I'll answer your questions and then we will continue our science lesson.

1) I don't have experts. I have evidence. We have known for a century the effects of putting CO2, and other radiative forcing gasses, into a system. Basic physics. Warming.

2) I don't understand the question. Basic physics tells us the effects of added CO2. I guess you should expand on the second half of your statement, specifically, from where your additional CO2 is coming. Forcing vs. Feedback.

So, you agree that your water vapor argument isn't sound. What is left? Well, we have observed that water vapor, depending upon factors such as region, accounts for 60%-70% of the earth's warming effect. Without it, as qaz noted upthread, we would be living on a ball of ice. Really cold ice. This ties in with the Venus example.

Are you still on board?

 

[GMM]

Re: You've got it backwards

I don't have experts.

Yes, you do. Your side repeatedly makes the "97% of scientists agree" claim. They got it wrong. How do you explain that? If your evidence was so strong then how can you explain the lack of global warming for over a decade and a half? What would it take for you to doubt the theory of man-made global warming? This?

We have known for a century the effects of putting CO2, and other
radiative forcing gasses, into a system. Basic physics. Warming.

Except for in the 70's, following three decades of rising CO2 levels and cooling temperatures, when scientists told us we were headed for an ice age.

I don't understand the question........ specifically, from where your additional CO2 is coming.

Its basic physics. Do some research.

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

It is really difficult to have a conversation with someone so extreme...so...all over the map. I don't really want to play whack-a-mole with your conspiracy theories. You have made the decision to ignore evidence and methodology and replace it with conspiracy ideology.

That graph you saw on Drudge today is hilarious though. The amount of dishonesty and purposeful disinformation contained within is breathtaking. It looks like someone is still using their free, student version of MS Excel.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: You've got it backwards

Originally posted by ecouch:
It is really difficult to have a conversation with someone so extreme...so...all over the map. I don't really want to play whack-a-mole with your conspiracy theories. You have made the decision to ignore evidence and methodology and replace it with conspiracy ideology.

That graph you saw on Drudge today is hilarious though. The amount of dishonesty and purposeful disinformation contained within is breathtaking. It looks like someone is still using their free, student version of MS Excel.

I give you kudos for lasting this long. Unfortunately:

 

[ecouch]

Re: You've got it backwards

Check out his link. I laughed out loud. Dig a little further and you see that the west and southwest were excluded. Not that it matters. That isn't simple cherry picking, that is raping the entire orchard.

 

[GMM]

The same applies to you

Very difficult to have a conversation with somebody who will not tolerate any doubt in a scientific theory. Which is the opposite of science. But not politics. Hmmmmm.....

You won't answer my question about which comes first, global warming or rising CO2 levels.

You won't acknowledge that the "experts" got it wrong.

You won't acknowledge the predictions turned out to be bogus.

You won't acknowledge any reasons to doubt the theory of AGW. Why?

Because this isn't about science. It never has been. Its irrelevant whether not anybody has a perfect understanding of how the climate works. What matters is that some have put forth a theory. Based on that theory they made predictions of doom. Based on those predictions they insisted that we radically change our lives.

The predictions turned out to be bogus. In numerous ways. The reaction? Well, when others have the nerve to dissent the result is condescension, insults, and a temper tantrum similar to when a 4-year old gets his toys taken away from him. The behavior is perfectly in line with a political agenda, not proponents of a scientific theory.

But, if you want to radically change the way YOU live your life then go ahead. The rest of us are waiting........

 

[ecouch]

Re: The same applies to you

I've never brought politics into a thread about climate change. I purposely don't. Action or inaction are policy issues. I prefer sticking to the science - evidence and methodology. The original topic and the one upon which I engaged you. You have ceded your argument on water vapor. Will you repeat it?

 

[ecouch]

Re: The same applies to you

Very difficult to have a conversation with somebody who will not
tolerate any doubt in a scientific theory. Which is the opposite of
science. But not politics. Hmmmmm.....

I not only tolerate doubt in science, I strongly recommend it. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

You won't answer my question about which comes first, global warming or rising CO2 levels.

You will need to provide a more clear question. As I have already said, I don't understand the grammar of your question as it only questions your intent. Clarification is necessary. Present a statement.

You won't acknowledge that the "experts" got it wrong.

Again, clarification is necessary. We need to nail down it.

You won't acknowledge the predictions turned out to be bogus.

Again, ambiguity rules the day.

You won't acknowledge any reasons to doubt the theory of AGW. Why?

Provide a sound reason. You've already lost, your own admission, on the water vapor disinformation.
.
Honestly, what do you have? An alternate theory of earth's atmosphere? Present it.