patrick.net

Onvacation says

Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

So what? It's CO2 we add.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what? It's CO2 we add.

Insignificant doubled or tripled or even quadrupled is still insignificant.
So
Onvacation says

Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

So what? It's CO2 we add.

A very little amount.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

"Alarmists" are not "alarmists" about the past.

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Sorry.

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

And a little goes a long way..

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

Water vapor already absorbs outgoing IR radiations for given frequencies. This is part of normal climate.

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Not only that but the extra heat means more water vapor, and even more out going radiation is absorbed.

Onvacation says

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

What does that even mean?
The next 200yrs will look like the past 200?
Unlikely. For very obvious reasons.

HappyGilmore says

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

And a little goes a long way..

Then the water vapor must go "parabolic", right?

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

heat means more water vapor

what is the original source of that heat?

Heraclitusstudent says

Water vapor already absorbs outgoing IR radiations for given frequencies. This is part of normal climate.

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

Why is it warmer on a cloudy night than a clear night? Is that because of CO2?

Heraclitusstudent says

The next 200yrs will look like the past 200?
Unlikely. For very obvious reasons.

Agreed. Anyone trying to predict the future is most likely wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

What does that even mean?

Really? Google it.

Another Santayana quote that applies to the alarmists:
"Fanatacism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
What do the alarmists hope to gain from their alarmism?

Heraclitusstudent says

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Do you have a source for the "Plugged hole theory" of global warming climate change?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Do you have a source for the "Plugged hole theory" of global warming climate change?

It might be in the empty box in the garage?

anon_dd91d says

what is the original source of that heat?

Is that some sort of trick question?

anon_dd91d says

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

I've just said it above. So what?

Onvacation says

What does that even mean?

Really? Google it.

I doubt Google knows what you mean, in the current discussion context.

Onvacation says

Anyone trying to predict the future is most likely wrong.

A possible scenario is not a prediction of the future.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_dd91d says

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

I've just said it above. So what?

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

Thanks for finally admitting that it isn't CO2, but water vapor responsible for the heat rise.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_dd91d says

what is the original source of that heat?

Is that some sort of trick question?

Nope, it just connects the dots to the water vapor facts, that the heat from the sun evaporates water, producing water vapor, that traps heat.

See, that was really easy.

The science lesson is complete.

anon_9ece2 says

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

No it doesn't.

Water vapor was there before, and, I'll repeat, was always a normal part of the climate. It's regulated by rain.
The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_9ece2 says

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

No it doesn't.

Water vapor was there before, and, I'll repeat, was always a normal part of the climate.
The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.

So, there no chance the amount of water vapor has increased with population growth?

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs, more man made lakes, more water retention pits, more mining, more industrial uses of water, more sewerage treatment plants, more asphalt and concrete allowing more water to evaporate versus drain into the ground, more fires requiring firefighting using water, etc. etc. etc., all due to HIGHER population using MORE water??

Shall I continue with more areas of ADDITIONAL evaporation causing water vapor?

Heraclitusstudent says

more CO2 means more heat

How much more? Why has the rising co2 level NOT led to a correlating increase in temperature?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

more CO2 means more heat

How much more? Why has the rising co2 level NOT led to a correlating increase in temperature?

Interesting question.

Looking at the chart in the OP, CO2 increased 30% but the temperature has only risen like a half of a degree in the same time period.

How soon before we are "wet bulbed" to death? What level will that be in CO2?

CO2 increases could be logarithmic; it takes ever-increasing amounts of CO2 to raise the temperature.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 increases could be logarithmic; it takes ever-increasing amounts of CO2 to raise the temperature.

Not true. CO2 concentrations at the surface are pretty much maxed out. Infrared in the relevant spectrum is blocked 100%. Why increasing CO2 concentrations are bad is because it makes the blanket thicker. CO2 up where the air is thin and the atmosphere isn't opaque yet is increasing and thus blocking more heat from leaving earth. Global warming denialists who pretend to be experts don't even know the process. I'm sure you've never even heard this before.

anon_def08 says

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs

Seriously? pools?
Are you aware that a vast majority of this planet is covered with water, and that water falls regularly from the sky in most places?
Water is water. It's there.

The level of confusion on this subject is stunning. Here are people who seriously think that scientists in 200 countries could consistently lie about the greenhouse effect of CO2 and something AS OBVIOUS AS the larger effect of water vapor - without being IMMEDIATELY shot down by A LARGE NUMBER of physicists and other scientists .

What we have is people who DON’T WANT to believe the large amount of evidence, for reasons that have nothing to do with science
These are people who DO NOT HAVE A CONSISTENT THEORY of what is happening (that would be easily falsified), but instead they practice rejection for the sake of rejection: This is the kitchen sink approach: let’s throw anything we have at global warming and see what sticks.
One day it’s the sun.
One day the sea levels increase doesn’t match, couldn’t possibly be measured.
Today it’s water vapor vs CO2. "pools" Duhhh...
Fear, Uncertainty, doubt....

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_def08 says

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs

Seriously? pools?

Water is water. It's there.

Nice, pick out ONE example, but that's OK, I'll answer.

How many pools were there 60 years ago versus today. Where does a pool get it's water, from the ocean or from other sources?

What's the surface area of all these pools across the world? How much evaporation takes place every day?

Now, apply that same formula to all the other items I listed.

Heraclitusstudent says

Are you aware that a vast majority of this planet is covered with water,

Sure, how much evaporation comes from the existing water? How many NEW bodies of water have been built/constructed in the last 60 years to support the water needs of the planet? Any chance there's additional evaporation from them?

Heraclitusstudent says

Water is water. It's there.

It's there, and more of it ends up in the atmosphere as water vapor, trapping more heat.

Pretty simple, isn't it?

anon_20fca says

Nah, I know, it's the trace CO2 causing the heat, not the 95% of water vapor that makes up the atmosphere.

Hey, I'm just as intellimajent as any of those so called "scientists," and my opinion is just as valid as theirs. The fact that my opinion lines up with the Koch brothers and is diametericimaly opposed to the opinions of those elitist libtards is purely a coinsidence.

Heraclitusstudent says

Here are people who seriously think that scientists in 200 countries could consistently lie about the greenhouse effect of CO2

It's really very simple, follow the money, who pays these scientists and what's the party line they have to follow to keep getting their paychecks. The ole "peer review" process.

Most employees follow their company narrative if they want to keep their paychecks coming. Are scientists any different?

Heraclitusstudent says

What we have is people who DON’T WANT to believe the large amount of evidence

Exactly, they rather follow the "Cult of Alarmists", no matter what true evidence is shown.

Heraclitusstudent says

One day it’s the sun.

No, EVERYDAY it's the sun.

Heraclitusstudent says

Today it’s water vapor

No, EVERYDAY it's water vapor.

Heraclitusstudent says

Fear, Uncertainty, doubt....

Exactly, at what point do the Alarmists stop all that fear mongering?

anon_10ddb says

What's the surface area of all these pools across the world? How much evaporation takes place every day?

As a percent of the ocean?
I'd say about 0.
With precision of 0.00000001 .
Any other question?

anon_10ddb says

It's really very simple, follow the money, who pays these scientists and what's the party line they have to follow to keep getting their paychecks. The ole "peer review" process.

Who pay scientists in 200 countries? The same people?

Who paid the Economists in 200 countries, almost none of whom predicted the financial crisis?

Complex Models, man.

The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.

Burning any hydrocarbon (including "clean" natural gas) produces both CO2 and water vapor. Since burning fossil fuel adds the far more potent H2O to the atmosphere, why no alarm about our "Hydro Footprint?" Also, each atom of Hydrogen from the hydrocarbon and each atom of Carbon from the hydrocarbon requires 3 atoms total of Oxygen from the air when they burn to form the CO2 and H2O. Why no talk of "Oxygen Depletion?"

Quoting "scientists worldwide believe" as opposed to presenting answers is no better than saying the Bible is true because Doctors of Divinity worldwide (even from Harvard!) vouch for a complex manuscript the lay cannot understand.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Who paid the Economists in 200 countries, almost none of whom predicted the financial crisis?

So it's not the money?

Not true. CO2 concentrations at the surface are pretty much maxed out. Infrared in the relevant spectrum is blocked 100%. Why increasing CO2 concentrations are bad is because it makes the blanket thicker. CO2 up where the air is thin and the atmosphere isn't opaque yet is increasing and thus blocking more heat from leaving earth. Global warming denialists who pretend to be experts don't even know the process. I'm sure you've never even heard this before.

CO2 is heavier than air. It is not going to concentrate at altitude where the "air is thin." In fact, CO2 is so heavy that a sudden large concentration will displace up the Oxygen and cause suffocation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

Heraclitusstudent says

Any other question?

Yes, now apply the same hypothesis to each one of the other sources of water I listed. Or, is just using the singular pools the only way to dispute the water vapor facts.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_def08 says

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs

Seriously? pools?
Are you aware that a vast majority of this planet is covered with water, and that water falls regularly from the sky in most places?
Water is water. It's there.

OK, I'll expand on the water usage, since the Alarmists feel the rise in CO2 is caused by man, but the rise of water vapor is just caused by nature.

Using the dates in chart in the OP, what do we know?

Worldwide population:

in 1958: 2.9 billion people
in 2018: 7.4 billion people
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1350_total_world_population_1950_to_2050.html
The population has over DOUBLED on that time period.

Is there any chance this increase in population (and the water required to support said population) could add to the evaporation/water vapor produced each day? Here's the list again, I'm sure there are other items that can be included that's missing.

anon_def08 says

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs, more man made lakes, more water retention pits, more mining, more industrial uses of water, more sewerage treatment plants, more asphalt and concrete allowing more water to evaporate versus drain into the ground, more fires requiring firefighting using water, etc. etc. etc., all due to HIGHER population using MORE water??

Then add this to the equation:

HeadSet says

Burning any hydrocarbon (including "clean" natural gas) produces both CO2 and water vapor. Since burning fossil fuel adds the far more potent H2O to the atmosphere, why no alarm about our "Hydro Footprint?"

The facts show that the atmosphere is made up of 95% water vapor. Sources that produce water vapor (above) have dramatically increased in the last 50 years.

Why do the alarmists totally discount and dismiss that water vapor has any connection to increased heat on the planet, and blame CO2 for the increased heat?

Heraclitusstudent says

What we have is people who DON’T WANT to believe the large amount of evidence,

Yep, that's true.

HeadSet says

CO2 is heavier than air. It is not going to concentrate at altitude where the "air is thin." In fact, CO2 is so heavy that a sudden large concentration will displace up the Oxygen and cause suffocation.

I see. So all existing CO2 is at sea level and all humans living at sea level are dead. After all, wtf is oxygen and nitrogen doing mixed in with our CO2 layer?