Global Warming is NOT caused by CO2!

[myksav]

Tut tut.you are being rude now. You really shouldn't project your mental limitations onto others. You see some people, (I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of people) are a lot smarter than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myksav
How do you increase the water content in the atmosphere? Extra heat. Without the extra heat the water content of the atmosphere is in relative equilibrium. Which happens first? Water vapour increasing in the atmosphere? Or addition of heat?

90% of any extra heat, according to the climate scientists, actually gets stored in the ocean (funnily enough though it's missing). But to be clear, you think increased water vapour is the only feedback mechanism?

You truly do live in a simple little world.

Lad, I notice that you avoid answering the question posited. Twice. A very typical tactic from those who claim climate change isn't happening.

As to feedback mechanisms, there are quite a few.
To be clear, are you claiming that water vapour is the primary leader of climate change?

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

Tony Blair on September 14, 2004:

WHAT is now plain is that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and strong economic growth from a world population that has increased sixfold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term. Apart from a diminishing handful of sceptics, there is a virtual worldwide scientific consensus on the scope of the problem.

The end of certainty. Blair in Copenhagen on Monday:

IT is said the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity. Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.

So where are these weapons of mass warming really? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

[slx]

Global warming theory based on CO2 increasing is pretty much established fact at this stage. You can read vast numbers of studies all of which prove that it is true and happening the only arguments are really about how rapidly it's causing the atmosphere to heat.

One of the bigger concerns is that we are most definitely running out of sources of oil. The risk with that is not so much that we can't find alternative fuels, with the right pressure on, we can and will. The real panic is that oil is the key ingredient that forms a fundamental raw material upon which almost all of our manufactured goods are based - plastic. It's also the basic material that produces a vast array of petrochemicals which much of our 20th century industrial revolution was based upon.

We can find other sources of energy; biomass, wind, solar, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion etc but can we find a viable alternative to plastic and petrochemicals ?

We're looking at a situation where we could be heading, technologically back to the victorian era if we're not careful.

We are burning our most important material when there are alternative forms of fuel and energy available!!

If you don't believe the science around climate change, perhaps you might think of how you'd get on with a wooden tooth-brush, or how you'd connect your computer up with cloth-covered cables...

[ibis]

Global warming theory based on CO2 increasing is pretty much established fact at this stage. You can read vast numbers of studies all of which prove that it is true and happening the only arguments are really about how rapidly it's causing the atmosphere to heat.

One of the bigger concerns is that we are most definitely running out of sources of oil. The risk with that is not so much that we can't find alternative fuels, with the right pressure on, we can and will. The real panic is that oil is the key ingredient that forms a fundamental raw material upon which almost all of our manufactured goods are based - plastic. It's also the basic material that produces a vast array of petrochemicals which much of our 20th century industrial revolution was based upon.

We can find other sources of energy; biomass, wind, solar, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion etc but can we find a viable alternative to plastic and petrochemicals ?

We're looking at a situation where we could be heading, technologically back to the victorian era if we're not careful.

We are burning our most important material when there are alternative forms of fuel and energy available!!

If you don't believe the science around climate change, perhaps you might think of how you'd get on with a wooden tooth-brush, or how you'd connect your computer up with cloth-covered cables...

I see the Economist has a little piece on the fact that the notoriously conservative International Energy Authority has put forward a date of 2020 for peak oil - along with the point that emissions controls, if agreed at Copenhagen, could delay that.

[SAT]

Lad, I notice that you avoid answering the question posited. Twice. A very typical tactic from those who claim climate change isn't happening.

As to feedback mechanisms, there are quite a few.
To be clear, are you claiming that water vapour is the primary leader of climate change?

No I am not and I have never suggested it is so why do you ask?

As for climate change happening - of course it is, The climate has been changing constantly for 4.5 billion years, why would it stop now?

[SAT]

Global warming theory based on CO2 increasing is pretty much established fact at this stage. You can read vast numbers of studies all of which prove that it is true and happening the only arguments are really about how rapidly it's causing the atmosphere to heat.

One of the bigger concerns is that we are most definitely running out of sources of oil. The risk with that is not so much that we can't find alternative fuels, with the right pressure on, we can and will. The real panic is that oil is the key ingredient that forms a fundamental raw material upon which almost all of our manufactured goods are based - plastic. It's also the basic material that produces a vast array of petrochemicals which much of our 20th century industrial revolution was based upon.

We can find other sources of energy; biomass, wind, solar, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion etc but can we find a viable alternative to plastic and petrochemicals ?

We're looking at a situation where we could be heading, technologically back to the victorian era if we're not careful.

We are burning our most important material when there are alternative forms of fuel and energy available!!

If you don't believe the science around climate change, perhaps you might think of how you'd get on with a wooden tooth-brush, or how you'd connect your computer up with cloth-covered cables...

You will be pleased to hear not all plastics are oil based and for those that are alternatives are being sought. Fructose is one possible alternative being investigated at the moment. So no need to worry about splinters from your wooden toothbrush.

[myksav]

No I am not and I have never suggested it is so why do you ask?
As for climate change happening - of course it is, The climate has been changing constantly for 4.5 billion years, why would it stop now?

Primarily because you focus so much on water vapour as the biggest climate changing 'gas'.
I take it that you would agree that as water vapour is not a driver? If so, what drives the increase in atmospheric heat?

4.5 billion years achanging? Of course. But would you like to try to survive in the atmosphere of Earth back then? (Not me, a high sulphur content in the atmosphere tends to trigger a severe asthmatic reaction in me.)

The planetary climate can dramatically change from any given state. It did so already a few billion years ago, it can do it again. It won't matter to the planet itself but a radically different condition would not suit the present category of extant species.

[SAT]

Primarily because you focus so much on water vapour as the biggest climate changing 'gas'.
I take it that you would agree that as water vapour is not a driver? If so, what drives the increase in atmospheric heat?

4.5 billion years achanging? Of course. But would you like to try to survive in the atmosphere of Earth back then? (Not me, a high sulphur content in the atmosphere tends to trigger a severe asthmatic reaction in me.)

The planetary climate can dramatically change from any given state. It did so already a few billion years ago, it can do it again. It won't matter to the planet itself but a radically different condition would not suit the present category of extant species.

What increase in atmospheric heat are you talking about



As you can see current temperatures are barely above the 30 year average.

[ibis]

Primarily because you focus so much on water vapour as the biggest climate changing 'gas'.
I take it that you would agree that as water vapour is not a driver? If so, what drives the increase in atmospheric heat?

4.5 billion years achanging? Of course. But would you like to try to survive in the atmosphere of Earth back then? (Not me, a high sulphur content in the atmosphere tends to trigger a severe asthmatic reaction in me.)

The planetary climate can dramatically change from any given state. It did so already a few billion years ago, it can do it again. It won't matter to the planet itself but a radically different condition would not suit the present category of extant species.

In fact, the planetary climate has been stable within quite narrow limits for the entirety of human civilisation. That's kind of the concern here - stepping outside the bounds of what our entire way of life has adapted to is likely to be quite exciting.

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.

UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.

experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.

They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change 'lies' by Britain