myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 175, 176, 177 ... 192, 193, 194  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Did I say out of context? The planet is habitable because of cloud cover. It keeps heat in—and when the cover is heavy, reflects heat. The cloud cycle is driven by heat—high school chemistry teaches us how water vapor in air is a function of temperature. The amount of water vapor—clouds—in the atmosphere is huge, and is a factor of the global temperature. I gave you the number—I’m not sure how many orders of magnitude greater than burning hydrogen it is, I’m only sure that burning hydrogen as a fuel doesn’t affect it. There’s plenty of water to evaporate if the atmosphere can hold it.

Paranoid people grab a fact to shore up their fear, instead of striving for understanding.

This doesn’t mean hydrogen is a perfect fuel. It needs to be generated and compressed. But that can be done with solar or wind power.


It's truly amazing how you can take a clear, factual post about water vapor & global warming with some speculation regarding using hydrogen as a fuel source and spin it to compulsive extremes. "Paranoid people and fear" - give me a break, a perfect example of your frequent dive off the deep end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These natural cycles have played out on earth for billions of years, mostly in balance. On Mars, not so much. I shouldn't bring that up, because we really don't know quite yet what happened there (and when), and it’s possible some of the water is locked under the Martian surface. Yes there are natural cyclical variations that occurs over thousand if not millions of years here like glaciation, asteroid hits and such, but our Goldilocks window for life has remained stable. Probably due to the deep oceans and the perfect atmosphere containing oxygen. However, water is not uncommon at all in the universe.

The records show, over the last 100 years since man has burned shit, greenhouse gases have doubled and things are spiking out of context to what’s in the records. The records show that Earth is warming exponentially faster. We can measure this. We know this. We can place 2 satellites within a nanometer of each other in space as they zip around the planet at 14,000 mph measuring shit. I trust the scientists that can do that, because I can’t even make a salad spinner. I can make a pet rock. Climate change has touched every part of the planet and people don't need scientists to tell them anymore, they can see it in their backyard. Lake Powell’s a dried up bathtub.

Climate feedback loops whether sunlight absorption or water vapor rise can have a drastic runaway effect. Just look at Mars, whatever happened there, happened quick. The water is gone. So don’t think a runaway effect loop cant happen here, it’s happening. Earth is being shocked by everything and anything man can get its hands on to burn. Mars ain’t going anywhere and neither is earth, but the window for life should not be taken for granted. Neither should runaway feedback loops and the power within them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno, rubbing his hands and worrying about alternatives to fossil fuels:

Quote:
water vapor is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming


Without water vapor and some carbon dioxide, the planet would be dead. When I was a kid I was fascinated with life on earth before even dinosaurs. Giant plants, giant insects.

CO2 levels were about ten times what they are now.

Quote:
Big snakes, alligators, giant tortoises, and flying lemurs thrived in a balmy Arctic some 50 million years ago. It was a time when the potent greenhouse gas carbon dioxide had spiked in Earth's atmosphere, making the high polar regions downright tropical.

Scientists who investigate past climates, called paleoclimatologists, have collected bounties of evidence that CO2 has long been a dominant lever on Earth's temperature. The evidence exists in chemicals stored in fossils, which indicate how much CO2 once saturated the atmosphere. Now, paleoclimate researchers have published the most comprehensive history to date of Earth's past CO2, starting after the dinosaurs went extinct some 66 million years ago (likely from an asteroid impact). The research, showing the strongest link yet between past CO2 levels and global temperatures, was recently published in the scientific journal Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

The 66 million-year geologic story shows an overall trend of gradual, naturally declining CO2 over tens of millions of years, concluding in the geologically recent ice ages. Crucially, this history also reveals the extreme, unnatural, skyrocketing rise in CO2 levels over the last 150 years.

"CO2 has of course changed before, but it's happened in slow and predicable ways," said James Rae, a paleoclimatologist from the University of St Andrews who led the new research. "What's happening now is so much faster than anything in the geologic record. There's nothing in comparison to what’s happening now."

What's happening now is humans have grown extremely proficient at digging up prodigious amounts of some of the most carbon-rich materials on Earth ("fossil fuels") and are burning them. Much of this carbon ends up in the atmosphere. "You couldn't design a better way to put more CO2 into the atmosphere," Rae said.


The difference, in careful language, which is often avoided, is that water vapor levels are not causing or contributing to global warming! They are a symptom of temperature.

Techno says something that supports a denial viewpoint--and then is surprised when he gets bitch-slapped. The thought of him teaching anything to kids is just very depressing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno,

You seem to be leaving out one inconvenient truth in your argument. If the 5 other non-condensable (meaning they can’t go to a liquid or solid) greenhouse gases weren’t increasing, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would be UNCHANGED from pre-industrial revolution levels.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you guys would go back and read my posts, you will see that I DON'T disagree with anything you have posted. Your compulsive rush to discredit anything a conservative says is bizarre.

It started with Iso's post about hydrogen powered cars that could possibly add water vapor to the atmosphere. All I said (check it out) was that water vapor is a greenhouse gas and that I didn't know if the amount of water vapor from hydrogen powered cars would increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to add to global warming. And I speculated that it would not.

To keep you focused:

The issue has been - since there is a finite amount of water/ice/water vapor on earth, and the water vapor in the atmosphere is always changing (liquid to gas and gas to liquid), would burning hydrogen increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere over the current world daily average? I don't know and I guess it would not. Now if you want to join the discussion on this point, please do. It's just that simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After two decades and tens of thousands of posts demonstrating the contrary, do you honestly think these people have ANY interest in rational, topical, honest, impersonal discussion based on facts or defensible opinions? It's not in their DNA, and that clearly goes from mac to Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, and many Republican politicians. Just look at Biden's response when asked about his three most recent (as of 8:51 AM today, anyway) outright lies denying statements he made to the entire world:
"None of the three occurred."

You'll notice I didn't mention Kamala "Chuckles" Harris, the world champeen of utterly meaningless word salads -- random, meaningless, juxtapositions of subjects, verbs, adjectives, and conjunctions -- spewed on the world stage in her official capacity as the second most powerful and intelligent county rodeo beauty pageant contestant in all of Coffee County, Alabama. She's not so much lying or attacking people as proving beyond a doubt that she doesn't have a brain above the brainstem. Here are just a few:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2022/03/31/spectacular-kamalas-latest-word-salad-may-be-her-most-hilarious-yet-n2605302
Her sole purpose for being within two thousand miles of the White House is to protect Bumbles Biden from Article 25.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
If you guys would go back and read my posts, you will see that I DON'T disagree with anything you have posted. Your compulsive rush to discredit anything a conservative says is bizarre.

It started with Iso's post about hydrogen powered cars that could possibly add water vapor to the atmosphere. All I said (check it out) was that water vapor is a greenhouse gas and that I didn't know if the amount of water vapor from hydrogen powered cars would increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to add to global warming. And I speculated that it would not.

To keep you focused:

The issue has been - since there is a finite amount of water/ice/water vapor on earth, and the water vapor in the atmosphere is always changing (liquid to gas and gas to liquid), would burning hydrogen increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere over the current world daily average? I don't know and I guess it would not. Now if you want to join the discussion on this point, please do. It's just that simple.


To keep you focused—you speculated that burning hydrogen would increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and claimed that water vapor increased global warming. Whatever your political perspective, you are wrong and uninformed on both accounts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2022 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno, you do not agree otherwise you would agree. You don't, and never will believe the earth is warming due to man. You wont or haven’t posted anything supporting this, in fact the opposite occurs. You don't trust science, you don't think Antarctica is warming, you post BS from no trick zone claiming so. Any chance you get, you post some out of context line from NASA without context like “Water vapor is a greenhouse gas”. You never post the follow up from NASA, “water vapor does not cause global warming”. NASA says this, you don't. You have never posted anything and never will that states the Earth is warming due to Man. You are a denier.

You wont listen to NOAA, NASA, Goddard Space, the EPA, Department of Energy, Natural resources, Dept. of Interior, Agriculture, or any other scientific body in any country on Earth. You are a denier. Embrace you stubbornness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have always acknowledged that there is global warming. How much mankind's role in it is still debatable, in my opinion.

Maybe it's more complex than anyone knows:

Quote:
Water Vapor and Climate Change

ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Narratives

Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature. Instead, the amount of water vapor is controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases. Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.



If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.


There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.


https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17743
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2022 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh look, instead of acknowledging his mistakes, Techno moves the goalposts. His article, which he may have read, says that an increase in temperature leads to an increase in water vapor.

It also notes that increased water vapor can exacerbate global warming—a feedback loop—or increased clouds, which can decrease warming. That is hornbook climate science, which Techno got wrong in his initial claim. Nonetheless, he clings to his religious belief that humans have nothing to do with this.

Sad but not surprising.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 175, 176, 177 ... 192, 193, 194  Next
Page 176 of 194

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group