Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Wild Cobra]

Well said Phenomanul.

[boutons_deux]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless?

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist?

[Wild Cobra]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless?

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist?

Please explain how CO2 increasing from 0.0278% of the atmosphere to 0.04% is harmful. There is approximately 50 time more water vapor in the lower troposphere, and it is also a greenhouse gas.

Now... like I said, please explain... Not some knee-jerk alarmist BS that you don't comprehend, that you quote from one of the several liberal rags you read. Please cite a paper.

[Phenomanul]

So an steadily, HISTORIC increase in GHG is harmless?

Atmospheric science as told by a Bible humping creationist?

So your response was an ad hominem attack...? Predictable.

Please enlighten us with the trend of "HISTORIC" increase in GHG (CO2 in particular)" in the context of the range of historical concentrations of said cons uent... Then explain to us how being within the range of historical concentrations (within one standard deviation of the mean) is cause for alarm?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

CO2 being a green-house gas was considered established science whenever we developed sensible enough instruments to validate/confirm Boltzmann-derrived emissivities and absorptivities (since the 1940s). That's never been the heart of the issue. Only you would throw out that red-herring argument to bolster the position that somehow CO2's anthropogenic impact is legitimized simply because the science behind the green-house effect is valid. Were that the case (using that logic), and as I've explained on many other occasions on this board, water vapor would have to be the most regulated pollutant.

1) because water vapor exists in much higher concentrations within our atmosphere (i.e visible concentrations [clouds and humidity]) - far unlike the 300-360 ppmv concentrations of CO2.

2) because it has a radiative forcing factor (NET positive absorbtivity) that is 50 times greater than that of CO2. Since water vapor can absorb and retain more solar energy it tends to increase its enthalpic state resulting in an increase of system temperature.

If not for the green house effect provided by our atmosphere this planet would have sub-zero temperatures throughout.

What's ignorant is your assumption that simply because we disagree, that somehow you're intellectually superior (it may, or may not be the case, but an assumption on that front is presumptuous at best... and immaterial at worst)... Have I called you stupid? Idiotic? No... why not extend the same courtesy then...?

Took you two days to google that up and then you don't cite it. Nice. I like how you pretend that climate scientists don't consider water vapor. It is as fun as WC saying they do not consider soot. He sure waved his hands when they made an adjustment to the forcing but it still netted the same result.

And quit ing crying. I haven't called you stupid. I have called certain things you said ignorant but I also point out that you are better than sophist and dumbass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation. It's a direct impact to the local economies they support, less employees, less overall work - not some wishy-washy hypothetical. I don't care about the oil magnates - they will stay wealthy no matter what... These type of initiatives directly and adversely affect the middle working classes; I don't know how anyone can claim otherwise.

All I read here is that you are not objective. If they are passing on the price to you and still bringing in record profits what does that tell you? They aren't Henry Ford for one but what else?

But thanks for revealing that you are a member of the petroleum industry.

[Phenomanul]

Took you two days to google that up and then you don't cite it. Nice. I like how you pretend that climate scientists don't consider water vapor. It is as fun as WC saying they do not consider soot. He sure waved his hands when they made an adjustment to the forcing but it still netted the same result.

And quit ing crying. I haven't called you stupid. I have called certain things you said ignorant but I also point out that you are better than sophist and dumbass.

I've been pointing to that inconsistency in logic for years (including in this website)... and long before "googling" became googling, or before I registered on Spurstalk... I don't have to apologize that I have other responsibilities that keep me away from living in the political forum...

Oh... and I'm also sorry that you feel that knowledge from the 1940s and 1950's has to be cited before it can be legitimized by you... at that point buddy, it's pretty much public domain. Or do you feel I still need to cite Einstein's 1905 paper if I wish to speak about Relativity?

But before I forget. Let me point out you didn't actually refute anything I posted. I've read SOOOOOOO many articles that want to wish away this glaring inconsistency but they can't... So before you go a-googling a suitable rebuttal, let me tell you, "I'm not interested... in playing this game of yours forever." Like I said, you're so firmly entrenched in your belief that even a simple and powerful observation isn't enough to sway you. As I said before, the absorption energies are based on Boltzmann-derived formulas - energies which are derived from the molecular bonds themselves (i.e. they are INTRINSIC to the molecule in question). You, nor anyone else can change that.

So the question is asked anew. If water vapor exists at much higher concentrations in our atmosphere and imposes a radiative forcing factor that is greater than that of CO2... How is water vapor not considered a pollutant???? Why aren't we making policy changes to address and legislate the emission of said species??? And don't think for a second that the irony of the combustion reaction is lost on me either... I do understand that water is also produced when combusting fossil fuels and their derivatives. My question is WHY harp on CO2 when water vapor produces 95% of the green house effect in our atmosphere? I'll tell you.... that right there is the pseudo-science - a political story that isn't supported by basic physics...

[Phenomanul]

All I read here is that you are not objective. If they are passing on the price to you and still bringing in record profits what does that tell you? They aren't Henry Ford for one but what else?

But thanks for revealing that you are a member of the petroleum industry.

Three things eluded you:

1) the part where I'm a member of the middle class - whether or not the "bosses" make more money doesn't automatically mean I'm somehow bolstered to the ranks of the wealthy or that I'm incapable of being objective...

2) the wealthy oil magnates/tycoons or whatever you want to call them will retain their wealth and power no matter what we do. Needlessly spending money to address bogus legislation cuts into the money than the rest of the work pool would have earned. DIRECT economic impact on the middle working class.

3) it's really a no win situation with you guys... here are the two scenarios that could've played out:

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I actually work with and around the refiners, I can tell you that budgets are slashed with these type of initiatives..."

You all - "well since you work IN the petroleum industry... your position is biased and not objective..."

OR

You all - "show us how CO2 legislation will adversely effect the economy..."

me - "well since I don't actually work with and around the refiners, I couldn't tell you whether or not the effects on their budgets by these initiatives are real or not..."

You all - "Like we said, you can't produce a link between the cause and effect... you're just a fear mongerer..."

SOOOOOOO like I said, you all aren't really interested in understanding TRUTH. Just the truth that you all wish to be true. In the process, you all behave acidic towards others... (I mean caustic - whatever) - towards those that don't share your position. You all wave your arms around wishing to be acknowledged as intellectual superiors but can't even see the sheet that has been thrown over your collective eyes...

[Phenomanul]

Now if you will allow it... I will be out playing some fútbol on this gorgeous day (with my Flash Messi jersey).... peace Fuzzy! We can agree to disagree...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've been pointing to that inconsistency in logic for years (including in this website)... and long before "googling" became "googling", or before I registered on Spurstalk... I don't have to apologize that I have other responsibilities that keep me away from living the political forum...

Oh... and sorry that you feel that knowledge from the 1940s and 1950's has to be cited before it is legitimized by you... at that point buddy, it's pretty much public domain. Or do you feel I still need to cite Einstein's 1905 paper if I wish to speak about Relativity?

But before I forget. Let me point out you didn't actually refute anything I posted. I've read SOOOOOOO many articles that want to wish away this glaring inconsistency but they can't... So before you go a-googling a suitable rebuttal, let me tell you, "I'm not interested... in playing this game of yours forever." Like I said, you're so firmly entrenched in your belief that even a simple and powerful observation isn't enough to sway you. As I said before, the absorption energies are based on Boltzmann-derived formulas - energies which are derived from the molecular bonds themselves (i.e. they are INTRINSIC to the molecule in question). You, nor anyone else can change that.

So the question is asked anew. If water vapor exists at much higher concentrations in our atmosphere and imposes a radiative forcing factor that is greater than that of CO2... How is water vapor not considered a pollutant???? Why aren't we making policy changes to address and legislate the emission of said species??? And don't think for a second that the irony of the combustion reaction is lost on me either... I do understand that water is also produced when combusting fossil fuels and their derivatives. My question is WHY harp on CO2 when water vapor produces 95% of the green house effect in our atmosphere?

Just to be clear. You have completely abandoned the sea ice argument. Now you want to fixate on water vapor. Bait and switch. Some people might think you are throwing the proverbial against the wall and hoping.

Wave your hands at the EM behavior at the molecular level all you like but there are more macro manifestations that you have to account for. A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.

Water vapor is harder to quantify because clouds form and are a negative forcing directly related to how much water is in the air. Have you heard of the term feedback loop? I'm not saying that water isn't a net gain but you cannot just wave your hands at your boltzman chart and ignore all the EM that clouds filter out completely through reflection. This is exactly like WC and his chart of partial pressures of lab water and commenting on ocean behavior. There is a reason why I describe this tripe as ignorant and oversimplified.

Our topological frameworks right now cannot account for turbulence with accuracy. They are backward engineered summations but the actual mechanics is anyone's guess, it could be truly random for all we know. Flight controls use rolling averages or react. Aerodynamics is centered around the idea of eliminating turbulence or creating idealized scenarios for turbulence for lift and such. Chemical engineering will use these same principles. Predicting cloud formation over the north atlantic?

The thing is they can go back and record cloud cover with your fancy sea ice satellites and quantify I/O whole as well as mark signals and bounce them off clouds and such. That you think that you don't believe our own National Academy, most all of the world's academies, IPCC, et all account for the EM effect of H20 is funny though.

[Phenomanul]

Just to be clear. You have completely abandoned the sea ice argument. Now you want to fixate on water vapor. Bait and switch. Some people might think you are throwing the proverbial against the wall and hoping.

I have to retract something I said earlier. I've known about the radiative differences between water vapor and CO2 since about 2008 - prior to that point I wasn't convinced one way or the other...

To me, that observation made it very clear that the inconsistency can't be swept under a rug.

You can go back and search my posts...

bait and switch... as if having multiple reasons for not believing the ACH story somehow weakens my position... I'm still not convinced by your rebuttals on the "thicknesses of Antarctic" ice given the fact that the study has no simple control reference point (i.e. data going back more than just a couple of years - as opposed to convenient "estimates")... I made that pretty clear (but you're so caught up thinking that somehow posted articles/studies carry absolute merit).

Wave your hands at the EM behavior at the molecular level all you like but there are more macro manifestations that you have to account for. A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.

Another favorite tactic of the pseudoscientist is to wash away SIMPLE observations that don't jive with their beliefs under the guise that the complexity of systems will take care of the problem/inconsistency. Science is built on foundational principles, if a premise doesn't work at a physical or chemical level it falls apart at the more complex ones (and again, don't assume I don't understand them).

Water vapor is harder to quantify because clouds form and are a negative forcing directly related to how much water is in the air. Have you heard of the term feedback loop? I'm not saying that water isn't a net gain but you cannot just wave your hands at your boltzman chart and ignore all the EM that clouds filter out completely through reflection. This is exactly like WC and his chart of partial pressures of lab water and commenting on ocean behavior. There is a reason why I describe this tripe as ignorant and oversimplified.

Exhibit A:

The fact of the matter is that at any given moment, there is more water vapor receiving solar flux from the sun than CO2. That is an undeniable fact. Or do you deny that this is the case?

I've read many rebuttals that literally suggest that there are less clouds on the sunny part of our planet. A diversionary tactic that doesn't change Boltzmann energy absorption. (not to mention the simple observation that on my "Living Earth" app the distribution of Earth's many cloud systems look fairly uniform).

I've read other rebuttals that suggest that the albedo provided by clouds FAR suppresses the overwhelming contribution of its green-house forcing vs. that of CO2. This would deny another well known measurement; that clouds are typically warmer than their surrounding air (even when full of ice crystals)...

Other rebuttals still, that contain partial truths such as mentioning that because water removes atmospheric heat during precipitation that its EM effect is negated. To suggest that without then referencing that the natural convection of cloud systems re-radiates all of the absorbed enthalpic heat is disingenuous. But hey, they don't expect the normal reader to understand these dynamics. They just expect to be taken at their every "peer reviewed" word.

The list goes on.

Our topological frameworks right now cannot account for turbulence with accuracy. They are backward engineered summations but the actual mechanics is anyone's guess, it could be truly random for all we know. Flight controls use rolling averages or react. Aerodynamics is centered around the idea of eliminating turbulence or creating idealized scenarios for turbulence for lift and such. Chemical engineering will use these same principles. Predicting cloud formation over the north atlantic?

So these "more complex" models fail to settle the science. That's what your detractors have been saying all along. The science behind CO2-driven anthropogenic climate change isn't settled. You all are simply "kicking and screaming" at the fact that this global indoctrination doesn't convince everyone.

The thing is they can go back and record cloud cover with your fancy sea ice satellites and quantify I/O whole as well as mark signals and bounce them off clouds and such.

You glossed over the fact that I mentioned I love submitting that particular data set, because it's one of few that can not be easily manipulated given that it was originally used to suggest that the ice masses were INCREASING (one of the original purposes for sending those satellites into space in the first place).

That you think that you don't believe our own National Academy, most all of the world's academies, IPCC, et all account for the EM effect of H20 is funny though.

They would be easier to believe if certain folks in those ins utions weren't constantly manipulating data sets. The IPCC is a fraudulent joke, but people like you worship their every report.

[Wild Cobra]

Phenomanul is absolutely correct in that it doesn't add up. That is the simple way to explain why the alarmist position is incorrect.

[DarrinS]

A favorite tactic of pseudoscientist is to grandstand on a particular chemical or physical property to the exclusion of all else.

Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

[Phenomanul]

Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

Well played... surprised that ^^^THIS wasn't my initial rebuttal to his ad-hominem assertion.

[Th'Pusher]

There you go again with that economic alarmism.

Feel free to present any evidence whatsoever of this potential catastrophic adverse affect on our economy, and please address the totality of negative externalities of oil production.

I think we subsidize oil production quite enough, though the negative externalities inherent in the production, storage, and usage of this rather dangerous product.

Not only will taxing CO2 emissions provide a net immediate benefit to our economy, creating high-tech, un-outsourcable jobs, abandoning this old tech, with its aging infrastructure, the jobs created by the readjustment of our economy to a more efficient and sustainable mixture of energy sources will make us far more compe ive.

If you can't show me economic harm from some settled economic sources, you should probably rethink your alarmist position.

Phenomanul, you neglected to address this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like focusing attention on CO2 to the exclusion of all the other things that affect climate.

You claiming the IPCC, National Academy, BEST, the Royal Academy, etc don't treat all forcings comprehensively? That is stupid that shames you. I don't claim to speak for the climate community. Push comes to shove that is exactly where I go and you know this.

The fact of the matter is that at any given moment, there is more water vapor receiving solar flux from the sun than CO2. That is an undeniable fact. Or do you deny that this is the case?

I've read many rebuttals that literally suggest that there are less clouds on the sunny part of our planet. A diversionary tactic that doesn't change Boltzmann energy absorption. (not to mention the simple observation that on my "Living Earth" app the distribution of Earth's many cloud systems look fairly uniform).

I've read other rebuttals that suggest that the albedo provided by clouds FAR suppresses the overwhelming contribution of its green-house forcing vs. that of CO2. This would deny another well known measurement; that clouds are typically warmer than their surrounding air (even when full of ice crystals)...

Other rebuttals still, that contain partial truths such as mentioning that because water removes atmospheric heat during precipitation that its EM effect is negated. To suggest that without then referencing that the natural convection of cloud systems re-radiates all of the absorbed enthalpic heat is disingenuous. But hey, they don't expect the normal reader to understand these dynamics. They just expect to be taken at their every "peer reviewed" word.

the only substantive thing is this entire discussion. the scientific conspiracy theory/consensus herring is horse . If tabloid outrage that withered under 7 fruitless inquiries appeals to you then so be it. Benghazi is likely mesmerizing for you as well then.

even more hilarious is you haranguing them for taking them at their 'word' after you lay whopper after whopper with not a single reference or citation. Even if I believed you came up with this on your own, -I don't at all, oilman- you should at least reference these studies that you claim do not consider convection or thermodynamics in general. You have your boogeyman scientific community while I have you. What's your experience in atmospheric modeling or even thermodynamics for that matter? Where are these strawmen you are beating up?

Just to point out how full of you are let's go over to the evil IPCC and see what they say about cloud convection:

The Earth’s cloudiness is associated with a large spectrum of cloud types, ranging from low-level boundary-layer clouds to deep convective clouds and anvils. Understanding cloud feedbacks requires an understanding of how a change in climate may affect the spectrum and the radiative properties of these different clouds, and an estimate of the impact of these changes on the Earth’s radiation budget.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...8s8-6-3-2.html

Well lookie here. They do consider the thermodynamic properties of clouds and you are full of . That was easier than finding WC's solubility chart.

[Phenomanul]

You claiming the IPCC, National Academy, BEST, the Royal Academy, etc don't treat all forcings comprehensively? That is stupid that shames you. I don't claim to speak for the climate community. Push comes to shove that is exactly where I go and you know this.

the only substantive thing is this entire discussion. the scientific conspiracy theory/consensus herring is horse . If tabloid outrage that withered under 7 fruitless inquiries appeals to you then so be it. Benghazi is likely mesmerizing for you as well then.

another strawman assumption on your part.

Up until now this is the first time I've ever written the word "Benghazi"...

But keep reaching at straws.

The IPCC manipulated/deleted data and admitted as much in the leaked emails. Soooo much backpeddaling on their part convinced folks like yourself that they really weren't fudging data. Ask yourself why data that would be considered "public domain / for the good of humanity" would be so dangerous if left exposed that the IPCC had governments seek and destroy leaked copies...

even more hilarious is you haranguing them for taking them at their 'word' after you lay whopper after whopper with not a single reference or citation.

Let me simplify what public domain knowledge means:

Water vapor is far more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

The radiative green-house forcing vector for water vapor is greater than that of CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

You keep wanting to brush these aside - to diminish their combined importance by suggesting that other complex dynamics (that are conveniently too difficult to model/simulate) negate the ramifications of those two truths.

What's more, you've thrown another ad hominem attack in the process. So either they are "whoppers" and I'm lying about the key differences between water vapor and CO2 or they are facts. You've hedged your bets in the wrong pot.

Even if I believed you came up with this on your own, -I don't at all, oilman- you should at least reference these studies that you claim do not consider convection or thermodynamics in general. You have your boogeyman scientific community while I have you. What's your experience in atmospheric modeling or even thermodynamics for that matter? Where are these strawmen you are beating up?

I use thermodynamic principles day in and day out. There you go assuming again. You don't know me... You don't know what I do for a living. Nor is there a need to tell you.

Just to point out how full of you are let's go over to the evil IPCC and see what they say about cloud convection:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...8s8-6-3-2.html

Ooooh oooh you found an article that references cloud convection. Am I supposed to be impressed? If you were paying attention I was referencing rebuttals that claimed that the condensation of water vapor (via precipitation) removed more energy from the system than it absorbed from the sun - without factoring convection. I don't care that you found some other article that talks about cloud convection. I'm specifically referencing the inconsistency in targeting CO2 as a major pollutant with logic that would otherwise target water vapor as the primary culprit.

Speaking of the IPCC and since you soooo want me to link their crap.... Here is their official position on the greenhouse effect. Direct from their FAQ.

The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.

Several components of the climate system, notably the oceans and living things, affect atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. A prime example of this is plants taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and converting it (and water) into carbohydrates via photosynthesis. In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Additional important feedback mechanisms involve clouds. Clouds are effective at absorbing infrared radiation and therefore exert a large greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earth. Clouds are also effective at reflecting away incoming solar radiation, thus cooling the Earth. A change in almost any aspect of clouds, such as their type, location, water content, cloud al ude, particle size and shape, or lifetimes, affects the degree to which clouds warm or cool the Earth. Some changes amplify warming while others diminish it. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...n/faq-1-3.html

It's been a while since I had read their FAQ. At least now they are talking about water vapor. In one fell swoop they reveal the truth but then quickly minimize the difference in magnitude between the contribution of the effects of water vapor and CO2. Why don't they show the actual Boltzmann energies? The relative concentrations of the cons uents? Because it doesn't suit their story... that's why.

It's like saying that a multi-billionaire is considered wealthy and then also suggesting in the same breath that someone that earns 10,000 is also wealthy. That's essentially what they did in the highlighted statement (by neglecting to show the significant difference in orders of magnitude between their respective contributions).

Also buried in their explanation is a subtle thermodynamic manipulation that seemingly bolsters their CO2 driven ACH position: "This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

Approximately double? Really? So CO2 imposes a stronger green-house effect via water vapor (due to positive feedback reinforcement that adds more water vapor to the atmosphere as a direct result of CO2's presence). So again the culprit is water vapor yet they keep trying to keep CO2 in the picture. How can you not see that for the disingenuous approach that it is...

Well lookie here. They do consider the thermodynamic properties of clouds and you are full of . That was easier than finding WC's solubility chart.

You've missed the point entirely (which I stated above).

IF by their own admission water vapor is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Why isn't it regulated as a pollutant....?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

another strawman assumption on your part.

Up until now this is the first time I've ever written the word "Benghazi"...

But keep reaching at straws.

The IPCC manipulated/deleted data and admitted as much in the leaked emails. Soooo much backpeddaling on their part convinced folks like yourself that they really weren't fudging data. Ask yourself why data that would be considered "public domain / for the good of humanity" would be so dangerous if left exposed that the IPCC had governments seek and destroy leaked copies...



Let me simplify what public domain knowledge means:

Water vapor is far more abundant in our atmosphere than CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

The radiative green-house forcing vector for water vapor is greater than that of CO2. FACT (if you need to verify it google it yourself)

You keep wanting to brush these aside - to diminish their combined importance by suggesting that other complex dynamics (that are conveniently too difficult to model/simulate) negate the ramifications of those two truths.

What's more, you've thrown another ad hominem attack in the process. So either they are "whoppers" and I'm lying about the key differences between water vapor and CO2 or they are facts. You've hedged your bets in the wrong pot.



I use thermodynamic principles day in and day out. There you go assuming again. You don't know me... You don't know what I do for a living. Nor is there a need to tell you.



Ooooh oooh you found an article that references cloud convection. Am I supposed to be impressed? If you were paying attention I was referencing rebuttals that claimed that the condensation of water vapor (via precipitation) removed more energy from the system than it absorbed from the sun - without factoring convection. I don't care that you found some other article that talks about cloud convection. I'm specifically referencing the inconsistency in targeting CO2 as a major pollutant with logic that would otherwise target water vapor as the primary culprit.

Speaking of the IPCC and since you soooo want me to link their crap.... Here is their official position on the greenhouse effect. Direct from their FAQ.



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...n/faq-1-3.html

It's been a while since I had read their FAQ. At least now they are talking about water vapor. In one fell swoop they reveal the truth but then quickly minimize the difference in magnitude between the contribution of the effects of water vapor and CO2. Why don't they show the actual Boltzmann energies? The relative concentrations of the cons uents? Because it doesn't suit their story... that's why.

It's like saying that a multi-billionaire is considered wealthy and then also suggesting in the same breath that someone that earns 10,000 is also wealthy. That's essentially what they did in the highlighted statement (by neglecting to show the significant difference in orders of magnitude between their respective contributions).

Also buried in their explanation is a subtle thermodynamic manipulation that seemingly bolsters their CO2 driven ACH position: "This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

Approximately double? Really? So CO2 imposes a stronger green-house effect via water vapor (due to positive feedback reinforcement that adds more water vapor to the atmosphere as a direct result of CO2's presence). So again the culprit is water vapor yet they keep trying to keep CO2 in the picture. How can you not see that for the disingenuous approach that it is...

You've missed the point entirely (which I stated above).

IF by their own admission water vapor is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Why isn't it regulated as a pollutant....?

I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0

still ongoing are the debates over the East Anglia Emails, international climate science conspiracy, and waving your hands at the boltzman for H2O and acting like that means CO2's boltzman is not meaningful.

The emails were stolen and cherry picked. The British Governement and science association, the EPA, US science associations and the universities themselves completed their inquiry into censorship and data manipulation and found nothing. Your overlords paid stooge Inhofe then demanded the inspector general of the commerce department review it and even then nothing. That was 2009. Since then the BEST project inspected the temperature record and affirmed its validity. The argument is old and stupid.

If you want to believe in a massive global conspiracy amongst UN countries many of which are adversarial politically then have fun with that. They are clearly considering all of the physical properties you are bringing up and all you can do is whine and denounce their quantification. IPCC's full work and datasets are open to the public. If you want to make an actual case about falsified figures or link someone else's then have at it but you being a whiney is not a compelling reason to believe that the data has been manipulated.

I did think that complaining about them not putting the boltzman chart on the faq for you was a nice touch. That type of megalomania and the large fonts mean that you have be really really asshurt. Well done, monkey.

Now onto water. How do you intend to adjust the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through regulation? Nevermind that 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, nevermind the concept of state change of water, pressure, temperature and dew points. Exactly what activity or behavior do you propose we regulate? Our agricultural and industrial practices dry up water sources and create deserts and have been doing so for centuries.

At no point do you present a source that agrees with any of your takes. You are all on your lonesome, oil platformer. Shall we look up what the US national academy has to say on water vapor's thermodynamic properties and feedback mechanics? they don't agree with your dumbed down handwaving but if you call me on it ill be more than happy to look it up.

[boutons_deux]

The “Dr. Evil” of climate denial: Meet the legendary P.R. exec with a sinister anti-science agenda




Working on a host of various issues, Berman’s m.o. is always the same—form seemingly independent (and always very academic-sounding) groups that can then go out and do the dirty work that big companies can’t do for themselves. In the last ten years, Berman has attacked the Humane Society for Big Ag, he’s smeared Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the alcohol industry, and today he’s bringing his unique skill set to the arena of climate change.

In a recent piece for the Guardian, journalists exposed that over the last year, Berman (also known by the moniker “Dr. Evil”) has “secretly routed funding for at least 16 studies and launched at least five front groups attacking Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon dioxide from power plants.” The criticisms launched by these kinds of front groups are typically dirty and dishonest, but Berman spends little time worrying about such concerns. In a secretly recorded speech to oil and gas industry executives this past June, Berman told his potential funders, “you can either win ugly, or lose pretty.”

Against the backdrop of an ever-warming planet, a small but effective group of professionals has kept the “debate” about climate change raging, decades after the science became clear.

What guys like Berman recognize is that as long as the media is still debating whether or not climate change is real, we’ll never move on to the debate we ought to be having: What can we do to lessen the dangers of climate change before it’s too late?

Like good lawyers, they know that manufacturing even the slightest shred of doubt can be enough to keep the media deliberating, and to keep us from reaching a verdict that something serious needs to be done.

The media often plays into the hands of guys like Berman and it’s easy to see why: fairness, and a desire to hear both sides, stands at very the core of the journalistic ethic.

For 50 years, Big Tobacco — one of Berman’s first clients — was allowed to playpoint/counterpoint with mainstream scientists. But no person today would grant equal time to the Surgeon General and a Tobacco Lobbyist in a debate about the dangers of smoking. As a society, we’ve accepted reality and moved on.

Today, with climate change, the same can’t be said. We’re still allowing the same old debate to continue on cable news, in newspapers, in Op-ed pages. And our news outlets still cover the issue in terms one opinion versus another, not as fact vs. fiction. This needs to change. Until our coverage reflects the reality of the science and the consequences of our inaction, we won’t step up to the profound challenges before us.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/the_...cience_agenda/

Berman, and ALL YOU AGW DENIERS

[DarrinS]

I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0

Awe, that's cute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Awe, that's cute.

Putting on pink and talking sweet to my posts now, sophist?

If you don't get the answer you want your posts reveal more about you then the one that you are talking to.

[Phenomanul]

Look Fuzzy, I've already squandered more time than I wanted responding to your obstinate position. You haven't even had the galls to look up the EM absorption spectra differences for yourself, and have for the 7th time deflected any semblance of admission. I even went as far as going to the IPCC website (which I hadn't done in a while) to show that even they have adjusted their position and finally admit that CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas.

What do you do...? You keep deflecting and launch ad-hominem after ad-hominem in my direction.

I want to start by saying after one callout and you still running away, you have lost the 'sea ice satellite pictures disprove AGW' debate. That brings the score to:

Fuzzy: 1 Pheno: 0

And I'M the megalomaniac... seriously???

still ongoing are the debates over the East Anglia Emails, international climate science conspiracy, and waving your hands at the boltzman for H2O and acting like that means CO2's boltzman is not meaningful.

For the umpteenth time the Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

How are those differences "not meaningful..."? You're acting like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

Consider these lovely gems from a pro-Climate Change website:
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environ...or-really-play

Here are the perfect ingredients for a conspiracy theory: water vapor is the most important factor influencing the greenhouse effect but doesn’t feature on the UN’s list of greenhouse gases responsible for anthropogenic global warming.

Critics of the idea of man-made global warming love this simple fact and have turned it into one of their most potent arguments to sabotage decisive climate action.

So why doesn’t the UN’s climate body the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) list water vapor as a greenhouse gas? It’s because water vapor does not by itself increase temperatures. It amplifies already occurring warming.

Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes regionally. While there is virtually no water vapor above deserts or the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air above the equator can consist of up to four percent water vapor.

In humid equatorial regions, where there is already a strong natural greenhouse effect, additional CO2 and water vapor have little impact on local climate. The opposite is true in cold, dry places, which is one reason why warming is much more pronounced in Polar regions.

Concentration matters

Regional differences aside, the atmosphere contains on average only 0.4 percent of water vapor and ten times less CO2. This relatively small concentration is another argument often cited to refute the idea of man-made global warming. How can CO2 cause rising temperatures, skeptics demand, if it only accounts for 0.04 percent of the atmosphere?

Again the riddle is solved easily.

Oxygen and nitrogen are the most abundant elements in the Earth’s atmosphere and make up 99 percent of it. But neither of the two gases traps or emits heat.

This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up even if you tried. This position is filled with sooooo much bunk - it's rather laughable.

1st "wave of the hand":
"Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water."

At any given moment, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is still roughly 10.5 times higher than that of CO2 - in the context of daily solar radiation absorption, residence time is immaterial. FACT.

2nd "wave of the hand":
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

Earlier I pointed out the flaw in the IPCC's failsafe explanation that CO2 was forcing the effect of water vapor to be greater because of positive feedback dynamics asserted by their position. In either case the majority of the rise in temperature comes from water vapor, NOT CO2. Furthermore, water vapor does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes (re-radiation/convection). Greenhouse gases do NOT 'force' anything: that implies they have some inherent power... which they don't. They moderate heat retention and heat loss through the buffering of IR (solar radiation).

Their cute little analogy about the car's turbo charger deceptively masks where the source of the warming comes from... again, from water vapor.

3rd "wave of the hand":
This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Here again, they admit that water vapor is the culprit, but then quickly turn around to suggest that CO2 did it. Again it doesn't fit their story to blame water vapor. Who in their right mind would tax water vapor as a pollutant...?

The emails were stolen and cherry picked. The British Governement and science association, the EPA, US science associations and the universities themselves completed their inquiry into censorship and data manipulation and found nothing. Your overlords paid stooge Inhofe then demanded the inspector general of the commerce department review it and even then nothing. That was 2009. Since then the BEST project inspected the temperature record and affirmed its validity. The argument is old and stupid.

If you want to believe in a massive global conspiracy amongst UN countries many of which are adversarial politically then have fun with that. They are clearly considering all of the physical properties you are bringing up and all you can do is whine and denounce their quantification. IPCC's full work and datasets are open to the public. If you want to make an actual case about falsified figures or link someone else's then have at it but you being a whiney is not a compelling reason to believe that the data has been manipulated.

Circle-jerk defense and dynamics prevented the fall of said ins ution. When the "prosecution" is lying in bed with the "defense" this will always be the outcome. The worst part is the worshipping peeps, such as yourself, will always fail to see their fraudulence.

Off the top of my memory the emails clearly said that "certain data sets" needed to be removed from plots. That "certain temperature probes in high la ude and high al ude locations needed to be removed from the data pool", "but that their data would be kept for baseline data..." (how convenient)

That all those other investigative agencies failed to reprimand the IPCC for these actions is an egregious example of their bias.

Again, you bought it. Good for you.

I did think that complaining about them not putting the boltzman chart on the faq for you was a nice touch. That type of megalomania and the large fonts mean that you have be really really asshurt. Well done, monkey.

The large font was to ensure that you would at least try to answer that one question - given that you tend to gloss over everything that doesn't suit the flow of your version of this discussion...

Which finally it seems like you've addressed below (still missing the greater point). But go ahead and keep adding tallies to your fictional debate score card if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Monkey???? So now you've derailed the conversation to the launching racist ad-hominems... great.

Now onto water. How do you intend to adjust the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through regulation? Nevermind that 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, nevermind the concept of state change of water, pressure, temperature and dew points. Exactly what activity or behavior do you propose we regulate? Our agricultural and industrial practices dry up water sources and create deserts and have been doing so for centuries.

Ahhhhh that's it!!!! That's the point!!!! No one in their right mind would try to regulate water vapor as a pollutant. Any government en y which attempted to do so would be branded as idiotic.

But that's the catch. If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. You would also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less).

Nice of you to finally reach the punch line (after about 8 responses). That's the whole point of contention in pointing out the ramifications of the following two truths.

1) The Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

2) Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

or 3 orders of magnitude difference...

That's also why the IPCC or these other agencies subtly skirt the publishing of the numbers involved side-by-side. Because they know it hurts their agenda.

At no point do you present a source that agrees with any of your takes. You are all on your lonesome, oil platformer. Shall we look up what the US national academy has to say on water vapor's thermodynamic properties and feedback mechanics? they don't agree with your dumbed down handwaving but if you call me on it ill be more than happy to look it up.

The hand waving is being done by them if you haven't noticed by now.

"lonesome, oil platformer"...

Funny how you managed to fit two fallacies into that one...

1) I don't work on oil platforms, nor am I employed by any oil producer for that matter.... ad-hominem strawman...
2) the fallacy of consensius gentium. If the majority believe it, then it must be true. As if somehow I'm supposed to conform to the thinking of others...

[boutons_deux]

Volcano-Powered Ocean Acidification Caused the Planet's Greatest Mass Extinction

"Scientists have long suspected that an ocean acidification event occurred during the greatest mass extinction of all time, but direct evidence has been lacking until now, said Matthew Clarkson, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences. "This is a worrying finding, considering that we can already see an increase in ocean acidity today that is the result of human carbon emissions."

Changes to the Earth's oceans, caused by extreme volcanic activity, triggered the greatest extinction of all time, a new study suggests. The event, which took place 252 million years ago, wiped out more than 90 per cent of marine species and more than two-thirds of the animals living on land.It happened when Earth's oceans absorbed huge amounts of carbon dioxide from volcanic eruptions, researchers say.

This changed the chemical composition of the oceans - making them more acidic - with catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, the team says.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ce%2C+Tech.%29

everybody relax, water vapor will save the planet

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look Fuzzy, I've already squandered more time than I wanted responding to your obstinate position. You haven't even had the galls to look up the EM absorption spectra differences for yourself, and have for the 7th time deflected any semblance of admission. I even went as far as going to the IPCC website (which I hadn't done in a while) to show that even they have adjusted their position and finally admit that CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas.

What do you do...? You keep deflecting and launch ad-hominem after ad-hominem in my direction.





And I'M the megalomaniac... seriously???



For the umpteenth time the Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

How are those differences "not meaningful..."? You're acting like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

Consider these lovely gems from a pro-Climate Change website:
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environ...or-really-play



Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up even if you tried. This position is filled with sooooo much bunk - it's rather laughable.

1st "wave of the hand":
"Water vapor’s role in the Earth’s climate system is defined by the very short time it remains in the atmosphere and actively traps heat. While additional CO2 from factories or airplanes can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, extra water vapor will only remain a few days before raining down as water."

At any given moment, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is still roughly 10.5 times higher than that of CO2 - in the context of daily solar radiation absorption, residence time is immaterial. FACT.

2nd "wave of the hand":
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The atmosphere can only hold more water vapor if overall temperatures increase. So a small warming effect caused by human CO2 emissions will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The added water vapor leads to even more warming, thus amplifying the CO2 warming effect. Water vapor follows temperature changes, it doesn’t cause or, as climatologists say, ‘force’ them. As a feedback effect, water vapor is comparable to a car’s turbo charger that increases a motor’s power.

Earlier I pointed out the flaw in the IPCC's failsafe explanation that CO2 was forcing the effect of water vapor to be greater because of positive feedback dynamics asserted by their position. In either case the majority of the rise in temperature comes from water vapor, NOT CO2. Furthermore, water vapor does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes (re-radiation/convection). Greenhouse gases do NOT 'force' anything: that implies they have some inherent power... which they don't. They moderate heat retention and heat loss through the buffering of IR (solar radiation).

Their cute little analogy about the car's turbo charger deceptively masks where the source of the warming comes from... again, from water vapor.

3rd "wave of the hand":
This is why water vapor is responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists estimate that without water vapor average temperatures would be up to 30 degrees Celsius lower. CO2, on the other hand, is responsible for a much smaller but still substantial amount of the natural warming effect.

If things remain like this, we could continue living on a cozy, warm planet. But too much of a good thing is often bad. CO2 levels have increased from 0.028 percent of the atmosphere to about 0.04 percent since the Industrial Revolution. This has led to a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius so far.

About half of this warming could be due to feedback warming from water vapor, estimates the IPCC. But it would not have happened without the added CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. CO2 is the guy robbing the bank, water vapor is just the getaway driver.

Here again, they admit that water vapor is the culprit, but then quickly turn around to suggest that CO2 did it. Again it doesn't fit their story to blame water vapor. Who in their right mind would tax water vapor as a pollutant...?



Circle-jerk defense and dynamics prevented the fall of said ins ution. When the "prosecution" is lying in bed with the "defense" this will always be the outcome. The worst part is the worshipping peeps, such as yourself, will always fail to see their fraudulence.

Off the top of my memory the emails clearly said that "certain data sets" needed to be removed from plots. That "certain temperature probes in high la ude and high al ude locations needed to be removed from the data pool", "but that their data would be kept for baseline data..." (how convenient)

That all those other investigative agencies failed to reprimand the IPCC for these actions is an egregious example of their bias.

Again, you bought it. Good for you.



The large font was to ensure that you would at least try to answer that one question - given that you tend to gloss over everything that doesn't suit the flow of your version of this discussion...

Which finally it seems like you've addressed below (still missing the greater point). But go ahead and keep adding tallies to your fictional debate score card if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Monkey???? So now you've derailed the conversation to the launching racist ad-hominems... great.



Ahhhhh that's it!!!! That's the point!!!! No one in their right mind would try to regulate water vapor as a pollutant. Any government en y which attempted to do so would be branded as idiotic.

But that's the catch. If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. You would also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less).

Nice of you to finally reach the punch line (after about 8 responses). That's the whole point of contention in pointing out the ramifications of the following two truths.

1) The Boltzmann derived absorption energies of CO2 are about 50 times lower than that of water vapor.

2) Even with conservative averages, the average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 0.4 vol% (so rougly 10.5 times more concentrated than CO2)...

or 3 orders of magnitude difference...

That's also why the IPCC or these other agencies subtly skirt the publishing of the numbers involved side-by-side. Because they know it hurts their agenda.



The hand waving is being done by them if you haven't noticed by now.

"lonesome, oil platformer"...

Funny how you managed to fit two fallacies into that one...

1) I don't work on oil platforms, nor am I employed by any oil producer for that matter.... ad-hominem strawman...
2) the fallacy of consensius gentium. If the majority believe it, then it must be true. As if somehow I'm supposed to conform to the thinking of others...

this is entering tldr stupidity.

Lets discuss the topics discussed and the score first. You have abandoned RG's economics impact argument as you have your sea ice nonsense so we have the tally at:

RG:1 Fuzzy:1 Pheno:0

You added a new construction beating up allainz.com's argument. I didn't bother to read it as I have already pointed out to you that I rely on the NAtional Academy, BEST, the Royal Society, and IPCC. Pulling up random interwebs and acting like it is meaningful in the greater context wastes all our time. It's not even the main AGW sites like the one poptart smears on his blog like skeptical science. You are losing badly in this debate and are seeking a new opponent and I get it but just stop.

I haven't questioned the absorption and radiative properties of CO2 or H2O as described by the IPCC in the quote and neither have you. They even talk about how in and of itself water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. You aren't telling me something I don't alredy know and machismo comments are stupid in this context although they do underscore the point I am making about handwaving.

As for the East Anglia 'conspiracy' do you have any response to Inhofe's commerce IG's inquiry citing the conflict of interest concerns? You don't get to pretend like that didn't happen. Well you can but it makes you look incredibly ignorant and dated. All you do in the above is double down that it is a conspiracy. I hope you are trolling because its pretty stupid.

Here is said report from the commerce department: http://www.oig.doc.gov/oigpublicatio...-to-inhofe.pdf

If you just double down again, you lose.

Now lets look at water vapor. how fun! first you say we if we apply the same logic to CO2 then it is obvious how absurd it is to regulate CO2. I asked you how you intended to regulate water vapor considering it's a function of temperature and the nature of human agricultural and industrial practices. If you apply the same logic there you see that CO2 is always a gas and its air density is a function of how much fossil fuels we burn as well as geological and ecological mechanisms. And ffs, sophist, we do regulate water like a mother er. What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?

and logical fallacies are great but the notion of credibility on an anonymous web forum is valid. I have tried to keep the conversation as to what cons utes 'climate science' to IPCC, NASA, the National Academy, the Royal Society and BEST. It's lost on no one that water has some significant thermodynamic properties you have to account for, dip . That doesn't mean that the amount of CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels is not also significant.

On a final note:

Working with and directly for petroleum refineries... I can tell you that their operating and capital budgets have been slashed every time superfluous legislation hits their operation.

So you work in marketing consulting for oil companies? Credibility is what it is. I get why you would want to distance yourself from your work in the context of this discussion. Very Darrinlike of you.

[DarrinS]

What do you think water conversation efforts are about? Keeping our water in the ground maybe?