Reply With Quote
And for the record, I didn't ignore RG's post:
I simply stated that no matter how I answered it, you all would attack my position REGARDLESS:
That you failed to see the response is not my problem.
I really do find it entertaining that you think someone is keeping a "score" on this blog thread... if it helps boost your self-esteem so be it... perhaps they feed your delusions of grandeur...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:
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.
You're perspective is so skewed you are only able to see those things which suit your arguments and nothing else.
I'll keep this post shorter and to the point to see how you fandangle and wiggle yourself out of it:
If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. Wouldn't you also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less)...????
YES or NO.
It's a simple question Fuzzy. You've been dancing around it for days. Just answer the question with a simple yes or no.
And your answer from above doesn't quite cut it.
1). Here you've managed to flip the argument around... I'm not asking if it's absurd to regulate CO2. I'm pointing out that because you think it's sound logic to regulate CO2, that then the same logic posits that we should also regulate water vapor. Regulation of water vapor is what I deem as being absurd. Strike one.
2). Not all CO2 is gaseous. Strike two.
3). Water conservation??? Really? You're going to go out on a limb and suggest that our water conservation initiatives are founded on the minimization of ACH effects... You're reaching for straws again. Strike three.
As for the East Anglia email leaks... I freaking read them dude. I don't need investigative panels to tell me how to interpret what I read. The IPCC is a fraud - and they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not once, but twice... that suckers like you keep wanting to uphold their scientific integrity is out of my control - I don't care how many reports you link that say otherwise. I know what I read.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 04-13-2015 at 09:15 AM.
And for the record, I didn't ignore RG's post:
I simply stated that no matter how I answered it, you all would attack my position REGARDLESS:
That you failed to see the response is not my problem.
Phenomanel: You won me over.
So we are left with water vapor and its a conspiracy cause you say so. On the other side we have BEST's review of the temperature records and the Inspector Generals report I linked. You lose the conspiracy and email debates. You also surrendered your strawman random website really quick. You lose that argument as well as the sea ice you abandoned days ago.I really do find it entertaining that you think someone is keeping a "score" on this blog thread... if it helps boost your self-esteem so be it... perhaps they feed your delusions of grandeur...
You're perspective is so skewed you are only able to see those things which suit your arguments and nothing else.
I'll keep this post shorter and to the point to see how you fandangle and wiggle yourself out of it:
If you apply the logic that wishes to regulate CO2 as a pollutant because of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. Wouldn't you also have to regulate water vapor with that same logic (in force majeure, no less)...????
YES or NO.
It's a simple question Fuzzy. You've been dancing around it for days. Just answer the question with a simple yes or no.
And you're answer from above doesn't quite cut it.
1). Here you've managed to flip the argument around... I'm not asking if it's absurd to regulate CO2. I'm pointing out that because you think it's sound logic to regulate CO2, that then the same logic posits that we should also regulate water vapor. Regulation of water vapor is what I deem as being absurd. Strike one.
As for your RG response, presenting a false dilemma is not an argument demonstrating how proposed policies create economic harm. His arguments about the economic benefit of improving the infrastructure and encouraging emerging markets still applies despite your whine. You repeating yourself again will not change that.
Fuzzy: 4 sea ice, emails, climate conspiracy, and allainz.com
RG: 1 economics
Pheno: 0 still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick.
I didn't dance around the question. I directly addressed your premise of the 'same logic being applied.' You dropped completely my argument about how the amount of water vapor was a function of temperature. You have also ignored the point that water also forms ice and clouds that have a negative forcing where CO2 has not such sate even when it dissociates in the ocean. I also don't deign to speak for the entire motives of water regulation my point is that water is heavily regulated.
If you are too stupid to figure out the answer to the question from how I addressed your loaded leading question then I will help: no. You waving your hands at the thermodynamic properties of water vapor and demonstrating an inability to come up with substantive water vapor regulation still doesn't mean that the effect of CO2 produced from fossil fuels is insignificant and is okay to ignore.
Phenomanul, this is a real feather in your cap. SnC has proven himself to be a truly critical thinker.
Are you really that obtuse????
I'm not clamoring for the regulation of water vapor.
I'm simply pointing out a gigantic flaw in ACH logic.
If the principle argument for wishing to regulate CO2 is based on its contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Then by that same logic water vapor would also have to be regulated.
And no one, in their right mind, no government en y, no academic ins ution would even dare propose such preposterous initiatives. Geeeesh are you really that blind that you cant see what I've clearly stated repeatedly???
"still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick"
It completely obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2.
Now if you will, Fuzzy... spare me your derisive scorn... If I've been responding to your stubbornness, it's because I've been sick at home the last few days. Go ahead and rebuild your self-esteem at my expense when I return to my job, whilst you stick around this forum patting yourself in the back.
For the moment at least let me watch the Spurs vs. Rockets game in peace.
Did someone piss in your cheerios, or something?
As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.
SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.
nice work!
That's cute. I'm assuming because we don't agree with you, we must not think cognitively? I'm guessing we should also be more open minded like you?As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.
SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.
It has nothing to do with you agreeing with me. I'm simply speaking of the value the three of you add to the forum, imo.
Well at least you have stopped begging the question. You are still committing the fallacy of omission as a matter of course. As a general rule you cannot equate the argument for CO2's AGW and the various policy ideas behind it with your one liners.Are you really that obtuse????
I'm not clamoring for the regulation of water vapor.
I'm simply pointing out a gigantic flaw in ACH logic.
If the principle argument for wishing to regulate CO2 is based on its contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Then by that same logic water vapor would also have to be regulated.
And no one, in their right mind, no government en y, no academic ins ution would even dare propose such preposterous initiatives. Geeeesh are you really that blind that you cant see what I've clearly stated repeatedly???
"still hoping this water vapor 'logic' will stick"
It completely obliterates the logic behind wanting to regulate CO2.
First example of omission is that CO2 is analogous to H2O and one of the central arguments for CO2 emissions control is the massive amounts of fossil fuels we burn. You have not demonstrated any anthrogenic behaviors that are net increasing the amount of water in the environment. This should be little surprise because the amount of water vapor in the air at any time a function of temperature and pressure. This leads me to the second fallacy of omission.
Water vapor, ice, clouds, and water are all words for the same thing: H2O. Unlike CO2, which at earth temperature and pressures is always a gas, water changes state depending on the environment. It sometimes is a GHG but it is also sometimes a reflector and negative forcing. If you want to conflate water and CO2 then you need to quantify the entire effect and not just use confirmation bias to omit what is inconvenient to your argument about H2Os effect on climate. Water is regulated and environmental concerns for local climates and ecologies play heavily into such legislation. CO2 should be regulated as well.
Your argument is self assuming. Begging the question repeatedly and assuming your premise is intellectually dishonest.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-10-2015 at 11:19 PM.
As you can see phenomanul, not only is he a critical thinker, he's also original and witty.
SnC, WC and DarrinS all have your back here...some of the true thought leaders in the political forum.
It doesn't appear that he needs anyone to "have his back".
Thanks for posting
Evaporating the water vapor argument
A new study Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content (Santer 2007) was published last week, inspiring me to revisit the water vapour argument. A popular skeptic argument (well, a ranking of #20 is no mean effort) is that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, rendering CO2 warming relatively ineffective. Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour ac ulates in the atmosphere. As agreenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.
How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to
evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling ofCO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss ofalbedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels.Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.
Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase inCO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way.
When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evap...-argument.html
Science from Bible humping creationist Phenom-is-null is like intellectualism from Ayn Rand.
Is Global Warming Caused by Water Vapor?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ter_vapor.html
Well Boutons...
Both your articles are full of .
Brendan Koerner is no expert and cherry picking the best numbers for his viewpoint.
Your Skeptical Science piece is more accurate, but still flawed, and the log math of levels claimed don't add up. It claims enough forcing of feedback from water, that the water alone would go into a runaway condition. The author, John Cook, has a BS and is working of his PHD for cognitive psychology.
As for the 75 and 32 numbers, he left out the could forcing with is also water.
I don't think the amount of warming warrants CO2 regulation. Also, the effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration.
citation demonstrating impact of that effect at projected levels?
Oh pretty please show us your napkin math on the combined feedback and forcings they describe from that 2000 citation. It's so fun when you think you have outwitted scientists.
Oh and btw what kind of chipsets do you guys use for your controllers at work?
What's your value?
I think it's more than coincidence that the three of us, who have a few similar political views different from all other posters, you have a problem with?
This is the kind of thing a 15 year old girl would do. Is that the value you want to see here at ST? a bunch of selfies and letting me know what you ate for dinner?
You guys added nothing of value to the debate. If you want to talk about HS behavior the groupthink circlejerk you guys had on display was obvious and that is what he is talking about.
WC and Darrin are perpetually asshurt about me but what gives with you pledging your valentine?
That's what I'm saying. Why am I put into this. You guys: as in me. Plus it's ya'll. You canadian!
lol. Annoyed, perhaps. Like the way a gnat is annoying.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions