What Do We Think About Climate Change

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

You are a *****.

is that your rebuttal?

"I'm right because you're a *****"

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

is that your rebuttal?

"I'm right because you're a *****"

That is basically it.

Whatever is also toxic. If you ingest it in too high a percentage, your cell membranes will lyse and you will basically dissolve. Should we therefore make you pay a whatever tax for "making whatever"? You wouldn't want to leave too large a whatever "footprint". Perhaps we should put you in a room containing 99% whatever and see how you would fare.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/

[hoytedow]

Quack.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

That is basically it. Water is also toxic. If you ingest it in too high a percentage, your cell membranes will lyse and you will basically dissolve. Should we therefore make you pay a water tax for "making water"? You wouldn't want to leave too large a water "footprint". Perhaps we should put you in a room containing 99% water and see how you would fare.

thank you, too much of anything is a pollutant

[hoytedow]

Water statement has been retracted.

[Boston]

you might just take the easy rout and look it up kids

pol·lut·ant (p-ltnt)
n.
Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
pollutant [pəˈluːtənt]
n
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) a substance that pollutes, esp a chemical or similar substance that is produced as a waste product of an industrial process

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
pollutant (p-ltnt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

looks pretty obvious its a naturally occurring substance that when found in harmful concentrations is considered a pollutant

and why is it found in unusually high concentrations throughout the worlds atmosphere
cause we are burning millions of years worth of accumulated oil and coal in just a few hundred
its pretty obvious guys you just need to cut through the hype and stick to the basic realities

yup its plant food just like water is but if you over water
under water
not enough dirt
to much dirt

you get the picture

[Guillermo]

Atmospheric relative humidity has been decreasing from at least 1950, as per the NOAA data.

First image is for the 1000 mb level and second one for 300 mb (whole globe)

[Boston]

ok
so given that the deniers are also constantly spewing about how water vapor is the major contributing green house gas then it stands to reason that if water vapor is decreasing and temp is still increasing then there must be another factor involved. Like CO2 for instance, specially since the rise in CO2 corresponds perfectly with the rise in temp.

kinda looks like you shot yourself in the foot on that one Guillermo

want to try again

ps
just out of curiosity what does it pay to be an oil and gas internet shill Guillermo. There isn't really any logical reason why anyone would so consistently embarrass themselves like this unless they were getting paid for it. You have been exposed to many times presenting deceptive or misrepresenting data at this point and it just begs the question, why?

[Boston]

looks like the graph is not the whole story
once again we have not been presented with all the pertinent data in a seaming effort to belittle the IPCC's excellent predictive track record

Nature 449, 710-712 (11 October 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06207; Received 29 March 2007; Accepted 30 August 2007

Attribution of observed surface humidity changes to human influence

Katharine M. Willett1,2, Nathan P. Gillett1, Philip D. Jones1 & Peter W. Thorne2

1. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
2. Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK

Correspondence to: Nathan P. Gillett1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.P.G. (Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk).
Top of page

Water vapour is the most important contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is expected to increase under conditions of greenhouse-gas-induced warming, leading to a significant feedback on anthropogenic climate change1, 2, 3. Theoretical and modelling studies predict that relative humidity will remain approximately constant at the global scale as the climate warms, leading to an increase in specific humidity1, 4, 5. Although significant increases in surface specific humidity have been identified in several regions6, 7, 8, 9, and on the global scale in non-homogenized data10, it has not been shown whether these changes are due to natural or human influences on climate. Here we use a new quality-controlled and homogenized gridded observational data set of surface humidity, with output from a coupled climate model, to identify and explore the causes of changes in surface specific humidity over the late twentieth century. We identify a significant global-scale increase in surface specific humidity that is attributable mainly to human influence. Specific humidity is found to have increased in response to rising temperatures, with relative humidity remaining approximately constant. These changes may have important implications, because atmospheric humidity is a key variable in determining the geographical distribution11, 12, 13 and maximum intensity14 of precipitation, the potential maximum intensity of tropical cyclones15, and human heat stress16, and has important effects on the biosphere17 and surface hydrology17, 18.

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21223500/

WASHINGTON — The world isn’t just getting hotter from global warming, it’s getting stickier. It really is the humidity.

The amount of moisture in the air near the surface — the stuff that makes hot weather unbearable — increased 2.2 percent in just under three decades. And computer models show that the only explanation is manmade global warming, according to a study published in Thursday’s journal Nature.

“This humidity change is an important contribution to heat stress in humans as a result of global warming,” said Nathan Gillett of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, a co-author of the study.

Gillett studied changes in specific humidity, which is a measurement of total moisture in the air, between 1973-2002. Increases in humidity can be dangerous to people because it makes the body less efficient at cooling itself, said University of Miami health and climate researcher Laurence Kalkstein. He was not connected with the research.

Humidity increased over most of the globe, including the eastern United States, said study co-author Katharine Willett, a climate researcher at Yale University. However, a few regions, including the U.S. West, South Africa and parts of Australia were drier.

The finding isn’t surprising to climate scientists. Physics dictates that warmer air can hold more moisture. But Gillett’s study shows that the increase in humidity already is significant and can be attributed to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

How models were used
To show that this is manmade, Gillett ran computer models to simulate past climate conditions and studied what would happen to humidity if there were no manmade greenhouse gases. It didn’t match reality.

He looked at what would happen from just manmade greenhouse gases. That didn’t match either. Then he looked at the combination of natural conditions and greenhouse gases. The results were nearly identical to the year-by-year increases in humidity.

Gillett’s study followed another last month that used the same technique to show that moisture above the world’s oceans increased and that it bore the “fingerprint” of being caused by manmade global warming.

Climate scientists have now seen the manmade fingerprint of global warming on 10 different aspects of Earth’s environment: surface temperatures, humidity, water vapor over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants in animals, water run-off, temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and heat content in the world’s oceans.

'No loose ends'
“This story does now fit together; there are now no loose ends,” said Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and author of the September study on moisture above the oceans. “The message is pretty compelling that natural causes alone just can’t cut it.”

The studies make sense, said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not part of either team’s research.

It will only feel worse in the future, Gillett said. Moisture in the air increases by about 6 percent with every degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), he said. Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections for temperature increases, that would mean a 12 to 24 percent increase in humidity by the year 2100.

“Although it might not be a lethal kind of thing, it’s going to increase human discomfort,” Willett said.

and another

Researchers who set out to create a baseline for future research on water cycle trends on Monday reported an alarming discovery: 18 percent more water was fed into the oceans from rivers and melting polar ice sheets in 2006 than in 1994.


"That might not sound like much — 1.5 percent a year — but after a few decades, it's huge," researcher Jay Famiglietti said in a statement released with the report in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"In general, more water is good," said Famiglietti, an earth system professor at the University of California-Irvine. "But here's the problem: Not everybody is getting more rainfall, and those who are may not need it.

"What we're seeing is exactly what the (U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted, that precipitation is increasing in the tropics and the Arctic Circle with heavier, more punishing storms," he added. "Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people live in semi-arid regions, and those are drying up."

The experts suspect that the evaporation and precipitation cycle of water is accelerating dangerously because of greenhouse gas-fueled higher temperatures. That, in turn, would trigger more severe monsoons and hurricanes.

"Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds unleashing more powerful storms over land," the statement said. "The rainfall then travels via rivers to the sea in ever-larger amounts, and the cycle begins again."

The researchers said they used satellite data on sea level rise, precipitation and evaporation to create what they called the "longest and first of its kind" record on global water discharge.

Over the 13 years studied, they added, "the trends were all the same: increased evaporation from the ocean that led to increased precipitation on land and more flow back into the ocean."

The experts cautioned, however, that 13 years is a relatively short time frame and that longer-term studies are under way.

it goes on and on but basically about five seconds of research shows that once again either not all the data is being presented or data is being represented in a very misleading way by our favorite agnotist. atmospheric humidity is apparently in fact, increasing.

[latestarter]

Today's date is 10 10 10, this thread has just passed 10101, has anyone changed their minds as a result of all the information and discussion that has taken place?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

......

yup its plant food just like water is but if you over water
under water
not enough dirt
to much dirt

you get the picture

If you under CO2 your plants will die and then the bunnies will too.

I don't object if you want to hold your breath and reduce CO2, but don't tell me I can't breathe.

Your rights stop where my rights begin.

I am feeling very palindromic today.

[wardd]

I think all that excess co2 has cut off oxygen to the brains of the deniers

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

If you under CO2 your plants will die and then the bunnies will too.

I don't object if you want to hold your breath and reduce CO2, but don't tell me I can't breathe.

Your rights stop where my rights begin.

I am feeling very palindromic today.

More melodramatic nonsense. Natural CO2 levels are hardly dependent on humanity. If we completely eliminated people, it wouldn't 'under CO2' the world.

Why do you even say such things, Hoyt? Just to hear your head rattle?

[Boston]

funny I heard more of a grinding sound and then some smoke

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

ok
so given that the deniers are also constantly spewing about how water vapor is the major contributing green house gas then it stands to reason that if water vapor is decreasing and temp is still increasing then there must be another factor involved. Like CO2 for instance, specially since the rise in CO2 corresponds perfectly with the rise in temp.

kinda looks like you shot yourself in the foot on that one Guillermo

want to try again

ps
just out of curiosity what does it pay to be an oil and gas internet shill Guillermo. There isn't really any logical reason why anyone would so consistently embarrass themselves like this unless they were getting paid for it. You have been exposed to many times presenting deceptive or misrepresenting data at this point and it just begs the question, why?

Your comments only exhibit once again the enormity of your ignorance and the deepness of your idiotice.



As always you are incorrectly assuming you know why I post what I post (and you are not the only one here), which you don't -even remotely- just making a fool of yourself with your illiterate commentaries.

Perhaps you could try to learn some basic physics before ridicuolously commenting.