What Do We Think About Climate Change

[mark775]

When I stop laughing, may I use this?; "Water vapor does not beget more water vapor in a vicious cycle; water vapor begets rain."
If we actually had empathy for the troubled peoples of Africa (and bought the AGW Shamwow) we would be puking CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we could - DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO HEART?!

[fasteddy106]

Ah but you guys keep forgetting the real agenda here. It's not about pollution, it's not about climate change, it's not about the morality of using up all the fossil fuels, it's about the control that the regulations sprouting from a worldwide AGW administrative agency would have and its ability to control the global economy. If the UN through its IPCC can wrest control of energy production through abominations like Kyoto they can control economic growth worldwide and create the socialist nirvana they dream of each night. Equal shortages and misery for all, yup, that's the ticket, step right up and get yours!

Except of course for the special folks in government and the glitteratti. They get all the stuff they want, courtesy of the common folks.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by mark775

When I stop laughing, may I use this?; "Water vapor does not beget more water vapor in a vicious cycle; water vapor begets rain."

Permission granted. My royalty fees are quite reasonable

[hoytedow]

I BURN all my scrap wood in an effort to stave off an ice age.

CO2 is good for you
It makes your crops grow fine
So don't lock up my CO2
'Cause its not yours, ITS MINE!

[Knut Sand]

Oh, forgotten, until recently...

http://www.epa.gov/foia/docs/2007_Dr...nt_Finding.pdf

[Jimbo1490]

Burning hydrocarbon fuel produces water vapor as an emissions as well as CO2. A first principles analysis shows that these water vapor emissions are greater than that which accrues due to the supposed positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Furthermore as we all know, water vapor is MUCH more effective as a GHG than CO2. The whole AGW argument is in the end really about water vapor, after all.

So why then, is there no movement to regulate water vapor emissions as a greenhouse gas

If the reasoning is that water vapor has a short atmospheric residence time/is self regulating, the question then arises as to why that reasoning only applies when the water vapor is emitted directly, and NOT when accrued from the supposed positive feedback with CO2? How does the water vapor 'know' how it got into the atmosphere, so that it can 'behave itself' in an orderly, self-regulating kind of way when the result of direct emissions, but 'mis-behave' when the result of positive feedback mechanisms?

Does anyone else see the glaring logical fallacy in this?

Could it be that if such a movement took hold, then the average person just might be able to see the 'Alice in Wonderland' absurdity of the whole AGW case, just as happens whenever there is a push to regulate methane?

Jimbo

[hoytedow]

I'm going to burn more wood this weekend, just because I can. Arrest me.

[fasteddy106]

Can't wait for Boston to post a whole bunch of irrelevent minutae, proclaim 97%, the debate is over, everybody knows, I'm smart your not, and if you don't believe you are an oil industry hack.

[hoytedow]

I'll start my wood with oil. Thank you, oil industry.

[Guillermo]

Follow the CO2...




...and temperatures...



And now follow this interesting series:
"Searching the PaleoClimate Record for Estimated Correlations: Temperature, CO2 and Sea Level"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...el/#more-11753

Cheers

[Guillermo]

Surprisingly my Internet Explorer cannot open the site http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/ but Mozilla Firefox does.

Cheers

[Guillermo]

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009.

Reference: Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

Figure: Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

[Guillermo]

The United Nations Environmental Programme just released a major report in advance of the Climate Change Summit to take place in Copenhagen this December. The report is intended to “show how the science has been evolving” since the publication of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in the spring of 2007.

..... the greenhouse effect is expected, on a global average, to lead to higher temperatures (like inside a greenhouse), higher humidity (like inside a greenhouse), more precipitation (like inside a greenhouse), longer growing seasons (like inside a greenhouse), and enhance the fertilization effect of airborne carbon dioxide (just like commercial greenhouses which pump CO2 inside them to increase plant growth and productivity). Taken together, this brings up images of lush tropical foliage, not a dry, lifeless, desert.

Our guess is, a lush green world this isn’t the image that they wanted to conjure up about climate change and UNEP’s art department couldn’t come up with a way to make this seem bad (hint: next time, check with Al Gore).

Read more at:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...over/#more-385

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

Time has arrived for me to light my fire. Today; bamboo.

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

... Taken together, this brings up images of lush tropical foliage, not a dry, lifeless, desert...

That would be a lush, flooded world, if a bit more of polar ice melts, as seems likely. Not that the tropics are that great to live in even without the flooding. According to this source at least 60% of the planet’s human population lives within 100 km (62 mi) of the beach:-
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_abel_iss...28188-,00.html

Human populations near the coast tend to concentrate at the mouths of large rivers, which provide navigation into the interior, fresh water (until polluted of course) and generally less extreme seasonal climate variations. The same rivers almost always have large flood plains, good for growing food, flat and not much above sea level. Great places to live.

Arctic ice melting won't effect sea levels since it is already floating. I have to wonder what it will do to the vast currents that pump heat and nutrition around the Altlantic ocean, but let's not worry about that one right now.

Antarctic ice is another matter. So is glacier ice, but there won't be much of that left at the current rate. The seas have risen about 8" or 20 cm in the last 100 years. If 10% of Antarctic ice melts the sea level rise will be about 20 feet or 6 m. Added to the rise of sea level, many major cities are sinking due to a variety of effects such as depletion of ground water due to wells. London UK is a good example of this, but what's happening there is peanuts compared with places like Bangladesh.

As sailors a lot of us on this forum live close to the coast. How far will the coast move towards you? Not a problem if you live 100 ft - 30 m above sea level, perhaps, but what do you think the people who live closer are going to do, simply drown rather than disturb you?

Global warming has slowed down, even stopped for the last few years. A very few years, actually, but already those who don't want to be bothered by the whole thing are crowing and saying I told you so. Hopefully they will be proven right. Problem is, this apparent pause in warming coincides with an unusually long period of low sunspot activity. In past centuries a couple of sunspot minima neatly bracketed a mini-ice age in Europe. Not this time though; a little cooler in some places but by no means a return to the frigid conditions recorded in history. I for one wonder why that is. The two effects could just be cancelling. I have to wonder what is likely to happen when the sunspot rate returns to average. Will the global warming rate resume or even double?

The grand experiment on the Earth continues, watch this space for the next hundred years! (any lesser period will be meaningless)