It has to be CO2, what else could it be????

Damn, that's what comes of mixing with climate catastrophists.

 

Your good, lovely read!
Highlander

 

Do the math.

7100 x .18 parts per trillion = 1.3 ppm CO2 equivalent.

We do more than that every single year with fossil fuel burning.

 

Water vapor cannot force climate change, because its lifetime in the atmosphere is too short for that.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/271186-...ng-ice-caps-trapped-in-the-freezing-Antarctic

Global scientists, stuck in the non exist ant ice, the result of global warming..... Sucker punch!

Regards
Highlander

 

Water vapour is always in the atmosphere, and in a warmer world, there's more water vapour.
As I wrote:

 

Look.

Water is naturally liquid or solid, in many of Earth's temperature ranges.

To stay evaporated, in the atmosphere, to function, as a GHG, water needs conditions to be warm enough and quiet enough, or down it comes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

CO2 is the most prevalent GHG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

CO2 is leading the other GHGs and warming and climate change, with a lot of human activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

http://www.edf.org/climate/climate-...obal-Warming&gclid=CICBj6jG37sCFYlaMgodjmEAwg

CO2 is the leading forcing factor, for climate change.

Man is the leading organism, acting to cause catastrophe.

This is basic, scientific information. Try it on.

 

Aye that's right, they are trying it on, only keich is just keich!

Highlander

 

h2o's life cycle in the atmosphere is about two weeks so it's very stable ghg and doesn't readily accumulate...co2 has a very long atmospheric life cycle (potentially hundreds of years) and as result of increasing emissions accumulates faster than it can be re-absorbed...sooo co2 is main ghg culprit for increased warming...

 

Isn't it time you corrected that blatant error?

 

CO2 degrades, to stay in the atmosphere only about 5 years, but its equilibrium media is shared, with aqueous CO2, so most of the time, molecules are only swapping out, with CO2, emitted by waters.

CO2 can functionally stay in the atmosphere, FOR CENTURIES.

What "error" do you know about, and to which "error" do you sloppily refer?

Isn't it time you used the quote function and some precise language, and maybe even a link, to a science website? It's 2014 . . .

 

For all you idiots that think climate skeptics are lavishly funded by ‘Big Oil’, read this

Posted on January 3, 2014
Michael Mann, take note. One of the most ridiculous claims made by climate alarmists is that skeptics get huge gobs of oil coated money. For example, there is the recent claim:

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed
An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.
“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”​

 

That water has a 2 week cycle time is unimportant, what is important is the average humidity. If there is a mechanism that keeps more humidity in the air, like irrigation (from farming, or just people watering their yard), or a positive feedback loop, then the fact that water vapor doesn't "accumulate" is irrelevant.

Is the fact that we are increasing planetary humidity by draining the planets aquifers, reclaiming waste water for irrigation, and generating water through using large scale desalinization, lost on climate "scientists"?

There are hundreds of CO2 foot print calculators, but no GHG calculators. A golf course in AZ, with a few solar panels is "green", despite the tons of water vapor they contribute.

I can find hundreds of sites with historical (usually hysterical) temperature data, I have yet to find a site with humidity histories.

 

do you seriously believe that hasn't been considered? ...why is it that everyone who doubts the science behind climate research thinks they have an epiphany that the experts have overlooked?...in a relatively stable system humidity will always balance itself unless you change something that upsets that balance...


I don't know if you'll find what your looking for in this link but to suggest that there is no research or understanding of humidity is silly...
http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/clima/imaging/clddev.htm

 

I was responding to your comment that CO2 style accumulation is required for water vapor to have an effect.

Water vapor contributes 36% to 72%, CO2 only 9% to 25%. A 25% increase in CO2 will have the same effect as a continuous addition of 12% of water vapor to the system.

I doubt the climate science for two reasons, first because I hear nothing about reducing unnecessary watering as a way to reduce MMGW, nor any concern about the increased watering higher temperatures will required being a positive feedback.

Second, anyone that trusts that we can "model" climate, has never struggled with modeled anything remotely complicated.

How about a link that works?

I did find one link for historical temp & humidity, and was surprised to find the average line was exactly the same (temp & humidity), year to year, from 1940's to today - I discarded that source.

 

I'll listen to one of the foremost climate scientists in the country Dr. Judith Currey who says that climate scientists haven't paid much attention to such factors before you take your faith based assertion.

Simply put no they don't. And why the hell do you think they do?

 

? you interpreted that incorrectly...our climate today is stable(relatively) there will be an equilibrium, the equilibrium is upset when there is increase in GHG emissions, yes you can increase local humidity but the H20 will still cycle out of the atmosphere in about two weeks...CO2 on the other hand doesn't cycle out quickly and accumulates faster than it can be reabsorbed, CO2 and other anthropogenic emissions become the trigger for rising temps...

models put space craft on comets and land probes on planets within meters of target areas, models predict how planes will fly/react in different atmospheric conditions decades before they're even built...models have proven themselves very reliable, if anything most climate projections have been too conservative...

tested the link and it works just fine for me, it's your PC that's at fault

 

How does H2O will cycling out in 2 weeks address the issue that more water is being added all the time. The result is new, higher, equilibrium.

Can you point to anyone warning about the amount of watering and MMGW? Do climate models include increased watering due to higher temperatures.

All, very simple compared "climate". Even simple compared to modeling fusion reactions, which failed.

Plug this in, with all the dots.

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/cli...ing/clddev.htm

 

What is the correct "equilibrium" of Earth's climate?

A scientific link will do.

 

it's all chemistry and physics the laws/rules which do not and cannot change the results are predictable...

every gas mixture will have it's own unique properties, change the proportions of that mixture and it MUST change the properties as well it can do nothing else...increase the amount of GHG's in a gas(atmosphere) and you will change it's properties it can do nothing else, it is impossible not to...

I can't explain that, I click on my original and it works fine, I click on where you first quoted me and it works there as well...

 

Please show me where I have violated any laws of physics.

 

You have made a very serious mistake, you have facts not emotions used!

Criminal!

Regards
Highlander

 

OK:

http://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Mmm-kay? When the CO2 goes UP, really fast, or faster than ever before, like that line, on the right, hey now! It's mass extinction time.

 

More, from NASA.gov:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

GET THE PICTURE?

















Will that do, for now?

Of course, if you were serious, you could open up any engine-page and enter search criteria.

Kids at school do this, all morning.

 

Your solution to do this?

Kill all energy use (and ride out the next 100 years while CO2 levels drop on their own). Starving 6 billion is acceptable?

Advocate alternative energy, that are no where near prime time (Europe, with much higher energy costs and supplementing alternatives, have done no better than stabilize CO2 production (augmented by the recession).

Advocate CO2 sequestration - using what technology?