Maybe if you wrote in English instead of instead of a mixture of funny fonts and enigmatic vague phrases you might get some answers.
That's not a personal attack in any way. I just want to know why I'm supposed to see you as having greater expertise in climatology than NASA, NOAA, and the overhelming percent of other major centers of climate science here and around the world. The thing is, you reject that science. So, it is more than legit to figure out just who the hell you are, right?
@drluggit Why trust them? Bad science happens. Remember cholesterol theory. And political pollution has made "their" dogma that much more questionable. Consider how "they" make it all about CO2 although there are other greenhouse gases involved. Including water vapor. Meanwhile our air quality gets worse. Especially particulates. Moi psst, question them! STOP
Why trust some PF poster rather than all the major science establishments of the entire world? And, you think THAT is a question???
A link not demonstrated yet. Warm temps do support more atmospheric water vapor content, but clouds also create albido which also tends to limit warmth. Clouds create less cold, but also limit hot. This doesn't however explain what limits CO2 concentrations effect. And with the current investigation, it also seems that there are limits to temperature that are potentially positively effected by CO2 concentrations that reach a maximum limit, and are not further additive to overall warming capacity after that limit is attained.
I have no financial stake in the business that is climate. I will be effected by ridiculous artificial scarcity that is caused by adopting those policies that create that scarcity, and so will the rest of you. Recognizing that the real effect of those policies is to artificially restrict people from having things like basic consumables like water and power is the effective lever then that you ceed your basic humanity to then the folks who demand that you "conserve" because of said scarcity. One only has to look at the stupidity of folks like John Kerry who claims that his consumption is justifiable at the level he consumes, but that yours is not. The conversation that is really happening here is about control, and monetary stratification in those who control the ability to create the scarcity. And nothing more. The thing is that I don't reject the science, and I'm not cowed by the bullying that uses the data in a fashion to justify those who would artificially regulate the rest of our access to necessary consumables, the ability to prosper, etc. Ex A). Joe Biden announces his support of the green new deal, and absent any actual supply problems, gas prices at the pump almost double. The price is then entirely artificially inflated. Who does that help again? What net effect does it create? Folks who endorse the green policies are simply more interested in taking freedoms away and using scientific data as the distraction that creates sufficient doubt in the public that then justifies this manipulation.
Huh ? from nasa.gov....though water vapor is a major player a... Water vapor is actually a greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere and causes temperatures to rise. But unlike other greenhouse gases that can linger in the atmosphere for years, water vapor usually stays in the air for a few days before falling back to Earth as precipitation. it’s an amplifier of the potential of other gases. So less CO2, less heat to amplify. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Not as much as they store. Anyone who goes outside on a clear winters days could tell you that its colder without need science to confirm it. Clouds keep the earth about 7 degrees warmer than it would be without them.
The best greenhouses are insulated. Two layers of plastic with air in between. Keeps them warmer at night. Sound familiar?
I don't care if you have a vested interest. Your comments on Kerry are TOTALLY off topic. Our climate doesn't conform to what politicians say. At best, its the other way around. It's just plain STUPID for posters to blame politicians for results from science. In what dimension of reality does it make sense to ignore science on the grounds that it might affect decisions we choose to make? I'm really hoping you will see just how STUPID that is. This issue HAS TO be divided. On the one hand, we need to know how our climate is changing and what the ramifications for that are. THEN, we can start rationally discussing actions we might choose to take in response. Those can include actions related to us living with that change (like the Chesapeake Bay plan or the work being done in LA). It can also include changes that could slow warming so we have more time to adapt. Fearing the changes that climate change is bringing is NOT an excuse for doing the Ostrich thing.
Demonstrated abuses of the use of the religion you endorse. "off topic"... laughable. The data still suggests that we have perhaps reached a plateau. Why not embrace that? Why continue to demand that data characterizations have not come to pass, nor are they likely to do so in a manner that creates chaos in our sets of global climates? You cannot. So instead of recognizing the ridiculous political policy then practiced on behalf of your religious fervor, you'd ignore said behavior to continue pushing your apocalyptic narrative. The climate changes. We know empirically that this is the case. Crafting future policy to produce a baseless result "slow warming" as if that is even possible to do, requires as noted the implementation of said restrictions of future freedoms and livelihoods. You don't want folks to understand the future harm you intend them, so you color it "off topic" as if somehow folks aren't supposed to know who brutally harmful the policies you wish to impose on them actually are.
The vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions throughout the entire world do NOT support your personal claim of "plateau". That is an incredibly sound justification for rejecting your personal plateau idea. I don't see you as smarter than all the scientists of the world. I note that you don't have evidence that isn't supplied by (let alone available to) science. And, the notion of a world wide conspiracy on this issue is STUPENDOUSLY ridiculous for very clear reasons. THEN you switch to policy. And, again fear of policy is NOT a justification for rejecting the best truth we have on what is happening with Earth's average temperature. I'm fine with you disputing individual policy directions. However, you need to be honest about that, too. First much of our policy has to do with how to live with a warming planet. That's why I mentioned the plans for dealting with sea rise on our own coastal waters. Claiming that living with sea rise is somehow too restrictive is a preposterous idea. Beyond that, scientific analysis of possible policy decisions does not show any single policy that will stop Earth's rate of temperature rise. Slowing the temperature rise will require a range of policy decisions, and thus measuring each policy based on whether it alone will solve the problem is not a legitimate approach. I'd also point out that your "freedoms" idea is usually totally false. For example, the move toward clean energy offers lower cost energy, electric cars where are being found to be highly desirable by the market, better air quality in cities, etc. Suggesting that is anti-freedom is ridiculous. Besides, even when ideas do restrict behavior, we often LIKE that because of the freedom it allows. When we started demanding corporations and government protect water quality (rather than having rivers no better than sewage systems) it meant the freedom to use that water for many purposes otherwise impossible. I'm more than willing to talk about policy decisions. BUT, the first step has to be an acceptance of what world wide science has identified as our current situation, within the error bars provided.
Science is NOT a Democracy. Science has become a paid for commodity. Drug Studies. EIRs. And general junk like Cholesterol Theory So how about the approaching Cool Down? TOPIC Polar fresh water from melting ice is going to divert the oceans' system of thermal transfer creating . . . . Moi
I certainly did not suggest it is a democracy. But, when the vast percentage of scientists in the related fields agree in their assessments, that Is highly significant.
Don't Edit A Quote Without Noting an edit for your "snark" gratification. Let's address Cool Down science or opposition with some academia, Please Moi BSc Biological Sciences Magna Cum Laude + Special Honors Univ. of California, Irvine M.D. Univ. of Calif. Medical Center, San Francisco Needed An to isolate insulin
Avoiding the question ? Other then Fix news and anyone you can copy and paste who agrees with you, exactly what science based institution do you use ? I see you list in braggadocio two universities that disagree with you. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/climate-lab
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share." —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
