And if only we could do anything about global warming. There is an article in the new Car & Driver about how human output is only about 3% of the greenhouse agents in the atmosphere. The most effective greenhouse agent is -get this- Water Vapor. It cannot be eliminated and is responsible for 70% or so of the Greenhouse effect. This is not just something being said by a car magazine, the facts are from a scientist at MIT who is among the most esteemed climatologists in the world. I would post a link but C&D only posts LAST month's articles; it will be up next month. There IS global warming. What we can do is sit back and watch. Driving a big car, a small car, or no car at all; will make no difference. Use your A/C. Be comfortable. I automatically disbelieve doomsayers and this is no different.
Global Warming?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
You do realize though that water vapor doesn't magically appear in the atmosphere?
Yes, but very little of it is put there by us. Read the article. It is very enlightening. You can probably go to a public library or even the book shop and read the article. I'm in a motel room right now and don't have it with me so I can't say any more about this.
Yeah, but that water vapor is probably normal and posibly even necessary for a normal temperature on earth. Everything above that is what's causing global warming.
Water vapor causes a lot of global warming because of it's quantity. Qualitatively, I think it's beat by nasty stuff like methane and Carbon monoxide, which definitely aren't natural, unless you consider millions of farting cattle to be natural.
And link to article, please? Isn't there another source?
And link to article, please? Isn't there another source?
Such an odd coincidence that water decided to vaporize in apocalyptic quantities now of all times.
Yes, other things beat water vapor on a qualitative scale. But remember that the Germans had the best technology in WWII but we won because we had a deep bench. Back at my humble abode, I have the article and thus the figures:
The following is reproduced from Car & Driver Vol. 52 No. 3, Page 22, by Patrick Bedard; used here for critical purposes:
However, a friend of mine who is very learned on the subject stated that it has been proposed to seed the upper atmosphere with, If I remember correctly, Sodium, which WOULD have a notable effect on curbing global warming. So there appears to be something to do, we unfortunately are not doing it.
The following is reproduced from Car & Driver Vol. 52 No. 3, Page 22, by Patrick Bedard; used here for critical purposes:
Bedard goes on to state that water vapor is almost entirely natural and "Beyond the reach of man's screwdriver". Also he talks more about the Kyoto Protocols and Al Gore and his rather silly piece of propaganda. The whole article is worth a read. Also, since man is responsible for little the Kyoto council voted to try to do something because voting to do nothing is politically foolish even if the right course of action. Thank you politicians for lying, as usual. The world IS warming, but there's no help in strangling industry.Patrick Bedard said:
However, a friend of mine who is very learned on the subject stated that it has been proposed to seed the upper atmosphere with, If I remember correctly, Sodium, which WOULD have a notable effect on curbing global warming. So there appears to be something to do, we unfortunately are not doing it.
I don't think huge amounts of Sodium raining down on nature would have a very healthy effect to plant and animal life.
That article was beyond flawed. There's no indication on the increase/decrease of water vapor in the last few decades, or the causes for it. Nor is there any indication where all that non-anthropogenic CO2 comes from (And it's CO2, not C02 or c02, just for reference), or why there would be a natural increase all of a sudden.
Lastly, I'm not going to put much faith in an article spawned by a magazine that reviews automobiles. That's like listening to Hitler giving a speech about concentration camps.
That article was beyond flawed. There's no indication on the increase/decrease of water vapor in the last few decades, or the causes for it. Nor is there any indication where all that non-anthropogenic CO2 comes from (And it's CO2, not C02 or c02, just for reference), or why there would be a natural increase all of a sudden.
Lastly, I'm not going to put much faith in an article spawned by a magazine that reviews automobiles. That's like listening to Hitler giving a speech about concentration camps.
Then there's the fact of acid rain, which means water vapor before it is turned to rain is laced with other elements, compounding the problems of just "water vapor". In fact, many of these chemicals can have the opposite of a seeding effect, keeping the water as cloud vapor long after it should have condensated into rain, explaining the growth of persistent water vapor. Which would make it, given that some of the chemicals are from man-made sources, mankind's fault in tipping that balance.
Water vapor is pretty much a given for normal troposphere conditions, but when you add in complications that disrupt the natural order of things, it's the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
So, aerosols not only help form clouds, but introduce an abnormal state where NON-rain clouds are formed and kept unusually warm to prevent normal precipitation. These then mix with other clouds, to cause further unnatural weather patterns and problems.
Oh, I hope the American Institute of Physics serves as a better source than some auto rag and a nut from MIT that apparently doesn't know shit about simple Meteorology. Really, if he's not even going to touch upon why there's an increase in water vapor, or look for chemical relationships and interactive effects, then he's probably not worth his credentials.
Water vapor is pretty much a given for normal troposphere conditions, but when you add in complications that disrupt the natural order of things, it's the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
So, aerosols not only help form clouds, but introduce an abnormal state where NON-rain clouds are formed and kept unusually warm to prevent normal precipitation. These then mix with other clouds, to cause further unnatural weather patterns and problems.
Oh, I hope the American Institute of Physics serves as a better source than some auto rag and a nut from MIT that apparently doesn't know shit about simple Meteorology. Really, if he's not even going to touch upon why there's an increase in water vapor, or look for chemical relationships and interactive effects, then he's probably not worth his credentials.
What are the effects of the Scram jet on the creation of cirrus clouds though? Is the aviation industry heading in the right direction here? As there's pretty much no way to have a solar-powered aeroplane that has commercial and industrial uses, what alternatives are there?
One option as I see it is sacrificing another source of pollution/consumption, such as cars. Now that I think of it, when fuel does start running out, could we see a standoff between different industrial lobbies?
One option as I see it is sacrificing another source of pollution/consumption, such as cars. Now that I think of it, when fuel does start running out, could we see a standoff between different industrial lobbies?
Oddly enough the millitary is looking into using unmanned solar planes for bombing and surveilance -limitless loiter time and no men at risk.
My mistake on typing the "CO2". Not like I can truly type it correctly here anyway. (The "2" should be subscript) I was copying what I saw in print, and there "O" looked like a "0". I didn't process the information at that time; I had already read it.
Oops.
Anywho I don't see how the guy from MIT is automatically wrong because he disagrees with you, Rosh. Oh, I forget. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
I can tell you I don't know all the things he does about this issue. He is better informed by a long shot than any of us. I would tend to believe him.
There is no significant natural increase in water vapor or non-anthropogenic CO2 that I am aware of. The rest of the article, which I shall post a link to as soon as C&D makes it available on there web site, states that the furor over global warming was created by the media, and that Time, which in April, told us to "Be worried. Be Very Worried" about global warming, was telling us in 1983 that temperatures were descending into another era of "Glaciation". Ha. In reality earth's warming process started thousands of years ago at the end of the ice age. I am not shocked -and the only reason anyone else is is because Time thinks it will sell magazines to make them shocked and Al Gore and other politicos want your votes and shocking you is a terrific way to get 'em.
My mistake on typing the "CO2". Not like I can truly type it correctly here anyway. (The "2" should be subscript) I was copying what I saw in print, and there "O" looked like a "0". I didn't process the information at that time; I had already read it.
Oops.Anywho I don't see how the guy from MIT is automatically wrong because he disagrees with you, Rosh. Oh, I forget. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
I can tell you I don't know all the things he does about this issue. He is better informed by a long shot than any of us. I would tend to believe him.
There is no significant natural increase in water vapor or non-anthropogenic CO2 that I am aware of. The rest of the article, which I shall post a link to as soon as C&D makes it available on there web site, states that the furor over global warming was created by the media, and that Time, which in April, told us to "Be worried. Be Very Worried" about global warming, was telling us in 1983 that temperatures were descending into another era of "Glaciation". Ha. In reality earth's warming process started thousands of years ago at the end of the ice age. I am not shocked -and the only reason anyone else is is because Time thinks it will sell magazines to make them shocked and Al Gore and other politicos want your votes and shocking you is a terrific way to get 'em.
And again, what a coincidence that the natural post-glacial surge in temperature level coincided with the explosion of industry in the 20th century. But hey, if the automotive industry scientists say so it must be true.
in the end, what worries me is not the possibility that we're wrong Lord 342, but the possibility that we're right. either way, if we continue on our current path, Earth will be inhabitable on the long run. no matter if there is global warming or not.
however, the agents of global warming are so that once activated, they grow exponentially. for instance, the mentioned CH4. the North Pole & Antartica are already melting fast, but what a lot of people dont know, is that those gigantic icefields contain more than just water. they contain huge ammounts of CH4, one of the more dangerous gasses in relation to global warming. this is only one illustration.
it is said that we have 10 years to act, before the compound interest of our polution itself is so great that reversing it ourself is impossible. is that true? i dont know, but i'd rather make an effort that pays off even if it wasn't true (we NEED to take care of our environment), rather than ignoring it & finding out we just sealed our own faith.
however, the agents of global warming are so that once activated, they grow exponentially. for instance, the mentioned CH4. the North Pole & Antartica are already melting fast, but what a lot of people dont know, is that those gigantic icefields contain more than just water. they contain huge ammounts of CH4, one of the more dangerous gasses in relation to global warming. this is only one illustration.
it is said that we have 10 years to act, before the compound interest of our polution itself is so great that reversing it ourself is impossible. is that true? i dont know, but i'd rather make an effort that pays off even if it wasn't true (we NEED to take care of our environment), rather than ignoring it & finding out we just sealed our own faith.
What "Surge"? We are in a warming cycle. It is getting warmer. It has been for 5,000 years or so. It is a rather high-and-mighty, anthropocentric idea to believe that we are so much the be-all and end-all that we must be the sole agents of this change. The glaciers retreated millenia before we were doing much more than farting and lighting fires. Why is it so shocking that this trend has continued? Because someone told you it is to sell you a newspaper. As Supertramp said: "And you drink your Coca-Cola, 'cause you said it tasted good, and you watch you television, 'cause it tells you that you should"
Steady increase in temperature at the magnitude of 1°C in 1000 years compared to todays 100 years? Shyeah, I'm sure we're just fine. Linky
And somebody who gets their information on global warming from a car magazine is in no position to accuse me of being media manipulated...
And somebody who gets their information on global warming from a car magazine is in no position to accuse me of being media manipulated...
I don't have too much trouble believing the C&D article because it does not state that global warming does not exist, only rationalizes its sources. It doesn't make ANY claims about its impact. Unfortunately 100 years is a drop in the bucket in terms of geological time. In an aeon, some intelligent creature will look at a very normal looking chart, and probably won't even care about the little spike of 1°. The media is making a mountain out of a molehill the don't even know has moles in it yet. The C&D article isn't sensationalist or apolagist. Therefor, the grain of salt I take it with is significantly smaller than that which I swallow Time telling me to be "Very Worried" or Al Gore telling me anything, inlcuding that the sky is blue.
I think that line of thought is going to get us all killed. I'm sorry you're mistaken about this, Lord, I really am.
Lord 342 said:
No, someone who obviously was out to lunch in their own field is wrong, in particular when I could hardly trust one person vs years of meteorological study, in particular the formation of...
You know, it's fairly obvious you didn't read anything I posted, instead you just shined someone's ass. Just the same, Warren Spector was regarded as a top man of his field, same with John Romero (okay, that's stretching it), and even D.W. Bradley, but lately all have been sucking ass because they now neglect to pay attention to the details and believe their own hype instead of doing work. As apparently did this guy in his desire to be pulished. In no way did he explore the inter-relationships of these chemicals and the atmospheres, but instead just wrote the equivalent of a pie chart and tries to paint much of it out of the picture, only taking each element by itself.
Back to your point earlier.
So how do you think this water vapor is both formed, and maintained, in abnormal levels and effects (aka dirty seeding, abnormal cirrus clouds), which are increased upon major jet flight paths? Or how do you explain a growth in suspended vapor in the atmosphere, when the clouds should have condensated but didn't because of a chemical inhibition? That means the gases in the air seed the water vapor into being trapped, and guess what else? We have some giant fucking oceans. Now add progressive dirty seeding, and use your imagination. It also helps explain, through the amounts that are brought down to the ground through some normal precipitation, the heavy levels of dioxins
Which is rather bullshit when you take into effects of these chemicals having an effect in conjunction with the stages of precipitation. Just like silver iodide is used to seed clouds, other chemicals have other affects upon the rain cycle. Many of the trace elements found in jet fuel exhaust form cirrus clouds, which you might have known if you had bothered to read that article...and cirrus clouds are...GUES WHAT? WATER VAPOR! And I didn't even have to go to MIT to figure that shit out. Common fucking sense.
Let's check your math about the "5,000 years", for example. Given NASA's calculations, the US average temp has increased 0.5 degrees for each decade from 75-94. Now let's apply that to 5,000 years. Wow, it must have been regularly below -150 degrees F (about -250 from today's temps!) 5,000 years ago. Wait, no it wasn't. Hence, there's an increase in warming as of recent, which coincides with mankind's industrial impact, which is even more obvious when contrails and cirrus clouds are clearly linked together, and these are NOT normal cirrus clouds due to the dirty seeding.
So until you have a valid counter-point, or care to read what I link, I'm not going to bother replying to any more of your straw man attempts. Especially this wad of shit.
Yeah, I'd like to note that the glaciers that were in Alaska, for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years remained a prominent feature....ARE NOW ALMOST TOTALLY GONE. They were there when you were born, and now they will no longer exist in 30 years, some are already almost gone having thinned by hundreds of feet within the last ten years. Versus being in mankind's recorded history for more than 200 years (even more if you want to go by the natives' own historical records of the length and thickness of the glaciers), and which were quite healthy when I lived up there no more than 15 years ago. The same with the polar ice caps suddenly shrinking. That is a quick development, NOT something that has been steadily going on for a while. It is also what is causing a sudden change of life by those who live off of the land, who don't hunt from the supermarket.
Then maybe you should have read the article I posted, including the parts about cloud formation effects. And quoted for your convenience. You're not bothering to think about weather effects, you're simply sucking some MIT cock as an answer based upon their credentials and not upon their evidence. I hope your ignorance doesn't earn you a bitter shot in the mouth in the future because you couldn't be bothered to think for yourself. I honestly had a higher opinion of you than that, and this has been quite frankly disappointing as hell.