Humans contribute .28% in greenhouse gases

[Leafless]

There appears to be no answer to global warming.

Humans only contribute a total of, 28% in greenhouse gasses that are thought to be responsible responsible for global warming.

H20 is the major problem.

Kyoto is barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[BC_chick]

Thanks, but I'll stick with what the scientists at the UN said the other day.....

[Leafless]

Thanks, but I'll stick with what the scientists at the UN said the other day.....

So what did the scientists say?

I believe they blamed global warming on population growth but neglected to say how.

Here is some food for thought. The previous link clearly establishes that water vapour is the greenhouse gas that is basically responsible for greenhouse heating effect.

But consider this.

We are all familiar with how humans can add water vapour through simple chores like boiling water, even lawn watering where as a lot of that water evaporates and a thousand other ways.

But the biggest offender is the automobile.

For every single gallon of gasoline or 4.5 litres you burn, your vehicle produces the astounding amount of 8 pounds of water vapour per 1-gallon of gasoline.

Now we know why, where we are today.

[gc1765]

But consider this.

We are all familiar with how humans can add water vapour through simple chores like boiling water, even lawn watering where as a lot of that water evaporates and a thousand other ways.

But the biggest offender is the automobile.

For every single gallon of gasoline or 4.5 litres you burn, your vehicle produces the astounding amount of 8 pounds of water vapour per 1-gallon of gasoline.

Now we know why, where we are today.

And when it reaches the atmosphere, that water vapour condenses again. Humans aren't going to change the amount of water vapour in the air (unless of course the temperature of the earth changes through global warming).

[Canadian Blue]

Then why does that group of radical liberals known as scientists, say otherwise. In fact it seem's that most of the evidence points to the fact human's create global warming.

[jbg]

Thanks, but I'll stick with what the scientists at the UN said the other day.....

Ah, the UN, the "oil for food" people, the people that can't keep peace between the Hutus and Tutsis, and spend their time tilting at Western democracies.

But back to topic (link) (excerpts below):

BY MARK STEYN

February 5, 2007

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/48020

From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid On Climate Change, Congress Told."

"The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations.

"The science is solid," says Senator Dianne Feinstein.

"The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."

And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."

*snip*

Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the Seventies, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.

*snip*

If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: as a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: it's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.

Could happen. Who knows?

But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.

*snip*

[Catchme]

Thanks, but I'll stick with what the scientists at the UN said the other day.....

I believe they blamed global warming on population growth but neglected to say how.

The scientists have detailed over and over again how humans are creating global warming, it has been detailed countless times here. It does not take a scientist to see how population growth impacts the environment.

The recent USDavis report also details everything humans do that is contributing.

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

[jbg]

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy.

[gc1765]

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy.

If you want scientific funding, you are going to have to convince other scientists that your idea has merit. It is scientists, not politicians, who determine who gets the funding. Scientific funding has not increased as a result of global warming studies, so the money spent on studying it has to come from other areas (and thus taken away from other scientists). So, the idea that scientists are making up global warming to recieve funding doesn't make any sense.

[Leafless]

Scientific funding has not increased as a result of global warming studies, so the money spent on studying it has to come from other areas (and thus taken away from other scientists).

Science is controlled by 'big business'.

They don't want the public to be informed or have scientist investigate the reason for multinationals raking in trillions of dollars.

Until of course it is blatantly obvious that the potential fortunes of multinationals are being threatened by the abusing the atmosphere.

[BC_chick]

BY MARK STEYN

Quoting Mark Steyn is the equivalent of me quoting Michael Moore.....

[BC_chick]

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy.

Of course, there's nothing like making up a world-wide panic with the possibility of seriously altering the world economy just to get some funding for your research.

Sounds like the conservative version of the "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen just so he can go take over the world" argument.

[jbg]

Of course, there's nothing like making up a world-wide panic with the possibility of seriously altering the world economy just to get some funding for your research.

Sounds like the conservative version of the "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen just so he can go take over the world" argument.

Hardly the same. If it's mundane and normal it doesn't get studied.

[margrace]

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy.

Of course, there's nothing like making up a world-wide panic with the possibility of seriously altering the world economy just to get some funding for your research.

Sounds like the conservative version of the "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen just so he can go take over the world" argument.

On the other hand lets add a little chicken flue panic after all less than 100 people have died in 7 years or so

[Leafless]

On the other hand lets add a little chicken flue panic after all less than 100 people have died in 7 years or so

I would not go poking fun at a potential killer pandemic.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/...063f4e40d1.html

Looks like you also don't understand the mechanics of water vapour as a major polluter and could be primarily responsible for global warming.

[gc1765]

Looks like you also don't understand the mechanics of water vapour as a major polluter and could be primarily responsible for global warming.

I already debunked that myth in post #4.

[geoffrey]

Looks like you also don't understand the mechanics of water vapour as a major polluter and could be primarily responsible for global warming.

Nah Leafless, I think your the one that has been mislead. The atmosphere can only hold a certain amount of water at a said temperature before it rains. Unlike CO2, you can't continuously increase the water vapour, as it would simply rain more...

If the temperature of the Earth increased though, so would the water vapour stored in the warmer atmosphere.

[Leafless]

Looks like you also don't understand the mechanics of water vapour as a major polluter and could be primarily responsible for global warming.

Nah Leafless, I think your the one that has been mislead. The atmosphere can only hold a certain amount of water at a said temperature before it rains. Unlike CO2, you can't continuously increase the water vapour, as it would simply rain more...

If the temperature of the Earth increased though, so would the water vapour stored in the warmer atmosphere.

This post is also addressed to gc1765.

Perhaps you can provide a link that proves what your saying, that is, when air is at 100% relative humidity it must rain. You can have constant high humidity levels with no rain.

The point is that their are other factors responsible for the capability of air in the upper atmosphere to hold much more water vapour than previously.

These factors are the depletion of the ozone layer allowing more UV radiation which in turn causes an increase in earth's temperature raising the temperature of oceans in turn affecting the trade wind temperatures causing unstable weather conditions around the globe.

Compound this with the heavy air blanket of increased water vapour that surrounds the lower to upper atmosphere also is responsible for for further increase of evaporation due to higher temperatures adding even more H2O to the atmosphere and is responsible for the chaotic health conditions caused by trapped SMOG, due to this excessive layer of heavy water vapour caused by excess evaporation and man.

[gc1765]

This post is also addressed to gc1765.

Perhaps you can provide a link that proves what your saying, that is, when air is at 100% relative humidity it must rain. You can have constant high humidity levels with no rain.

Here is a pretty good link: Link

Alternatively, a high school chemistry textbook should explain it.

These factors are the depletion of the ozone layer allowing more UV radiation which in turn causes an increase in earth's temperature raising the temperature of oceans in turn affecting the trade wind temperatures causing unstable weather conditions around the globe.

Compound this with the heavy air blanket of increased water vapour that surrounds the lower to upper atmosphere also is responsible for for further increase of evaporation due to higher temperatures adding even more H2O to the atmosphere and is responsible for the chaotic health conditions caused by trapped SMOG, due to this excessive layer of heavy water vapour caused by excess evaporation and man.

I think that was what geoffrey was trying to say about how the global temperature can change the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, which is true. An increase in temperature means more water vapour. The only other thing I can think of that would affect this equilibrium would be a change in pressure, which isn't going to happen unless the earth's gravity changes.

The point here is that watering your lawn will not contribute to global warming, but burning fossil fuels will.

[Leafless]

This post is also addressed to gc1765.

Perhaps you can provide a link that proves what your saying, that is, when air is at 100% relative humidity it must rain. You can have constant high humidity levels with no rain.

Here is a pretty good link: Link

Alternatively, a high school chemistry textbook should explain it.

I already know what causes rain.

Your link proves nothing as it does not necessarily have to rain UNLESS there is a pressure-temperature change.

So in effect you could go weeks with very high humidity with no rain.

[Leafless]

I think that was what geoffrey was trying to say about how the global temperature can change the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, which is true. An increase in temperature means more water vapour. The only other thing I can think of that would affect this equilibrium would be a change in pressure, which isn't going to happen unless the earth's gravity changes.

The point here is that watering your lawn will not contribute to global warming, but burning fossil fuels will.

Increased temperatures in the upper atmosphere means an increased volume which translates to that expanded volume now has the capabilities to hold more water vapour.

Therefore watering your lawn adds more water vapour which finds its home in that newly created space of higher temperatures.

This in turn thickens that blanket of dense humid air which adds to the heating affect in the lower atmosphere adding to a further increase of natural evaporated water and worsening smog conditions.

[geoffrey]

So in effect you could go weeks with very high humidity with no rain.

Yes..... in a land that remains the exact temperature 24 hours a day and is in a bubble protected from the general weather systems outside that bubble.

[Leafless]

So in effect you could go weeks with very high humidity with no rain.

Yes..... in a land that remains the exact temperature 24 hours a day and is in a bubble protected from the general weather systems outside that bubble.

Your being presumptuous.

You mean you have never heard of a hot humid summer with little rain?

[jbg]

Looks like you also don't understand the mechanics of water vapour as a major polluter and could be primarily responsible for global warming.

I already debunked that myth in post #4.

The air isn't at 100% humidity in all areas, by a longshot. Relative humidities are as low as 10% in our Southwest.

Also, where there is water vapor, it does have a greenhouse effect, i.e. would tend, even if not increasing, to foster an increase in temperature. The glass on a greenhouse doesn't get thicker, but the temperature will continuously increase during daytime in a greenhouse, and the heat will shed slowly at night.

[Leafless]

Also, where there is water vapor, it does have a greenhouse effect, i.e. would tend, even if not increasing, to foster an increase in temperature. The glass on a greenhouse doesn't get thicker, but the temperature will continuously increase during daytime in a greenhouse, and the heat will shed slowly at night.

No your right, the glass in a greenhouse does not get thicker by itself unless of course you add additional panels of glass.

But water vapor due to UV radiation increases and additional BTU's to existing water vapour increases temperature due to its own insulating effect by creating extra warm air volume in the upper atmosphere.

This in turn increases the thickness of water vapour blanket around the earth with the end result being less heat dissipated during the evening hours adding further heat during the daylight hours.

It is an apparent vicious cycle that will be next to impossible to stop especially with increases in population.