 |
| Dihydrogen Monoxide causes global warming!? Yes and at levels nearly as large as hydrogen hydroxide!
|
Posted on 03/28/2006 5:52:41 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The same doofus who wrote:
"the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov"
It's probably a good guess that the scientist DIDN'T say the most potent greenhouse gas is a liquid.
All models of GHG-induced global warming include water vapor feedback. If they didn't, they wouldn't work.
|
| Dihydrogen Monoxide causes global warming!? Yes and at levels nearly as large as hydrogen hydroxide!
|
70% of the earth's surface is covered with water, but you believe that a few measly irrigation systems and golf courses have a greater impact?
Unbelievable.
..and if we were all driving hydrogen cars today?
Their exhaust is nothing but pure water vapor.
I dunno.
This whole Greenhouse gas thingy was so much more satisfying when we pretended we were saving the planet from destruction. Besides, we could mandate and spend spend trillions of dollars on bigger mufflers for smaller SUVs and the Kyoto Treaty and teaching our kids how to tell other people how uncaring and bad they are.
Now we find out there's not much we can do about it anyway?
This is a helpless feeling, not being in charge of our destiny but just being along for the ride. And all along we thought God was our copilot and we were the ones steering the ship and not Her? It appears our control stick and throttles were actually disconnected!
Pathetic. Please pass the tofu!
Where is the largest store of hydrogen on planet Earth?
They don't (successfully) include it and that's why they don't work.
I speak from first-hand knowledge as I work with it every day. Alll attempts to emulate the water vapor cycle have failed, so far. Especially where clouds are concerned.
Evidently you believe that global climate was static until the day you were born, and now it is suddenly changing.
I regret to inform you that that is not the case.
News Flash: 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water.
They also spew out oxygen, a highly reactive, unstable chemical that has found by scientists to be involved in uncontrolled high temperature chemical reactions which kill millions of women, children, and minorities every year.
Wait a second here. Every one knows the Sun's output, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so. There is no evidence the sun produces a variable output over the decades, right?
Every one knows total h20 vapor in the atmosphere at all elevations, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so. The global climate models boundary conditions assume this, because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
Everyone knows that all other green house gases, on average, are negligable, except for CO2 ... the scientists say so.
The computer models, written by these scientists are very trustworthy too ... minimal assumptions, incredible amounts of field data for calibration purposes, robust math equations which have minimal fudge factors, boundary conditions which are unassailable. And the computers themselves are extremely intelligently designed.
Everyone knows that a huge pool of water, the ocean, holds a lot of heat, and has lots of currents going different directions at different depths. But the impact on the Carbon cycle, on average, is flat. Sez the good scientists anyway; despite how complicated all those funky currents are.
And, oh yes, salinity levels and how they change over time are very well understood as well, at all depths, and how those levels effect the heat exchange and currents between the ocean and atmosphere ... trivial, and on average, constant.
Everyone knows all this. So posting articles about how water vapor changes over time might impact climate, as a result of a comet like structure impacting the planet ... why, that is just plain deeply ignorant, stupid, and willfully dangerous to the health of this planet. Shame on you.
Everyone knows that man made carbon dioxide is the primary cause of the reality of global warming, for it just swamps all those other data points, which on average, are relatively constant. That is what those trust worthy scientists keep saying (and boy oh boy do they remind me in tone of how certain other brands of scientists defend a certain subject). Mankind is a virus on this planet, remember? Can't we just understand this ... and start developoing solutions to this virus??
Global warming is like gravity.
One of my office mates told me this just YESTERDAY. Why? Because the scientists said so ... they read about it in Time Magazine. And for sure, the people who run Time, and the NY Times, etc, etc ... why, they are really trust worthy. And boy oh boy do reporters just LOVE scientists!!
I know they, the scientists, reporters, and trial lawyers who are salivating at the idea of all those carbon emitting companies who are soon to be declared liable for attacking the planet, why, they ALL honestly care about you and me. It is heart warming.
If it wasn't for G. W. Bush, and all evil republicans, especially the religious variety, this problem and all other problems could be fixed, especially if Hillary gets elected.
A nicely written little parody. Started my morning with a good laugh.
How dare you both attempt to inject science fact and reason into this debate!!!
We're talking about two different things. I was not talking about clouds, and yes, they are an uncertainty factor. The positive water vapor feedback is simply that relative humidity will increase in a warmer climate. That's the main thing that they do in GCMs, and that's the main thing that's the topic when H20 as a greenhouse gas is being discussed.
Since you work with this every day, what impact did Minschwaner and Dessler's paper have on your work?
I know it was. I can feel it!
Incorrect. Read The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change
Every one knows total h20 vapor in the atmosphere at all elevations, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so.
Incorrect. Scientists know that relative humidity varies with average global temperature. This is called the positive water vapor feedback.
Everyone knows that all other green house gases, on average, are negligable, except for CO2 ... the scientists say so.
Incorrect. The contributions from more potent GHGs, like methane and CFCs, are accounted for. CO2, by virtue of its concentration in the atmosphere, has the most dominant effect on Earth's radiative balance.
The computer models, written by these scientists are very trustworthy too ... minimal assumptions, incredible amounts of field data for calibration purposes, robust math equations which have minimal fudge factors, boundary conditions which are unassailable.
Incorrect. This is why the output of various models, with different assumptions and framework, must be consulted when evaluating predictions of future climate change.
Everyone knows that a huge pool of water, the ocean, holds a lot of heat, and has lots of currents going different directions at different depths. But the impact on the Carbon cycle, on average, is flat. Sez the good scientists anyway; despite how complicated all those funky currents are.
It's hard to evaluate the point of this paragraph. Ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange has been well characterized by measurements of pCO2 taken over all the ocean basins. The oceans are a net sink for CO2.
And, oh yes, salinity levels and how they change over time are very well understood as well, at all depths, and how those levels effect the heat exchange and currents between the ocean and atmosphere ... trivial, and on average, constant.
Incorrect. The effects of changes in thermohaline balance have been a very fruitful area of study. Changes such as the Younger Dryas and the 8200 ya event have shown what happens to disruption of the THC.
Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. But you were so inaccurate that I had to make sure other people reading this realized it.
I'm sorry but you need to do a little more reading.
(1) Clouds are a KEY part of the water vapor cycle. That would be like leaving predators out of the food chain.
(2) Absolute humidity (not relative, which is temperature-weighted) increases in such places where moisture and heat are both abundant (tropics, for example).
This is my daily work and has been since the late 60's when we opened the WeatherLab at Panama City (FL). We study climate mechanisms first-hand and combine that with parallel studies of the Gulf of Mexico and the air-sea interactions that have a major affect on weather.
You are coming up with what looks like random stuff pulled out of scattered and dubious sources.
Please tell me what climate research you have done this week, month, year.....lifetime. I'm doing it today, as I have for the past 30-something years.
We can even estimate the temperature of the water being used, in general, for irrigation purposes, as well as how much of it is sprayed and so forth, and it turns into a simple mathematical exercise.
Irrigation could very well increase the amount of water evaporated into the air several percentage points.
So, you're the smart guy, give us the answers on this one.
Should be possible to see how variable the Sun is by checking out the deposits on continental margins as the ocean level rises and falls ~ and not just the broad swaths that occur when Antarctica or North America melts ~ after all, even that happens in pulses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.