95-97% of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming is caused by Water!

reply to post by Redwookieaz It's in the ice that is melting and under ice sheets that melt and release the methane gas into the air I think? So we still help cause the green house effect. Like you I think we still are a small amount of the problem!

Stop global warming!

Ban Volcanoes!

reply to post by Redwookieaz


That's only because they figured out they could make more money in massively subsidized, guarateed-profit wind turbines.

They caught on to how easy it is to gorge at the trough when the public is all ga-ga about "green". Hmm...I know there's easy money here somewhere!

Haven't you all learnt by now that all this cap and trade, ETS, ets is just an extra way for taxing the populace? Taxes + Taxes + Taxes = money for the pollies... The pollies tell you its for your own good, and best for you... Yet who gets to spend it? It ain't you!.

What better way to fleece the populace than with a 'da worlds dying, greenhouse gases da cause, pay up, its ur fault" statement. Next it will be anti asteroid protection fees, or 'not nuff tree for oxygen funds'.

This worlds got the exact same amount of particles/atoms, etc that it did 5 million + years ago. Nuclear bombs will not destroy the earth, only upset human life. Im quite sure that this world will live on form disaster and disaster... However Humans, especially those in power... Need to tell everyone that panic, mayhem and bad times are ahead, just to stay in power and gain a few bucks... Or a few million/billion.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


you are wrong, solasis is right. Just because there is more water in the atmosphere doesn't mean there is more cloud cover. it needs to be cold for water to condense to cloud, otherwise it just stays there and humidifies the region... or saturates the cell as meteorologists would say. The water in the atmosphere isn't a big problem because of a thing called differential heating, the sun doesn't always shine on one spot, so we get the convection system, and the water cycle.

Also, clouds reflect infrared radiation, which the earth itself emits, but the water needs to turn to clouds for this to be a problem.... and even so, the cloud would eventually hit a point where it can't hold it's water anymore and it walls back to the earth.


I could say more, but I'm off to class. There is a reason to call people out for being stupid... it's so they don't waste other peoples time.

I'm doing my undergrad in earth science, and I'm currently in northern environmental chemistry, and the physics of meteorology, along with other courses. This is all we talk about in class, so if you would like to argue, I'll whip out the textbooks, and get a few peer reviewed sources for you to look at.

Originally posted by grey580
I am highly skeptical of the science. Escpecially with all the leaked emails

I don't think that we have all of the data necessary to predict the climate.

I don't trust computer models. I bet if you ran the models 10 times you'd get 10 different results.

You're preaching MMGW like it's the next comming of jesus and anyone that says you're wrong is going to burn in hell.

Don't get mad. just show us the science.

IMO we don't have enough data to accurately predict climate.

No one is preaching it like it's the next "comming" of jesus except for some even more troublesome fanatics than the people who think it's a big old scam. The rest of us think that yes, the evidence is not perfect, we don't know absolutely for sure that it's happening. But the facts of the science of how greenhouse gases work and what industry produces strongly suggest that man-made global warming at least will eventually happen probably. We have some likely but indefinite evidence that it's already happening.

reply to post by awmilton


Awesome I guess your very intelligent. Im kind of a dumbass. But honestly I like your big words, and it makes me feel like I ... well actually your reply to whoever it was, was kind of vague. You talked about how your an undergrad, blah.

I fell asleep reading it, and then I woke up and yawned a few times... Honestly if your going to post something, you gotta make it interesting!... Not that boring dribble that came out of your virtual lips.

Originally posted by Aoxoa
Haven't you all learnt by now that all this cap and trade, ETS, ets is just an extra way for taxing the populace? Taxes + Taxes + Taxes = money for the pollies... The pollies tell you its for your own good, and best for you... Yet who gets to spend it? It ain't you!.

What better way to fleece the populace than with a 'da worlds dying, greenhouse gases da cause, pay up, its ur fault" statement. Next it will be anti asteroid protection fees, or 'not nuff tree for oxygen funds'.

This worlds got the exact same amount of particles/atoms, etc that it did 5 million + years ago. Nuclear bombs will not destroy the earth, only upset human life. Im quite sure that this world will live on form disaster and disaster... However Humans, especially those in power... Need to tell everyone that panic, mayhem and bad times are ahead, just to stay in power and gain a few bucks... Or a few million/billion.

Er, who do you think Cap and Trade taxes apply to? corporations, not ordinary people. If anyone's being fleeced, it's not us, it's the factory owners.

Nuclear bombs -- which have nothing to do with this topic anyway -- will not destroy the earth, you're right there. But they will upset a whole lot more than human life. They will upset ALL organic life. They will change the climate. They will kill massive amounts of the biosphere. The earth will live on after that disaster, and the biosphere will recover too, but it will be dramatically changed, in such a way that it would be more accurate to say that it restarted than it survived.

Originally posted by Aoxoa
reply to post by awmilton

 

Awesome I guess your very intelligent. Im kind of a dumbass. But honestly I like your big words, and it makes me feel like I ... well actually your reply to whoever it was, was kind of vague. You talked about how your an undergrad, blah.

I fell asleep reading it, and then I woke up and yawned a few times... Honestly if your going to post something, you gotta make it interesting!... Not that boring dribble that came out of your virtual lips.

Wow. Awmilton's post was short, had no big words, and actually wasn't that boring. You on the other hand made an arbitrary attack on one of the actually simplest pro global warming posts here. Wowzers, you won this round!

Restarted it a good thing... Its what all the people think the TPTB are aiming for. Yes a nuclear war will destroy alot, however it hasn't really happened yet. If it ever does, I do not think humans will ever be wiped out. Like cockroaches, we are quite resourceful, with bunkers and alll that to boot. But the factor remains...

The thread title was that almost 100% of global warming is caused by water!? I honestly like water, I drink it every day. So, obviously if we all drink water, we are destroying global warming! Well until we pee at least.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


wrong, there are so many other factors.... lets start with the fact that the upper atmosphere is not close in temperature to the stuff close to the ground... and really hasn't change too much temp wise.

I'm up for a healthy debate, but you need to come up with a better argument than that. you need to name every factor for your equation so we don't have to guess the variables, then someone can come up with a proper retort.

.......you are right in saying that the earth has mechanism to control variations... I'm attacking the style of the argument, not your argument itself... although there were some flaws.

I believe solasis is 75% right, 25% wrong, and everything here can be resolved by people saying things properly with proof to back up their SOUND argument.

Of course you liked his reply He was brown-nosing you like your so cool rofl. How sad that you even attempted to make an entire post about how you loved his reply (Which happened to have him brown nosing you) and think hes not boring... Laugh out loud!

reply to post by Aoxoa


Okay, my AMAZING reply aside, stop arguing the people, start arguing the subject. (amazing reply was a joke) this will get nowhere if you start acting like politicians......... all I'm saying is that someone needs to present a sound argument with evidence if it's required, and we can debate the science, not the people.

p.s. it's not brown nosing, it's called agreement.

p.p.s hopefully the words weren't too big for you.
(that was an attack on you for being a jerk, and if you want we can start an entirely new thread about mean people on ATS, thanks)

Can we all finally agree that al gore is a idiot and he doesn't know what he's talking about? This thread prooves it.

I will be SO glad when people finally figure out there is NO Global warming, and even if there was, man would not be the cause and there would be exactly zip we could do about it.

The climate is going to do what it is going to do..period. Global climate must be looked at over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Anyway we are headed into an intense cold period if not a full blown ice age.

reply to post by expat2368


there is a global warming, but it's minute, compared to rises in temperature thousands of years ago, this is nothing. i can prove this, but not now... i'm in class

Reply to Suicydking

I prepared a big long reply to you complete with links but unfortuately lost it and don't feel like doing it again.

Essentially, cap and trade for specific pollutants worked in the 70s because no one thought of a way to skim off the top at that time.

At that time, companies paid the cost of reducing pollution somewhere else. Companies did not exchange money - they exchanged services. ie Company A needs to reduce sulpher discharges to air but can't because it would be prohibitively expensive. So Company develops a long term plan for how sulphur discharges will be ultimately reduced (5 or 10 year plan) while subsidizing the cost of installing a methane capture system at the local landfill. The only thing subsidizing the methane capture system did was extend the amount of time that the Company had to ultimately comply with the regulation!

With the current cap and trade system, we are essentially moving money around to pay people not to produce. Ie we pay the russian manufacturing sector for carbon credits allotted for lack of production during a recession, we pay Brazil to refrain from development to protect the rainforest, we pay for carbon credits to plant eucylypus tree plantations that are cut down the following year to obtain more credits.

The carbon credits have become a form of money that is more lucrative than actually working to produce something.

And of course we are also paying for the middleman (AL GORE) at the chicago climate exchange.

These carbon credits are given to corporations - and the corporations that pay for them are not actually paying for them.

You see - and this is very logical - corporations pass the cost of producing a product onto consumers. And who are the consumers - why that would be us, the taxpayer.

As for EXXON funding studies - please re-think profit. If the world population could be convinced that carbon is bad, oil companies would be perfectly justified in taking a greater profit margin to encourage less use.

EXXON produces a useful product that we all use. Yes, they charge money for it.

AL GORE never produced a thing in his life. And yes - he charges us money for it.

You want to protect the rain forest - collect the money and build a nuclear power plant and a grid to distribute electricity. Once you have a stable source of power, the people will not need to cut down trees to cook their food!

THAT is producing something and is worth paying for. Paying the government of Brazil to keep the people of Brazil living in huts is a useless black hole money pit!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Redwookieaz

 

etween 95-97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor! Funny we don't hear about a cap and trade system for clouds!

The net amount of water vapour doesn't change, therefore the net effect of global warming due to vapour hasn't either. It's the other greenhouse gases which have increased, and so increases the overall greenhouse effects.

Where did you come up with this little gem? The net water vapor doesn't change? Ever hear of...RAIN? OMG..some people will stop at noting to keep the masses in the dark.

Perhaps you might read..... this

..Ex

This isn't even new information. I've been aware of this since Glenn Beck's "Inconvenient Book."

reply to post by Aoxoa


He was brown-nosing me? He said I was right and then didn't mention another thing I said. When I replied to you I even forgot that he had said I was right. It was a pretty insignificant part of the post. The only reason I defended him was because I used bigger words than he did, and apparently you bothered to read mine! Or were my posts just so incredibly boring that you slept right past them and then forgot they existed?