CanucksCorner.com Forums

.
^ A week later Per comes back commenting on a side issue + more ad hominen.

So you concede Per?

Water vapour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2

(as far as importance in climate change)

*waves to adoring fans as they rise to their feet cheering*

Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:42 pm .
^ A week later Per comes back commenting on a side issue + more ad hominen.

So you concede Per?

Water vapour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2

(as far as importance in climate change)

*waves to adoring fans as they rise to their feet cheering*

So, when work is slow, you criticize me for that, when I’m busy you criticize that.
There’s really no making you happy.

And as I have pointed out before, you are confusing two different aspects of water vapour.

1) water vapour is an important greenhouse gas
2) water vapour is not an important factor in the current global warming

I’ll leave the stage to physicsworld:

1:

Plain old H2O: the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapour accounts for around half the present-day greenhouse effect and without it our planet would probably be frozen and lifeless.

2:

Steven Sherwood from the University of New South Wales, Australia, used the CAM5 global atmospheric model to estimate the global warming potential and radiative forcing associated with water vapour emissions.

The largest source of anthropogenic water vapour emissions is currently irrigation. Assuming that this source remains fairly constant over the next century, Sherwood and colleagues show that its greenhouse warming potential is between –0.001 and +0.0005 and its effective radiative forcing is between –0.1 and +0.05 W/sq. m.

“This makes emitted water, at best, a thousand times less effective per kilogram at altering the heat budget of the Earth than emitted carbon dioxide,” write the scientists in Environmental Research Letters (ERL).

The model also showed top-of-atmosphere cooling, rather than warming, mostly because the added water vapour rained out before reaching altitudes where it could contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. The researchers found that if anything, because water vapour is emitted at low altitudes by irrigation, it was more likely to increase low-level cloud cover, which tends to have a cooling effect.

But these water vapour emissions can’t combat global warming to any great extent. “We found it was only enough to offset a few percent of the warming effect by carbon dioxide,” says Sherwood.

https://physicsworld.com/a/are-our-wate ... e-climate/

QED

And seriously, vaping is bad for your health.

As for your ”side issue”; if we can see that he is lying about the ozone layer, why should we trust him on climate change?

Liar, liar, our house is on fire.

Per wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:03 pm So, when work is slow, you criticize me for that, when I’m busy you criticize that.
There’s really no making you happy.

If you really want to make me happy, just admit anthropogenic global warming is balderdash.

You're presenting scientific opinion that says water vapour does not drive global warming.

I've already presented scientific opinion that says CO2 does not drive global warming:

viewtopic.php?p=367453#p367453

Here's more on that:

http://pubsapp.acs.org/subscribe/archiv ... /05vp.html?

Does CO2 really drive global warming?


I don’t believe that it does. To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test...

**presents scientific evidence**

....

CONCLUSION (What the evidence shows)

So what we have on the best current evidence is that

global temperatures are currently rising;

the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;

the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;

the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;

if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;

the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;

water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;

determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and

the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.

In the end we are left with scientific opinion vs scientific opinion.

Soooo... what if you and I were to make a compromise?

What if we agreed to assume neither water vapour nor CO2 are driving global warming?

What say you?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:55 pm In the end we are left with scientific opinion vs scientific opinion.

Soooo... what if you and I were to make a compromise?

What if we agreed to assume neither water vapour nor CO2 are driving global warming?

What say you?

Nah, I’m more inclined to let the scientists decide by a show of hands.

The vast majority in the field (some estimates say 97%, give or take) agree that the most reasonable and probable explanation for the current rise in surface temperatures is the rise in co2 levels due to fossil fuel usage and deforestation.

A handful dissenters are given disproportionate attention due to monetary and political interest.

Yet eg the article you last linked to is from 2001, as I suppose it must be harder and harder to argue against the increasingly compelling evidence.

I do however realize the futility and waste of time in trying to convince you, so for the time being I’ll just link to NASA’s climate site, that has a very pedagogic layout where they present the facts and evidence for global warming and for co2 emissions being the driving factor behind it. Please take a look. They make a far stronger case than any oil-and-coal sponsored dissenter you can find at your conspiracy sites do. Cheers!

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Per wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:55 pm In the end we are left with scientific opinion vs scientific opinion.

Soooo... what if you and I were to make a compromise?

What if we agreed to assume neither water vapour nor CO2 are driving global warming?

What say you?

Nah

Yeah I didn't think so

... even though there is nowhere near enough scientific evidence to establish that CO2/water vapour are driving global warming.

For most of the history of Science, scientific opinion/consensus mattered sweet piss all.

More recently, after politics infected Science, scientific opinion/consensus began to be presented as somehow relevant to Science.

Traditionally a scientist had his scientific theory/hypothesis and set out to prove it, hoping it would become scientific fact.

(until then a scientist would never dare suggest his scientific theory/hypothesis was Science)

Actually, technically, this is still how things are today in the wonderful world of Science

... no matter what kind of poppycock alarmists/political activists such as you and Greta go on and on and on about.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:32 pm "There is no convincing scientific consensus that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...".

“science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.”

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... sensus.htm

.
^ Yeah, that is the kind of crapola that has infected Science in modern times, thanks UK!

50 years ago the scientific consensus was that plate tectonics was impossible, lmao...

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:47 pm .
^ Yeah, that is the kind of crapola that has infected Science in modern times, thanks UK!

50 years ago the scientific consensus was that plate tectonics was impossible, lmao...

It was more than 50 years ago, but yes.... and it was less than that when we discovered that a meteor impact was the likely cause of the dinosaur extinction at the K-T boundary.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:47 pm .
^ Yeah, that is the kind of crapola that has infected Science in modern times, thanks UK!

50 years ago the scientific consensus was that plate tectonics was impossible, lmao...

You must have a monitor that’s translates standard English into standard horse shit.

The clip makes perfect sense.

It’s not the scientists or the politicians that form the consensus it’s scientific method that forms consensus and the consensus is that AGW is real.

But it’s okay don’t be upset you don’t have to agree today.

Topper wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:47 pm .
^ Yeah, that is the kind of crapola that has infected Science in modern times, thanks UK!

50 years ago the scientific consensus was that plate tectonics was impossible, lmao...

It was more than 50 years ago, but yes.... and it was less than that when we discovered that a meteor impact was the likely cause of the dinosaur extinction at the K-T boundary.

There are endless scientific hypotheses that have been debunked through new information harvested through scientific method.

We may find and probably will find that the point of no return for an inhabitable environment is way off but it doesn’t really matter if it’s 20 years from now or 200 years from now.

Changes in the way we live and do business are coming

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:06 am It’s not the scientists or the politicians that form the consensus it’s scientific method that forms consensus and the consensus is that AGW is real.

You obviously haven't been following the conversation here over the last week!

"Scientific consensus" is what they turn to when "the scientific method" can't give them the answers.

"Scientific consensus" = opinion.

"Scientific method" = proof (sometimes).

Are there any questions?

What is this Opposite Day in Dubai?

OMG wot a schmuck...

Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:45 am
What is this Opposite Day in Dubai?

Thats when the gays throw the mullahs off the rooftops

Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:45 am

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:06 am It’s not the scientists or the politicians that form the consensus it’s scientific method that forms consensus and the consensus is that AGW is real.

You obviously haven't been following the conversation here over the last week!

"Scientific consensus" is what they turn to when "the scientific method" can't give them the answers.

"Scientific consensus" = opinion.

"Scientific method" = proof (sometimes).

Are there any questions?

What is this Opposite Day in Dubai?

OMG wot a schmuck...

Schmuck you

Scientific consensus happens when scientific method removes competing hypotheses, theories and arguments.

Science doesn’t give a schmuck about anyone’s opinion.

But never mind all of that. None of us are as far as I know Climatologists. So explanations about carbon and water vapor (yawn) is about as interesting as listening to an LA Law fan explain the details of a Software update license agreement.

What’s interesting is that AGW deniers are overwhelmingly conservative trump supporters and voters. It seems that for them, even though they like to argue science, what it’s really about is politics.


Or

AGW deniers = political opinion

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:14 pm Scientific consensus happens when scientific method removes competing hypotheses, theories and arguments.

UMMMM. Did the scientific method remove the Plate Tectonics hypotheses/theory/argument 60 years ago?

Because, again, back then the "scientific consensus" was that Plate Tectonics was impossible.

(no evidence, no mechanism, etc)

BUT NOW... the NEW scientific consensus is that Plate Tectonics is where it's at.

To put it in layman's terms, you're an idiot.

Actually "when scientific method removes competing hypotheses, theories and arguments"

... it results in bona fide Scientific FACT... not, as you said, "a scientific consensus".

"Scientific consensus" (opinion) is what they turn to when "the scientific method" can't give them the answers (facts).

(I've repeated that sentence here for the sake of any idiots who may be present)

Seriously, what kind of an idjut continues to confuse scientific fact with scientific consensus....

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:14 pm Science doesn’t give a schmuck about anyone’s opinion.

That's what I've been saying.

http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/consensus.htm

Scientific Consensus
Definition:
The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.

(( like I said UK, "scientific consensus" is what they turn to when "the scientific method" can't give them the answers))


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /consensus

consensus
noun [ S or U ]

a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus

consensus/ (kənˈsɛnsəs) /
noun
general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion)

(Since consensus refers to a collective opinion, the words of opinion in the phrase consensus of opinion are redundant and should therefore be avoided)


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /consensus

consensus
in American English
(kənˈsɛnsəs )

NOUN
1. an opinion held by all or most
2. general agreement, esp. in opinion


https://www.yourdictionary.com/consensus

consensus con·sen·sus

noun
1. The definition of consensus is an agreement made by a group.
An example of consensus is when Republicans and Democrats agree on language for a bill.

2. Consensus means generally accepted opinion.
An example of consensus is most people believing that it is wrong to kill another person.
........................................................................


Should I go on, there are dozens of online dictionaries.

UK, kindly stick to teaching ESL and stay the fuck away from proper English or, God forbid, Science mmmmkay?

ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:14 pm What’s interesting is that AGW deniers are overwhelmingly conservative trump supporters and voters. It seems that for them, even though they like to argue science, what it’s really about is politics.

Or

AGW deniers = political opinion

What’s interesting is that AGW believers are overwhelmingly conservative Trump haters. It seems that for these fuckwits, even though they like
to argue science, what it’s really about is politics.

Or

AGW believers = political opinion