Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[PRB]

First of all if "the scientific community appears to still be working on" how much human CO2 impacts the water vapor, what gives them right to point gun at everybody demanding a carbon tax, which you even put into your avatar: "I <3 Carbon Tax."

You want my answer, here you go : NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO TAX ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON. Happy now?

So can we go back to talking about actual science or are you still obsessed with taxes as if without taxes you wouldn't care?

[PRB]

Secondly, the environment is MUCH more sensitive to water vapor emissions than to human produced CO2 emissions, because water vapor (a more potent greenhouse gas) outnumbers human produced CO2 about 100 to 1 in quantity.

No, that's exactly why it NOT as sensitive to water vapor. *facepalm* What is quantity? Mass or volume or molecular concentration?

[Ecolibertarian]

First of all if "the scientific community appears to still be working on" how much human CO2 impacts the water vapor, what gives them right to point gun at everybody demanding a carbon tax, which you even put into your avatar: "I <3 Carbon Tax."

Secondly, the environment is MUCH more sensitive to water vapor emissions than to human produced CO2 emissions, because water vapor (a more potent greenhouse gas) outnumbers human produced CO2 about 100 to 1 in quantity. So water vapor drives the production of water vapor 100 times more, than the CO2 drives the production of water vapor. Thus, water vapor has 100 times greater "multiplier effect" on water vapor, and therefore on overall greenhouse gasses, than human produced CO2.

I say it again: even if ALL human produced CO2 was COMPLETELY removed, it would not have any substantial effect on global climate, because global climate is driven by much more powerful factors such as water vapor and the Sun.

The human-produced-CO2-driving-global-climate-scam is just that, a fraud perpetrated by Rothchild's and the globalists to deceive the population into a world wide taxation scheme, and tyranny.

It is a blatant FRAUD, and you are promoting it.

To answer the first question, the pricing of carbon emissions is a question that would require some estimation of the damage done per unit of emission. I'm not sure how to weigh the damage of, say, tailpipe emissions to the Pantheon, versus the burning of charcoal briquettes. I think that the owners of a property such as the Pantheon (the Roman municipal government, I suppose) should receive recompense for the damage done to their property. I feel that this is on much firmer ground than, say, income taxation, which is simply confiscatory rather than compensatory.

It doesn't seem to be the production of water vapor that is at issue so much as the retention of it in the atmosphere for longer periods of time, and greater cloud formation. As you say, water vapor probably has a great deal of momentum as a GHG--that is to say, it both pushes up heat retention, and can be held in greater quantities by warm air. Of course, we aren't acting in a vacuum, and our behavior interacts with natural processes to shape the environment. But I'm not sure what to make of the argument that water vapor is a greater multiplier on water vapor retention, as the statement that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and do not see how this answer can be satisfactory.

Global climate may be determined in greater part by the energy input of the Sun, or by the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, but anthropogenic input does not need to be in the majority here. It only has to be enough to throw something into a complex system.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

To answer the first question, the pricing of carbon emissions is a question that would require some estimation of the damage done per unit of emission. I'm not sure how to weigh the damage of, say, tailpipe emissions to the Pantheon, versus the burning of charcoal briquettes. I think that the owners of a property such as the Pantheon (the Roman municipal government, I suppose) should receive recompense for the damage done to their property. I feel that this is on much firmer ground than, say, income taxation, which is simply confiscatory rather than compensatory.

Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable and therefore seeking compensation for these "damages" is unjust. In fact there is massive evidence that plant and animal life blossoms when there is 10 times MORE CO2 in the atmosphere. In any event, if "damage" via climate change cannot be directly linked to human CO2, because as we demonstrated it is MASSIVELY outweighed into negligibility by water vapor, no force is justified against CO2 producers on this basis. Period. You might as well say that by singing certain songs in his house, your neighbor is causing crop failures and then precede to use violence against him without any proof. You should first obtain an irrefutable proof of damages caused by your neighbor, and only then contemplate the punishment. You put the whole thing on its head, and you are not justified in it, as you promote a very dangerous and damnable fraud, that may lead to deaths of millions of people and to world tyranny, seeing that you still have in your avatar "I <3 Carbon Tax." You might as well put "I <3 rape" or "I <3 plunder", or "I <3 robbing people because they sing songs I don't like" or anything to this effect.

Again, there is exactly ZERO conclusive proof that human produced CO2 is causing ANY damage via climate change. It is a LIE. Deal with the LIE first, then there will be no need to discuss the reparations for non-existing damages that your neighbor did not cause. You are doing the reverse. It is immoral and wrong.

But I'm not sure what to make of the argument that water vapor is a greater multiplier on water vapor retention, as the statement that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and do not see how this answer can be satisfactory.

It is very simple. Water vapor is a potent GHG. Because it outnumbers human produce CO2 about 100 to 1, it is 100 times more potent in the positive feedback loop then CO2. In fact, even if ALL human produce CO2 was taken out of equation, it would produce no significant effect at all on global temperature changes. So yes, since we are talking about positive feedback loops where some quantity of GHG causes more GHG, water is 100 times more powerful player in such a feedback than human produced CO2.

Global climate may be determined in greater part by the energy input of the Sun, or by the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, but anthropogenic input does not need to be in the majority here. It only has to be enough to throw something into a complex system.

What is more important in a stability of a van: 300 pound box, or a 3 pound box?

[PRB]

Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable

Unproven or unprovable? Unprovable means you admit you're close minded to the possibility.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

"Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable"

Unproven or unprovable? Unprovable means you admit you're close minded to the possibility.

It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.

[PRB]

It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.

Actually you can prove a lie, what you can't prove is a physical or logical impossibility.

[Ecolibertarian]

Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable and therefore seeking compensation for these "damages" is unjust. In fact there is massive evidence that plant and animal life blossoms when there is 10 times MORE CO2 in the atmosphere. In any event, if "damage" via climate change cannot be directly linked to human CO2, because as we demonstrated it is MASSIVELY outweighed into negligibility by water vapor, no force is justified against CO2 producers on this basis. Period. You might as well say that by singing certain songs in his house, your neighbor is causing crop failures and then precede to use violence against him without any proof. You should first obtain an irrefutable proof of damages caused by your neighbor, and only then contemplate the punishment. You put the whole thing on its head, and you are not justified in it, as you promote a very dangerous and damnable fraud, that may lead to deaths of millions of people and to world tyranny, seeing that you still have in your avatar "I <3 Carbon Tax." You might as well put "I <3 rape" or "I <3 plunder", or "I <3 robbing people because they sing songs I don't like" or anything to this effect.

Again, there is exactly ZERO conclusive proof that human produced CO2 is causing ANY damage via climate change. It is a LIE. Deal with the LIE first, then there will be no need to discuss the reparations for non-existing damages that your neighbor did not cause. You are doing the reverse. It is immoral and wrong.

It is very simple. Water vapor is a potent GHG. Because it outnumbers human produce CO2 about 100 to 1, it is 100 times more potent in the positive feedback loop then CO2. In fact, even if ALL human produce CO2 was taken out of equation, it would produce no significant effect at all on global temperature changes. So yes, since we are talking about positive feedback loops where some quantity of GHG causes more GHG, water is 100 times more powerful player in such a feedback than human produced CO2.

What is more important in a stability of a van: 300 pound box, or a 3 pound box?

First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you.

I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them. That is to say that there is considerable support for a causal link between CO2 emissions and the concentration of other gasses, principally water vapor, in the atmosphere. No, there is not yet irrefutable proof. Often, theories are proposed to explain associations, and time passes before a theory can be empirically confirmed or refuted. My personal inclination is to trust the prevailing opinion among climate scientists. I trust that they, as individuals and as a community, are far better acquainted with the merits of different positions. For example, I am not certain as to whether one greenhouse gas is the same as another, once in the atmosphere, with respect to the greenhouse effect. (Certainly, it is quite different when it rains back down again, but acid rain is another matter.)

As to the final question, the three-hundred pounder. But I don't feel that that analogy is appropriate. I would suggest thinking about an orchestra. The violin is probably more important than the metal triangle. But if the triangle player starts going nuts, he/she can still screw up a performance. To put it another way, let's say a theoretical lever is perfectly balanced, with a three-hundred pound block in each pan. If I throw a small weight in either pan, it represents little of the material on the lever. But the equilibrium is upset, and the blocks will fall out of balance.

[PRB]

First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you.

He's already decided man made global warming is a hoax and "unprovable". So don't expect him to be courteous, a conspiracy already decided you're either too stupid to think for yourself, or are paid to do the enemy's work.

[PRB]

I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them.

Doesn't matter, because he'll either not understand it or pretend not to understand it. He's already made up his mind that he's right and you're wrong and you can never change his mind.

[PRB]

It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.

1. It's natural variation!
2. It can't be caused by man
3. Computer models don't work
4. It's cooling

Sorry, all dead here
http://link.springer.com/article/10....382-014-2128-2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411153453.htm

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Actually you can prove a lie, what you can't prove is a physical or logical impossibility.

Is proving a lie your mission here? You cannot prove that which is false to be true.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you.

I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them. That is to say that there is considerable support for a causal link between CO2 emissions and the concentration of other gasses, principally water vapor, in the atmosphere. No, there is not yet irrefutable proof. Often, theories are proposed to explain associations, and time passes before a theory can be empirically confirmed or refuted. My personal inclination is to trust the prevailing opinion among climate scientists. I trust that they, as individuals and as a community, are far better acquainted with the merits of different positions. For example, I am not certain as to whether one greenhouse gas is the same as another, once in the atmosphere, with respect to the greenhouse effect. (Certainly, it is quite different when it rains back down again, but acid rain is another matter.)

As to the final question, the three-hundred pounder. But I don't feel that that analogy is appropriate. I would suggest thinking about an orchestra. The violin is probably more important than the metal triangle. But if the triangle player starts going nuts, he/she can still screw up a performance. To put it another way, let's say a theoretical lever is perfectly balanced, with a three-hundred pound block in each pan. If I throw a small weight in either pan, it represents little of the material on the lever. But the equilibrium is upset, and the blocks will fall out of balance.

The problem is that you are trying to use theories with obvious and significant logical problems in them, indeed glaring holes in them, as a justification for aggressive violence of taxation, since your avatar says "I <3 Carbon Tax." So in other words, you advocate VIOLENCE with flimsiest, in fact, fraudulent "justification."

And yes, water vapor IS a GHG, and yes it effects the production of other water vapor 100 times more than human produced CO2.

You need irrefutable PROOF before you have the right to initiate violence. You first advocate violence, then you seek a proof to justify it. That is backwards, and wrong.

I say it again: Even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere it would NOT have any significant effect on global temperature. Besides, when CO2 levels were TEN times what they are today, the Earth enjoyed greater animal and plant growth than today.

To base your proposed VIOLENCE on these things is IMMORAL and unjust.

[PRB]

Is proving a lie your mission here? You cannot prove that which is false to be true.

But how do you know something is false to begin with? No, proving a lie is not my mission, but denying a possibility without first ruling it out as a physical or logical impossibility, is not logical to say the least.

[PRB]

You need irrefutable PROOF before you have the right to initiate violence. You first advocate violence, then you seek a proof to justify it. That is backwards, and wrong.

I disagree, you never have a right to initiate violence.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

But how do you know something is false to begin with? No, proving a lie is not my mission, but denying a possibility without first ruling it out as a physical or logical impossibility, is not logical to say the least.

I gave strong logical reasons that even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the earth it would not have significant effect on global temperature. A claim you are powerless to refute, because it is true and supported by massive evidence, not the least of which is that human produced CO2 is outnumbered 100 to 1 by a more potent green house gas, water vapor.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I disagree, you never have a right to initiate violence.

In the context in which I used the phrase, it is clear that it meant initiation of RETALIATORY/defensive violence. To rephrase, it meant: You have to have an absolute proof of aggression before you have a right to use violence.

[PRB]

I gave strong logical reasons that even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the earth it would not have significant effect on global temperature.

Easy for you to say when you can redefine significant to mean anything you want. but all you've said was "water vapor is 99% of all greenhouse gases"

A claim you are powerless to refute

more like, I can refute it but you'll just never admit you're wrong.

, because it is true and supported by massive evidence

No, it isn't. You're literally blowing up ONE piece of information to refute the mountains of data available to the contrary. Your whole argument depends on water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, which supposedly means CO2 can never be a contributor.

, not the least of which is that human produced CO2 is outnumbered 100 to 1 by a more potent green house gas, water vapor.

no, it IS the least, that's ALL you have.

[PRB]

In the context in which I used the phrase, it is clear that it meant initiation of RETALIATORY/defensive violence. To rephrase, it meant: You have to have an absolute proof of aggression before you have a right to use violence.

I still disagree. Adding words of context doesn't mean you're right.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Easy for you to say when you can redefine significant to mean anything you want. but all you've said was "water vapor is 99% of all greenhouse gases"

more like, I can refute it but you'll just never admit you're wrong.

No, it isn't. You're literally blowing up ONE piece of information to refute the mountains of data available to the contrary. Your whole argument depends on water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, which supposedly means CO2 can never be a contributor.

no, it IS the least, that's ALL you have.

That's all I need. Keep it simple. All the "mountains of evidence" cannot refute the simple fact that 2+2=4.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I still disagree. Adding words of context doesn't mean you're right.

You disagree that you must have an absolute proof of aggression before you are justified in using defensive violence? Or do you really get paid by the post?

[Ecolibertarian]

Hey, I don't have anything more to add, but I need $5 more to buy a PS4, so I'm posting this for the money.

[PRB]

You disagree that you must have an absolute proof of aggression before you are justified in using defensive violence? Or do you really get paid by the post?

I get paid to tell you you are never justified in using violence.

[PRB]

That's all I need. Keep it simple. All the "mountains of evidence" cannot refute the simple fact that 2+2=4.

you admitted your mind is simple and decided nothing will change it. you assume that your simple fact is either relevant or in contradiction to the overall conclusion from the entirety of evidence.

for the simplest example, you made the claim "energy is trapped until it's radiated into outer space again", sounds good, can you tell us when, how and how we can test this claim? You can't. This is why you have no idea whether rain or snow increases or decrease the rate of which energy escapes the earth allowing the earth to cool down, yet observation evidence clearly shows snowing and raining decreases earth's local surface temperature. so either local temperature can decrease without losing heat to outer space, or raining and snowing doesn't decrease local temperature, which one is it? facts alone say nothing.

[BucksforPaul]

These climatologists can't even predict the correct weather ten days out but the trolls expect us to believe that they are good with their estimates of what will happen 1, 5 or even 10 years down the line. Laughable at best.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Hey, I don't have anything more to add, but I need $5 more to buy a PS4, so I'm posting this for the money.

You'll need at least a couple dozen more posts to reach that lofty amount. That's about the going rate of pay-to-troll.

[PRB]

These climatologists can't even predict the correct weather ten days out but the trolls expect us to believe that they are good with their estimates of what will happen 1, 5 or even 10 years down the line. Laughable at best.

so because I can't predict 10 coin flips, I can't predict a million?

According to you then, what happens with climate 5-10 years from now is completely unpredictable?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I get paid to tell you you are never justified in using violence.

a) You are getting paid, and
b) Defensive violence is justified (by definition).
c) Aggressive violence is NEVER justified, and is the definition of EVIL.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

you admitted your mind is simple and decided nothing will change it. you assume that your simple fact is either relevant or in contradiction to the overall conclusion from the entirety of evidence.

for the simplest example, you made the claim "energy is trapped until it's radiated into outer space again", sounds good, can you tell us when, how and how we can test this claim? You can't.

It is only the fundamental law of physics. Google "the law of preservation of energy."

This is why you have no idea whether rain or snow increases or decrease the rate of which energy escapes the earth allowing the earth to cool down, yet observation evidence clearly shows snowing and raining decreases earth's local surface temperature. so either local temperature can decrease without losing heat to outer space, or raining and snowing doesn't decrease local temperature, which one is it? facts alone say nothing.

Proper facts say everything. But to answer your question: When snow falls it absorbs the heat in the local environment, that's why the environment cools down. But the heat is not lost. It is in the snow, and in the water. So total energy in the system remains the same, unless it is radiated into outer space.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

You'll need at least a couple dozen more posts to reach that lofty amount. That's about the going rate of pay-to-troll.

Good one! This explains why PRB uses a separate post to respond to each of my sentences.

Good catch!