4 ms·

With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come jus

With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come just for this topic? In this utopia you describe, you neglect to explain what miraculous devices will produce this infinite energy supply. I think that's an important point that you left out. If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right? Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites, let me just paste the following from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html , Everything else is just philosophy. ________________ Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

thaumaturgy 18y ago
With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming denial website. The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water vapor due to the evaporation of ice, small lakes, and rivers, and that in turn further drives climate change. I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening.
- koningrobot 18y ago
  I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening. I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells.
  - samas 18y ago
    Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate. "there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means" Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue research in those fields, and some happen to research climate. Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other environmental/biological/chemical phenomena. "It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells." I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?
    - koningrobot 18y ago
      I certainly didn't mean to write off climate science or scientists. My point was that I don't know how to distinguish the science from the propaganda, except in obvious cases. I find it hard to believe that other armchair scientists can be so sure of themselves. They could be right, but to me its mostly a sign of propaganda. So I don't know who the climate scientists are. Lots of parties are making wild claims and saying science is on their side. Take http://realclimate.org/ http://realclimate.org/ for instance. Is this real climate science? I mean, anyone could put up a website with the words "climate science from climate scientists". How does one tell? Though I think you're right that peer-reviewed literature gives an indication.
samas 18y ago
"Did you come just for this topic?" To comment in just this thread? No, I will probably make other posts. I lurk, and have been doing so for at least a year--so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I just felt like sharing my ideas and (limited) knowledge as they relate to this topic, that is all. "In this utopia you describe" Utopia, as in, the part where I describe the use of desalinized water to irrigate crops, or pumps to keep sea level rise at bay? Seems pretty feasible. "If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right?" Are you implying that every dollar that goes to renewable energy R&D would instead go towards 'alleviating hurt'? Could I instead claim that every dollar for renewable energy R&D will come from our defense budget, leaving our 'alleviating hurt' budgets untouched? Now, are either of those reasonable assumptions? "Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites" I didn't cut and paste from any web site. I synthesized my own ideas. Well, except for the first two paragraphs, which came from the available literature/news sources I have ingested over the years. So, if you've read the content from the first two paragraphs on other websites, did the information concern you? Did it prompt you to do your own investigation into the available literature? "Everything else is just philosophy." Everything besides what the website you included says? Or parts/all of my comment? You've confused me with this statement.

thaumaturgy 18y ago

With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming denial website. The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water vapor due to the evaporation of ice, small lakes, and rivers, and that in turn further drives climate change. I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening.

koningrobot 18y ago
I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening. I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells.
- samas 18y ago
  Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate. "there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means" Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue research in those fields, and some happen to research climate. Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other environmental/biological/chemical phenomena. "It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells." I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?
  - koningrobot 18y ago
    I certainly didn't mean to write off climate science or scientists. My point was that I don't know how to distinguish the science from the propaganda, except in obvious cases. I find it hard to believe that other armchair scientists can be so sure of themselves. They could be right, but to me its mostly a sign of propaganda. So I don't know who the climate scientists are. Lots of parties are making wild claims and saying science is on their side. Take http://realclimate.org/ http://realclimate.org/ for instance. Is this real climate science? I mean, anyone could put up a website with the words "climate science from climate scientists". How does one tell? Though I think you're right that peer-reviewed literature gives an indication.

samas 18y ago

"Did you come just for this topic?" To comment in just this thread? No, I will probably make other posts. I lurk, and have been doing so for at least a year--so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I just felt like sharing my ideas and (limited) knowledge as they relate to this topic, that is all. "In this utopia you describe" Utopia, as in, the part where I describe the use of desalinized water to irrigate crops, or pumps to keep sea level rise at bay? Seems pretty feasible. "If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right?" Are you implying that every dollar that goes to renewable energy R&D would instead go towards 'alleviating hurt'? Could I instead claim that every dollar for renewable energy R&D will come from our defense budget, leaving our 'alleviating hurt' budgets untouched? Now, are either of those reasonable assumptions? "Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites" I didn't cut and paste from any web site. I synthesized my own ideas. Well, except for the first two paragraphs, which came from the available literature/news sources I have ingested over the years. So, if you've read the content from the first two paragraphs on other websites, did the information concern you? Did it prompt you to do your own investigation into the available literature? "Everything else is just philosophy." Everything besides what the website you included says? Or parts/all of my comment? You've confused me with this statement.