The Church of the Global Warming Fascists (AGW) revising their theology, another fall

[HerbieHeadley]

Water vapor is H2O. Tell me, where in there is the Carbon located? I see the hydrogen. I see the oxygen. I fail to see any carbon. So tell me, since you're the chemistry genius. Where's the carbon in water vapor?

“Carbon” (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy in society.

"Carbon" is also stored in the oceans as dissolved atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and as calcium carbonate shells in marine organisms.

Carbon moves from the atmosphere to the biosphere chiefly by the process of photosynthesis and as every grade schooler learns, CO2 enables photosynthesis and plant growth: carbon dioxide and water in, oxygen and plant growth out, through complex chemical reactions.

Without CO2, there would be no plants and no oxygen; life as we know it would cease. Carbon dioxide is truly the “gas of life” – and no attempt by Al Gore, James Hansen or EPA to brand it as a dangerous pollutant can change that.

All life is based on the element carbon. Carbon is the major chemical constituent of most organic matter."

Although carbon footprints are reported in annual tons of CO2 emissions, they actually are a measure of total greenhouse gas emissions. A greenhouse gas is any gas that traps heat in the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect. Because of the presence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the average temperature of the Earth is 14 ºC (57 ºF). Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the atmosphere would be -19 ºC (-2.2 ºF).


Many greenhouse gases occur naturally through the natural carbon cycle, moving carbon from its solid form to the gaseous state, thus increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

The statement; "Well over 90% of "carbon footprint" comes from water vapor." Is quite correct.

What is water vapor?

"Water vapor is water in its gaseous state-instead of liquid or solid (ice).

Water vapor is totally invisible. If you see a cloud, fog, or mist, these are all liquid water, not water vapor.

Water vapor is extremely important to the weather and climate. Without it, there would be no clouds or rain or snow, since all of these require water vapor in order to form. All of the water vapor that evaporates from the surface of the Earth eventually returns as precipitation - rain or snow.

Water vapor is also the Earth's most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life.

When liquid water is evaporated to form water vapor, heat is absorbed. This helps to cool the surface of the Earth. This "latent heat of condensation" is released again when the water vapor condenses to form cloud water. This source of heat helps drive the updrafts in clouds and precipitation systems, which then causes even more water vapor to condense into cloud, and more cloud water and ice to form precipitation.

Interesting facts:
Water Vapor Cools AND Warms the Climate System? When water evaporates from the surface of the Earth, it cools the surface.

This keeps the surface from getting too hot. But because that water vapor is also the atmosphere's primary greenhouse gas, water vapor acts to keep the Earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

So which effect is stronger, water vapor's cooling effect or warming effect? Interestingly, it is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate that the surface cooling effect of evaporation (which creates water vapor) is stronger than its greenhouse warming effect."

 

[rambot]

“Carbon” (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy in society.

"Carbon" is also stored in the oceans as dissolved atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and as calcium carbonate shells in marine organisms.

Carbon moves from the atmosphere to the biosphere chiefly by the process of photosynthesis and as every grade schooler learns, CO2 enables photosynthesis and plant growth: carbon dioxide and water in, oxygen and plant growth out, through complex chemical reactions.

Without CO2, there would be no plants and no oxygen; life as we know it would cease. Carbon dioxide is truly the “gas of life” – and no attempt by Al Gore, James Hansen or EPA to brand it as a dangerous pollutant can change that.

All life is based on the element carbon. Carbon is the major chemical constituent of most organic matter."


The statement; "Well over 90% of "carbon footprint" comes from water vapor." Is quite correct.

What is water vapor?

"Water vapor is water in its gaseous state-instead of liquid or solid (ice).

Water vapor is totally invisible. If you see a cloud, fog, or mist, these are all liquid water, not water vapor.

Water vapor is extremely important to the weather and climate. Without it, there would be no clouds or rain or snow, since all of these require water vapor in order to form. All of the water vapor that evaporates from the surface of the Earth eventually returns as precipitation - rain or snow.

Water vapor is also the Earth's most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life.

When liquid water is evaporated to form water vapor, heat is absorbed. This helps to cool the surface of the Earth. This "latent heat of condensation" is released again when the water vapor condenses to form cloud water. This source of heat helps drive the updrafts in clouds and precipitation systems, which then causes even more water vapor to condense into cloud, and more cloud water and ice to form precipitation.
Interesting facts:

Water Vapor Cools AND Warms the Climate System? When water evaporates from the surface of the Earth, it cools the surface. This keeps the surface from getting too hot. But because that water vapor is also the atmosphere's primary greenhouse gas, water vapor acts to keep the Earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

So which effect is stronger, water vapor's cooling effect or warming effect? Interestingly, it is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate that the surface cooling effect of evaporation (which creates water vapor) is stronger than its greenhouse warming effect."

What is water vapor?

A FANTASTIC example of how misinformed skeptics/deniers are.

Water vapour can account for a large majority of the natural greenhouse effect HOWEVER, that is ABSOLUTELY not an interchangeable term with "carbon footprint". If you wish to critique the theory, a working knowledge of the terminology is a minimum.

And regardless of the % water vapour may affect it, any increase in OTHER greenhouse gases (methane, CO2 par example) that would cause even a miniscule increase in temperature is giong to cause and INCREASE in water vapour. This is called a positive feedback loop.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

A FANTASTIC example of how misinformed skeptics/deniers are.

Water vapour can account for a large majority of the natural greenhouse effect HOWEVER, that is ABSOLUTELY not an interchangeable term with "carbon footprint". If you wish to critique the theory, a working knowledge of the terminology is a minimum.

And regardless of the % water vapour may affect it, any increase in OTHER greenhouse gases (methane, CO2 par example) that would cause even a miniscule increase in temperature is giong to cause and INCREASE in water vapour. This is called a positive feedback loop.

If you mean a working knowledge based on the pseudo science that man-made carbon dioxide is the main definition of greehouse gases that contribute to our Earths temperature, count me out. I don't go to that church. The main culprit is the sun and its cycles and it won't be long before the theology from the Church of Global Warming Fascists and alarmists, spreading their taughtology from the high priests of peer review through mockery and insults will be alarming us all of the man-made ice age that cometh.

 

[Paradoxum]

If you mean a working knowledge based on the pseudo science that man-made carbon dioxide is the main definition of greehouse gases that contribute to our Earths temperature, count me out.

Care to find a reputable climate science organisation that says this? If not then this is a strawman, or arguing against the ignorant instead of the scientists. From my limited understanding of climate it makes complete sense to me that water vapour plays a large part in climate.

I don't go to that church.

Well if that isn't the science (which I suspect it isn't) then that's good.

The main culprit is the sun and its cycles and it won't be long before the theology from the Church of Global Warming Fascists and alarmists, spreading their taughtology from the high priests of peer review through mockery and insults will be alarming us all of the man-made ice age that cometh.

Is anyone going to deny that the Sun affects climate? But you can't just point to the big fire ball and say it must be the cause. You maybe not be doing that, but that isn't science.

 

[USincognito]

If you mean a working knowledge based on the pseudo science that man-made carbon dioxide is the main definition of greehouse gases that contribute to our Earths temperature, count me out. I don't go to that church. The main culprit is the sun and its cycles and it won't be long before the theology from the Church of Global Warming Fascists and alarmists, spreading their taughtology from the high priests of peer review through mockery and insults will be alarming us all of the man-made ice age that cometh.

This Gish Gallop of a screed is hilarious, especially the part about "pseudo science" when it comes just two posts after this gem.

“Carbon” (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy in society.

We burn carbon to get energy huh?

- eta Oh brother! Those aren't even your own words. You're repeating a falsehood.
http://townhall.com/columnists/paul..._dioxide_clearing_up_the_confusion/page/full/

 

[HerbieHeadley]

This Gish Gallop of a screed is hilarious, especially the part about "pseudo science" when it comes just two posts after this gem.



We burn carbon to get energy huh?

You don't believe there is carbon contained in the fuels we burn for energy?

- eta Oh brother! Those aren't even your own words. You're repeating a falsehood.
Carbon and Carbon Dioxide: Clearing Up the Confusion - Paul Driessen - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Humans are carbon, we eat carbon, we burn carbon.

"Carbon is an essential component of our bodies, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, most of the fuel we burn, and many other materials that we use. Over 90% of the known chemical compounds contain carbon. This is not surprising since carbon combines very easily with other elements and with itself."
http://www.planetseed.com/node/15226

 

[USincognito]

We burn carbon to get energy huh?

You don't believe there is carbon contained in the fuels we burn for energy? {snip stuff I knew many many years ago}

Really? That's how you're going to try and spin it. Here's what "you" wrote above.

“Carbon” (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy in society.

Did you finally realize the mistake you and your uncredited source from Townhall made in that sentence?

 

[USincognito]

- eta Oh brother! Those aren't even your own words. You're repeating a falsehood.
Carbon and Carbon Dioxide: Clearing Up the Confusion - Paul Driessen - Townhall Conservative Columnists

This townhall.com op-ed is from 2011 and I love the glaring scientific ignorance of deniers right in the last comment before the comments died.

Shubi on May 09, 2011 7:04 AM posts this bit of biological ignorance:

CO2 is plant food.We need as much as we can get in the air. It does not cause global warming and never could. Notice the trolls post the top posts to distort facts, Alinsky all the way.

bold mine

Seriously? CO[sub]2[/sub] is plant food? Has "shubi" no familiarity what-so-ever with photosynthesis or respiration? Probably not. He or she was likely homeschooled and learned science from Kent Hovind.

Oh, and in case "shubi" is a Poe, a simple Google search would provide many deniers claiming that CO[sub]2[/sub] is good for plants therefore... fill in denier nonsense.

Ah, and scrolling down, this is another easily debunkable denier nonsense talking point.

Were you one of the "scientific majority" in the 70's warning us of imminent global cooling and the end of life on Mother Earth, as we know it?

That's awesome. Gotta love denier knowledge of both science and history.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Really? That's how you're going to try and spin it. Here's what "you" wrote above.

If you choose to ignore the context of which it was quoted and need to make a technical point, just go ahead and do that and stop spinning.

Did you finally realize the mistake you and your uncredited source from Townhall made in that sentence?

Carbon and carbon dioxide: Clearing up the confusion

"We are frequently told we must reduce carbon emissions, support "carbon disclosure" and invest in "carbon trusts" - to prevent catastrophic global warming, global climate change or global climate "disruption." News stories, advocacy and lobbying activities, and corporate "ethics" promotions frequently use "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" almost interchangeably; some occasionally talk about "dangerous carbon monoxide emissions."

Torn by misplaced hydrocarbon guilt, wanting to do right ecologically, and often scientifically challenged, people are naturally confused. Because so much is at stake - for our energy supplies and prices, jobs, economies, living standards, budget deficits and environment - clearing up that confusion is a high priority.

"Carbon" (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy to power modern society. Carbon is the molecular building block for wood, charcoal and coal, and hydrocarbons (HC) like oil and natural gas. Cars and power plants do not emit carbon, except in the form of soot. Thus, talk of "carbon disclosure" or "reducing our carbon emissions" is misleading, unless one is confessing how much charcoal was used at a picnic, or apologizing for not having pollution controls on a wood-burning stove."

SNIP

Some of the quotes were directly from Paul Driesen, author of:

Eco- Imperialism - Green Power. Black Death.

"The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. This is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet."
– Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder

 

[HerbieHeadley]

This townhall.com op-ed is from 2011 and I love the glaring scientific ignorance of deniers right in the last comment before the comments died.

That's awesome. Gotta love denier knowledge of both science and history.

I'm glad you can have chuckles from the comment section of your choosing.

Have you seen this?

"Someone forgot to tell the Russians that natural climate factors no longer count for anything, and that from the 20th century on man-made CO2 is the sole driver of the climate – now making the Earth only warmer and warmer."

Russian Lake Vostok Scientists Say "New Ice Age Is Unavoidable"
　
　http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/27/russian-lake-vostok-researchers-say-ice-age-is-unavoidable/
　"Global Cooling, a very inconvenient fact!" lol

 

[HerbieHeadley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA&list=PL50705F36687032CE&index=1&feature=plcp

 

[HerbieHeadley]

ATI vs UVA (University of Virginia) re Climategate emails - YouTube

"ATI's Freedom of Information lawsuit on behalf of Virginia taxpayers is headed to the Virginia Supreme Court. This video gives the context and a brief history of Climategate and its relation to Michael Mann while at the University of Virginia.

In light of the revelations of Climategate 1 and 2 (in 2009 and 2011) where scientists, including Michael Mann at the University of Virginia (UVA), were seen to be conspiring to alter data to fit their hypotheses, the American Tradition Institute (ATI) argues that Michael Mann's emails regarding the research he was doing at UVA should be made public.

ATI argues that research which has already been published and is being used as a basis for formulating public policy, and was taxpayer funded at a public university should be open to public scrutiny. Michael Mann and UVA argue that email correspondence on UVA accounts between Michael Mann and other scientists while working on the research is private and covered by academic freedom. ATI counters that there was no expectation of privacy that UVA is expressly covered under the FOIA act in Virginia.

Rob Schiling, WINA radio, points out that UVA has previously fired an employee for using university email accounts for private email and this is a taxpayer freedom issue."

 

[Cromulent]

Terry Lakin cried like a girl

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Some people just don't understand how science works, apparently.

 

[Nabobalis]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/15621...mate-is-doing-We-thought-we-knew-20-years-ago
Alert: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'
　

James Lovelock is not a climate scientist. Any statement from him on that matter is always to be taken with a pinch of salt. So when he claimed those alarmist statements, only him and the media cared. And now, it is not any different.