Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[Cardinal Carminative]

You most certainly are playing games. You should be able to rattle off all of the consequences of increased water vapor in the atmosphere but you won't because you are playing games. You want to eat your cake and have it too. You want to blame CO2 for causing an increase in water vapor without listing all of the other effects that occur from increased water vapor. In fact, you seem to be arguing there won't be increased water vapor in the atmosphere. That's playing games.

You are clearly not following anything I said. My apologies for not being able to communicate my point more simply.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Here you go.

Are you actually familiar with what a scientific citation looks like?

Either way at least I know where you got your one talking point now. Maybe if you were to read more broadly in the earth sciences you'd track on what I'm saying as well. Unfortunately I don't have time to do up a .pptx file for you complete with some of the worst graphics imaginable, so I'm hoping you'll take some time and maybe actually READ my posts.

It's easy to post someone else's 87 slides without comment. Anyone can do that. It takes actual knowledge to speak ABOUT the topic.

 

[ding]

How could you be "Schooling" anyone

It's self evident.

 

[ding]

You are clearly not following anything I said. My apologies for not being able to communicate my point more simply.

Or you could just stop playing games and list the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Are you actually familiar with what a scientific citation looks like?

Either way at least I know where you got your one talking point now. Maybe if you were to read more broadly in the earth sciences you'd track on what I'm saying as well. Unfortunately I don't have time to do up a .pptx file for you complete with some of the worst graphics imaginable, so I'm hoping you'll take some time and maybe actually READ my posts.

It's easy to post someone else's 87 slides without comment. Anyone can do that. It takes actual knowledge to speak ABOUT the topic.

There you go again trying to make it about me.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's self evident.

Another of your famous gnomic declarations.

Can I ask an honest and genuine question? I've discussed science with a lot of people online and many people post as you do. Simple single sentences or just a string of leading questions. This style of posting NEVER includes any technical discussion, NEVER includes a legitimate discussion of a citation.

So my question is: why do you post this way? Was science never really interesting to you? Just a means to make $$$ so you never really got "into" science. You just DID it?

Or is it something of a thrill to get someone on the line who will actually discuss scientific concepts at length ?

Just curious, nothing really pressing on it. Your posts are usually without much substance and when you DO post science you never actually make any technical point about what you posted.

Kind of interesting, don't you think?

 

[ding]

The lengths some people will go to to avoid telling the truth is astonishing.

 

[ding]

Another of your famous gnomic declarations.

Can I ask an honest and genuine question? I've discussed science with a lot of people online and many people post as you do. Simple single sentences or just a string of leading questions. This style of posting NEVER includes any technical discussion, NEVER includes a legitimate discussion of a citation.

So my question is: why do you post this way? Was science never really interesting to you? Just a means to make $$$ so you never really got "into" science. You just DID it?

Or is it something of a thrill to get someone on the line who will actually discuss scientific concepts at length ?

Just curious, nothing really pressing on it. Your posts are usually without much substance and when you DO post science you never actually make any technical point about what you posted.

Kind of interesting, don't you think?

Did you have a point besides making this personal?

 

[ding]

Cardinal Carminative what are the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere?

Do you even know?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Or you could just stop playing games and list the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere.

Here's what you are asking:

1. Ding asks me what the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere are and, of course, if that were all the question entailed the answer would be "increase temperature" as a feedback.
2. I, however, note that globally if you increase temperature you will alter the climate locally in a wide variety of ways. If you increase the overall temperature (average global temperature) you WILL cause some areas to get COOLER AND DRIER. That's because climates (plural) are a function of complex interactions. (As described by the Gulf Stream example). This means that in SOME places more plants will thrive (not necessarily food plants, but some plants) and in others plants (including food plants!) will NOT BE GROWABLE. Plants are fickle and do NOT grow everywhere regardless.

SUMMARY: increasing the global average temperature will be expected to also increase the global AVERAGE amount of water in the atmosphere. BUT that will not in any way lead to an homogenous warming and wetting of the entire planet. Many areas will become COOLER and DRIER even as the overall global average increases.


So there, you have the answer you WANT and the answer that is more close to reality and how it will relate to climate change.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Cardinal Carminative what are the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere?

Do you even know?

More leading questions.

If you have a point, make it.

 

[ding]

Here's what you are asking:

1. Ding asks me what the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere are and, of course, if that were all the question entailed the answer would be "increase temperature" as a feedback.
2. I, however, note that globally if you increase temperature you will alter the climate locally in a wide variety of ways. If you increase the overall temperature (average global temperature) you WILL cause some areas to get COOLER AND DRIER. That's because climates (plural) are a function of complex interactions. (As described by the Gulf Stream example). This means that in SOME places more plants will thrive (not necessarily food plants, but some plants) and in others plants (including food plants!) will NOT BE GROWABLE. Plants are fickle and do NOT grow everywhere regardless.

SUMMARY: increasing the global average temperature will be expected to also increase the global AVERAGE amount of water in the atmosphere. BUT that will not in any way lead to an homogenous warming and wetting of the entire planet. Many areas will become COOLER and DRIER even as the overall global average increases.


So there, you have the answer you WANT and the answer that is more close to reality and how it will relate to climate change.

I guess I'm going to have to teach you because you or skipping too many steps.

Consequences of warmer temperature...

• More evaporation which leads to evaporative cooling (negative feedback) and more water vapor in the atmosphere (positive feedback).
• More cloud formation (positive and negative feedback).
• More precipitation (negative feedback).

So the point of this exercise was to show you that warmer temperatures lead to more precipitation which leads to a wetter planet. Warmer temperatures and a wetter planet leads to a greener planet which is more conducive to life than a colder planet. So stop with your silly gloom and doom predictions of climate disaster because it's not logical.

 

[ding]

More leading questions.

If you have a point, make it.

I just did because apparently you are too dishonest, incompetent or both to state...

Consequences of warmer temperature...

• More evaporation which leads to evaporative cooling (negative feedback) and more water vapor in the atmosphere (positive feedback).
• More cloud formation (positive and negative feedback).
• More precipitation (negative feedback).

 

[ding]

So there, you have the answer you WANT and the answer that is more close to reality and how it will relate to climate change.

Actually it isn't because you skipped too many steps. Apparently you believe that a warmer planet means an overall drier planet or it stays the same. Because that is what you are arguing by virtue of arguing against an overall wetter, greener planet.

 

[ding]

The argument that global warming will lead to climate disaster is ridiculous. It is an argument based upon emotion and not science. A warmer planet means a wetter planet. A wetter planet means a greener planet.

If you want to see what a climate disaster looks like that would be a 3000 ft thick sheet of ice over significant portions of NA, Asia and Europe.

 

[ding]

More leading questions.

If you have a point, make it.

Asking the question "what are the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere?" is not a leading question, dummy.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I guess I'm going to have to teach you because you or skipping too many steps.

Consequences of warmer temperature...

• More evaporation which leads to evaporative cooling (negative feedback) and more water vapor in the atmosphere (positive feedback).
• More cloud formation (positive and negative feedback).
• More precipitation (negative feedback).

So the point of this exercise was to show you that warmer temperatures lead to more precipitation which leads to a wetter planet. Warmer temperatures and a wetter planet leads to a greener planet which is more conducive to life than a colder planet. So stop with your silly gloom and doom predictions of climate disaster because it's not logical.

May I ask why you ignored the items I posted? Do you honestly think the earth's climate is homogenous?

I am genuinely curious. Was my post too long? Were the words not comprehensible to you? What is it? Why do you consistently ignore the DETAILS and tell me I'm wrong because I'm not making overgeneralized simplifications which is what YOU are doing?

Thanks

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Asking the question "what are the consequences of more water vapor in the atmosphere?" is not a leading question, dummy.

it is when you do what you just did which was to tell me DETAILS are wrong but oversimplifications are the preferred responses.

(And please, drop the whole "dummy" thing. You are presumably better than that. I've been MORE than civil with you this past several days. PLease return the favor.)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The argument that global warming will lead to climate disaster is ridiculous. It is an argument based upon emotion and not science. A warmer planet means a wetter planet. A wetter planet means a greener planet.

If you want to see what a climate disaster looks like that would be a 3000 ft thick sheet of ice over significant portions of NA, Asia and Europe.

Why do you think the huge number of cases in history where climate change lead to the destruction of societies suddenly don't teach anyone anything?

Ethiopia and Iowa are on the same planet. Which is going to have a more robust agricultural infrastructure? Which is more likely to have lots of water. But how can this disparity exist on your planet? SURELY if they are on the same planet, by your reasoning, they are equal in terms of supporting large populations with plenty of food and water.

(Do you get the point?)

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes, I was having some fun at your expense. And why would imbie go against what NASA said.

LIAR!

You still don't know what Imbie does because you ignored my Imbie3 link.

You are lazy.