MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[Crick]

And then runaway global warming is inevitable.

How hot will we get?

100 degrees? 200?

Water vapor doesn't cause runaway warming because it precipitates under typical conditions.

 

[ReinyDays]

Obviously you have never read a single scientific study dufus.
I’m saying it is a thermastat because CO2 helps drive AGW, . Please CO2 increases the production of water vapor idiot. That you don’t know how or that It’s common knowledge and available at every related university science web site just means you’re science illiterate . That you can’t read, is of no concern to me, DS.

From Columbia edu. Read all of it and don’t be a selective dumbass.
“Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.”

You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?

Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.

news.climate.columbia.edu

The mistake in the Columbia University opinion piece is that this "Half to Earth, half to Space" means these GHG gases only work to warm the surface in the lower half of the atmosphere, in the upper half, the net added energy flow is outbound, cause cooling in the upper half of the atmosphere ... which in turn increases the convective percentage of this overall energy flow ...

... even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.”

How are you demonstrating this in the lab? ... and how are you accounting for quantum saturation? ... each CO2 molecule can only absorb one photon ... 0.04% of the photons isn't going to effect the energy balance one iota ... once all the CO2 molecules are in their "1" quantum state, there's no more greenhouse effect due to CO2 ... do you understand that? ...

Your stupidity is saying AGW is bad because it will cause more drinking water ... not enough to solve human's drinking water shortages, but it helps ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Water vapor doesn't cause runaway warming because it precipitates under typical conditions.

That's not what Dagosa said.

 

[westwall]

That's not what Dagosa said.

Indeed, dagosa has been quite firm that increased CO2 will lead to increased H2O vapor which will lead to runaway temperatures.

So hot that we might be able to boil water.

At least that is his implication

 

[jc456]

Obviously you have never read a single scientific study dufus.
I’m saying it is a thermastat because CO2 helps drive AGW, . Please CO2 increases the production of water vapor idiot. That you don’t know how or that It’s common knowledge and available at every related university science web site just means you’re science illiterate . That you can’t read, is of no concern to me, DS.

From Columbia edu. Read all of it and don’t be a selective dumbass.
“Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.”

You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?

Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.

news.climate.columbia.edu

Where’s the evidence?

 

[jc456]

Water vapor doesn't cause runaway warming because it precipitates under typical conditions.

Your guy thinks increased humidity comes from co2 and oceans!!! Hahaha you two are truly stupid

 

[Rigby5]

Says the guy who isn't powering his house with solar or driving an EV.

Even you don't buy your bullshit rhetoric.

My house does have solar panels on the roof.
My VW gets over 40 mpg, which is better than the 29 mpg of and EV.
(The problem of EVs is carrying around all those heavy batteries all the time, even when they are almost empty.)

If we still did what we did in the 1950s, with cars getting only 12 mpg, then ocean levels would be about 20' higher than they are now, due to the work we did to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[Rigby5]

Where’s the evidence?

The historic record of natural climate cycles show they are about 110,000 years long.
The recent record of our current artificial climate cycle shows we will condense that into less than 500 years.
That is very dramatic, considering there is a 250' ocean level change involved.

That is an increase in speed by a factor of over 200.
That then can not be natural.

 

[Rigby5]

Your guy thinks increased humidity comes from co2 and oceans!!! Hahaha you two are truly stupid

Warmer air over oceans always increases humidity.
The humidity over oceans is always only a factor of temperature, and nothing else.

If you want a reminder as to how and why co2 increase temperature, the idea is sun heat comes in constantly, and eventually has to leave the planet.
But since space is a vacuum, it can only come in and go out as light, visible or infrared.
And the problem is at the upper atmosphere, where heat should radiate away from the planet, as infrared.
CO2 converts heat from infrared to vibratory energy, which then can not radiate out into space any longer.

 

[jc456]

The historic record of natural climate cycles show they are about 110,000 years long.
The recent record of our current artificial climate cycle shows we will condense that into less than 500 years.
That is very dramatic, considering there is a 250' ocean level change involved.

That is an increase in speed by a factor of over 200.
That then can not be natural.

So no evidence

 

[jc456]

Warmer air over oceans always increases humidity.
The humidity over oceans is always only a factor of temperature, and nothing else.

Chicago isn’t near an ocean?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obviously you have never read a single scientific study dufus.
I’m saying it is a thermastat because CO2 helps drive AGW, . Please CO2 increases the production of water vapor idiot. That you don’t know how or that It’s common knowledge and available at every related university science web site just means you’re science illiterate . That you can’t read, is of no concern to me, DS.

From Columbia edu. Read all of it and don’t be a selective dumbass.
“Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor. But while we have no way to control water vapor, we can control CO2. And because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by continuing to burn fossil fuels, even in relatively small amounts compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere, we are disturbing the entire heat balance of the planet.”

You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?

Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.

news.climate.columbia.edu

If CO2 “drives” temperatures, why does ice core data over 450,000 years show CO2 lagging on both increase and decrease?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The historic record of natural climate cycles show they are about 110,000 years long.
The recent record of our current artificial climate cycle shows we will condense that into less than 500 years.
That is very dramatic, considering there is a 250' ocean level change involved.

That is an increase in speed by a factor of over 200.
That then can not be natural.

Did you look at the chart you posted? It shows warming starting about 20,000 years ago, not 500 years ago

 

[ChemEngineer]

In twenty years, global temperature has increased 0.4 Celsius.

O.M.G.

An increase of 0.4 Celsius from 20 degrees to 20.4 would increase
atmospheric water pressure from 17.5424 torr to perhaps 18.1 torr.

We're all gonna die!!!

What the frightened sheep cannot realize is that the water vapor
TODAY still far exceeds the warming capacity of carbon dioxide.
It is ignorant as hell to ignore the science of the absorption graph I present
below this vapor pressure chart.

 

[ding]

My house does have solar panels on the roof.
My VW gets over 40 mpg, which is better than the 29 mpg of and EV.
(The problem of EVs is carrying around all those heavy batteries all the time, even when they are almost empty.)

If we still did what we did in the 1950s, with cars getting only 12 mpg, then ocean levels would be about 20' higher than they are now, due to the work we did to reduce carbon emissions.

So you are burning fossil fuels in your car.

Do you power your house 100% of the time with solar?

 

[ding]

The historic record of natural climate cycles show they are about 110,000 years long.
The recent record of our current artificial climate cycle shows we will condense that into less than 500 years.
That is very dramatic, considering there is a 250' ocean level change involved.

That is an increase in speed by a factor of over 200.
That then can not be natural.

You believe the glacial/interglacial cycle will be condensed into 500 years? Why?

 

[jc456]

You believe the glacial/interglacial cycle will be condensed into 500 years? Why?

Cause he turrets it out means it’s true in his world!! Hahaha

 

[jc456]

My house does have solar panels on the roof.
My VW gets over 40 mpg, which is better than the 29 mpg of and EV.
(The problem of EVs is carrying around all those heavy batteries all the time, even when they are almost empty.)

If we still did what we did in the 1950s, with cars getting only 12 mpg, then ocean levels would be about 20' higher than they are now, due to the work we did to reduce carbon emissions.

Where’s that 20 ft of water coming from?

 

[Dagosa]

If CO2 “drives” temperatures, why does ice core data over 450,000 years show CO2 lagging on both increase and decrease?

Another diversionary question. Google it and look for any dissertation from the accepted 3400 sources. Wtf should I waste time doing research you can do yourself. It’s for sure “yo Bible “ can’t give you the right answers.

 

[Dagosa]

Not only do I read them, I WRITE them. What you posted are opinion pieces.

Wow, so you admit you make up shit.