New EPA head Scott Pruitt rejects CO2 as primary cause of global warming

Do you have data showing increasing levels of atmospheric water vapor to coincide with the observed warming?
Would you believe it if they showed you?
Do you understand what the residence time in the atmosphere of the various GHGs mean? Water vapor stays in the atmosphere 10 days or less, then is rained out. CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries. So water vapor is a feedback the other GHGs, primarily CO2 and CH4. Yes, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago. Due entirely to the increase in GHGs.

3.4.2.4 Stratospheric Water Vapour - AR4 WGI Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change


The TAR noted an apparent increase of roughly 1% yr–1 in stratospheric water vapour content (~0.05 ppm yr–1) during the last half of the 20th century (Kley et al., 2000; Rosenlof et al., 2001). This was based on data taken at mid-latitudes, and from multiple instruments. However, the longest series of data come from just two locations in North America with no temporal overlap. The combination of measurement uncertainties and relatively large variability on time scales from months to years warrants some caution when interpreting the longer-term trends (Kley et al., 2000; Fueglistaler and Haynes, 2005). The moistening is more convincingly documented during the 1980s and most of the 1990s than earlier, due to a longer continuous record (the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) frost-point balloon record from Boulder, Colorado; Oltmans et al., 2000) and the availability of satellite observations during much of this period. However, discrepancies between satellite- and balloon-measured variations are apparent at decadal time scales, largely over the latter half of the 1990s (Randel et al., 2004a).

An increase in stratospheric water vapour has important radiative and chemical consequences (see also Section 2.3.8). These may include a contribution to the recent observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and/or warming of the surface (Forster and Shine, 1999, 2002; Smith et al., 2001), although the exact magnitude is difficult to quantify (Oinas et al., 2001; Forster and Shine, 2002). Some efforts to reconcile observed rates of cooling in the stratosphere with those expected based on observed changes in ozone and carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1979 (Langematz et al., 2003; Shine et al., 2003) have found discrepancies in the lower stratosphere consistent with an additional cooling effect of a stratospheric water vapour increase. However, Shine et al. (2003) noted that because the water vapour observations over the period of consideration are not global in extent, significant uncertainties remain as to whether radiative effects of a water vapour change are a significant contributor to the stratospheric temperature changes. Moreover, other studies which account for uncertainties in the ozone profiles and temperature trends, and natural variability, can reconcile the observed stratospheric temperature changes without the need for sizable water vapour changes (Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf, 2002; Schwarzkopf and Ramaswamy, 2002).
 
He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?
Water vapor is the primary cause of so-called Global Warming

No, it isn't.

Water vapor amount hasn't changed. Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas is what you want to say. The problem is the water vapor isn't the most effective greenhouse gas, and isn't the one that his changing. There's far more CO2 in the atmosphere than before, and yet the same amount of water vapor, and temperatures are rising, and even more worrying is the amount of CO2 in the oceans, which is killing the oceans.
 
Do you have data showing increasing levels of atmospheric water vapor to coincide with the observed warming?
Would you believe it if they showed you?
Do you understand what the residence time in the atmosphere of the various GHGs mean? Water vapor stays in the atmosphere 10 days or less, then is rained out. CO2 has a residence time measured in centuries. So water vapor is a feedback the other GHGs, primarily CO2 and CH4. Yes, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere now than there was 100 years ago. Due entirely to the increase in GHGs.

3.4.2.4 Stratospheric Water Vapour - AR4 WGI Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change


The TAR noted an apparent increase of roughly 1% yr–1 in stratospheric water vapour content (~0.05 ppm yr–1) during the last half of the 20th century (Kley et al., 2000; Rosenlof et al., 2001). This was based on data taken at mid-latitudes, and from multiple instruments. However, the longest series of data come from just two locations in North America with no temporal overlap. The combination of measurement uncertainties and relatively large variability on time scales from months to years warrants some caution when interpreting the longer-term trends (Kley et al., 2000; Fueglistaler and Haynes, 2005). The moistening is more convincingly documented during the 1980s and most of the 1990s than earlier, due to a longer continuous record (the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) frost-point balloon record from Boulder, Colorado; Oltmans et al., 2000) and the availability of satellite observations during much of this period. However, discrepancies between satellite- and balloon-measured variations are apparent at decadal time scales, largely over the latter half of the 1990s (Randel et al., 2004a).

An increase in stratospheric water vapour has important radiative and chemical consequences (see also Section 2.3.8). These may include a contribution to the recent observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and/or warming of the surface (Forster and Shine, 1999, 2002; Smith et al., 2001), although the exact magnitude is difficult to quantify (Oinas et al., 2001; Forster and Shine, 2002). Some efforts to reconcile observed rates of cooling in the stratosphere with those expected based on observed changes in ozone and carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1979 (Langematz et al., 2003; Shine et al., 2003) have found discrepancies in the lower stratosphere consistent with an additional cooling effect of a stratospheric water vapour increase. However, Shine et al. (2003) noted that because the water vapour observations over the period of consideration are not global in extent, significant uncertainties remain as to whether radiative effects of a water vapour change are a significant contributor to the stratospheric temperature changes. Moreover, other studies which account for uncertainties in the ozone profiles and temperature trends, and natural variability, can reconcile the observed stratospheric temperature changes without the need for sizable water vapour changes (Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf, 2002; Schwarzkopf and Ramaswamy, 2002).
So that would be a no. I'm right again. Imagine that.

btw, I suggest meditation before you stroke out.
 
He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Well he is dead on right there...as demonstrated by you yahoos...I have been asking for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis for years...decades... and none has been forthcoming. Pruitt is asking the same question of the princes of the AGW cult and they are giving him the same bullshit that you yahoos have been providing here....nothing.
 
"Sain"?

Let's review. He just said the research needs to carry on but he''s eliminating our ability to do so. Is he just really stupid, just really dishonest or both?

Hey...you caught a misspelling....congratulations spelling monitor... And since when is the EPA responsible for climate research?...the EPA has been nothing but a brown shirt jack boot strong arm enforcer for the princes of AGW.
 
It is a undeniable fact that co2 is a green house gas. Period.

Really? Lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting that "undeniable" fact.

Now that you can't find one, how does it make you feel claiming that a claim is undeniable when you can't find the first shred of actual evidence supporting said claim.
 
I like this Pruitt guy
I would like to kick his balls right up under his armpits. He is harming my grandchildren, and all those that come after them.

It is so interesting to see people celebrating the stupidity endemic in this admin.


Typical liberal response....violence...punish those who don't agree with you even though you can't make an actual case in support of your position.
 
He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?


s0n..........been saying for years now............the science isn't mattering in the real world!! Only members of the religion have missed the memo. Lets face it........the legion of alarmists still haven't made the case after 20 years.

Time to consider a Plan B..........the losing has now become ePiC.:coffee:
 
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:


HAH! O man, I might throw a party! with a yuge bonfire!

LMAO!

Buh bye AGW leeches! Just think how much money that will save!

This is from me to all the "Climate Change" zealots:

kenny-powers-o.gif
 
Do you have data showing increasing levels of atmospheric water vapor to coincide with the observed warming?

Do you have any data that shows that fluctuations in warming haven't happened throughout the history of the planet?

You didn't answer my question, but I will assume from your attempt at diversion that the answer is no. Water vapor is most certainly a greenhouse gas and warms the planet. However, if the levels of it have not increased, there is no causation there for the warming observed. That, of course, is NOT the case with the greenhouse gas CO2. It has risen, from an obvious and multiply-verifiable cause, and temperatures have risen along with it.

The fact is, water vapor acts as an insulator.

Yes. Just like CO2

It keeps the planet from warming up too much or cooling too much.

Uhh... no. It slows the escape of thermal energy to space. That raises the Earth's equilibrium temperature. If you think it also prevents the equilibrium temperature from getting too high, you will have to explain the mechanism.

That's why Mars is uninhabitable....because there is no negligible water vapor left in the atmosphere.

A human would die on Mars from suffocation before freezing to death. The atmosphere is about one hundred times thinner than the Earth's, consists of 95% CO2 and 0.13% oxygen. The average temperature is 80 Fahrenheit degrees below zero.
Now tell me something I don't know.

Question......what does a plant need to survive?

Answer....Sunlight and CO2
 
What is fascinating here is........to observe the responses in this thread. The alarmists are still talking about their science. Its a total disconnect from reality. I often wonder..........how the hell do these people navigate in the real world? Think about it.......it would be like showing up at the field with your bat and ball in the middle of a blizzard saying you are ready to play!!:2up:
 
What is fascinating here is........to observe the responses in this thread. The alarmists are still talking about their science. Its a total disconnect from reality. I often wonder..........how the hell do these people navigate in the real world? Think about it.......it would be like showing up at the field with your bat and ball in the middle of a blizzard saying you are ready to play!!:2up:

The whole thing is so silly. Yeah, we should give you money and let you rule us because the weather changes.

Seriously, :hellno: :wtf:

This is winning! Thanks, Trump!

 
Last edited:
He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

You showed him the "research", right?
 
What is fascinating here is........to observe the responses in this thread. The alarmists are still talking about their science. Its a total disconnect from reality. I often wonder..........how the hell do these people navigate in the real world? Think about it.......it would be like showing up at the field with your bat and ball in the middle of a blizzard saying you are ready to play!!:2up:

The whole thing is so silly. Yeah, we should give you money and let you rule us because the weather changes.

Seriously, :hellno: :wtf:

This is winning! Thanks, Trump!





Even more fascinating? These folks are somehow are shocked by this:ack-1::ack-1: WTF?:eusa_dance::eusa_dance: I often kid in here about these people living inside a bubble but one would be hard pressed to show me they live outside the bubble based upon the responses in this thread.:deal:


Oh....ps.....top story on DRUDGE right now...................

GREAT AGAIN: +235,000


and

Job growth strong in Feb; Wages Up...
Record Number of Americans Employed...
Construction largest gain in 10 years...
Stocks set for new liftoff...




Who's not winning?:bye1:
 
Last edited:
He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

You showed him the "research", right?
After 40 years and ZERO empirical data to prove the point its long past time to cut off funding.
 
I like this Pruitt guy
I would like to kick his balls right up under his armpits. He is harming my grandchildren, and all those that come after them.

It is so interesting to see people celebrating the stupidity endemic in this admin.

You mean a fully funded "Environmental Protection Agency" that causes this?

EPA crew accidentally turns Animas River orange - CNN.com

And then does nothing to clean up anything.. And then no one is held accountable..
 
Noted sleaze manufacturer, CNN, has created a TV show about how Putin "hacked" America's most recent presidential election. The show centers around Putin and why he allegedly did what CNN is accusing him of doing. In a remarkable break from reality, CNN entitles the show, " The Most Powerful Man in the World."

This is, quite obviously, pure partisan tripe. To date the public has not been presented with any evidence that Russia tampered with our election. They certainly did not "hack" our election. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Russians did anything that influenced the outcome of the elections. Nonetheless, CNN has concluded that this leftist narrative shall be presented as fact, even prior to official investigations of the same.

Also, note the the title of this leftist propaganda: "The Most Powerful Man in the World." On the television ad for this show, Putin's likeness is prominently featured, implying that Putin is the most powerful man in the world. Clearly, this is factually incorrect, and is intended as a swipe against the target of CNN's animosity, President Trump. Yes, CNN, we all get what you are saying: Trump is Putin's puppet. The problem is that this is not true.

When the press takes sides then, within the context of its role as the Fourth Estate, then it becomes corrupt, for a partisan group obviously cannot be an effective check against an unconstitutional concentration of power. That we tolerate this news media bias is evidence that our society has become so dumbed down by the left-centered public education system that we, as a people, have devolved to the point where there is open discussion about socialized medicine, "social justice", and wealth redistribution from the "evil corporations". People today are so dumbed down and misinformed that we have debate and conversation concerning leftist ideas that would of been unheard of 20 yrs ago.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No link?

CNN Special Report: The Most Powerful Man in the World



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I like this Pruitt guy
I would like to kick his balls right up under his armpits. He is harming my grandchildren, and all those that come after them.

It is so interesting to see people celebrating the stupidity endemic in this admin.

You mean a fully funded "Environmental Protection Agency" that causes this?

EPA crew accidentally turns Animas River orange - CNN.com

And then does nothing to clean up anything.. And then no one is held accountable..

Yep, Agency does opposite of what's it's supposed to, no disciplinary action or anything.

If a small company did that, the EPA would put them out of business.
 
Answer....Sunlight and CO2

Check it out. Mud thinks plants will grow without water and soil.

Deniers, not the sharpest tools in the shed. As a rule, they're all profoundly stupid and pissy human beings, as this thread demonstrates especially.
Soil isn’t essential, or didn’t you know about hydroponics.
Check it out!!!
You're a fucking idiot.

Only way you Snowflakes can win an argument is by lying. Must be why you edited my post....to misrepresent the context.
 

Forum List

Back
Top