Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[flacaltenn]

For those who say that climate models cannot predict past events:

New generation of climate models capable of simulating abrupt climate change

What an asshat. A computer model can CREATE anything you want it to you stupid ass. What they can't do is re-create the weather that occurred YESTERDAY. With all the variables known! They are built with a bias which makes them USELESS.

And you claim to be a scientist

That is a hilarious assertion since you numbskulls have been arguing for days that the models could NOT accurately recreate past climate events. And when we show that they can, your response is 'oh well, you can get them to do anything'. Good god man. Did you leave your brain at the door, or what? Have you ever, even once, worked with a scientific model? Ever? I doubt it.

Us "brainless ones" are just not putting a lot of stock into CO2 centered Climate Models by simply looking at the output of any one of them.. Not when the IPCC is still claiming the 1/2 life residency of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 200 years.. Tuning a model thru that range of JUST ONE CRITICAL VARIABLE can (as WestWall said) --- give you any result you want. And if your "job" is just to match a SINGLE HINDCAST record --- you will find the tuning you require..

Shame that after the "TUNING" of a variable like CO2 residency time, that Climate Science DOESN'T SEEM TO LEARN to DECREASE it's error bars on that variable from experience with the models..

Us "brainless" just have enough experience with models to know enough to BE skeptical. And pick up on some clues that these models are NOT precise or accurate..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you are saying that green energy is a communist plot? Wow, the ignorance just takes my breath away.

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I am sorry that you remain wrong.

CO2 is not a pollutant in the almost insignificant amounts being "pumped" into the ecosystem by us humans. And not one bit of the AGW Faither belief system has EVER established that humans have any capacity to alter the climate of mother Earth.

 

[orogenicman]

The subject is the anthropogenic global warming scam, not the green energy hustle.

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."

And still CO2 is not a pollutant, in the de minimus percentage in which it exists in the atmosphere.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I am sorry that you remain wronjg.

CO2 is not a pollutant in the almost insignificant amounts being "pumped" into the ecosystem by us humans. And not one bit of the AGW Faither belief system has EVER established that humans have any capacity to alter the climate of mother Earth.

If you believe that, then your moniker "liability reincarnate" fits you to a tee. Congratulations. You people confuse pollutants with toxic emissions. Not all pollutants are toxic at the levels they are emitted. The fact that they negatively impact the human and natural environment makes them pollutants. The fact that, like many other pollutants, they accumulate in the environment, makes them pollutants. Look, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, get over it.

 

[orogenicman]

What an asshat. A computer model can CREATE anything you want it to you stupid ass. What they can't do is re-create the weather that occurred YESTERDAY. With all the variables known! They are built with a bias which makes them USELESS.

And you claim to be a scientist

That is a hilarious assertion since you numbskulls have been arguing for days that the models could NOT accurately recreate past climate events. And when we show that they can, your response is 'oh well, you can get them to do anything'. Good god man. Did you leave your brain at the door, or what? Have you ever, even once, worked with a scientific model? Ever? I doubt it.

Us "brainless ones" are just not putting a lot of stock into CO2 centered Climate Models by simply looking at the output of any one of them.. Not when the IPCC is still claiming the 1/2 life residency of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 200 years.. Tuning a model thru that range of JUST ONE CRITICAL VARIABLE can (as WestWall said) --- give you any result you want. And if your "job" is just to match a SINGLE HINDCAST record --- you will find the tuning you require..

Shame that after the "TUNING" of a variable like CO2 residency time, that Climate Science DOESN'T SEEM TO LEARN to DECREASE it's error bars on that variable from experience with the models..

Us "brainless" just have enough experience with models to know enough to BE skeptical. And pick up on some clues that these models are NOT precise or accurate..

But then, it is quite clear that you haven't even read the paper (gee, since it hasn't been published yet, I wonder why that is?), much less have any experience with scientific models, to make any of the above conclusions is the height of dishonesty. I'm sure your mother is proud.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Really? You should tell that to elecktra, who posted this:

"Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words."



Sorry, but you are wrong.

I am sorry that you remain wronjg.

CO2 is not a pollutant in the almost insignificant amounts being "pumped" into the ecosystem by us humans. And not one bit of the AGW Faither belief system has EVER established that humans have any capacity to alter the climate of mother Earth.

If you believe that, then your moniker "liability reincarnate" fits you to a tee. Congratulations. You people confuse pollutants with toxic emissions. Not all pollutants are toxic at the levels they are emitted. The fact that they negatively impact the human and natural environment makes them pollutants. Look, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, get over it.

I used to BE Liability. Now I am but Ilar.

You are easily confused and massively misled.

I have not confused pollutants with toxins at all.

A lot of water vapor can impact the weather, too. It's still not a pollutant.

Excess oxygen can lead to forest fires and so forth. STILL not a pollutant.

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either.

But hurry back to baselessly repeat your false premise. Because that should REALLY help further your 'argument.' LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

That is a hilarious assertion since you numbskulls have been arguing for days that the models could NOT accurately recreate past climate events. And when we show that they can, your response is 'oh well, you can get them to do anything'. Good god man. Did you leave your brain at the door, or what? Have you ever, even once, worked with a scientific model? Ever? I doubt it.

Us "brainless ones" are just not putting a lot of stock into CO2 centered Climate Models by simply looking at the output of any one of them.. Not when the IPCC is still claiming the 1/2 life residency of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 200 years.. Tuning a model thru that range of JUST ONE CRITICAL VARIABLE can (as WestWall said) --- give you any result you want. And if your "job" is just to match a SINGLE HINDCAST record --- you will find the tuning you require..

Shame that after the "TUNING" of a variable like CO2 residency time, that Climate Science DOESN'T SEEM TO LEARN to DECREASE it's error bars on that variable from experience with the models..

Us "brainless" just have enough experience with models to know enough to BE skeptical. And pick up on some clues that these models are NOT precise or accurate..

But then, it is quite clear that you haven't even read the paper (gee, since it hasn't been published yet, I wonder why that is?), much less have any experience with scientific models, to make any of the above conclusions is the height of dishonesty. I'm sure your mother is proud.

If all you got is bringing my mother into this --- we could cool your jets with a BANNED next to your name..

 

[orogenicman]

I am sorry that you remain wronjg.

CO2 is not a pollutant in the almost insignificant amounts being "pumped" into the ecosystem by us humans. And not one bit of the AGW Faither belief system has EVER established that humans have any capacity to alter the climate of mother Earth.

If you believe that, then your moniker "liability reincarnate" fits you to a tee. Congratulations. You people confuse pollutants with toxic emissions. Not all pollutants are toxic at the levels they are emitted. The fact that they negatively impact the human and natural environment makes them pollutants. Look, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, get over it.

I used to BE Liability. Now I am but Ilar.

You are easily confused and massively misled.

I have not confused pollutants with toxins at all.

A lot of water vapor can impact the weather, too. It's still not a pollutant, you twit.

But then, water vapor has a very short residency in the atmosphere. Moreover, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is also dependent on the concentrations of both aerosols and GHGs that reside in the atmosphere, both of which have a human component, components we can control.

Excess oxygen can lead to forest fires and so forth. STILL not a pollutant, you twit.

Actually, there is a limit to which our global biosphere can sustain high levels of oxygen before serious damage occurs. Excess oxygen not only is damaging to the forests, it is also damaging to the oceans, and to vital anaerobic processes that break down organic compounds. Yes, dude, too much of a good thing is also a pollutant.

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.

Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

Us "brainless ones" are just not putting a lot of stock into CO2 centered Climate Models by simply looking at the output of any one of them.. Not when the IPCC is still claiming the 1/2 life residency of CO2 is somewhere between 5 years and 200 years.. Tuning a model thru that range of JUST ONE CRITICAL VARIABLE can (as WestWall said) --- give you any result you want. And if your "job" is just to match a SINGLE HINDCAST record --- you will find the tuning you require..

Shame that after the "TUNING" of a variable like CO2 residency time, that Climate Science DOESN'T SEEM TO LEARN to DECREASE it's error bars on that variable from experience with the models..

Us "brainless" just have enough experience with models to know enough to BE skeptical. And pick up on some clues that these models are NOT precise or accurate..

But then, it is quite clear that you haven't even read the paper (gee, since it hasn't been published yet, I wonder why that is?), much less have any experience with scientific models, to make any of the above conclusions is the height of dishonesty. I'm sure your mother is proud.

If all you got is bringing my mother into this --- we could cool your jets with a BANNED next to your name..

Go for it. Be sure to point out where you referred to me as "brainless one", and where Ilar referred to me as a "Twit". Call me what you will, it bothers me not. Just don't whine when someone returns the favor, you big baby.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.

Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

 

[flacaltenn]

But then, it is quite clear that you haven't even read the paper (gee, since it hasn't been published yet, I wonder why that is?), much less have any experience with scientific models, to make any of the above conclusions is the height of dishonesty. I'm sure your mother is proud.

If all you got is bringing my mother into this --- we could cool your jets with a BANNED next to your name..

Go for it. Be sure to point out where you referred to me as "brainless one", and where Ilar referred to me as a "Twit". Call me what you will, it bothers me not. Just don't whine when someone returns the favor, you big baby.

No Sir.. I was referring to myself and the other skeptics as "the brainless ones".. Picked up that reference from another poster.. Now who originally brought BRAINLESS into the convo.. Hmmmmmmmmm??

 

[orogenicman]

* * * *

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.

Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

 

[orogenicman]

If all you got is bringing my mother into this --- we could cool your jets with a BANNED next to your name..

Go for it. Be sure to point out where you referred to me as "brainless one", and where Ilar referred to me as a "Twit". Call me what you will, it bothers me not. Just don't whine when someone returns the favor, you big baby.

No Sir.. I was referring to myself and the other skeptics as "the brainless ones".. Picked up that reference from another poster.. Now who originally brought BRAINLESS into the convo.. Hmmmmmmmmm??

Who brought "brainless one" into our conversation? You did. Next.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you believe that, then your moniker "liability reincarnate" fits you to a tee. Congratulations. You people confuse pollutants with toxic emissions. Not all pollutants are toxic at the levels they are emitted. The fact that they negatively impact the human and natural environment makes them pollutants. Look, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, get over it.

I used to BE Liability. Now I am but Ilar.

You are easily confused and massively misled.

I have not confused pollutants with toxins at all.

A lot of water vapor can impact the weather, too. It's still not a pollutant, you twit.

But then, water vapor has a very short residency in the atmosphere. Moreover, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is also dependent on the concentrations of both aerosols and GHGs that reside in the atmosphere, both of which have a human component, components we can control.

Excess oxygen can lead to forest fires and so forth. STILL not a pollutant, you twit.

Actually, there is a limit to which our global biosphere can sustain high levels of oxygen before serious damage occurs. Excess oxygen not only is damaging to the forests, it is also damaging to the oceans, and to vital anaerobic processes that break down organic compounds. Yes, dude, too much of a good thing is also a pollutant.

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.

Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

Don't care what the atmos residency of water vapor is. Man's LAND USE and industries provide a NEW and INCREASING burden of water vapor into the atmos.. Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content. Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas...


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *



Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

The sky is falling!

If it were not for those prehistoric SUV's, damn it, we'd never have had all those Ice Ages.

Obviously.

This completes the AGW Faithers' course on Global Warmering/Coolering.

 

[flacaltenn]

* * * *



Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

 

[orogenicman]

I used to BE Liability. Now I am but Ilar.

You are easily confused and massively misled.

I have not confused pollutants with toxins at all.

A lot of water vapor can impact the weather, too. It's still not a pollutant, you twit.

But then, water vapor has a very short residency in the atmosphere. Moreover, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is also dependent on the concentrations of both aerosols and GHGs that reside in the atmosphere, both of which have a human component, components we can control.



Actually, there is a limit to which our global biosphere can sustain high levels of oxygen before serious damage occurs. Excess oxygen not only is damaging to the forests, it is also damaging to the oceans, and to vital anaerobic processes that break down organic compounds. Yes, dude, too much of a good thing is also a pollutant.

And, of course, your false premise notwithstanding, a small and essentially insignificant additional release of CO2 into our atmosphere is not a pollutant, either, yo twit.

Demonstrating how little you understand about Earth processes. Congratulations.

Don't care what the atmos residency of water vapor is. Man's LAND USE and industries provide a NEW and INCREASING burden of water vapor into the atmos..

Right. That's why the Australian continent is 90% dry as a bone. That's why there is a long-term drought with no end in sight in the Western U.S. That is why the Gobi desert is growing by leaps and bounds. Because we are putting an "increasing water burden on the atmosphere". Perhaps you should restate your bullshite argument.

Build a road or a parking lot and you've POLLUTED.. Because you've increased the atmos H20 vapor content. Insist on farming irrigation? You've polluted because you've provided a NEW steady supply of GHGas...

Roads increase run off. They do not increase the water vapor in the atmosphere.


You don't even KNOW what the atmos residency of CO2 really is..[/QUOTE]

CO2 has a short residence time

In the IPCC 4th Assessment Report glossary, "lifetime" has several related meanings. The most relevant one is:

“Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.”​

In other words, life time is the average time an individual particle spends in a given box. It is calculated as the size of box (reservoir) divided by the overall rate of flow into (or out of) a box. The IPCC Third Assessment Report 4.1.4 gives more details.

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Yes. Because until humankind started that whole industrial revolution thing and nefariously dumped CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, there were NEVER any deserts before.

 

[orogenicman]

No. Demonstrating how little YOU understand about the topic you pontificate so vapidly on.

The FACTS remain: to the extent that humans have added CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere, it is a very small amount of a very small percentage of the entire atmosphere and there have been NO verifiable scientific theorems susceptible to valid testing to demonstrate that the increased CO2 is even CAPABLE of altering the Earth's climate.

You are non scientific. You merely propound your faith.

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We have nearly double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age first started. Even though the concentration in the atmosphere is measured in ppm, that small concentration is the only reason there is life on the Earth. Without it, we would be a snow ball Earth. Too much, and we are a scorched Earth, even though the concentrations are small. Decades of research in atmospheric science, organic chemistry, biology, geology and physics has long demonstrated these facts. Perhaps if you hadn't slept through class...

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

^ can't quite grasp the difference between committing some pollution and causing climatic changes.

 

[orogenicman]

The effects of doubling CO2 are highly overrated. Because first off -- it's NOT a global constant to surface warming and what matters is the effect on the areas that predominantly drive climate change.. And TWO --- because the base physics calculation don't derate the warming power of CO2 for the variable presence of water vapor which reduces it's warming power..

So if this entire DUSTUP was about the temperature increase from 250ppm to 500ppm --- It wouldn't even make the news. Because that NUMBER --- is about 1.2degC.

I'll even accept that SOME OF THAT might happen. But it's more like 0.6degC by the time we hit 500ppm.. The diff of opinion here --- is the AGW FANTASY --- that the amount of rise will be the TRIGGER EVENT that AMPLIFIES into 4degC or even 8degC..

That's just hype and completely unfounded by evidence or assumptions.. For YOU to believe that crap. You have to BELIEVE ON FAITH --- that we live on damaged planet with suicidal tendencies..

Are you really suggesting that human beings have not damaged this planet? REALLY? You don't get out much, do you?

^ can't quite grasp the difference between committing some pollution and causing climatic changes.

I hate that for you. You can always take a class.