I've known several people the world considers scientists. Their main goal is accuracy.
i can find no confirmation of your assertion the mr tyson said this (but i didnt try too hard, or watch the show...) , and i can find no support for this claim even if he did say it. (which i did dig into pretty good)
let us also not forget the "Tasaday" tribe in the philippines.
so now you wish to argue that a pebble thrown into a pond in central ohio is the ultimate cause for a tsunami in kuala lumpur two years later.you completely miss the point of a feedback cycle.
water vapor comes and goes like the weather, relatively stable based on region, about 4% in the wettest tropics, about 2% in the driest and coldest areas, so on and so forth.
CO2 no go. CO2 stay long time. CO2 take many many moon to go to tree or ocean. trees and oceans finite.
take millions and billions of years of sequestered CO2 and put it in air over 100-200 years, CO2 go way up. CO2 go way up and no go away. trap more heat.
trap more heat create more water vapor. more water vapor trap more heat in turn. feedback cycle intensifies.
we are talking about EFFECTS, not AMOUNTS.
Are you honeslty asserting CO2 has the same ir reflective/absorbing properties as water vapour.
no, apparently he is asserting that CO2 absorbs a shitload more IR radiation and holds way more heat than water.
AFAIK I can remember, but I'm drunk and high, water vapour is 4x worse than CO2 regarding its infrared properties.
claims vary between 5x (after "baselining" the cooling effects of evaporation and cloud/snow/ice/ocean surface albedo) to 20x (just the water vapour, no "baselining")
Actually, this is where UB exclaims "Nuh-Uh"
not only have you STILL failed to cite the study, but now you are denying that CO2 drives temps, which is outright retarded since temperature and CO2 basically hold hands going up and down.so now you wish to argue that a pebble thrown into a pond in central ohio is the ultimate cause for a tsunami in kuala lumpur two years later.
1 )11000 years ago, a "Super Alarming Warming Trend" began, and continues apace. (Fact)
2 ) glaciers and icecaps began retreating, and it continues to this day (Fact)
3 ) the seas began warming and it continues today (Fact)
4 ) the warming seas are gassing off large amounts of CO2 and increasing atmospheric water vapour concentrations, this trend is continuing as well (Fact)
5 ) in 2007, i pissed into the river while fishing, so the warm urine i added to the pacific ocean, and my exhalations of CO2 into the atmosphere are the root cause of global warming. (wild supposition, but look at all the facts nearby, it must be true!!)
even a cursory examination of this graph will demonstrate that even when co2 levels were VERY low, sudden and precipitous warming still occured
even when co2 levels were high, sudden and precipitous cooling still occurred
something is driving the glacial cycle, and Co2 aint it.
many climatologist assert that carbon dioxide increases in pre-human glacial retreats was a byproduct of ocean warming, not the driver of the event, and the cooling of the ocean trapped Co2 as a byproduct of ocean cooling in past glacial advances
the argument that human produced increase in CO2 COULD be causing some warming is logical, but the question remains "How Much Of the Warming Is From Human Influence???"
the real answer seems to be "Not Much"
no, you fucking retard.
only in the wettest places on earth, otherwise it's as low as 50x or less.
or it could be that CO2 stays around for a long, long time and drives a feedback cycle that water vapor on its own does not.
still waiting for you to cite the study, which you are utterly unable to do.
i've caught you parroting retarded science from lolblogs before, perhaps you have some idea of where red got his retarded and laughable claim.
i love how you can't cite anything beside your own take on this.
red didnt cite a study. he saiud he had heard a factoid, and YOU asked me to check out it's veracity:
this statement is accurate.
This has been a thorough ass whooping.
your back of the eggo box calculations do not qualify as "published by reputable papers and scientists".
