Climate Change? (Bonus: George Carlin Comments) lol


PD, I’m a bit confused. Are you saying that we cannot add CO2 to the atmosphere without first removing water vapor? Why not?

Regarding ozone: Fertilizer makes the world go round, but it doesn’t mean you should eat it. Just because it has a beneficial function does not mean it’s useful everywhere. Just because it’s not useful in one situation doesn’t mean it lacks value in every situation.

Accepting that ozone is a harmful pollutant does not require you to join the global warming cult. Same goes for the water vapor and CO2 percentages.


What has a to do with b, and why are you inferring c?

Even if the total amount of water vapor remains constant, we could add CO2. Imagine we would redouble CO2 then the total-warming-effect of CO2 logically would be twice as high then before.

So, you mean that solar radiation is the ONLY thing that can influence climate?
This does not sound serious to me.


Try to focus. If water vapor comprises 95% (out of 100%) of ALL so-called “greenhouse gasses” and CO2 comprises 3%, in order for CO2 to somehow comprise MORE than 3%, water vapor logically has to comprise LESS than 95% of all greenhouse gas…or the concentration of the other gasses comprising the remaining 2% MUST be somehow reduced in order to be replaced by that additional concentration of CO2. There CAN’T be more than 100% of all greenhouse gas. That doesn’t mean that the AMOUNT of greenhouse gas can’t increase, but whatever that increase amounts to will STILL only be 100% of the total, and CO2 will STILL only be 3% of the total unless you can figure out how to reduce the contributions of the remaining 97% somehow–and that can’t be done by anything humans are capable of. Secondarily, LIFE can’t exist on this planet WITHOUT CO2. Plants utilize it as an essential element of photosynthesis and animals RELY on plants for their very existence…including humans. Logically then, the MORE CO2, the more food for plants and therefore the more food for animals–AND, coincidentally, the more OXYGEN in the atmosphere because healthy green plants EXPIRE oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. There is no reason to “fear” CO2…even rising levels of it. All it means is that plants will flourish, there will be more food and oxygen produced as a result. You’ll notice that the Climate Change messiahs have stopped blaming CO2 so much and have switched to blaming CARBON, apparently forgetting that WE are “carbon-based life forms.”


Then what’s the point you’re trying to make? Obviously, the if the percentage of one increases, the percentage of the other decreases, even if we add a bunch of tons of only CO2. But contrary to what you posted, no matter what we do, water vapor won’t compose 95 percent. If we add a bunch of tons of CO2 and raise CO2 content by 2 percent, then water vapor will be 93 percent. Because math, and you just said it. Then you said CO2 would still only be 3 percent.

PD, I’m sure that I’m with ya, but I do not comprehend what point your trying to make with this bit about percentages. I’m trying, but I can’t make sense of it. None of the rest of your post really requires this to make your point.


CO2 concentration does matter; when CO2 was over 1,000 parts per million in our atmosphere during the late Cretaceous period ( slightly over double of where it is today), the Ice caps were bare, and there was an inland Sea in North America; hence why we dig up the remains of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas.

Conversely, when concentration of CO2 was right around 180 parts per million, you had, large, impassible glaciers all over that same area.


So your argument is:
If we had beer with 7% alcohol and 93% water. It were impossible to increase alcohol concentration, even if we would add pure alcohol (ethanol) as much as we want?

Your argument is:
CO2 can improve plant growth – therefore it can’t have any negative side effects no matter how high it’s concentration is?

Even if the relative amount would remain constant – what isn’t the case – the increase of the total amount would effect more warming.


Then why not direct our energies toward reducing the PRIMARY (by a large measure) culprit…water vapor? I notice that NO ONE is suggesting that we do anything about IT. Why not? After all, water vapor IS the principle “greenhouse gas.” Seems to me that it’s a MUCH larger “target” for any efforts to reduce the amount (and therefore the EFFECT) of greenhouse gasses and how they interfere with the “climate.” I propose we require everyone to put massive dehydrators in our back yards or on our balconies, patios or roofs and try to dry out the atmosphere a bit. Just THINK of how many destructive storms we could prevent.


I have to ask a few questions, to be clear.

  1. If Man causes GW, and 97% of scientists agree, why is it necessary for NOAA to lie about research and results?
  2. I GW is so heinous, why are there less Winter Deaths now, than 30 years ago?
  3. Why are forests 18% thicker, now that CO2 is up?
    4)Scientists say that GW will be more positive than negative, up to 3% of Warming from pre Industrial levels. Since only .8% has happened in the last 150 years, we got a ways to go, before it starts to be more negatoive.
  4. Why do The Chicken Littles of CC, not reveal the positives?

Look, anyone over 40 should know CC is a hoax. Just the fact that NOAA lied, is enough evidence to reject CC as anything serious.
Sheesh. Wanna decrease CO2 in the atmosphere? Plant some trees.


Timber companies are doing just that and being castigated for it by the “greenies” because they are only planting trees that they can later harvest. For every tree they cut down, they plant seven! When you see those “terrible” aerial photos of clear-cut areas, a CLOSE UP would show thousands of newly-planted seedlings–but you’ll never SEE a close-up, because that doesn’t fit the greenie’s meme.


And massive forests growing all around those harvested areas.


In our state, the trees are growing much faster than they are harvested. (So are the deer!:stuck_out_tongue:).


I think your last sentence is a joke, but with regard to you first: It is impossible to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere. If we would dry the air, the evaporation of water of the ocean would increase.

But at least you seem to be concerned about warming, since you think about how to reduce it…


Nonsense. The entire POST was sarcasm. I’m not in the LEAST “worried” about so-called “Global Warming”. It’s a hoax in order to extract more money out of the most prosperous and productive country on the planet.


O.K. You are not worried. But you say that global warming is caused by men.
(in the posts above the sarcastic post)


No I didn’t.


Your first argument was that the rate of CO2 (in relation to water vapor) can not increase (what is not true, btw). And you said CO2, water vapor and remaining 2% methane, argon and other such gasses are greenhouse gasses.

So you listed CO2 among water vapor, methane and argon as greenhouse gas. And men emit CO2.

Why would you try to argue that the rate of CO2 could not increase, if you would not believe that CO2 causes warming?


CO2 has a LOT of sources that don’t involve men. Every living creature exudes CO2 as part of the process of respiration, and there are a LOT more living creatures other than humans. Vulcanism is another source that doesn’t involve humans, and the eruption of a single one–Pinatoubu, for example–spewed more CO 2 into the atmosphere in one week than 50 YEARS of American automobile exhaust. You missed the whole point of my post you cite above…not that I’m surprised.


It is true that as stars get older they get hotter, but recent trend actually has the sun declining in solar output (yet we see temps increasing anyway).

One of the reasons that predictions that were made had to be modified as the suns 11-year cycle wasn’t fully understood or predicted.

400 year average:


MORE nonsense. It’s NOT “getting hotter” (on a worldwide scale). World temps have remained FLAT – or slightly declined – in the last 20 years. Even NASA has had to admit this, despite being invested in “global warming” like a lot of other “scientists” are. And what have “estimates” got to do with anything?


Can you source any of that?

Where did I say anything about estimates?