Control? No one is talking about control. We're talking about impact. And not isolated incidents, but the change in the makeup of the air, land and water that effects weather and drives climate.
Can you explain the saturation of the 15 micrometer wavelength by water vapor and Co2 ?
our climate system is very complex, dynamic and chaotic
i understand absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules
I meant climate is always changing, even before mankind put CO2's into the air.
I think climate warnings have pretty much ceased to scare anyone except
Isn't that those net-zero emission target are meant to control the
There was no social media when we tackled and solved those issues. Wackos were at home or at their tavern drinking their beer and expressing their crazy bullshit to the few drunks around...
"Control" implies being about to make it do our bidding. We aren't trying to control the climate, no. We aren't looking for ways to generate specific climate. What we're looking to do is stop polluting the atmosphere.
First tell me whether you expect an answer based on science. If
The concentration of water molecules in the air is also in PPMV and we know water molecules are the primary drivers of weather phenomenon, so let's not pretend the unit if measurement matters.
The heat capacity of air is almost directly related to the amount of water in it.
And as the overall temperature of the water heats up, it heats the air masses above it and increases its ability to hold water.
No one can, that's a nonsense sentence. Wavelengths don't saturate, they're a measure of, well, the length of waves. Your question is worded as If infrared radiation (I'm assuming you meant radiation given the topic at hand) is saturated by greenhouse gasses; but that doesn't make sense. If you meant the saturation of water vapour and CO2 by in the 15 micrometer wavelength, yes I can. Though based on your phrasing, in not sure you can even explain what that means or why it's relevant to the discussion. Can you? I noticed you didn't answer my questions.
Independent of humankind, climate will change, yes. No one has disputed that. What the vast majority of climate scientists are saying is that we are having a pronounced effect on those changes. Without us there would still be changes, but we are causing those changes to be different.
I don't think you do because your question about it was nonsense. I think you've read a few poorly written articles about it that made you think you understood it.
We absolutely can predict cloud formation, certainly in the near term. The mechanism under which clouds form is very well understood. But climate models generally aren't concerned with cloud formation but rather with the movement of large scale patterns anyway, given the vast number of variables involved in cloud formation. Things like rainfall, ocean currents, movement of air masses, average temperatures, etc are dealt with by climate models because they are macro issues. Specific cloud formations can occur in very localized areas due to a variety of factors, and so they are micro issues. Expected a macro system to predict micro issues is lunacy of the highest order. That's like expecting macroeconomics to predict if a small business run by one guy out of his garage will fail within a 2 week window. Climate refers to conditions over about a 30-year window. Clouds can form and dissipate in hours. It's nonsense.
And yet the companies that profit from you thinking this is propaganda did their own studies, came up with the same results as this "propaganda", and have spent a fortune trying to conceive people it's propaganda. And keep making record profits while the cost for their goods keeps going higher and higher. Yeah ok.
None of those issues are being ignored. Also none of them will be relevant if we continue to render the planet incapable of supporting human life. Ask these issues are important, and all of them are being addressed in various different ways and to various different degrees.
I expected your opinion. What you believe. I didn't ask for rational or justification. I just asked what you believe. And you have done nothing but deflect and contradict yourself. So don't worry about it. You had your chance to sound sane, rational, and worthy of a conversation and it's passed. I've dismissed you as a whackadoodle so I don't care anymore.
Do not be ridiculous, of course it matters
and still the heat capacity of air is small relative to the heat capacity of water
irrelevant since the GHG theory is based upon IR absorption by GHG molecules in the air , no way in hell a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition can heat up the oceans
nonsense to you as you do not understand it
it is not my fault you are ignorant of a well known and well understood scientific principal
consensus of opinion does not validate scientific hypothesis
impossible to prove / disprove
.
my understanding of Infrared absorption is far superior to yours
Not even close
look Einstein, clouds reflect and absorb radiation and there formation is critical to the understanding of climate
look Einstein , if you really understood what has occurred , you would know computer scenario RCP8.5 has been the basis for all the catastrophic predictions in the press & sadly used by govt
And it's changing faster now than any other time. More importantly, we weren't trying to sustain 8 billion people at any other time.
Pathetically you think posting actual data is a "scare tactic".
I love it when Jonny tries to sound scientific. If you don't actually read what he's posting, it almost sounds like he finished high school.
None of your images or links demonstrated your question wasn't nonsense. I explained what you meant. But your question was phrased asking about a wavelength being saturated. You might as well all about saturation of a pound or a kilogram. It's nonsense. And the fact that you dug in about just proves you're so entrenched there's no point discussing this.
It is nonsense to you as you do not understand how organic molecules absorb infrared radiation
That is impossible since you clearly did not understand the subject matter
And again you prove you clearly did not understand the subject matter
nonsense only to a scientific illiterate
yes , very little point in discussing scientific matters with you
Climate has hardly changed at all.
It is, and gullible people like you fall for it
In your backyard yeah just a regular mild winter. But say that to people in California...
You mean California, where this year they had a very snowy and cold winter??
When the summer is hot it's global warming. When it gets cold and rainy it's climate change.You mean California, where this year they had a very snowy and cold winter??
Thats your example of global warming??
