It was mentioned in the part you left out, and in the link to CO2 at the top of that page. Your dishonesty knows no bounds."As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'"
You will notice,... not once was CO2 mentioned.
They precisely measured the warming it produced.Precisely measured the effects of .1 % of .04% of a gas in the atmosphere has on the whole planets temperature
You just broke fuji's heart. All his 18,000 posts have been for nothingOh Crap! I was supposed to be impressed? Doesn't that require something impressive to happen?
Care to explain why the US has experienced an almost 12 year drought up till now in landfall hurricanes, and also why total amount of hurricanes over Atlantic is about normal??And in fact that's one of the consequences, increased heat over the ocean results in bigger and more powerful storms. Basically the extra energy feeds the hurricanes
A major hurricane hasn’t hit the U.S. Gulf or East Coast in more than a decade. A major hurricane is one containing maximum sustained winds of at least 111 mph and classified as Category 3 or higher on the 1-5 Saffir-Simpson wind scale.
Florida hasn’t seen a hurricane of any intensity since 2005’s Wilma, which is shocking considering it averages about seven hurricane landfalls per decade.
Scientists have no solid explanation for the lack of hurricane landfalls. The number of storms forming in the Atlantic over the past decade or so has been close to normal, but many have remained over the ocean or hit other countries rather than the United States
Anything less than thirty years is weather, not climate. Droughts are an expected result of global warming so not sure why you would think that's even a data pointCare to explain why the US has experienced an almost 12 year drought up till now in landfall hurricanes, and also why total amount of hurricanes over Atlantic is about normal??
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hy-this-is-terrifying/?utm_term=.39595c72e619
You didnt even read the article, did you. Its not talking about a regular drought, its talking a bout a HURRICANE DROUGHT!!!Anything less than thirty years is weather, not climate. Droughts are an expected result of global warming so not sure why you would think that's even a data point
Anything less than thirty years is weather.You didnt even read the article, did you. Its not talking about a regular drought, its talking a bout a HURRICANE DROUGHT!!!
Right, and do you see a considerable upward trend since 1950??Anything less than thirty years is weather
Every time you post this you`show you think your bias is more significant than actual science....self appointed unemployable experts ...
I'm not sure you understand the phrase "statistically significant", can you share what distribution you used, what confidence interval your chose, and how you arrived at that conclusion?Right, and do you see a considerable upward trend since 1950??
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2012/annual/NAT_storms_2012.png
I see a very slight increase, but its not statistically significant, plus there's no evidence that hurricanes are increasing in strength. In fact 1970 to 2000 they actually started going down
,..."self appointed unemployable experts" ...Every time you post this you`show you think your bias is more significant than actual science.
Yeah, nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the whole thread fuji.I'm not sure you understand the phrase "statistically significant", can you share what distribution you used, what confidence interval your chose, and how you arrived at that conclusion?
Word for word fuji,...It was mentioned in the part you left out, and in the link to CO2 at the top of that page. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Again,...impossible.They precisely measured the warming it produced.
Another lie,...I did NOT omit anything from that explanation.I note that your link that you quoted from, in the text you omitted, went on to say the levels and effects is CO2 are better measured and better understood that water vapor.
Why don't you take the time to read all the material that NASA has made available to you? Instead of hl getting defensive about your ignorance you could do something about it.Word for word fuji,...
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'"
And you lied about there being any reference to CO2 preceding that explanation,...Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Again,...impossible.
Another lie,...I did NOT omit anything from that explanation.
But good to see that you have finally confirmed that you self proclaimed unemployable experts have no fricken clue what's going on with the planets climate,...they don't have a good understanding of the most prominent green house gas, that has existed from the beginning, and has allowed man to survive, and continue to survive.
But in a few decades they suddenly have a better understanding of how CO2 might effect the climate,... :bounce:
Why would I,...you can't even make an intelligent comment on any of the points I've already presented,...you simply just reply with more childish insulting,...and nothing more.Why don't you take the time to read all the material that NASA has made available to you? Instead of hl getting defensive about your ignorance you could do something about it.
You should also go read the Nature study and learn how they measured the effects of CO2.
Actually you have and you know how badly I'll shit on you. You have repeatedly claimed the experts don't know what they're talking about based on nothing. But sure, if you want to be the modern version of the flat earth society then go right ahead. It just shows what a farce you are every time you try and pretend that science supports your view.,..."self appointed unemployable experts" ...
I have never put that phrase in a response to one of your posts,...so you have to keep that in mind when you see it.....
I can see the comparison. End of the world. Repent and change your ways. Rules how to act. Very superficial though considering that science is based on evidence, not just faith.Global warming has become like a religion. If you don't play along with the preachers you are an outcast, and you become the spawn of Satan
Nope, and saying dumb things like this isn't a credible answer in a debate you've clearly lost.Global warming has become like a religion. If you don't play along with the preachers you are an outcast, and you become the spawn of Satan
Because you aren't adding value. You're wasting everyone's time. If you bothered to educate yourself a little you might be able to contribute.Why would I,...
All sputter. No contentNope, and saying dumb things like this isn't a credible answer in a debate you've clearly lost
