It disputes your points absolutely and completely. Because your points are inherently nonsensical, not merely false, but actual nonsense.

Do you even understand how the greenhouse gas effect works?

You are making the magical claim that if I produce carbon in an area with high water vapor, that carbon wont go into the atmospheric carbon store and thus add to the effect carbon has on global warming, because (lol) some areas are maxed out on global warming.

If you are not making that claim, write better.

Again, that is not my claim. Are you intellectually dishonest, or just completely incapable of understanding what I am saying?


What I said is that certain areas are maxed out on the greenhouse effect, because water vapour is a substantially more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. so if there is a lot of water vapour in the air, in that area, than all of the suns radiation that bounces off the earth that would get trapped by the greenhouse effect is already trapped because of all the water vapour.


the way the greenhouse gas effect works it that the suns radiation bounces off the earth but is trapped by the greenhouse gasses so it bounces back. obviously, not more than 100% of that energy can bounce back.

maybe try to get someone to explain this to you with puppets or something.

Says the guy who thinks Canada having a big swing of temps moots the importance of 2C of extra stored energy in the climate.

Hint, it makes those swings much bigger, and by much more than 2C.

Which areas?

I've already answered that. Try reading more and posting less.

You need to cite your claim.

Why? You're rude and stupid. Why should I do anything you ask?

You claim is that the entirety of "hot and temperate areas" have maxed out on global warming because they are already trapping 100% of the suns potential forcing energy due to water vapor.

We will just assume you have no credible source for something that is of course not even remotely credible.

Ho man PPG…….
the problem with climate change as nothing to do with temperature ffs …..
It’s about the rate of change of the temperature .

When the rate of change is too high , it is very damaging because nature do not have time to adapt .

So it doesn’t matter if the planet got hotter or colder by 5 degrees 100 Millions years ago .
It matter if it changes in 1-500 years tho .


Btw about the concept of climate change being done by human , it’s has reach the golden ratio of certainty up to 5 sigma statistically !

That is around 1 chance in a million+ that human aren’t responsible for global warming , that is just a fluke statistically.

Now I don’t care if people still doubt it , but those climate denier should stop claiming they believe in science tho.
They clearly do not believe in math , statistic , physics ,etc .
Science ain’t a freakn opinion , it’s all back by empirical evidences using the scientific method !

Now if people really want to know how science really work , just watch this 5min clips to understand that :

https://youtu.be/y1MZ8U8C9c8

finding 1 or 2 paper denying global warming by human means nothing when it’s only 1 or 2 studies among thousand if not ten of thousands that confirms it .

Good luck with that !
Beside billions of immigrants will have to move as sea level rises and the existence of land diminish …

But why am I not surprise , just your posting on economic front are as bad as those on this subject .

I'm actually largely in agreement with you (unlike everyone else in this thread). You are being very rude and are not helping advance your argument.

Its almost like hot deserts have really dry air.

Those hot sandy deserts, known for their water vapor.

Climate deniers are simply the descendants of the people on the titanic that died thinking to the end , titanic couldn’t sink , even facing reality …..

Good thing the billionaires are working on life boats.

None of us is going to change what we are doing. Nobody. Will anyone stop driving or flying? Maybe heating? Will al gore stop flying his privet jet? Will anything change? If so, how? Honest question.

Did anyone watch An Inconvenient Truth? I never saw it. I wonder how that movie has aged

Seems like lozen's post is spot on. Science can be right about the catastrophic effects looming, but seems will never be right about the timeline. Also, China and India matter a lot. It's problem

We change what we do all the time. Send us back a few hundred years and the cultural and political reality would be very alien to us, so we know society can change. Send someone to the arctic in winter with a guide, and he'll do what he needs to do to survive, so you can change your own behavior.

Secondly, the key is also not only in what we do, but how we do it. We can waste less energy, use energy more efficiently and use alternate sources of energy. Not realizing the backdraws of oil and later fossil fuels made us complacent in their use and lazy when it came to being efficient, that doesn't mean that complacency and lack of efficiency is somehow an unchangeable constant.

The question is more about whether we adapt our behavior and develop / deploy new technologies quickly enough to stave of a large and ultimately unnecessary disaster. Deniers and skeptics are of course a hurdle, but there is always skeptics questioning any change and demagogues looking to capitalize on fear of the unknown. It's not an impassable barrier, you just have to find a way around.

The specific shorter term predictions Gore made in his fanfiction movie did not manifest themselves. This is not to say that at some point in the future there may be an increase in hurricanes, and worry not the moment that graph ticks up, we'll hear about how Al Gore was right all along and WAAF.

That's the trouble with making concrete predictions based on a graph that some dude made up in his basement.

Some other things he said did ring true. You know, the safety predictions like glaciers continuing to melt and CO2 concentrations continuing to increase. It's unclear if we were supposed to be surprised that decades-long trends simply continued as they were, but he did make a cool 50 million off it, so... great success?

Then again, some glaciers are getting bigger. Perhaps mother nature has had enough of our shenanigans and is going to do whatever she damn well pleases.

I hereby predict that the human population in 2040 will be higher than it is today. Mark your calendar.

The bolded is common sense to me, which I am doing anyways and I think most people are. The problem I am having is that it only gets worse. I.e. everyone is ordering from amazon, which means more air and road traffic. Imagine 1.366 Billion Indians doing this in a couple years, and 1.398 Billion Chinese ( I just looked up both numbers)

Which technologies, is a good question, but it looks like India and China are going the coal route and then Im seeing difficulties. So yeah, however I look at it its a problem, a problem we can only put a dent in if we focus on more imprtant things first.

My priority list would be something like this. But it seems they want to put those priorities upside down.

-Corpoarate Cartels
-Afghanistan
-Syria
-Northkorea
-Cuba
-Mexico
-China
-Africa
-India
-Covid
-Climate Change

People are staying home and buying stuff online = More road traffic? Please explain. Thanks.

Priority lists tend to be emotional, triggered by something direct and dramatic. It's hard to get people to be worried about that seems far off and which creeps by so slowly that even if its effects are well underway, it has gone gradually enough to make it seem seem natural.

But a casket from Afghanistan, the harrowing account of victims being tortured to death by cartels or the tax percentage on your payslip is going to strike harder for most of us than a climatologist's graph, regardless of the enormous and ongoing suffering it shows.

There were recent threads here dedicated to the trolley problem, trying to make the trolley problem predictable by political ideology. The problem is of course, the trolley problem was real it would probably look something like this:

1.) 20% of people arguing that trolley construction makes the problem impossible.
2.) 10% of people busy blaming the trolley driver on social media.
3.) 5% of people arguing that the trolley driver is part of a conspiracy.
4.) 30% of people who don't really care.
5.) 15% of people arguing that both sides are equally bad.
6.) 5% of people arguing that people lying down on train tracks get what they deserve.
7.) 5% of people arguing that trolleys work just fine, we need to live with the accidents and stop installing buttons everywhere.
8.) 10% argue amongst themselves about whether the problem is too few fences or too few buttons.

Add to that a lot of people busy arguing that if their guy was in charge, the problem would not exist.

That doesn't mean the issue wouldn't be solved, merely that the road to a solution tends to be messy and confusing.

................


these 2 pics are from the Outer Banks in North Carolina
this is not a result from a storm
this is every day

the ocean is at their doorstep

.



.



.


https://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...243111861.html



.