[Petrochemicals]

There have been warnings about this behaviour. Let's keep it friendlier.

I have not been warned. What is so offensive Colin? One closed insulting unproven bigoted comment without evidence or explination for another.

It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.

OK Mr poopy pants

[alancalverd]

My concern is that if what I said is true, and we don't cut CO2 emissions then we will certainly provoke a humanitarian disaster.

On the other hand,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F

You won't create a better world by spending a fortune on an irrelevant effect instead of tackling the cause.
 
Problem is that as I see it (and history shows) the prime cause is beyond the possibility of control. Climate change is inevitable and has wiped out a few civilisations in recent history, and entire species over longer periods. Humans have the unique ability to predict and adapt to the inevitable, but I see no sign of  enthusiasm to do so.

We will eventually have to live without fossil fuels.The surprise is just how long they have already lasted, and how much remains to be exploited, but the end is conceivable if not accurately predictable.

So we have to consider two scenarios.

In the shortish term, all industry and everything we take as symbolic of a comfortable civilised life, will be under the control of gangsters in Moscow, scum dictators in the Middle East, and whatever idiot the Americans elect to a position of absolute power. Unless we....what?

In the longer term, the teeming millions will be unable to feed themselves or survive near the coast where most people live today, and will migrate to whatever fertile ground and fresh water remains. Unless we....what?

[Petrochemicals]

My concern is that if what I said is true, and we don't cut CO2 emissions then we will certainly provoke a humanitarian disaster.

On the other hand,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F

You won't create a better world by spending a fortune on an irrelevant effect instead of tackling the cause.

Fixating on co2 whilst orca whales die of chemical ingestion and many animals become homeless because of land pressures due to solar and birds are killed by renewable  and nuclear disasters create wonderful animal habitats,

actually build some very risky nuclear power stations about the place and it may be quite a good thing, but how do we irradiated the ocean?

[Bored chemist]

Fixating on co2 whilst orca whales die of chemical ingestion and many animals become homeless because of land pressures due to solar and birds are killed by renewable  and nuclear disasters create wonderful animal habitats,

actually build some very risky nuclear power stations about the place and it may be quite a good thing, but how do we irradiated the ocean?

Did you read that through before you posted it?

[Origin]

many animals become homeless

This is a serious problem in my area.  I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking.  There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!

[alancalverd]

Most homeless animals don't cause a problem to humans, who in the last resort have guns. but desperate members of homo sapiens can also have guns.

[Petrochemicals]

many animals become homeless

This is a serious problem in my area.  I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking.  There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!

many animals become homeless

This is a serious problem in my area.  I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking.  There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!

Deer are also a problem in my country, we have no natural predators and the   hunting of deer is no longer prevelant so the deer have become a plague eating the young saplings and de barking trees seriously damaging the environment. This though is not an issue as everyone loves bambi and puts their faith in co2
, ,,,,     ,,,,,,,,,,, and making facetious libellous unsubstantiated comments to any Tom dick or Harry who has a differing  viewpoint. # hateweek

[Bored chemist]

we have no natural predators

In a way, this is the real problem.
Humans have no meaningful predators, so our numbers have increased to plague proportions, all over the world.
We are simultaneously, the only species that has done this, and the only species that understands that we shouldn't.

Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.

Many of us think that we can reduce the damage we all do to our environment, but some are saying that's a lost cause and we should continue with business as usual..

Interestingly, in many areas with lots of humans, deer have no predators either- because those predators threatened us, so we killed them.
 
But to get back to the topic,
"Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?""
Because something that stays the same can't cause a change.
Unless the Earth's temperature rises, the water levels are pretty much fixed because any excess rains out.

If the Earth's temperature changed before the water levels in the air changed, then water concentration in air isn't a cause, it's an effect.

[alancalverd]

Unless the Earth's temperature rises,

Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years. And apparently by a few degrees very recently.

And unlike CO2, there's a lot more to atmospheric water than its concentration. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.

[alancalverd]

Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.

Many experiments start in a test tube. Some end up in a huge factory. It would be ridiculous to do it the other way around.

[Bored chemist]

. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.

But, no so much with time.
The boiling point is still 100C

[Bored chemist]

Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.

Many experiments start in a test tube. Some end up in a huge factory. It would be ridiculous to do it the other way around.

Not as ridiculous as trying to do a test tube experiment with an empty test tube.
Trying to fix a problem in a place where the problem doesn't exist is pretty special.

[Bored chemist]

Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years. And apparently by a few degrees very recently.

Well, you are half right.
"by a few degrees very recently." is correct.
The rest... not so much.
But that's what we have come to expect.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

[alancalverd]

Thank you for your profound insights.
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.
It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.
No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.

I've never met a denialist before.

[Bored chemist]

It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.

Nobody said that.
But your "schemes" have focussed on birth rates and the birth rate in the UK is less than replacement.
So this test tube is empty of the "too high birth rate"  problem.
Yet that's where you plan your experiment.

I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.

The scientsts know, so they won't believe your "12 degrees" any moere than I did.

"  The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today. At the Pleistocene Ice Age’s peak, massive ice sheets stretched over North America and Eurasia.  "
From
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been

Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years.

Doubling down on that is the sort of thing that will get you banned.

No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.

Where did that strawman even come from?

I've never met a denialist before.

We have; you.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32
I've never met a denialist before.
We have; you.

That is a disgraceful lie, not worthy of a scientist. I have never denied the obvious - that the climate is changing. I even drone on about the fact that it always has done and the laws of physics haven't changed.

But I do dispute the facile suggestion that human activity can significantly moderate the change, and I worry about the future if people invest their faith in a flawed model, ignore historic data, and don't prepare for the worst.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32
It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.
Nobody said that.
But your "schemes" have focussed on birth rates and the birth rate in the UK is less than replacement.
So this test tube is empty of the "too high birth rate"  problem.
Yet that's where you plan your experiment.

The birthrate may be low, but the population is increasing. Stick to the facts.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.
The scientsts know, so they won't believe your "12 degrees" any moere than I did.

"  The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today. At the Pleistocene Ice Age’s peak, massive ice sheets stretched over North America and Eurasia.  "
From
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been

doesn't quite tie up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg where the data shows a 12K range in the last 20,000 years.
Note the absence of the word "likely" from my reference - it's just facts.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32
No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.

Where did that strawman even come from?

Somebody here pointed out that the boiling point of water is 100°C. Now that  is fairly close to the truth at sea level some of the time, but is pretty irrelevant to meteorology which deals with  the effect of water exchange with the surface and its distribution in the atmosphere from about - 60°C to + 40°C and up to 60,000 ft where the boiling point is about 24°C.

There are plenty of good texts on hurricane formation, some of which explain why they form over water. I won't bore you with the details here.

[Bored chemist]

graphs.JPG (84.86 kB . 309x764 - viewed 1644 times)

The birthrate may be low, but the population is increasing. Stick to the facts.

OK
here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"
That's less than replacement.
Any your plans to pay women not to get pregnant don't really influence population if that's dominated by immigration.

doesn't quite tie up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg where the data shows a 12K range in the last 20,000 years.
Note the absence of the word "likely" from my reference - it's just facts.

Yes it does tie up, as far as you can tell.
Here's a clip which shows the last 200,000 years
I have highlighted (roughly) the bit that shows the last 20,000.

graphs.JPG (84.86 kB . 309x764 - viewed 1644 times)

Now that  is fairly close to the truth at sea level some of the time, but is pretty irrelevant to meteorology which deals with  the effect of water exchange with the surface and its distribution in the atmosphere from about - 60°C to + 40°C and up to 60,000 ft where the boiling point is about 24°C.

And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?