He is right that H2O is the primary GHG, there's just not a lot we can do about it.

In fact one of the (several) problems with using hydrogen as jet fuel is the fact that the combustion byproduct is almost 100% water... and dumping a bunch of that into the stratosphere is still a problem, because it's not supposed to be there. So hydrogen can be totally carbon-neutral but is still a greenhouse problem (for jets, not really at all for low-altitude vehicles since water normally resides in the lower atmosphere, and any excess just precipitates as per temp/humidity conditions). Hydrogen would still actually produce less water than kerosene, which has a bunch of H to unload via bonding with O2 to make water.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post
No they didn't. Obviously the global climate is an immensely complicated system. The specific effects are difficult to predict with precision, but the overall story was predicted and in some cases underestimated. Climate change is real, serious, man-made and CO2 is the primary green house gas. Those are not in dispute.


Or even better. - not at all?

 

Agreed which is why it is just a distraction even more so than cow farts and breathing.


Water Vapor

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it displays a significant continuum absorption. Thus, while not one of the “gases of concern” in the sense of anthropogenic modification, the feedbacks engendered by the higher water content of a warmer atmosphere (and, potentially, greater cloud cover) are a vital element of these studies. Furthermore, water vapor, through continua centered at 100 and 1600 cm-1, is a crucial element in the radiative balance of the upper troposphere. TES routinely measures humidity (water vapor) profiles with a precision better than 10%.

Methane

Although the abundance of methane (CH4) is tiny compared with carbon dioxide, it is a far more potent warming agent. Methane also contributes to tropospheric ozone production. Monitoring of methane (CH4) is a secondary goal for TES.

It has been shown that TES is sensitive to the methane column. The column that can be derived has the most sensitivity between 300 and 400 mb. TES has a relatively small footprint size – meaning more homogeneous pixels allowing for higher probability of cloud-free pixels, and TES's infrared wavelengths allow some CH4 retrievals to occur even in the presence of clouds. In addition, TES does not require a high surface albedo to detect CH4, and does not need to assume an air mass factor based on CO2, which may vary with CH4. Finally, TES profiles contain some vertical information for CH4 (rather than containing only column averaged information).

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming. Carbon monoxide is an ozone precursor, and also reacts with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the atmosphere, reducing their abundance. As OH radicals reduce the lifetimes of many strong greenhouse gases (such as methane), CO indirectly increases the global warming potential of these gases.

 

I think whether climate change is real or not is not is not the issue. Yeah sure, humans don’t help the environment. The issue is what we do with that information. Do we use it to increase regulations and decimate whole industries because they aren’t “green enough,” which has second and third order effects for an economy that relies on fossil fuels and the stability of these industries — or do we allow people to innovate and let the economy and market trend towards green at a pace that ensures quality of life for the entire populace without hindering these industries? Also, the military’s job is to eliminate our enemies, not partake in climate change politics.

 

Admitting we have a problem is the first step. That took far too long because of the entrenched interests, their absurd arguments/distractions and the flat earthers.

Like coal? Dead man walking. How about we lead the world in creating whole industries and high paying jobs?

To eliminate enemies you have to identify them, their vulnerabilities and have the means to overwhelm them. It appears you are still in the denial phase.

 

Valid statistics or not, rhetoric like this will not obtain the funding that activists seek. Nobody has ever been insulted into handing over money or votes. Persuasion takes longer, but works better.
Of course, opponents also display bad manners, but the resulting stalemate is what they want anyway.

 

Al Gore and others tried what you suggest. Tough love is necessary sometimes. When confronting entrenched interests like Big Oil playing nice simply doesn't work no matter how overwhelming the evidence as is the case here.

What is interesting is the human capacity for self-delusion even with folks whose profession is science-based and data driven. Hopefully, people will see and learn from how easily they have been manipulated.

 

The irony is the liberals killed the only industry that has the capacity to reverse climate change, nuclear.

Solving the China issue is simply not going to happen either.

 

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl & Fukushima, the nuclear waste and other cost issues had a little something to do with it. Stubborn facts darn it.

 

You've been spouting your viewpoint as if it's fact, with little to no push-back in the last couple of pages. Probably because most of us realize it's pointless to argue this with folks like you, but I can't help myself.

There is no proof that humans are responsible for whatever is happening to the global climate. The theory that we, as a species, can take actions that can control the global climate for better or worse is a farce. Global climate variations happen throughout the history of our planet - long before we got here. We're not causing it - we can't stop it. It's amazing that so many can develop the hubris required to actually buy into the idea that we have the ability to control our global climate. Be a good local steward? Sure. Reduce emissions.... help clean the air around LA or Beijing? Sure. Don't dump bad stuff in our waters? Sure.
Cool off the planet? Uhh....yeah - good luck with that.

Carry on.... windmills are over that hill......