What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
275 Comments
- novenator, on 07/03/2009, -35/+72^ I see some people like to stick their heads deep in the sand
- novenator, on 07/03/2009, -15/+51Let me ask you, how does it feel to deny science? What kind of a person believes that the creation museum speaks the truth and that the Sun orbits the Earth? I want to know, because 97% of the worlds climatologists agree that man made global climate change is a fact.
- Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -14/+44"Every leading scientist in the world has come out and said global warming is junk science"
Really? Every leading scientist has come out against global warming? Hmmmm, yeah would you care to present some evidence of this?
"So, let me ask you why you believe in junk science that has been proven a hoax? "
Because it hasn't been proven a hoax by anybody, all the evidence is pointing towards human caused global warming. You are lying when you claim global warming has been proven a hoax. ALL the evidence shows it is a real and serious problem.
"If man was a problem to the earth there wouldn't be Creation or the intelligence to come as far as we have in humanity."
Ummmm what? The technologies which caused this issue didn't exist 200 years ago. Why would it be a problem for us to have evolved if the cause of global warming didn't exist for 99.9% of humanities' existence.
"Hmmm, where would we all be without the invention of the wheel...?"
The Incans seemed to do pretty damn nicely without it. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -10/+39Oh, you mean the ice age that was mentioned in a NON-SCIENTIFIC magazine, which wasn't cited. Yeah... scientists were really expecting an ice age. Nice to see you can cherry pick and not bother to look into what you're saying.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -3/+32What the ***** does your comment have to do with the topic?
- AgeofMastery, on 07/03/2009, -10/+36Keep spewing the insults and f bombs le0pardess. You're really impressing us with that intellect.
- Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -8/+34@IntlGunslinger
Wow, you are an *****. You're doing a tough job and I think it's ***** you have to be in Afghanistan, but you do understand that people can focus on multiple issues at once right and maybe some issues can be of equal importance?
As for your temperatures and rainfall in Afghanistan, that's nice, but your anecdote ignores the fact that global warming doesn't occur equally. You know that right? Climate patterns are changing, but the WORLDWIDE average temperature is steadily rising. Weather patterns are changing, and more extreme weather is occurring and climates are being altered. The GLOBAL AVERAGE is rising, so taking any one specific data point like Afghanistan is like trying to draw a whole elephant from one of its skin cells. - novenator, on 07/03/2009, -5/+30Leo, "Every leading scientist in the world has come out and said global warming is junk science."
Prove it. You don't a clue what you're talking about. Further, your insults are weak and only demonstrate the lack of strength in your arguments. - drmangrum, on 07/03/2009, -19/+44Nobody denies Climate Change. However, there are differing opinions on ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change. The earth has been steadily warming since 1650, The Little Ice Age. Before then, the Earth was on a cooling trend since the 1300's, The Medieval Warm Period. Incidentally, the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period are almost exactly the same as they are now.
The so-called "deniers" don't deny anthropogenic climate change because they're pro-oil, anti-planet, anti-green, whatever. They deny it because there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that points exclusively to it. None. Never has been. The people who have a hard-on over climate change are the first one to call people who don't think like they do as "anti-science." The ironic thing is, science is all about doubt. It's about asking questions. Why does the Cult of Green feel so threatened by those who are asking questions and casting doubt? Why do they feel the need to belittle and shout down those who show evidence contrary to their beliefs, and they are beliefs.
Here are some facts for you to digest:
Water Vapor is a far more effective green house gas than CO2 and it compromises upwards of 66%, 85% if you consider clouds (depending on location) of green house gas composition. Why are factories and nuclear power plants not forced to condense their steam output before releasing it to the environment?
Methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as a green house gas. Methane levels have increased by 250% since 1750, CO2 has increased by 38%.
Then you have to consider the research that has shown that CO2 increases TRAIL behind temperature increases, not the other way around. The trailing effect can be by as much as 800 years. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -13/+37I assume you meant to say that it is a "slang word" not a "slang". Also, while "outta" is indeed a slang word, you didn't use it correctly.
http://www.englishdaily626.com/slang.php?088
Please feel free to demonstrate your intellectual superiority by sending some more profanity my way. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -10/+33Let's see... where did those claims come from? Time magazine, New York Times, and Newsweek, none of them are scientific sources. They do not provide the names of ANY scientists who agreed with the claim that global cooling was going to continue. In fact, all of the scientists Time interviewed agreed that the average temperature was going to increase and that global warming was going to happen. You can look at the published work from the 70s and see that there was many times the number of scientific papers published warning of global warming than global cooling.
"Perhaps you can catch the next fad if you pay attention to something other than youself....*****."
Yeah... I really was paying attention to a fad rather than finding out the ACTUAL FACTS of the issue. yeah... I'm the *****. You're just parroting some ***** claim that you've heard from a thousand people without bothering to look into the information on your own... Yeah... I'm the total ***** in this situation... /s - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -8/+31IntlGunslinger - I thank you for your service. I have 2 brothers there also.
By the way, one can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -14/+36le0pardess - the word is "ought". As in you "ought" to think twice before insulting someone else's intelligence.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -6/+27As Illinois becomes hotter, it begins to float towards the southern part of the country.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -34/+53Fortunately, poll after poll shows that not only do Americans believe in the science of climate change, they also support doing something about it.
The dead-enders such as the conservatives are a dying breed. Almost literally. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -19/+38You do realize they are talking about it being an increase on average right? Not every year is identical, however the AVERAGE will be increasing. Further this is only June, I don't know about Boston, but in most places the hottest months are in July and August, so you can't really start making claims about this year and how hot it is going to get.
- Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -9/+26Wow, so basically what you're saying is that you have never bothered to study the issue at all, but since you're doing something you consider really important you're right. It doesn't matter what the evidence actually says or what the impact of not addressing climate change might be, because you're doing something important!!! That makes sense.. or not. We are arguing about facts, not what you consider to be important, and considering you have no clue what ANYBODY else does for a job, you are just making an ad hominem attack so you don't have to address the issue.
Pre-judging people and choosing to be an ignorant ass who tries to make claims about something he knows nothing about... yeah you fit a pretty damn accurate image of an *****. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -10/+27Scarlett darlin', I'm not the one who started insulting other people's intellect.
- drmangrum, on 07/03/2009, -2/+19Science isn't done with polling. If you truly wish to use science in your argument, then you must support the asking for questions and continued skepticism.
When you politicize the issue, you are no longer in the real of science. - eir574, on 07/03/2009, -6/+22"Facts are what you make of them. "
No, facts are facts, and you choose what to make of them.
" Global warming is not an issue that concerns me at the moment, but the fact that the government constantly lies about world events at every given moment does make me pause from moment to moment. "
Um, okay. I'm concerned about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, so I've decided that North Korea poses absolutely no threat to us and need not be dealt with right now. - kingnova, on 07/03/2009, -4/+20Wow, lying about being in Afghanistan for sympathy points.
Hard to top for douchebaggery. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -3/+18Seattle set their personal record this year of 29 days straight without a drop of rain.
We normally dont get nice summers and often have to plan things until August where we know we'll have one or two solid weeks of 80 degree weather. It ALWAYS rains the day before or on 4th of July, but that aint happening this year. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -18/+32The hilarious thing is, not only will global warming deniers deny the fact that global warming is man-made, but because their opinion is backed by ideology, so they'll even deny that global warming even exists.
- rover, on 07/03/2009, -6/+19And yet the analysis doesn't change significantly when it is based on just the best sited stations
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ncdcsurfaces ...
and the temperature based on surface stations is remarkably similar to the satellite based measurements even though they are really measuring different things,
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/04/commo ... - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -3/+16Awww rather than argue based on fact you prefer to insult, that's sweet.
Sorry, but insults really mean nothing, facts are what matter. You haven't bothered to present a single one, nor have you bothered to study something you feel the need to call ***** on. Global warming is real, and there is absolutely no reason for scientists to lie about it. Climatologists are paid for being right, not for promoting an agenda. All of science is the search for the most correct answer. If a scientist has the empirical evidence to disprove global warming which fits in with what we know about climatology, then fine global warming isn't happening, but not a single denialist has managed to make a valid claim against global warming. Anybody who disproved global warming would win a Nobel Prize. Any climatologist would absolutely LOVE to disprove global warming, but that hasn't happened. All the global data shows human caused global warming is real. - ozydingo, on 07/03/2009, -11/+23Honest inquiry, rightwing, could you tell me where you got the info regarding predictions / warnings of an ice age that you refer to?
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/03/2009, -6/+18Right on schedule, the "weather is the same as climate" post.
- pacerx, on 07/03/2009, -5/+17Local weather is not analogous to global climate.
- Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -9/+21"You're asking me to provide you with "the percent of studied climatologists who disagree" after I provided you with 1 and several other highly educated and skilled in the field."
You've provided me with 1 trained person in weather, not even climatology, who agrees that we need to act to deal with climate change and a bunch of non-climatological professionals, and a claim that "700 scientists" disagree with global warming. Physicists don't have training in climatology, biologists don't have training in climatology, most scientific fields provide zero training on climatology. Even though they are scientists their opinion is about as informed as the average layman without the proper training in the field.
"several other highly educated and skilled in the field"
No, you provided a meteorologist and a bunch of scientists with no training in climatology.
"Also, why is it the rest of the world knows it's ***** except you and all of the hair-brained, pill popping CONgress/Executive branch"
Ummm, what rest of the world? The rest of the world is trying to combat global warming as best possible. Most of the world accepts global warming. The US is pretty much alone in its deny of climate change. Europe is working hard to combat global warming. Remember the Kyoto protocols? Signed by every country except us that said global warming was a real danger.
"(see WSJ link I posted above)"
Yes, the WSJ. That's a scientific publication right? One that doesn't have a massive known bias right? Oh.. wait, it isn't a scientific publication, and it has a huge bias. Try getting your information from SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.
"Doing a few hours research to the opposition of the new global religion by over 700 different scientists will do you a world of good for your bank account"
That list is about as a valid argument against global warming as the list the Discovery Institute tried making of scientists who disagree with evolution. I would love to see this list and how many actual trained climatologists are on this list. Plus you're talking about 700 scientists out of how many? How many fields do the people on the list represent? If they take people from every field and put them on the list, it literally becomes 700 out of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of scientists. That is a fraction of a percent of total scientists.
"P.S. If you can find the time to step outside the box, you might want to read and research the Mandatory Home Inspections Under the CLIMATE BILL that is going to occur (aka cap & trade) Here's a good start for you http://digg.com/d1vZ9Z?e How's that Fourth Amendment gonna work out for us, and where in the hell is the money going to come from? Bingo! Amerikans. And another thing, since people like yourself are so hellbent on the new world religion...come back and see me in 6 months if the traitor bill passes and let me know how much money you have left."
None of this is an argument against the validity of climate change. All you are saying is you don't like what people are doing to combat climate change, it doesn't say anything about the validity of the science which demonstrates global warming is real. - ozydingo, on 07/03/2009, -5/+16rightwing
Why have you not answered my question? How was the global cooling material taught, and with what sources?
I have made no claims regarding the veracity of global warming. I have gone as far as to say that *so far as I have read* I have not seen much global cooling evidence in the scientific literature. Yet as I have appeared to be in a position against yours, you resort to insulting me rather than answering my honest inquiry?
Do you at least agree that the news media is not necessarily an accurate representation of current scientific literature? I am not attempting to say those media outlets were lying, I am simply stating that they have a tendency to sensationalize and should not be trusted absolutely. And for the record, no, neither should scientific publications; but I put more trust in them than in news media to give me the full story within the scope of the research.
And for the record, I have read many of the links and articles that attempt to debunk global warming that I find on Digg, which, interestingly, is the only place I really ever run into them. I will reserve comment for now lest this thread take on too many side-points. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -9/+20"Quite frankly, your points are moot and you still haven't done your homework"
Do explain why my points are moot? Am I wrong to question the validity of a politician's list? Inhofes' list which, after doing a little homework :), is only 400 people long and is filled with economists, mathematicians, TV weather men, and paid industry scientists, and scientists from fields which would never give them the training/basic understanding necessary to understand climatology. Given how many fields that list encompasses that number is a FRACTION OF A FRACTION of the total number of people in those fields. Was the quote by the ONE actual weather scientist saying that she believes we should actually do exactly what Gore and the IPCC says we should do a lie?
So, please, instead of dismissing what I've said outright explain why my points are moot. Demonstrate some evidence of your claim that the rest of the world's governments have stopped worrying about global warming.
"Now, go back to sleep and remember how all of your hailed, lying climatologists are going to save you, your family, our nation and your pocket book from humanity."
For what possible reason would climatologists be lying about global warming? They're scientists and scholars. There is no windfall for the information they generate, and their entire reputations are based on the accuracy of their work. You are talking about a global conspiracy in a massive group of people who have every reason not to lie about their work. You're talking about the doctoring of countless pieces of evidence.
"P.S. come back and see me in 6 months if the traitor bill passes and let me know how much money you have left after global warming burns it all up, everyone is jobless and homeless, while your climatologists are yachting with the A/C cranked."
lol so apparently climatologists are Bond villains? You are ascribing some insane super villain habits upon a bunch of frumpy scholars. Climatologists don't have meetings in volcanoes, they're academics. They don't care where the evidence takes them, all they're going for is the most accurate models and predictions. They're not going to make any money off of global warming.
And again, whatever the government does or does not do about global warming has no bearing on the scientific evidence about global warming. Your argument isn't against the science of climate change. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -4/+14"in the 70's they were predicting an ice age".... WRONG
Popular media was, scientists were not. Right-wingers enjoy using that as "proof" that scientists lie. Learn to research your facts before believing what your party tells you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - jadedsunrise, on 07/03/2009, -3/+13Ah yes, Digg. Where non scientists come together to refute scientific claims , on the basis of ... because they don't...want to?
i think some people need to stop saying "global warming is a myth" and ask themselves why they feel that way. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -11/+21"Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N."
And how many of these scientists are trained climatologists? Most scientists have zero training in climatology. Show us the number of people actually trained in the field of climatology who disagree with global warming.
Joanne Simpson is a meterologist, not a climatologist, further a quote from her:
"Despite what Joanne Simpson calls "incomplete information", she says "we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.""
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese ENVIRONMENTAL PHYSICAL CHEMIST. Hmmm, I wonder how much climatological training and research he actually has done/had.
Ivar Giaever:: NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST. He is a PHYSICIST, and would have no training to make claims about climatology.
Will Happer: Also not a climatologist. Physicists have as much training in climatology as a circus clown has in brain surgery.
You provided a single scientist with any background in climatology, who supports the efforts to combat climate change, and a bunch with zero background in climatology. Why don't you show us the percent of studied climatologists who disagree with global warming rather than people who are basically laymen in the field. - novenator, on 07/03/2009, -11/+21"all of your hailed, lying climatologists"
So Leo, despite all of the evidence patiently offered in this subthread, you continue to deny the real science. Do you honestly think it's some huge conspiracy that somehow got together many thousands of climatologists from hundreds of cultrues and countries around the planet?
What's obvious to me is that you have no real interest in actual science, and only want to spout off conservative talking points. - amish4play, on 07/03/2009, -2/+11But science is science. Just because you have problems with your elected officials, and some people are looking to profit off of going green does not invalidate the science.
Did you even look at the links? I thought you were all about asking questions, finding the truth. Don't let your hate for the government blind you from real facts. Global warming is real, and it is a global issue that will effect us all in the future. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -15/+24I suggest you watch this video to understand where this myth came from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
It originates in Time magazine, and Time never actually says which scientist were making the claim of a new ice age and all the people interviewed by Time agreed that the climate was going to get warmer in the future. Even back in the 70s there were more scientists predicting global warming than global cooling. - NMRgentleman, on 07/03/2009, -8/+16"poll after poll shows that not only do Americans believe in the science of climate change, they also support doing something about it."
Well, some do. If you were trying to imply that the majority does, I think you're wrong.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol ...
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of U.S. voters now believe human activity is the cause of global warming, while 40% say it is caused by long-term planetary trends."
The number seems to fluctuate slightly over time, with planetary trends sometimes taking the lead. Usually it's about half-and-half. And of course depending on what your "something about it" is, even many of those who think humans are causing global warming might oppose it. - ozydingo, on 07/03/2009, -8/+16I will ask them, in fact, though my mother is unlikely to have paid attention to such news. My father would have however, so I will be interested in what he has to say. Regardless, I hope you would in fact realize not to take news reports of scientists' work as an accurate representation thereof. News is and I imagine has long been about sensationalism and ratings over scientific rigor. They show what's interesting, and what the producers think will make a good story and grab people's attention.
( http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 )
As for your school I obviously cannot say much regarding that so I will simply have to take your word for it. From what I have read thus far, however, it appears to me that if your teachers did indeed teach about predictions of global cooling and an impending ice age, it seems they _may_ have been acting somewhat irresponsibly as it does not seem that such ideas were well-supported in the scientific literature of the time. Not that school teachers really use current scientific literature as their primary sources... so that makes me wonder, were there materials that accompanied this teaching, in the form of textbooks, journal articles, or other? Looking forward to your response. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10Well regardless of what % of the population believes in global warming or not, people are buying solar panels, re-insulating their homes, buying tripple pane windows, hybrid cars, etc, to save money. It cant be any clearer than that.
Global warming, true of false, doesnt matter to me. What we all can use is cleaner air to breathe and water to drink and lets save a few bucks in the process. - cersad, on 07/03/2009, -3/+11After living in Texas for years, I can promise you people of Illinois that our climate ain't much fun.
- Mujokan, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
(Read the whole thing. This is just talking about the US.) - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -13/+21Wow Attila, you do realize that you're looking at ONE SMALL REGION of the Earth, not the global climate temperature. Not a single scientist has said that global warming is going to occur equally at all areas. You're taking a tiny sample section of the globe and saying because that one region has cooled the rest of the Earth is cooling. All of the GLOBAL AVERAGES are showing a constant increase in temperature over the years since the 70s.
The research doesn't even make any claims about global temperatures, it only mentions that one region has experienced increased ice sheets, it makes no claims about global temperature levels. Making any claims about global temperature from that work is basically making ***** up, it wasn't designed to look at global temperatures.
Further, you're quoting directly out of the 1974 Time magazine article, which doesn't give any context to that information. That quote is also 35 years old, our technology and knowledge has improved by leaps and bounds since that time. If I remember correctly more modern science has shown why the ice had increased in Antarctica, and it was due to weather patterns, the whole of Antarctica has increased in temperature, but in an uneven way allowing for one region to have a cooler climate. The question of why the ice sheet increased has already been explained and it still doesn't disprove global warming, nor does it disprove all the actual data which demonstrates global warming. - cersad, on 07/03/2009, -4/+12To leapordess, novenator, and Disgod:
You're all three being very selective in the information you're willing to accept as valid to promote the validity of your argument. Let's be blunt here:
#1) Sen. James Inhofe hails from the great state of Oklahoma that has a tendency to elect congresspeople that embarrass it. He's been campaigning actively against global warming for years, and has been accused multiple times of misrepresenting the claims he makes against it. Quite frankly, he's less qualified than any of the scientists he cites as being opposed to global warming (several of which do not even wish to be on that list) and he's less informed than even Al Gore. He is neither unbiased nor honest, and citing him makes you sound like a partisan hack instead of anyone intelligent
#2) Climate change is a phenomenon that has roots in multiple fields. Trying to dismiss the ability of physicists, chemists, etc. to take part in the debate is pretty cruel, considering that climatologists' models are based heavily on statistical mathematics and the theories of chemistry and physics. Where these scientists' weak points exist are in their (in)ability to extrapolate the physical/chemical phenomena worldwide, but that of course depends on the amount of contact these individuals have had with scientists closely involved in global warming.
#3) rightwingattilla: Let's assume for a moment that you are right, and the whole of the scientific establishment was looking at a potential mini-ice-age for the world. That is not grounds to say that the scientific evidence is wrong. That makes no more sense in my claiming that modern medicine is no good because in the 17th century doctors would treat people by bleeding them. - Dipsomaniac, on 07/03/2009, -5/+13Given that the FIRST thing on his list is "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which is already proved to distort or simply lie about what many of the scientists who appeared in it said, that list doesn't hold up as evidence.
That little embarrassment to film-making is supposed to be one of the prime rebuttals from them, too.
Oh, he also wants to make people think that global cooling was ever considered to be a serious scientific theory. How precious. - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10Using one data point to try and claim global warming isn't happening is like trying to use a single skin cell to draw a blue whale. You can't do it, you need many many data points from all over before you can understand and draw the whole picture.
GLOBAL averages are increasing. Some areas though will get cooler and some hotter, but ON AVERAGE the temperature is increasing. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -3/+11What the ***** are you talking about?
- Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -2/+9"The problem with most of the pro-anthropogenic crowd is, they LOVE to pick and choose which data they look at, and usually, out of context."
Hmmm, that's strange because, in this wonderful place called reality, the denialists are the ones who cherry pick data. Need an example? Watch this video about the "premier" denialist movie and how it cherry picked data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM
And yeah it even debunks some of the claims made by Gore, but it also actually shows what scientists are actually saying not hyped data.Watch the whole video, and then show who cherry picks data.
"We've recently seen a bill passed through congress that was NEVER read. This bill will cost the people BILLIONS of dollars and nobody is even remotely convinced it will have the beneficial outcome that is hoped for. All we know for sure is that congress now has a new revenue stream and that people, like Al Gore, who own businesses designed to buy and sell carbon credits stand to make a lot of money"
Absolutely none of this is an argument against the science of global warming. It is an argument against policy. None of what you state disproves anything about global warming.
"However, when billions of dollars and potentially millions of jobs ( and if Spain is an indicator, lost jobs) are on the line, you don't charge ahead with an incomplete assessment"
Again, not an argument against the science behind global warming.
"The Cult of Green is the primary driving force behind these rash decisions."
Still not an argument against the science behind global warming.
"You have to ask yourself: Why?"
Because, as we all know, climatologists are BOND VILLAINS!!!
"Follow the money."
You do realize that climatologists are not going to make more money for this? There is no huge windfall for them. They do their work for the ACCURACY of their predictions. If they're intentionally misrepresenting data they will be drummed out of the field, and to try and claim that the entire climatological field is in on some conspiracy, you're mad. They're academics, not Bond villains, much to my chagrin. - turbog20, on 07/03/2009, -3/+10Religion is based on faith.
Science is based on fact.
Religion has static beliefs that stay constant over time.
Science has dynamic beliefs that evolve with time.
"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln - Disgod, on 07/03/2009, -3/+10... You think that climatologists haven't figured that out and taken it into account? Water vapor has been taken into account already, and global warming is still happening. Plus there are two things that you fail to take into account regarding water vapor and global warming.
1. Water vapor is pretty much already at its saturation point in the atmosphere, which means it really isn't increasing. It is pretty much a standard, so no changes.
2. CO2 absorbs a different part of the spectrum than water, so all the heat which would have escaped back into space through the water in the atmosphere is absorbed by the CO2, staying in the the atmosphere. -
Show 51 - 100 of 281 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is