Lately I've become quite interested in climate science. Or the lack thereof. And I've become ever more sure that the whole CO2 is causing climate change is b.s. Would you like to know why?

How do we know what molecules are greenhouse gasses? The atmosphere is made up of most nitrogen (N2) and it's about 80% of the total atmosphere. Oxygen (O2) is around 20%. Is oxygen and nitrogen greenhouse gasses? No. Why? Because they're paired molecules, and don't have any dipole moment. The greenhouse gasses are water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide. These molecules have dipole moments. Which is just another way of saying that at the molecular level, they vibrate and wiggle. The frequency that they wiggle corresponds to the frequency of the light spectrum that they can absorb.  

Methane can wiggle in a few different ways, and for every way it wiggles, it absorbs a different band of the infrared spectrum. Two of those bands that it absorbs very well is almost absent from the radiation the sun produces, shining down on earth (the visible light spectrum and UV light) and the light that the earth's surface reflects back into space (infrared). One of those bands does, but it's insignificant because water vapor is already absorbing that energy and water vapor is vastly more abundant in the atmosphere than methane. In fact, water vapor accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect.  

CO2 is a linear molecule. O=C=O. CO2 can wiggle in only a few different ways. Wiggle movement #1) The oxygen atoms can spread out and pull in at the same time. This is called symmetric vibration. Wiggle movement #2) one of the oxygen atoms pushes in while the other pushes out. This is asymmetric vibration. Wiggle movement #3/#4) The oxygen atoms can move back and forth together or flap up and down together. Think a bird that's flapping it's wings. Now Wiggle #1 and Wiggle #2 we can completely ignore because the frequency that CO2 can absorb from these movements are nearly absent from our sun. The only thing that matters is Wiggle #3/4, and that movement absorbs infrared frequencies at 15μm. There's some crossover effect, so CO2 is very good at absorbing infrared frequencies between 14-16μm.

Below is a black body emissions curve. The yellow is the frequencies that shine down on earth from the sun. The red are the frequencies that the earth's surface shines back into space. If those frequencies are blocked from reaching space, the earth warms up. So let's look at the distribution curve. If we take a look at a black body radiation curve for the light that is reflected off the surface of the earth, it spans primarily between 4-50μm, peaking around 10μm. When we look at water vapor's absorption of the infrared spectrum, it makes a U shape, with two peaks between 4 and 7μm and a 2nd peak between 14 and 20μm. And oh, did I mention that there's 20 times more water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2? It's 4000 times more abundant than methane. The vast majority of the radiation that CO2 can trap is already being trapped by water vapor.  
 
But doesn't more CO2 still mean more heat is trapped? No, not really. CO2 traps heat at 15μm VERY well. Like it's already getting all that it can get, until poor ole 15μm is plum run out to be trapped. Let's put it this way. Currently, atmospheric CO2 is at 414 parts per million (ppm). Pre industrial it was 285ppm. At 140ppm it's so low that plants begin to suffocate. Well, forget 140ppm, where plants start dying, lets go to a mere 20ppm. Guess what? CO2 is already absorbing 50% of all the infrared at 15μm. 70% at just 40ppm. CO2 sucks up every last bit of 15μm infrared until there's only a itty bitty tiny bit left, and that all happens before we even get enough CO2 for plants not to suffocate. This is called CO2 saturation, and it's why raising CO2 levels is literally nothing to worry about.  
 
So what's causing climate change? Water vapor? Nope. The amount of water vapor in the lower atmosphere has increased by a tiny bit, but in the troposphere, the stratosphere it's actually decreased. Methane has moderately increased, but it's in such small quantities that it's measured in parts per billion instead of parts per million. Is it because we have more ozone? Nope. While ozone is a greenhouse gas, it's not absorbing much from the earth's surface, it's mostly absorbing UV radiation from the sun, and it does so at such high altitudes that it wouldn't effect the warming on the surface of earth.  
 
What we should note is that the temperatures today are not on par with the temperatures in the 1930's when we experienced the dust bowl. Temperatures decreased from the 60s to the 80's, despite that CO2 was going up all this time, and temperatures rose again starting in the 90's. Throughout this time, greenhouse gases have remained fairly steady on average, with moderate increases in methane and a bigger increase in CO2. Human beings are not causing the temperature of the earth to increase. We're just not. CO2 is not causing the warming. Water vapor isn't causing the warming. So what is?

buys not one, but two, oceanfront mansions, it's an admission that the polar ice caps are not going to melt and raise the ocean level anytime soon.  It's just bullshit peddled by the left to control American lives and Industry.  However, conservation issues are a different story.  Think how empty the world would be if the three-titted swamp frog disappeared for good.  

Right now insect populations are being decimated and there’s a lot of other species that rely on them for food.

This Climate Change movement is nothing but a superficial cover for a socialist plan of international income redistribution.

Over 99% of climate scientists agree the reason the planet is heating up is due to human activity.  The burning of fossil fuels is heating the earth and causing more extreme weather. Deny it all you want  in support of your extreme right-wing political agenda, but the science is unequivocal.

climate czar, John Kerry, who flies his wife's inefficient private jet all over the world, leaving a huge carbon footprint.  It uses as much fuel as a newer jet that can carry 80 people.  The Democratic elite have a solid history of wanting the rest of us to make sacrifices in the name of saving the planet, while they do nothing personally to help or set an example.  

You posted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo, BUT you never answered the question:
Climate Change - Is it is or is it ain't man-made?

...or else he's building his own desalination plant in his backyard.

 
Worst drought in 1200 years:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/water-cutbacks-california-6-million-people-drought/

My water bill is over a grand a month now trying to keep my landscaping green.  I'm not complaining, just noticing.  It is what it is.

...or else he wouldn't be trying to keep his landscaping green.  I'd like to see the look on his face when his city installs a flow restrictor at his main shut off valve which will reduce the flow from 30 gal/min. to one gal/min.  His kitchen faucet will still work but he sure won't like the shower pressure and the sprinklers will become essentially nonfunctional.

They DON'T seem to WANT to restrict my use, they just want an excuse to charge me triple or quadruple if I exceed last year's usage level.  I'll pay. Supply and Demand.  I'm not complaining about the price.  If they did what you suggest, I know a guy in construction that has some water trucks. I'll work it out on my own, but no one at the water company is threatening me or asking me to use less, they're just telling me how much of a premium I'm paying for using more.  Okay, they advised me, and I made my decision.  Now, so what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use, act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action."

don't give a shit about the misuse of a resource like water as long as they can get some by hook or by crook.  What he doesn't understand about Suppy and Demand is that if there's NO supply, it doesn't matter about demand.

 
The way CDL talks, I fully expect this type of conversation in a few months:
"Hey, CDL, the poor people have no water!"
CDL: "Let them drink Champagne!!"

 
BTW, I have a friend in the film business who owns water trucks but I would never even consider asking him to give me some.  And I have 100 times more landscaping than CDL does.  It's already staring to turn brown because of decisions I've made to cut back on watering.

Here on the east coast we’ve got plenty of water. Meanwhile desalination of ocean water is expensive. It would be too hard to pump fresh water from the east to the west. Hell, the Great Lakes are right there. There’s plenty of water in the Pacific Northwest too. But instead Democrats over populate a damn desert and then say it’s climate change that’s causing them to run low on water.

The water problem out West is at LEAST as much a Republican problem as a Dem problem. It's a human problem. But Willy has to politicize everything and point fingers.

"Bonus."  It was a BONUS argument, and it was spot on.  People who are living in the desert that can't afford the water bill that goes with it can move somewhere that has cheap water because there is a glut of it.  

globally, but your argument sounds like a good for the likes of Pelosi and John Kerry who fly around the world in private jets.  They are using more than their share of the energy resources.   Why aren't you calling them out?  Got hypocrisy?  BTW, there is no carbon footprint from using water.  

We both have a common problem, and yet we are free to solve in our own way.   I'm willing to pay whatever I have to to keep my landscaping perfect, and  the cheapies of the world can let things die and risk more wildfires.  If you have 100 times more landscaping than me, and you let it die, fire hazard is a reality.  Here's BigP in the future explaining to his neighbors why their house burned down, "Yes, but I was saving water during the drought."   Lol       I would never tell poor people to drink champagne.  They wouldn't appreciate the nuances.  I would tell them to go to Colorado, which has all the water they would ever want, and it's dirt cheap. Snow is free and it eventually turns to water.  Problem solved.

CDL is a Dem? I thought CDL is a Rep rightie.  CDL already admitted that he has zero interest in water conservation and will use as much water as he can pay for until the well is dry ... and then he'll truck in more water from wherever he can get it. "Damn everyone else! My full landscaping ahead!"  
.
Eaton was a Rep, not a Dem:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_water_wars
"As Los Angeles expanded during the late 19th century, it began outgrowing its water supply. Fred Eaton, mayor of Los Angeles, promoted a plan to take water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles via an aqueduct. ..."
.
"Frederick Eaton and William Mulholland were two of the more visible principals in the California water wars. They were friends, having worked together in the private Los Angeles Water Company in the 1880s.[7] In 1886, Eaton became City Engineer and Mulholland became superintendent of the Water Company. In 1898, Eaton was elected mayor of Los Angeles and was instrumental in converting the Water Company to city control in 1902. ..."

As fat as a climate change is concerned, when there is less snow, there is less runoff to fill the reservoirs which are currently at record lows. Higher temperatures mean more evaporation from ALL ground water supplies, including the reservoirs.  
.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61385811
Lake Mead: Shrinking reservoir reveals more human remains
"More human remains have been found in Lake Mead, just one week after the body of a suspected murder victim was found in the rapidly shrinking reservoir. The latest remains were reported to park rangers on Saturday. On 1 May, a body was found in a barrel stuck in the mud of the lake's receding shoreline.  The largest US reservoir, Lake Mead supplies drinking water to 20 million people from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. ... Lake Mead levels have been declining since 2000 - droughts have been getting worse in recent years, with scientists saying climate change is exacerbating the situation. ..."

from snow melt flows down the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers into the sea, not into reservoirs.  If water was such a big deal, they would find a way not to waste a single drop.  

No, he was spot OFF and so are you. How many Republicans are there in CA? Do they use water? How many huge businesses (like farms in the Central Valley, owned in many cases by Republican voters) use GIGANTIC amounts of water? So, yes, I was right to say it's not a Dem or Rep problem, it's everyone's problem.
But if you insist on being dense, who am I to stop you.

that people who can't afford the rising water prices in CA can go many places in this country where water is abundant and cheap.  That's a solution that works for all.

If you want rebut the point, pretend you were arguing something else.
Transparent as always....

Which they might do by cutting off or restricting your water supply from the mains.

to substantiate your claim that the local mountains have a significant amount of runoff.  Please, Can't Do Links, don't cite your usual source - www.IPulledItOutOfMyAss.com.

 
LADWP measures snowpack (which collects through the winter and melts into spring and summer) from February to April along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains. The snow melts into the Los Angeles Aqueduct, a conduit that pulls mountain runoff to the city.

residential service because of usage, only for not paying your bill after due notice.   They can only penalize you financially, and I don't have a problem with that.  What if my same usage was due to me operating a halfway house for 35 illegals, and they all had to take showers every day?  Do you think they would turn off the water?  No, they would just charge more, and once again, I'm okay with paying for what I want.  I have a state of the art, efficient, drip system, so the usage is a lot less than it could be, but because of the size of the property, it's still substantial.  I'm thinking about putting in a gray water recycling system, but I want to see what the usage is going to be this summer first.

"I don't have a clue about it.  I'm just making it up as I go along.  Why do you think I never post links?"

 
Water districts can't shut water off for non-payment, but they can put flow restrictors on your water main if you're using too much water.   Flow restrictors pretty much eliminate your ability to water anything outside.  

 
http://abc30.com/water-flow-restrictors-restrictions-drought-conservation/11922335/

I'm using 60% more than a year ago, but I pay my bills on time, so no one is threatening to do anything to me.  If you have a bunch of customers paying the going rate for water, but you have ONE guy who is using more and paying three times as much for each gallon, why would you want to cut him back as long as he's paying regularly.  If they sell those same gallons to someone else, they will only get one third the price I'm paying.  You must think the water company people are all morons.  What they CAN do is merely academic.  What they WILL or WON'T do is all that matters.  So far, no one is doing anything except taking my money, so what is your point even if you're technically right.  Are you going to say, "Neener, neener, neener." or what?  

Coastal mountains, I can see it every day from my office window, which looks at that South and West faces.  You are correct that the water on the North and East goes into the aqueduct and if routed through the mountain onto the coastal plain where LA sits.  But I am correct in saying that the Southern and Western sides of the mountains runs eventually into the sea from three rivers running through San Bernardino, Riverside, LA and Orange counties from the mountains. The reason, and you probably don't know this, is that the melting snow on THIS side of mountain cannot run up and over the top and down the other side into the aqueduct.  It's this thing called gravity.  

When surveying the snowpack from your office window, how do you tell the difference between 7 inches of snowpack and 70 inches of snowpack? Do you use a long measuring stick? Or do you use some other method?

CDL knows as much about the "snowpack" in SoCal as he does about how a hobbyist can get one of his whitelists removed by TER.

on the mountain visually.  Can't tell from that distance how thick it is, but I think you know that, or at least I would hope so.  As the temperature warms up, the snow disappears from the bottom of the snow line up. Mt. San Antonio is the highest and is usually the last one to lost it's snow in the spring.  Accordingly, it earned the name Old Baldy from early settlers in California because it looks like a bald head.  When the snow melts, it has to go somewhere, right?  There are three major rivers that flow from the mountains to the sea, which I named above.  I will usually cross each of these at least once a week in my driving around SoCal, either for business or pussy.   I have noticed over and over for many years that, as the snow is disappearing from the mountains, these rivers seem to have a much higher water flow than in the summer when there is just a trickle, or even no visible water at all during the hottest months.   Is this by mere coincidence or design of nature?  You decide.  Hope this helps you understand your question about the quantity of snow was irrelevant to my prior post.  Lol

Did somebody mention flow restrictors?
.
http://www.cnn.com/2022/08/28/us/california-water-restriction-enforcement-elam/index.html
August 28, 2022
The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor.
[embedded video - I wonder if CDL's house is in it?]
.
"The pretty, cloudless blue skies over perfectly manicured lawns represent an ugly reality for California's Las Virgenes Municipal Water District as it grapples with the historic megadrought ravaging the American West. Despite a lack of any measurable rain in months, the carpet of lush, green grass likely means homeowners are either not getting the message about the dire need for water conservation, or they are ignoring the warnings.
.
"But now, the water district has found a way to get customers' attention. When customer service representatives are working in the different neighborhoods, they keep an eye out for any water restriction violations. And for repeat offenders, officials are trying something new: adding water restrictors to the pipes, which sharply reduce the home's water supply."
.
"... the snowpack was just 4% of normal, forcing unprecedented restrictions. Las Virgenes is only getting 5% of its requested water supplies this year. ..."
.
"... "It's not meant to be punitive," McNutt said. "It's meant to tell people ... this drought is incredibly serious and what we need you to do is do your part." McNutt added Las Virgenes is leading by example in California as it is "using these flow restriction devices for conservation purposes." "We're kind of leading this charge moving forward of how do we get people to stop using so much water with the advancement of climate change.""

What a grade A shit hole. Instead of wasting countless resources on woke policies they could have invested in water desalination. When you’re so goofy left wing you can’t keep people from dying of dehydration then, well…maybe this will just be evolution working it’s magic. Speaking of Democrats, if Biden can bail out gender studies majors, then why can’t he bail out his buddies in California? You’d think he’d have the backs of the state that provided him with the most electoral votes. What we don’t have money for the Army Corps of Engineers to pipe fresh water in from rainy Seattle? Remind me, how much money are we sending to Ukraine every month?

Yeah, and if we go to Zero Emissions, Kerry says it won't matter. So I guess he's thinking what does it matter? How about all that money we gave to China and India under the Parris climate accords to "TRY and lower emissions?