Greta Thunberg to Congress: ‘You’re not trying hard enough. Sorry’
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Your assignment:
Define radiative forcing in the context of the greenhouse effect
Define feedback loops in the context of the greenhouse effect
Then explain the physics behind your comical claim as you say "CO2 acts to produce a radiative forcing, while water vapour is strictly a feedback"
No links, no references allowed
You just show exactly what you understand / do not understand
The term "Emergency" was added to provide a mechanism to control... It gives special powers; the ability to do things without vetted reasoning and proof.
(Yes - It makes sense for everyone to limit their environmental impact, reduce waste, etc. as it is common sense...)
(Yes - It makes sense for everyone to limit their environmental impact, reduce waste, etc. as it is common sense...)
Cyanide is extremely electrophilic (highly reactive). It forms a chemical bond with iron atoms which prevents an enzyme from facilitating the transfer of oxygen electrons in cellular respiration.
It is lethal in very tiny quantities because it so reactive. ie a chemical process in which there is a change in chemical structure
CO2 is not very reactive at all without introducing a lot or heat or pressure
CO2 acts as greenhouse gas ( a minor one ) by absorbing Infrared radiation ie a physical process in which there is no change in chemical structure
A comparison of two seperate materials undergoing two completely different processes and then inferring any conclusion is illogical, scientifically invalid and a waste of time
Your understanding of science is next to non-existent
This is grade 9 or grade 10 level , real basic stuff & you get an F
I've been asking you to define those terms for weeks here larue, and already provided answers you couldn't understand.
I know the difference and its clear that you don't know the difference.
Because you are the one claiming that water vapour is more important to climate change than CO2 levels.
That shows that you don't understand the difference between feedback and forcing effects.
Done.
Thank you for confirming my point to CM.
That trace elements can have massive influence on larger bodies.
Cyanide is extremely electrophilic (highly reactive). It forms a chemical bond with iron atoms which prevents an enzyme from facilitating the transfer of oxygen electrons in cellular respiration.
It is lethal in very tiny quantities because it so reactive. ie a chemical process in which there is a change in chemical structure
CO2 is not very reactive at all without introducing a lot or heat or pressure
CO2 acts as greenhouse gas ( a minor one ) by absorbing Infrared radiation ie a physical process in which there is no change in chemical structure
A comparison of two seperate materials undergoing two completely different processes and then inferring any conclusion is illogical, scientifically invalid and a waste of time
Your understanding of science is next to non-existent
This is grade 9 or grade 10 level , real basic stuff & you get an F
You provided nonscientific garbage
I do not think so.
Prove it
Define radiative forcing in the context of the greenhouse effect
Define feedback loops in the context of the greenhouse effect
Then explain the physics behind your comical claim as you say "CO2 acts to produce a radiative forcing, while water vapour is strictly a feedback"
No links, no references allowed
You just show exactly what you understand / do not understand
Water Vapour is the dominate greenhouse gas
Ask any climate scientist
No you are the one who does not understand
You were done the minute you thought you could bullshit your way through a scientific topic
Define radiative forcing in the context of the greenhouse effect
Define feedback loops in the context of the greenhouse effect
Then explain the physics behind your comical claim as you say "CO2 acts to produce a radiative forcing, while water vapour is strictly a feedback"
No links, no references allowed
You just show exactly what you understand / do not understand
Your argument is, was and always will be a waste of time and scientifically invalid
You get an F grade on grade 9 level science material
You are absolutely right with respect to the effect that carbon dioxide has with regards to temperature warming.
water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
The atmosphere is self-limiting in terms of water vapor. If a parcel or volume of air becomes saturated as it is cools, a cloud forms.
Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce.
It is all explained here scientifically in simple layman's terms:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
larue, every time you falsely tried to claim that water vapour is more important to climate change than CO2, which is countless times here, I told you that you don't understand the difference between forcing and feedback.
Here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...g-Since-2005&p=6491734&viewfull=1#post6491734
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ugh-Sorry%92&p=6500685&viewfull=1#post6500685
I could give you a dozen or so more examples on my calling out your lack of understanding, yet here you are, weeks later now trying to claim that I'm the one that doesn't understand it.
Water vapour - feedback effect - add more heat to the atmosphere and water vapour levels increase in a feedback from warming. Add too much water vapour and it rains, making all changes short term and as a result of warming
CO2 - forcing effect - add more CO2 to the atmosphere and more infrared energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere.
You are the one that doesn't understand the difference here.
Failed by the gym teacher, big deal.
Hey larue, do you know the difference in global temperature between an inter-glacial period and an ice age?
Define radiative forcing in the context of the greenhouse effect
Define feedback loops in the context of the greenhouse effect
Then explain the physics behind your comical claim as you say "CO2 acts to produce a radiative forcing, while water vapour is strictly a feedback"
No links, no references allowed
You just show exactly what you understand / do not understand
So if you believe forcing is defined as the absorption of infrared radiation why are you claiming water vapour does not absorb Infrared Radiation?
Water vapour volume concentration is magnitudes greater than CO2 and it absorbs more than CO2 and at more wavelengths in the infrared spectrum
But you choose to ignore any radiative forcing by water vapour
Probably because :
a) you cant tax water vapor
b) you do not at all understand the theory
Water vapour absorbs infrared radiation, yes, but the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a result of how much heat is in the atmosphere. Increase heat, by say, adding more CO2, and that increases water vapour levels.
Note that water vapour in the form of clouds actually decreases the temp by reflecting radiation back into space.
That's the difference, water vapour reacts to changes in temp while CO2 creates changes in temps.
That is what 100% of climatologists understand.
So if absorbs Infrared Radiation, It must have a radiative forcing effect
This not what you claimed.
The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is 2-4% depending upon could formation, altitude, temperature, convection effects and likely a number of other impacts , climate is very chaotic
I believe the temperature sensitivity of water vapour adds maybe 4% per degree
So you are adding squat
Water vapour has a radiative forcing effect and since it is in much higher concentration and absorbs more than cO2 and across more wavelengths. It must be the dominate driver of radiative forces.
Therefore it is by far the most important greenhouse gas
Simple straight forward logic
Which cancels out the positive theoretical feedback loop the IPCC climate models insist on maintaining & the majority of projected warming
It is likely the same relative magnitude as their errors from real data
That is gibberish
As you have stated water Vapour just like C02 absorbs IR, so the higher concentration Water vapour drives the dominating effect of the radiative forcing
if true that is a huge problem for them as well
I suspect some of them understand the way this works, but you certainly do not
No, you still don't understand.
Water vapour is important and does account for 60% of warming from the sun but it cannot control the temperature. Instead, water vapour reacts to changes in temperature, as temps increase the atmosphere can hold more water, but put too much in and it turns into clouds which have a cooling effect since they reflect energy out to space. On top of that, changes in water vapour levels are very temporary. If you put too much in the atmosphere it rains and lowers its own levels.
CO2 is different as it stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Increasing CO2 levels always results in more infrared absorption and more warming. And it builds up, unlike water vapour which cannot build up long term.
That's why CO2 is a forcing on the climate while water vapour changes result as feedback from other warming and cooling.
Some day you'll understand this basic fact.
Because I'm not a scientist, you should also read their explanations as they will be clearer than mine.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Exactly the point. You can't put more water vapour in the air and change the climate, unlike CO2, where we have more than doubled the amount in the atmosphere already.
No I understand quite well
Wrong it accounts for up to 90% of greenhouse effect which is trapping infrared radiation emitted from the earths surface.
It is simply amazing how poorly you understand this
It impedes the escape of Infrared radiation to a far greater extent than Co2
Both molecules absorb Infrared, but water vapour is in much higher concentration and absorbs more than cO2 and across more wavelengths. It must be the dominate driver of radiative forces.
This is straight forward
As I pointed out a 4% increase with each degree of temperature increase. Not a whole lot but as you say, the extra water vapour produces clouds , rain and a cooling effect
Which has the offsetting effect of cancelling out the positive feedback the IPCC claims occurs when extra water vapour absorbs more infrared radiation and increases temperature
You just nullified the feedback loop in the IPCC models, you know the feedback loop which accounts for 2/3 of their prediction
That is so comical
Long term??
The long term concentration of water vapour is 2-4% vs 0.04% Co2
You could add another 0.04% CO2 and the greenhouse effect will still be dominated by water vapour
In addition as I have pointed out absorption has a logarithmic relationship to concentration. diminishing returns with each addition. The 15 micrometer absorbance wavelength (the one everyone is so concerned about) is essentially saturated at 200 ppm CO2
No!
Wake up
Both water & CO2 absorb infrared radiation. Therefore both have a radiative forcing effect.
And due its higher concentration and greater absorption Water Vapour dominates.
No as your basic fact is factually wrong
no where in that article does it state water Vapour strictly drives only a feedback effect , which is your claim
You are not a scientist ?
You did not need to state the obvious
Your complete lack of understanding of this theory and science in general (Cyanide vs Co2) has made it painfully clear you are not a scientist
Water vapour moves in and out of the atmosphere all the time.
Its called rain & evaporation
However the average for the atmosphere is 2-4% (vs 0.04% for CO2)
Besides I never said Water Vapour controls climate
Climate is far to complicated a system to be controlled by any one single input
I have proven CO2 is not the control knob for climate
I hope you are taking notes
Hey, that reads totally like a Trump speech on science!
Well done.
That one bolded statement shows how faulty your Mr Science speech is, larue.
You admit that the long term water vapour levels are only ever 2-4% of the atmosphere, admitting that they can't ever increase drastically long term.
Then you post the CO2 levels we are at now, ignoring that we've nearly doubled those CO2 levels in couple of hundred years.
And you still don't understand the difference between a forcing effect and a feedback effect.
This statement is factually incorrect:
The correct statement would be:Both water & CO2 absorb infrared radiation. Therefore both have a radiative effect.
If water vapour had a feedback effect then adding more water vapour in the atmosphere as the planet has warmed 1ºC would mean that water vapour would amplify those changes even more. Instead, it turns into more rain and more clouds which have a cooling effect and then goes back to its stock 2-4% range in the atmosphere.
You need to do better, Mr Science.
