Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[eznutz]

water vapour is a feedback, it alone can't change the climate of the planet.

Unless NOAA has gone off the reservation, I think they would have an issue with that statement.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php

The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher, leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'.

However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change.

 

[**Sophie**]

Do you live in the clouds?

I must lol. The clouds of reality.

So you now confirm that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, or anthropogenic climate change when its from human activity.

"Anthropogenic" is human activity, period!

 

[eznutz]

"Anthropogenic" is human activity, period!

It sure is

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

[Frankfooter]

Let's see if I have this right.

The climate researchers say the temperature could increase by 1ºC over the next 100 years or so.

Wrong.

But you're saying the "confirmed" part we should be worried about is the warming directly caused by CO2, which Fuji's paper says is about 10 per cent of that total number. That would be an increase of 0.1ºC over the next 100 years.

Wrong.

That's what you're worried about? A worldwide temperature change of 1/10th of a degree over the next 100 years?

Wrong.

You might want to reconsider your position on the water vapour feedback.

Wrong again.

Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Unless NOAA has gone off the reservation, I think they would have an issue with that statement.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php

Check your quote again.
Note the use of the words:

Feedback Loop

Then, do a little research so you understand what that means and why your post only shows how little you understand.

Or, if you prefer to do a moviefan, continue to post the same statement over and over again and think it makes you look smart.
Either way, you're wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

I must lol. The clouds of reality.




"Anthropogenic" is human activity, period!

Agreed.
Congratulations on getting one correct.

 

[eznutz]

Check your quote again.
Note the use of the words:

Feedback Loop

Then, do a little research so you understand what that means and why your post only shows how little you understand.

Or, if you prefer to do a moviefan, continue to post the same statement over and over again and think it makes you look smart.
Either way, you're wrong.

Your statement was "water vapor alone can't change the climate", NOAA would disagree.
water vapor is the most critically important factor for climate change, not man made CO2.
Your notion of a "POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP" where increasing temperatures due to AGW means more water vapor evaporating, means more heat is not backed up by any evidence, cause there is none.

 

[**Sophie**]

Agreed.
Congratulations on getting one correct.

Awesome, that's one more correct than you :whoo:

 

[Frankfooter]

Your statement was "water vapor alone can't change the climate", NOAA would disagree.
water vapor is the most critically important factor for climate change, not man made CO2.
Your notion of a "POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP" where increasing temperatures due to AGW means more water vapor evaporating, means more heat is not backed up by any evidence, cause there is none.

Its basic science.

Go take a shower with the fan off and doors closed.
It'll get misty, but that mist won't stay in the air.
Water vapour doesn't last long in the atmosphere by itself.

In winter, the air doesn't hold as much moisture or water vapour, in the heat of summer it holds more.
Water vapour changes as a result of temperature increases in a lasting form.

Increase the heat of the planet's atmosphere and it can hold more moisture.
So yes, water vapour changes the climate, but it does so as an effect of other changes, not as a primary driver.

 

[fuji]

Nice try. The figure cited is not the "net impact" of additional CO2.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade figure is 10 per cent of the total from all sources, such as clouds and water vapour -- not the combined "net impact."

It's only 10 per cent because it's only the amount that is "solely" due to CO2, which is what I have been telling you all along.

You got it completely wrong.

But look on the bright side. I helped you save $32. :thumb:

"They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing "

Radiative forcing is net. It's the total excess energy. Total. And it is the radiative forcing that CO2 increased.

 

[Moviefan-2]

"They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing "

Radiative forcing is net. It's the total excess energy. Total. And it is the radiative forcing that CO2 increased.

The 0.2 Watts figure was for CO2 alone. That's why the figure was only 10% of the total.

The warming from CO2 alone is too small to worry about. The paper does nothing to confirm the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So yes, water vapour changes the climate, but it does so as an effect of other changes, not as a primary driver.

No one said it was a primary driver. What I said was that the bulk of the warming in the models is due to water vapour.

Fuji's paper only spoke to the warming that is directly caused by CO2 -- an amount that is too small to worry about.

 

[Frankfooter]

Awesome, that's one more correct than you :whoo:

You do realize that you were agreeing with my post, don't you?

 

[Frankfooter]

The 0.2 Watts figure was for CO2 alone. That's why the figure was only 10% of the total.

The warming from CO2 alone is too small to worry about. The paper does nothing to confirm the AGW hypothesis.

The paper confirms that putting CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change.
That confirms AGW.

You are just being a troll and trying to move the goal posts.

 

[eznutz]

So yes, water vapour changes the climate, but it does so as an effect of other changes, not as a primary driver.

Water vapour is ~95% of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the remaining ~5% is made up of ~3.5% CO2, ~0.4% CH4 , ~1% N2O & ~0.1% CFC's.
Of that 3.5% in CO2, naturally occurring CO2 is ~3.4% and man made is ~0.1% of total atmospheric greenhouse gas.

Are you saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2 in our atmosphere is the "primary driver" of global warming.

If no, please explain what you think the "primary driver" of climate change is because it seems you're saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2, which is "apparently adding" .2 watts/m2/decade of extra heat, is responsible for 100% of our current climate change.

 

[Frankfooter]

Water vapour is ~95% of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the remaining ~5% is made up of ~3.5% CO2, ~0.4% CH4 , ~1% N2O & ~0.1% CFC's.
Of that 3.5% in CO2, naturally occurring CO2 is ~3.4% and man made is ~0.1% of total atmospheric greenhouse gas.

Are you saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2 in our atmosphere is the "primary driver" of global warming.

If no, please explain what you think the "primary driver" of climate change is because it seems you're saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2, which is "apparently adding" .2 watts/m2/decade of extra heat, is responsible for 100% of our current climate change.

Here's a student level page on the greenhouse effect.
Start reading this one first.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-gases.html

If you manage to understand all of that page, then try the wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If you make it all the way through that page, try the wiki page on greenhouse gases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If you manage to understand that you can prove it by framing your question with a basic understanding of what you are asking.

 

[**Sophie**]

You do realize that you were agreeing with my post, don't you?

Frank you do realize you didn't even know what anthropogenic means, don't you?

So you now confirm that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, or anthropogenic climate change when its from human activity.[/SIZE]

In Sesame Street English there is no need to add human caused before OR after Anthropogenic. It already is.

 

[eznutz]

Here's a student level page on the greenhouse effect.
Start reading this one first.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-gases.html

If you manage to understand all of that page, then try the wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If you make it all the way through that page, try the wiki page on greenhouse gases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If you manage to understand that you can prove it by framing your question with a basic understanding of what you are asking.

I already understand the greenhouse effect, the question is "are you saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2 in our atmosphere is the "primary driver" of global warming"

That's what I want to know and you are avoiding the question.

 

[**Sophie**]

I already understand the greenhouse effect, the question is "are you saying that the 0.1% portion of man made CO2 in our atmosphere is the "primary driver" of global warming"

That's what I want to know and you are avoiding the question.

This right here is the meat and potatoes of this whole debate! I would love to know Franks answer as well

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank you do realize you didn't even know what anthropogenic means, don't you?

Let me help you with your english comprehension skills.
I said:

So you now confirm that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, or anthropogenic climate change when its from human activity.

As in:
So you now confirm that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, or as we call it, anthropogenic climate change when its from human activity.

The first use of 'climate change' just states that CO2 causes climate change. The second half of the sentence clarifies that use of climate change to include the term 'anthropogenic' when that climate change is attributed to human activity.