Greta Thunberg to Congress: ‘You’re not trying hard enough. Sorry’

[Frankfooter]

You are confused, lying or both
Explain the difference between
1. a forcing effect and
2. a radiative forcing effect.
In the context of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

Climate forcing = changes the climate
Radiative forcing = adds energy

In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."[5] In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

you explicitly stated water vapour feedback is a negative feedback,

Bullshit, I specifically stated that water vapour is a feedback effect on the climate, not 'negative feedback'.
Feedback because water vapour levels in the atmosphere change only with the global temperature changing, not the other way around.
Get it straight.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect,
The global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions

Wrong again, as a feedback effect when humans increase CO2 levels which increases the global temperature that allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour.

It is clear as day Co2 does not drive the climate

Repeating an incredibly wrong claim over and over again won't ever make it correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

You will not find any credible definition of the scientific method which allows for judgement based adjustments to empirical data

Which is why my arguments hold water whereas yours are just faulty reasoning.
'Cuz they aren't my 'arguments' they are the findings of the IPCC, which summarizes all the science on climate change.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

Again with the character assassination on Roy Spencer. Well i guess you have nothing else to contribute

Its not character assassination, its noting that the work of Christy and Spencer is shoddy and fault ridden.
Read about it

you are pathetic

Insults will get you banned.

ignoring the issues with the surface temperature graph is irrespsonsible and just plain disingenuous
1. Your guy @ climate liers dot com who you posted as an authority was quite clear That the critical absorption takes place in the atmosphere

Character assassination, not backed up.

2. The greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere

And on the surface where humans live, which is why the projections and measurements are made on the surface. I'm surprised you didn't just post a chart of the temperature on the moon, where there has been no climate change at all, or how about at the bottom of the ocean? Why compare surface temps to temperatures in the clouds, where there is a 40ºC difference?

3. The surface record covers only 20-30% of the planets surface

It covers oceans as well. FAIL.

4. the Satellite data is not contaminated by the Urban Island Heat effect

Either are surface temps now.

5. The satellite data is confirmed by two independent weather balloon data sets

Christy/Spencer readings are quite different from RSS readings, which are also satellite.

I have an understanding of the science
You have propaganda

You have basic errors, decade old junk articles, 1 shoddy satellite set, faulty understanding of forcing vs feedback and a community here of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theory kooks backing you.
279 protests in Canada alone on Friday were all about protesting people like you.
Every legit scientific agency and 99% of climatologists think people like you are kooks.

Try and read the reports out this year, instead of your decade old denier posts.
https://research.un.org/en/climate-change/reports

 

[JohnLarue]

Climate forcing = changes the climate
Radiative forcing = adds energy

Wrong


Funny how you ou left out the link to your wikipedia definition.
I wonder why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."[5] In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

Here is the part you left out

Radiative forcing or climate forcing is the difference between insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.[1] The influences that cause changes to the Earth's climate system altering Earth's radiative equilibrium, forcing temperatures to rise or fall, are called climate forcings.[2] Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling.

If you define CO2 as having radiative forcing effects , then you must also define water vapour as having radiative forcing effects.
They are both covalently bonded, 3-atom molecules
Both absorb infrared radiation
Both have the same vibrational and rotational modes required for absorption of infrared radiation
They even share some of the same absorption wavelengths
Both are gases present in the greenhouse gas theory


Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not

Bullshit, I specifically stated that water vapour is a feedback effect on the climate, not 'negative feedback'.
Feedback because water vapour levels in the atmosphere change only with the global temperature changing, not the other way around.
Get it straight.

Cooling is a negative feedback as per the IPCC
And you said it would have a cooling effect as per your quote below
You have no shame

Originally Posted by Frankfooter
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.

You made the opposing argument to the IPCCs positive feedback
Again you do not understand what you lecture about

Wrong again, as a feedback effect when humans increase CO2 levels which increases the global temperature that allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour.

You just contradicted yourself by replying and attempting to refute what you posted.
You thought I posted the wikipedia def, but it was your link
Just arguing for argument's sake are you?

Post 176

Originally Posted by Franfooter

No, I said that water vapour does not have a forcing effect on the climate, its a feedback effect.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime[20] (about 10 days).[26] Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation.[20] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.[20]

You can not keep track of what you say
This is getting beyond ridiculous
How much do you want to be humiliated?

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong


Funny how you ou left out the link to your wikipedia definition.
I wonder why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."[5] In the context of climate change, the term "forcing" is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).

I know your html formatting skills are worse then my cat's, but I do find it fricking hilarious that you copied the full paragraph into the post and didn't realize that the entire paragraph is actually a link to the wiki page from whence it came.
Hilarious, or is that formatting too much for your Windows 3.0 computer?

Here is the part you left out

If you define CO2 as having radiative forcing effects , then you must also define water vapour as having radiative forcing effects.

That 'if' is there because that's not the way you define 'forcing effects' when you are talking climate change, as we have been and as noted in the linked quote I posted for you.

Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not

Sure, tell me the radiative forcing of the molecule SiO2 vs CO2.

Cooling is a negative feedback as per the IPCC
And you said it would have a cooling effect as per your quote below

I said that while water vapour warms the atmosphere when it turns to clouds it has a cooling effect, not that all water vapour has a cooling effect.
That makes me think you're more dishonest than clueless, but I'm still not sure.

You just contradicted yourself by replying and attempting to refute what you posted.

No, you just still are not smart enough to understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects in climatology.
I keep trying to explain it to you but.....

Post 176

Holy shit, your html formatting skills are way worse than my cat's. And my cat is dead.
You do realize that the part that you put in quotations formatted like this is actually something you said, not me:

[20] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.[20]

You are the one who said that totally incorrect statement, not me and not wiki. That was a quote from you I was correcting and here you are trying to claim I said it.
Holy shit that's hilariously inept.

Here's the full quote from the post on this page of this thread.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect,
The global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions

You can not keep track of what you say
This is getting beyond ridiculous
How much do you want to be humiliated?

I agree, this is getting beyond ridiculous.
You should apologize for accusing me of saying something so incredibly wrong that it could only have come from your DOS machine.

 

[JohnLarue]

I know your html formatting skills are worse then my cat's, but I do find it fricking hilarious that you copied the full paragraph into the post and didn't realize that the entire paragraph is actually a link to the wiki page from whence it came.
Hilarious, or is that formatting too much for your Windows 3.0 computer?

You left out the link & the important pieces

That 'if' is there because that's not the way you define 'forcing effects' when you are talking climate change, as we have been and as noted in the linked quote I posted for you.

That is the way you defined it
You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

They are both covalently bonded, 3-atom molecules
Both absorb infrared radiation
Both have the same vibrational and rotational modes required for absorption of infrared radiation
They even share some of the same absorption wavelengths
Both are gases present in the greenhouse gas theory


Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C03 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

Sure, tell me the radiative forcing of the molecule SiO2 vs CO2.

Sio2 is a solid at ambient temp and pressure.
Like so much you post it is nonsense and irrelevant to the physics at hand

I said that while water vapour warms the atmosphere when it turns to clouds it has a cooling effect, not that all water vapour has a cooling effect.
That makes me think you're more dishonest than clueless, but I'm still not sure.

too bad the IPCC has the complete opposite view and the feedback loop you just stated removes 2/3 of their projected warming
It does not matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it is still a pig and you said it

You really do need to stop pretending you know anything about science
You are just cementing your reputation

No, you just still are not smart enough to understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects in climatology.
I keep trying to explain it to you but.....

Holy shit, your html formatting skills are way worse than my cat's. And my cat is dead.
You do realize that the part that you put in quotations formatted like this is actually something you said, not me:

You are the one who said that totally incorrect statement, not me and not wiki. That was a quote from you I was correcting and here you are trying to claim I said it.
Holy shit that's hilariously inept.

Post 179
It looks like your dead cat is still the brains of the family

Originally posted by Frankfooter.

No, I said that water vapour does not have a forcing effect on the climate, its a feedback effect.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime[20] (about 10 days).[26] Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation.[20] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.[20]

I agree, this is getting beyond ridiculous.

Yes it is
Stop with the futile attempts to lie your way through a scientific discussion
1. The science always wins
2. Despite your 30K posts of bovine scatology, you are a real shitty lair

 

[Frankfooter]

You left out the link & the important pieces

Wrong twice in one sentence.
Go to post #183 (check it out, that's a link, its red).
In post 184 click on the red paragraph and it takes you right to the wiki source page.
Its a fucking link!

That is the way you defined it
You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

No, that is completely correct in terms of climatology.

Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C03 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

Done!
(hey, its another fucking link!)
By the way, WTF is CO3?

Sio2 is a solid at ambient temp and pressure.
Like so much you post it is nonsense and irrelevant to the physics at hand

Yes, its a molecule that does not have a radiative forcing effect in climatology.
Point made, score one for me.

(it has as much to do with the subject as temps in the troposphere do in a conversation about surface temps)

too bad the IPCC has the complete opposite view and the feedback loop you just stated removes 2/3 of their projected warming

OMG, you are hopeless.
I keep summarizing the IPCC findings, which states that CO2 increases are responsible for almost all of the warming, not water vapour.

you are a real shitty lair

Is it a bat cave?
Is that why its a shitty lair?

 

[JohnLarue]

No, that is completely correct in terms of climatology.

You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false



Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C02 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

You are a scientific know nothing that is incapable of explaining the physics behind you absurdly incorrect statement

You need to show the physics that justifies such a ridiculous and intentionally misleading statement

get some help from your cat if necessary, but prove it

(it has as much to do with the subject as temps in the troposphere do in a conversation about surface temps)

IT is the central question in the subject and if you understood even grade 9 physics you would know this

OMG, you are hopeless.
I keep summarizing the IPCC findings, which states that CO2 increases are responsible for almost all of the warming, not water vapour.

And you would be wrong again
Just show us the physics

You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

They are both covalently bonded, 3-atom molecules
Both absorb infrared radiation
Both have the same vibrational and rotational modes required for absorption of infrared radiation
They even share some of the same absorption wavelengths
Both are gases present in the greenhouse gas theory


Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C02 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

You already admitted in post # 85 they both absorb infrared radiation, indirectly by quoteing one of many climate propaganda sites
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
He covered temp difference, nice try:
Among other things, the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements. Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened and overlap to a considerable extent. Even at sea level pressure, the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes, but the gaps between the spikes are fairly narrow and the "valleys" between the spikes are not terribly deep. (see Part II) None of this was known a century ago. With the primitive infrared instruments available in the early 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything different.

Too bad he left out the parts about
1. the band broadening in the atmosphere is not significant
2. It is totally overwhelmed by the reduction in absorption when 40 degrees colder, as per the stefan -Boltzmann equation

Now explain the physics which justifies Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water vapour has no forcing (effect).
!!!!
Or say no more

 

[JohnLarue]

No, I said that water vapour does not have a forcing effect on the climate, its a feedback effect.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime[20] (about 10 days).[26] Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation.[20] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.[20]

In post 179 (one Seventy Nine)
I certainly did not write or quote that. YOU DID

You cant lie you way out of this

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect
End of story

 

[Frankfooter]

In post 179 (one Seventy Nine)
I certainly did not write or quote that. YOU DID

You cant lie you way out of this

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas and is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect
End of story

Ah, I see.
You took the wiki link I quoted and then tried to claim it was my statement.
Typical larue move.

But you really aren't that swift are you, you really can't connect those two bolded sentences.
1) Yes, water vapour contributes to the natural, stable, greenhouse effect that keeps our planet above freezing.
2) Water vapour levels are a feedback to global temperature changes, and even the changes humans are making on global temperatures aren't substantially changing the amount of water vapour concentration.

If you put both of those together you'd say that water vapour helps keep our planet at a livable temperature through its greenhouse effect but since it only works as a feedback to global temperatures it does not drive the warming of the planet's atmosphere, CO2 does.

But you can't put those two separate statements together correctly, can you?

You also won't quote or understand the previous paragraph from that wiki page, will you?
(not the following text is a link to the wiki page)
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.[20] CO2 is absorbed and emitted naturally as part of the carbon cycle, through animal and plant respiration, volcanic eruptions, and ocean-atmosphere exchange.[20] Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use (see below), release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to rise.[20][21]

The high-accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, initiated by Charles David Keeling in 1958, constitute the master time series documenting the changing composition of the atmosphere.[22] These data have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of the global atmosphere.[22]

In May 2019 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 415 PPM. The last time when it reached this level was 2.6 - 5.3 million years ago. Without human intervention, it would be 280 PPM[23].

 

[Frankfooter]

You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

WRONG!

It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed
greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced
the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to
increase. Aerosols partially offset the forcing of the WMGHGs and
dominate the uncertainty associated with the total anthropogenic
driving of climate change.

From AR5 of the IPCC reports.

 

[canada-man]

 

[bver_hunter]

Usual conspiracy theories by the right wingers has no bounds. Sheesh!!

Climate activist Greta Thunberg does not have ‘handler’:

CLAIM: Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has a “handler,” Luisa-Marie Neubauer, who has ties to the “ONE Foundation managed by Bono, Bill Gates and George Soros.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Mixed. Neubauer volunteers for the ONE Campaign, an international organization that fights extreme poverty and disease. But she does not serve as a “handler” or “supervisor” for Thunberg, whose environmental activism began a little over a year ago in Sweden.

THE FACTS: Facebook and Twitter posts attempting to link Thunberg to the One Campaign through Neubauer began circulating widely in recent weeks as the 16-year-old Swedish activist promoted worldwide rallies to call attention to climate change and spoke at the United Nations Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23.


The posts featured pictures of Thunberg and Neubauer, and falsely identified Neubauer as a “handler” or a “supervisor.” They also claimed Neubauer has ties to the “One Foundation,” an apparent reference to the One Campaign, co-founded by U2 frontman Bono.

Neubauer, a German climate activist, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that she met Thunberg at the 2018 United Nations climate change summit in Katowice, Poland.  She described Thunberg as a friend and inspiration. 

“I was inspired by the way Greta acted while everyone seemed speechless,” said Neubauer, speaking to the AP from Berlin. 

The teen, who landed in New York City on Aug. 28 after traveling across the Atlantic Ocean in a zero-emissions sailboat, was accompanied on the trip by her father, who travels with her, according to the AP. 

According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website, “One originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world.” The One Campaign has ties to Soros, founder and chairman of Open Society Foundations, which works to build democracies. 

Brooke Havlik, a communications officer with Open Society Foundations, told the AP that the organization has given $10 million to the One Campaign since 2011. Havlik said Soros had not had any interactions with Neubauer. 

___

This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.

Here’s more information on Facebook’s fact-checking program: https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536

https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:7740750778

 

[Frankfooter]

http://is2.[SIZE=7]4chan.org[/SIZE]/pol/1569743880850.[/QUOTE]

You need to get off of 4chan and out of your basement, CM.

 

[canada-man]

You need to get off of 4chan and out of your basement, CM.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...fired-from-CNN-for-anti-Semitic-remarks/page3

defending hamas


Amazing how you support the down trodding of your own people.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...Lemon-Laughs&p=6238846&viewfull=1#post6238846


These claims came from Canary Mission, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Canary Mission is a propaganda machine.

That said, the language she used when she was young was offensive and she should be punished, but nowhere did she 'vow' to give anyone the wrong meds.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...s-wrong-meds&p=6307773&viewfull=1#post6307773




display congnative problems refusig to admitt that he is wrong ignoring evidence that proves him wrong

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...n-were-killed-by-broken-net-not-ocean-warming



https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...fired-from-CNN-for-anti-Semitic-remarks/page3

defending hamas


racially attacked me for not supporting BLM

Amazing how you support the down trodding of your own people.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...Lemon-Laughs&p=6238846&viewfull=1#post6238846

repeatidly attacked Canary Mission for they being jews


These claims came from Canary Mission, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Canary Mission is a propaganda machine.

That said, the language she used when she was young was offensive and she should be punished, but nowhere did she 'vow' to give anyone the wrong meds.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...s-wrong-meds&p=6307773&viewfull=1#post6307773


constantly quoting and citing anti-semitic hate site mondoweis after he was told at least TWICE that it is anti-semitic and regularly post hate propaganda against Jews

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...s-wrong-meds&p=6332954&viewfull=1#post6332954


likes to cite anti-Semitic hate sites

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=6325057#post6325057

likes to cite a so called palestinian rights websites whose founder was a terrorist

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=6325416#post6325416

Egypt use poison gas in smuggling Tunnels to kell and injure Palestinians fraknooter refusing to Condemn Egyp display his anti-smeitic Obsession with Israel

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lestinians-Gassed-in-Tunnel-Can-You-Guess-Why


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...s-wrong-meds&p=6346489&viewfull=1#post6346489

defends Hamas again claim their new charter changed


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...iv-From-Gaza&p=6361141&viewfull=1#post6361141

Now, your second claim is that they have 'war crimes weapons' aimed at Israel. There is a massive problem with your statement, those rockets are only considered war crimes because they can't be accurately aimed only at military structures.

calling people that disagree with him white supremacists despite the fact that he has a history of anti-semitic posts, and defend hamas

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-%93Forget-Russia-Attack-Trump-On-RACISM%94

 

[canada-man]

refuse to admit that his anti-semitic site Mondoweiss is funded by a white supremacist Rob Unz who is funded racist and anti-jewish website

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-in-walker-outside-of-Rubin-amp-Bernier-event

 

[Frankfooter]

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...fired-from-CNN-for-anti-Semitic-remarks/page3

I forget, you can't actually defend your actions and beliefs.
My bad.

Carry on spamming.

 

[JohnLarue]

Ah, I see.
You took the wiki link I quoted and then tried to claim it was my statement.
Typical larue move.

When you post statements , links or not, you own them
what is the matter with you?

But you really aren't that swift are you, you really can't connect those two bolded sentences.
1) Yes, water vapour contributes to the natural, stable, greenhouse effect that keeps our planet above freezing.
2) Water vapour levels are a feedback to global temperature changes, and even the changes humans are making on global temperatures aren't substantially changing the amount of water vapour concentration.

If you put both of those together you'd say that water vapour helps keep our planet at a livable temperature through its greenhouse effect but since it only works as a feedback to global temperatures it does not drive the warming of the planet's atmosphere, CO2 does.

But you can't put those two separate statements together correctly, can you?

Sure I can
1. You are back to stating incorrectly that water vapour only works as a feedback to global temperatures, Which you need to prove

Just show us the physics

You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

They are both covalently bonded, 3-atom molecules
Both absorb infrared radiation
Both have the same vibrational and rotational modes required for absorption of infrared radiation
They even share some of the same absorption wavelengths
Both are gases present in the greenhouse gas theory


Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C02 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

2. Your statement

the changes humans are making on global temperatures aren't substantially changing the amount of water vapour concentration.

Is irrelevant as any changes to the water vapour concentration produce the same overwhelming concentration of water vapour 2-4% vs 0.04% for CO2
Try an unrealistic change ie cut the water vapour in half. 1-2% is still orders of magnitude higher than 0.04% Co2
Double Co2 and it is still a tiny fraction of the atmosphere of greenhouse gases and is still orders of magnitude lower in concentration relative to water vapour
(grade six math ? )

You also won't quote or understand the previous paragraph from that wiki page, will you?

(not the following text is a link to the wiki page)
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.[20] CO2 is absorbed and emitted naturally as part of the carbon cycle, through animal and plant respiration, volcanic eruptions, and ocean-atmosphere exchange.[20] Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use (see below), release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, causing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to rise.[20][21]

The high-accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, initiated by Charles David Keeling in 1958, constitute the master time series documenting the changing composition of the atmosphere.[22] These data have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of the global atmosphere.[22]

In May 2019 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 415 PPM. The last time when it reached this level was 2.6 - 5.3 million years ago. Without human intervention, it would be 280 PPM[23].

#3. You did it again!!!!! Once again you put up a quote that refutes one of your absurd positions
Too funny


Explain to us how your wikipedia quote can describe changes to the atmosphere when you are so adamant that temperature measurements in the atmosphere are irrelevant and only the surface record data should be considered?

Post 179

Orginally posted by Frankfooter

Why? Because climate change models make projections of surface temperatures where humans live.
You can only judge those projections on where they predicted those changes to happen, the surface.
Substituting problematic, old, satellite readings in the troposphere where there is a 40ºC temperature difference is incredibly dishonest.

Come on Franfooter
You need to be able to explain your position in detail and cant be caught in any lies, especially if you are claiming a moral right to frighten children with your exaggerations, lies and falsehoods

 

[Frankfooter]

1. You are back to stating incorrectly that water vapour only works as a feedback to global temperatures, Which you need to prove

I don't need to prove it, its not a theory, its a scientific fact as detailed here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Just show us the physics

You explicitly stated Co2 is a forcing (effect) while water is only a feedback effect
This is completely false

See link above, p694 of AR5 summarizes it.
Or take a look at the chart below and see that your claim would get you laughed out of any first year climatology class.

They are both covalently bonded, 3-atom molecules
Both absorb infrared radiation
Both have the same vibrational and rotational modes required for absorption of infrared radiation
They even share some of the same absorption wavelengths
Both are gases present in the greenhouse gas theory

And one has a 10 day cycle and the other can stay up in the atmosphere for decades.
Some day you'll understand that.

Show us the physics which justifies one molecule is defined as having a radiative forcing effect while the other does not
C02 vs water vapour , just so you cant avoid this question again

OMG, repeating the same question over and over again because you won't accept the answer isn't getting you anywhere larue.
Here, you claim to have some chemistry education, so this is the American Chemistry Society's explanation.

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, 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.

There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

They say what I keep saying over and over again in a clearer way.
Not that it'll help you understand.

#3. You did it again!!!!! Once again you put up a quote that refutes one of your absurd positions
Too funny

Did you read that quote?
If says that CO2 causes climate changes and that humans have increased CO2 levels to 415ppm, causing climate change with levels that haven't been seen on earth for millions of years.
Are you so daft that you think that because it uses the word 'atmosphere' you don't think its still measuring climate change's effects through surface temperatures?

You need to be able to explain your position in detail and cant be caught in any lies, especially if you are claiming a moral right to frighten children with your exaggerations, lies and falsehoods

I do so every day and yet here you are, still unable to understand the difference between a forcing and feedback effect in climatology.

 

[canada-man]

 

[latinboy]

When the obnoxious brat was doing her dramatic "how dare you" sketch, she reminded me of the girl from that movie, The Exorcist, it scared me. I kept waiting for her head to spin around.


Greta and her parents. Stylin'.

 

[Frankfooter]

When the obnoxious brat was doing her dramatic "how dare you" sketch, she reminded me of the girl from that movie, The Exorcist, it scared me. I kept waiting for her head to spin around.


Greta and her parents. Stylin'.


[G]https://angryoldpeopleon4chan.com/media/EE-jTZRXUAEVR-y.jpgG]

She's more fun in the death metal video.
Must suck to be that scared of a 16 year old girl.