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

[JohnLarue]

Yes, its almost entirely a feedback effect except for the 'negligible' forcing effect in the stratosphere and the cooling effect of clouds.
Which is why its effect, when considered in totality, is as a feedback effect.
As stated in the IPCC report you keep ignoring.

Ok, good now you finally agree water Vapour has both forcing and feedback effects
It is not however stated in totality is as a feedback effect.

it is stated that Anthropogenic emissions of water vapour are considered as feedbacks
Too bad for you Anthropogenic water vapour is not at all significant

A molecule of water can be:
1) reflective and cooling - as ice in the arctic and arctic oceans
2) warming - as water in oceans and lakes absorbs sunlight
3) feedback - as water vapour in the troposphere
4) forcing - a 'negligible' effect in the stratosphere
5) cooling - as clouds

A single molecule of water can go through all those states, so your claim is stupid.

So Water Vapour does have both forcing and feedback effects, however as I pointed out
a molecule either has forcing effects or it does not. The magnitude of the forcing can change if the temperature or pressure change,but a molecule dos not shut off an effect based upon altitude
If you disagree show us the physics

any feedback effect for water vapour is dependant up it have a forcing effect. ie absorption of electromagnetic Infrared radiation.

The theory is the feedback is a result of hotter temperatures producing more evaporation, which puts more water vapour into the atmosphere which absorbs more infrared radiation(a forcing effect)
So if water vapour does not have any forcing effects (absorption of infrared) then it can not produce the feedback effect
(This is grade six logic)
Your claim that water vapour only has feedback effects but no forcing effect is analogous to a girl claiming to pregnant, but also claiming to be a virgin
If you disagree show us the physics

If this the case then no feedback and 2/3 of the IPCC models warming goes away and then there is not an environmental catastrophe
and sadly for you no excuse for the political change you want more than anything in the world

From p667

As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666
Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You are a denier

You are caught in one of your many, many lies & you have been proven to be a scientific know-nothing
Do not ever attack a scientists character again
I also suggest you think long and hard about the implications of lying and, exaggerating falsehoods to children, frightening the hell out of them and using them as pawns for your twisted political agenda

Your continual, lying, claims that water vapour drives climate change and not CO2 are bullshit.

I have never said water vapour drives climate change
God damn it!!!!!! you are always mis-representing me and saying what I did not say. STOP doing that !

What I have said is that
1. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.
2. Climate is a non-linear chaotic system which is far too complex to be driven by one single molecule
3. CO2 is not the control knob on climate
4. the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
5. The atmosphere is not heating up to any significant extent & most definitely less then the Alarmist models
6. The surface temperature records are tainted and incomplete
7. The absorption by CO2 is saturated at the surface & through most of the troposphere
8. The absorption by trace gases is logarithmic ie reduced returns for each incremental addition

Therefore the alarmist have grossly overstated the problem and should syop frieghtening children

Stop ignoring the science and lying about the IPCC report.

You do not have a clue what the science is

Just admit you are wrong.

Just one problem with that
I am not wrong

The second problem is you are a proven scientific know-nothing, who is just making shit up as you go along
Well you can not fake physics

 

[Frankfooter]

Ok, good now you finally agree water Vapour has both forcing and feedback effects
It is not however stated in totality is as a feedback effect.

it is stated that Anthropogenic emissions of water vapour are considered as feedbacks
Too bad for you Anthropogenic water vapour is not at all significant

Wrong
Can you not read?
Anthropogenic water vapour happens in the stratosphere and is 'negligible'.
Almost all water vapour is in the troposphere and is a feedback effect.

Stop lying.

I have never said water vapour drives climate change
God damn it!!!!!! you are always mis-representing me and saying what I did not say. STOP doing that !

What I have said is that
1. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.
2. Climate is a non-linear chaotic system which is far too complex to be driven by one single molecule
3. CO2 is not the control knob on climate
4. the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
5. The atmosphere is not heating up to any significant extent & most definitely less then the Alarmist models
6. The surface temperature records are tainted and incomplete
7. The absorption by CO2 is saturated at the surface & through most of the troposphere
8. The absorption by trace gases is logarithmic ie reduced returns for each incremental addition

Wrong

From the IPCC AR4, p667

CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

Stop lying.

 

[JohnLarue]

Wrong
Can you not read?
Anthropogenic water vapour happens in the stratosphere and is 'negligible'.
Almost all water vapour is in the troposphere and is a feedback effect.

Nope, both water and Co2 absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat,
What other forcing effect does Co2 have?
Show us the physics

a molecule either has forcing effects or it does not. The magnitude of the forcing can change if the temperature or pressure change,but a molecule dos not shut off an effect based upon altitude
If you disagree show us the physics

any feedback effect for water vapour is dependant up it have a forcing effect. ie absorption of electromagnetic Infrared radiation.

Stop and think about that!!!

The theory is the feedback is a result of hotter temperatures producing more evaporation, which puts more water vapour into the atmosphere which absorbs more infrared radiation(a forcing effect)
So if water vapour does not have any forcing effects (absorption of infrared) then it can not produce the feedback effect
(This is grade six logic)
Your claim that water vapour only has feedback effects but no forcing effect is analogous to a girl claiming to pregnant, but also claiming to be a virgin
If you disagree show us the physics

If this the case then no feedback and 2/3 of the IPCC models warming goes away and then there is not an environmental catastrophe
and sadly for you no excuse for the political change you want more than anything in the world

From p667


As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You are a denier

Stop lying.

Physics does not lie, Frankfooter,
you on the other hand have quite the track record. Isn't that right groggy?

 

[Frankfooter]

As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour may be the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but its effect is that of a feedback forcing on the climate.
CO2 levels drive climate change, not water vapour.
As the IPCC says:

Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate. When air
with high humidity cools, some of the vapour condenses into water droplets or ice particles and precipitates. The
typical residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is ten days. The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere
from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible
impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is
the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

....

Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse
gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other
gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water
vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So
greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water
vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf


You're still lying about the science and what the IPCC states.
You are the denier here.

Physics doesn't lie, but larue sure does.

 

[JohnLarue]

Water vapour may be the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but its effect is that of a feedback forcing on the climate.
CO2 levels drive climate change, not water vapour.
As the IPCC says:

water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an Man-made gas contributing to radiative forcing.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic

Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
anthropogenic pollutants

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

You need to take this up with the IPCC if you do not agrre with what they have written
It is your source

You're still lying about the science and what the IPCC states.
You are the denier here.

Physics doesn't lie, but larue sure does.

From p667


As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

From your source
You are a proven scientific know-nothing, who is just making shit up as you go along, because you are too lazy and not intelligent enough to learn the science
you can not fake science

You insult me and incorrectly state atmospheric temperatures are useless.
it should be very clear now that atmospheric temperatures are extremely important to any debate related to greenhouse gas
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me and use a www dot climate bullshit artist to try and disprove saturation and instead your source verifies the critical absorption is in the atmosphere
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me & claim water vapour is a cooling feedback
You do his despite having been shown you are nullifying the IPCC feedback predictions and 2/3 of their frightfully inaccurate predictions
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

Your error is pointed out to you and You insult me & claim water vapour is a cooling feedback an another dozen times
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all
But you are willing to stick to a lie for a while

You are shown a IPCC quote stating they think water vapour has a warming feedback effect.
You insult me & claim water vapour a warming feedback effect. A 360 degree about face proving you really know nothing about the greenhouse effect
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me and claim incorrectly that water vapour has no forcing effect
You are shown multiple IPCC quotes (from your source) which show this is not the case
as a bonus As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

And you still insult me and cal me a liar for quoting your source

Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an Man-made gas contributing to radiative forcing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic
Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
anthropogenic pollutants
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
You need to take this up with the IPCC if you do not agrre with what they have written
It is your source

Covered in post #227
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ugh-Sorry%92&p=6514514&viewfull=1#post6514514

As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

From your source
You are a proven scientific know-nothing, who is just making shit up as you go along, because you are too lazy and not intelligent enough to learn the science
you can not fake science

You insult me and then complain that about insults?
I'm not making anything up, I'm directly quoting the experts.
You are making up shit, shit that makes no sense, is scientifically illiterate combined with outright lies.

You insult me and incorrectly state atmospheric temperatures are useless.
it should be very clear now that atmospheric temperatures are extremely important to any debate related to greenhouse gas
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me and use a www dot climate bullshit artist to try and disprove saturation and instead your source verifies the critical absorption is in the atmosphere
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me & claim water vapour is a cooling feedback
You do his despite having been shown you are nullifying the IPCC feedback predictions and 2/3 of their frightfully inaccurate predictions
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

Your error is pointed out to you and You insult me & claim water vapour is a cooling feedback an another dozen times
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all
But you are willing to stick to a lie for a while

You are shown a IPCC quote stating they think water vapour has a warming feedback effect.
You insult me & claim water vapour a warming feedback effect. A 360 degree about face proving you really know nothing about the greenhouse effect
Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all

You insult me and claim incorrectly that water vapour has no forcing effect
You are shown multiple IPCC quotes (from your source) which show this is not the case
as a bonus As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666


And you still insult me and cal me a liar for quoting your source

Route cause of your confusion: You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

larue, stop with the insults, it will get you banned.

Your claims are bullshit.
You take one sentence out of a paragraph because the rest of the paragraph shows you are bullshitting.
Here's your full quote:
Green - the larue partial quote
Red - the sentence that calls out larue as a bullshit artist

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the
natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can
be considered to be approximately two to three times greater. Additional water vapour is injected into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities, mostly through increased evaporation from irrigated crops, but also through
power plant cooling, and marginally through the combustion of fossil fuel. One may therefore question why there
is so much focus on CO2, and not on water vapour, as a forcing to climate change.
Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate. When air
with high humidity cools, some of the vapour condenses into water droplets or ice particles and precipitates. The
typical residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is ten days. The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere
from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible
impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is
the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

That is the 2 consecutive paragraphs from IPCC where your quote comes from.
Only a total bullshit artist would try anything as lame as picking a quote that calls out his own bullshit and quoting only one sentence from it.
Clearly the full quote proves everything you have argued in this thread is total nonsense.
Scientifically illiterate claims alternating with out and out lies or bullshit.

And yet you have the nerve to say this:

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

Read the full 2 pages that you keep quoting larue.
They show you're full of shit.

 

[JohnLarue]

Covered in post #227

Covered in bullshit you mean

You insult me and then complain that about insults?
I'm not making anything up, I'm directly quoting the experts

.

You mean like your post # 60

Originally posted by Frankfooter
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.

Obviously this a grade six level attempt by a scientific know-nothing to support his propaganda

Too bad in post # 183 you directly contradict yourself

Originally posted by Frankfooter
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 also contradicted yourself by stating the atmospheric temperature is relevant "Cuz the peoples are no the surface"
Then you quote a www bullshit artist ,com who said "The critical absorption is occurring high up in the atmosphere"

You are making up shit, shit that makes no sense, is scientifically illiterate combined with outright lies.

No I am not the one making shit up

Larue, stop with the insults, it will get you banned.

Your claims are bullshit.
Only a total bullshit artist would try anything as lame as picking a quote that calls out his own bullshit and quoting only one sentence from it.
Red - the sentence that calls out larue as a bullshit artist
Read the full 2 pages that you keep quoting larue.
They show you're full of shit.

???????????????????????

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

Covered in bullshit you mean
You mean like your post # 60
Obviously this a grade six level attempt by a scientific know-nothing to support his propaganda
Too bad in post # 183 you directly contradict yourself
You also contradicted yourself by stating the atmospheric temperature is relevant "Cuz the peoples are no the surface"
Then you quote a www bullshit artist ,com who said "The critical absorption is occurring high up in the atmosphere"
No I am not the one making shit up
???????????????????????
From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

That's some weak bullshitting larue.
As previously and repetitively covered here water vapour's largest effect is as a feedback forcing, but it also has a 'negligible' forcing effect from anthropogenic causes in the stratosphere and cooling effects as clouds.

All of which is covered in the paragraph you keep trying to misrepresent.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the
natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can
be considered to be approximately two to three times greater. Additional water vapour is injected into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities, mostly through increased evaporation from irrigated crops, but also through
power plant cooling, and marginally through the combustion of fossil fuel. One may therefore question why there
is so much focus on CO2, and not on water vapour, as a forcing to climate change.
Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate. When air
with high humidity cools, some of the vapour condenses into water droplets or ice particles and precipitates. The
typical residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is ten days. The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere
from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible
impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is
the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

When you post a chart that intentionally compares surface projections and surface measurements to your dodgy atmospheric, denier measurements, since corrected, its you that looks dishonest.

IPCC - makes projections of temperature/CO2 based on surface measurements
IPCC - measures those projections against surface measurements
larue - baits and switches out to use a chart with atmospheric temperatures.

larue, you're the dishonest one here.
You have no integrity that you keep making the same, stupid and debunked, claim.

 

[JohnLarue]

That's some weak bullshitting larue.

How can I bullshit about what you said in refenced quotes?
You do not have the slightest remote understanding of the science

As previously and repetitively covered here water vapour's largest effect is as a feedback forcing, but it also has a 'negligible' forcing effect from anthropogenic causes in the stratosphere and cooling effects as clouds.

Too bad the physics does not agree with you, nor the IPC. They explicitly said Stratospheric water vapour has a forcing effect

The forcing effect is absorption of infrared Radiation
If you do not agree simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

Now pay attention.
The Green house effect is all about absorption of Infrared Radiation (heat) from the earth into the atmosphere and molecules ability to absorb and slow the exit of Infrared Radiation (heat) into space.
Water Vapour and CO2 both absorb the Infrared Radiation (heat)

And here is an indication of who is boss when it comes to this process
Clearly water vapour

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

How can I bullshit about what you said in refenced quotes?
You do not have the slightest remote understanding of the science

Allow me to show you.

Too bad the physics does not agree with you, nor the IPC. They explicitly said Stratospheric water vapour has a forcing effect

You are bullshitting here because you ignore the word 'negligible' in their description of stratospheric water vapour.
From your favourite page, 666.

The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

That quote shows you are bullshitting or don't understand the science.

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

And again, you are bullshitting here because you ignore the fact that water vapour is a feedback effect so only reacts to temperature changes, while the IPCC is clear when they say that CO2 drives climate change as a forcing effect, not water vapour.
From your favourite page, 666, again.

CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate,

You sir, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through swapping out of irrelevant charts.

You are scientifically illiterate.

 

[canada-man]

 

[JohnLarue]

Allow me to show you.


You are bullshitting here because you ignore the word 'negligible' in their description of stratospheric water vapour.
From your favourite page, 666.

It either has a forcing effect or it does not
less than 1% of atmospheric water is in the stratosphere. That's why the word "negligible"
However tropospheric water vapour is the boss

That quote shows you are bullshitting or don't understand the science.

Too bad the physics does not agree with you, nor the IPC. They explicitly said Stratospheric water vapour has a forcing effect

The forcing effect is absorption of infrared Radiation
If you do not agree simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
you refuse to explain this

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

And again, you are bullshitting here because you ignore the fact that water vapour is a feedback effect so only reacts to temperature changes, while the IPCC is clear when they say that CO2 drives climate change as a forcing effect, not water vapour.

Water Vapour does not ONLY react react to temperature changes. Again you show your scientific illiteracy
#1. No chemical reaction, temperature changes are physical, not chemical
#2. Water Vapour absorbs Infrared Radiation, as does C02

From your favourite page, 666, again.

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

You sir, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through swapping out of irrelevant charts.

You have the "sir" part correct

You have been called out for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.

Called out by you and you alone & your opinion on scientific matters has been shown what it is worth.... worse than worthless

You are not a credibel scientific authority
You have zero credibility period

Why do you think atmospheric temperatures are irrelevant?
"Cuz the surface..... that's where the peoples are" ..... Wow better rent a tux for your noble prise acceptance
That is answer of a scientific know -nothing

post # 60
Originally posted by Frankfooter

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.

Obviously this a grade six level attempt by a scientific know-nothing to support his propaganda

Too bad in post # 183 you directly contradict yourself

Originally posted by Frankfooter

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.

Made up your tiny little mind yet?

You are scientifically illiterate.

I have forgotten more science than you will ever dream of understanding
What is the escape window?
How does band broadening occur?
What are the most important wavelengths in the greenhouse gas theory?
Why does the black body radiation curve appear bell shaped?
What effect does the jet stream have on climate?
Which latitudes does most of the water vapour originate from?
explain why ever major city appears to be warming faster than the global average?

 

[Frankfooter]

less than 1% of atmospheric water is in the stratosphere. That's why the word "negligible"

Finally you admit that the anthropogenic influenced stratospheric water vapour has a negligible forcing effect on the atmosphere.
That's as close as you'll ever come to admitting you're wrong, so I'll take it.

However tropospheric water vapour is the boss

No, its not.
Tropospheric water vapour acts as a feedback effect on the climate, amplifying the changes caused by putting CO2 into the atmosphere by 2 to 3 times as much.
CO2 is the boss, as far as controlling change to the global temperature.

IPCC, p666 of our favourite paper.

CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

IPCC - makes projections of temperature/CO2 based on surface temperatures
IPCC - measures those projections against surface measurements
larue - baits and switches out to use a chart that compares surface projections with atmospheric temperatures.


You larue, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through bait and switching of this very chart.

 

[JohnLarue]

Finally you admit that the anthropogenic influenced stratospheric water vapour has a negligible forcing effect on the atmosphere.

I said in the stratosphere
Please stop misrepresenting me

You must have some sort of comprehension disability to draw that conclusion
based upon my statement

originally posted by JohnLarue. It either has a forcing effect or it does not
less than 1% of atmospheric water is in the stratosphere. That's why the word "negligible"
However tropospheric water vapour is the boss

No, its not.
Tropospheric water vapour acts as a feedback effect on the climate, amplifying the changes caused by putting CO2 into the atmosphere by 2 to 3 times as much.
CO2 is the boss, as far as controlling change to the global temperature.

prove that by
simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not

you refuse to explain this

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

IPCC, p666 of our favourite paper.

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

IPCC - makes projections of temperature/CO2 based on surface temperatures
IPCC - measures those projections against surface measurements
larue - baits and switches out to use a chart that compares surface projections with atmospheric temperatures.

More garbage from Frankfooter

You larue, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through bait and switching of this very chart.

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

I said in the stratosphere
Please stop misrepresenting me

You only added the word stratosphere to your claims about forcing effects in the previous post.
Its all there, no misrepresentation from me.
Ever.

Its all from you.

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Its the largest but its not what drives climate change, as the IPCC says.
Water vapour acts as a feedback effect on the climate, amplifying the changes caused by putting CO2 into the atmosphere by 2 to 3 times as much.
CO2 is the boss, as far as controlling change to the global temperature.

IPCC, p666 of our favourite paper.

CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

Gotta love the irony of you claiming I have no integrity followed by you posting the following chart that bait and switches troposphere temps for surface temps.
Really cements where you stand on integrity.
Which is below the sewers.

IPCC - makes projections of temperature/CO2 on surface temperatures
IPCC - measures those projections against surface temperature measurements
larue - baits and switches out to use a chart that compares surface projections with atmospheric temperatures, where there is a 40ºC difference in temperature.
larue - then accuses me of a lack of integrity


You larue, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through bait and switching of this very chart.

 

[JohnLarue]

You only added the word stratosphere to your claims about forcing effects in the previous post.
Its all there, no misrepresentation from me.
Ever.

Its all from you.

What is wrong with you?

Post # 238 you quoted me as explicitly stating stratosphere

Originally Posted by JohnLarue View Post
less than 1% of atmospheric water is in the stratosphere. That's why the word "negligible"

I also mentioned this way back in Post # 214
from The IPCCs AR5 Chapter 8
Page 666

The full extent of these variations is not well understood and is probably less a forcing than a feedback process added to natural variability. The contribution of stratospheric water vapour to warming, both forcing and feedback, is much smaller than from CH4 or CO2.

Page 674

Oxidation of CH4 in the stratosphere (see Section 8.2.3.3) is a significant source of water vapour and hence the long-term increase in CH4 leads to an anthropogenic forcing (see Section 8.3) in the stratosphere.

Page 679

There has been one study since AR4 (Myhre et al., 2007) on the RF from water vapour formed from the stratospheric oxidation of CH4 (Section 8.3.3.3). This is consistent with the AR4 value and so has not led to any change in the recommended value of 0.07 (0.02 to 0.12) W m–2 since AR4.

Lying comes so naturally to you

Its the largest but its not what drives climate change, as the IPCC says.
Water vapour acts as a feedback effect on the climate, amplifying the changes caused by putting CO2 into the atmosphere by 2 to 3 times as much.

Gee amplifying by 2-3 times as much pretty much sounds like it is doing most of the driving
And that does not take into account that the energy absorbed by water via the exact same mechanism as CO2 is orders of magnitude greater

I do not buy the amplifying arguments, for as you have pointed out (for all the wrong reasons. Ha Ha ha ) cloud formation and rain tend to cool things down
The incorrect amplifying effect assumption is the reason the models have missed their mark by so much (see chart below)

CO2 is the boss, as far as controlling change to the global temperature.

No and no again

IPCC, p666 of our favourite paper.
CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

They are making the absurd claim
CO2 is the main Man-made control knob on climate
that in no way excludes Water VApour as the Primary greenhouse gas as you need to take into account natural and man made sources of infrared radiation absorption

Too bad climate has many numerous dynamic (that means always changing) often interacting inputs
to claim one is the control knob is ridiculous

Water vapor however is the primary greenhouse gas

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Gotta love the irony of you claiming I have no integrity followed by you posting the following chart that bait and switches troposphere temps for surface temps.
Really cements where you stand on integrity.
Which is below the sewers.

simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
you refuse to explain this

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

IPCC - makes projections of temperature/CO2 on surface temperatures
IPCC - measures those projections against surface temperature measurements
larue - baits and switches out to use a chart that compares surface projections with atmospheric temperatures, where there is a 40ºC difference in temperature.
larue - then accuses me of a lack of integrity

You larue, are a know nothing bullshit artist.
You have been called out here for repeatedly making false claims and ignoring the real science.
Just as you have been repeatedly called out for bullshitting through bait and switching of this very chart.

Look Einstein
We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
Do you need your leader Greta to explain this to you? because you are not cluing in

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

What is wrong with you?

Post # 238 you quoted me as explicitly stating stratosphere
I also mentioned this way back in Post # 214
from The IPCCs AR5 Chapter 8
Page 666
Page 674
Page 679
Lying comes so naturally to you

ah, poor larue.
You said this:

In addition, the theoretical feedback effect from water vapour is entirely dependant upon water vapour having a forcing effect
ie. the feedback theory is more heat cause evaporation and hence more water vapour in the atmosphere which increases the forcing effect via more absorption of infrared radiation

And its only in the last few posts that you admitted that the forcing effect of water vapour is negligible, as it only happens in the stratosphere.
Here you've been trying to make claims that water vapour drives climate change for 11 pages now, and you only finally admitted yesterday that the forcing effect of water vapour is 'negligible'.
Whoops.

That's why I'm right and totally honest, because I've been posting here with quotes from the IPCC backing up my claim that CO2 drives climate change as its a forcing effect on the climate while water vapour (whose forcing effect you now admit is 'negligible') only acts as a feedback effect to changes from CO2 levels.

Same thing I've been saying here for 11 pages.
Honestly.

Gee amplifying by 2-3 times as much pretty much sounds like it is doing most of the driving

No, then they would say it 'drives' the climate instead of 'amplifying' changes made by CO2 level changes.
You should take an English course or two.

I do not buy the amplifying arguments

I don't care if you 'buy' the science.
The fact that you'll never accept it or understand it doesn't mean its not happening.

They are making the absurd claim
CO2 is the main Man-made control knob on climate
that in no way excludes Water VApour as the Primary greenhouse gas as you need to take into account natural and man made sources of infrared radiation absorption

Ok, so now you're willing to quote sentences from their reports but then turn around and say their work is 'absurd'?
What is absurd is your total lack of understanding, after 11 pages of remedial help, in understanding basic scientific concepts.

Water vapor however is the primary greenhouse gas

But it only amplifies changes made by CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

From your source
As stated by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._all_final.pdf
Page 666

Would you stop quoting the first sentence of an argument and then ignoring its culmination?
Its just pathetic.
The end of that explanation includes this, far more important sentence:
CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

Look Einstein
We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument

We have also firmly established that all humans live on the surface of the planet and that climate change and the greenhouse effect have changed the temperature here on the surface.
Fixing on the temperature in the clouds, where it is 40ºC cooler, is idiotic.

By the way, fixating on an old chart from Dr Roy Spence is also idiotic.
There is a clear reason why you refuse to show updated and corrected charts from him.
Because they also show warming.

Take a look at this, from his latest readings:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2019-0-38-deg-c/

All this time you've been pushing a bullshit, old chart and claiming it as proof.
But the satellite temps show warming as well as the surface temps do.

Your last argument is dead, larue.
dead.

 

[JohnLarue]

ah, poor larue.
You said this:
And its only in the last few posts that you admitted that the forcing effect of water vapour is negligible, as it only happens in the stratosphere.

No I did not say that
I said the forcing effect of water vapour is negligible in the stratosphere, because 99% of the atmospheric water Vapour is found in the troposphere, where the forcing effect of water vapour is dominate

Here you've been trying to make claims that water vapour drives climate change for 11 pages now, and you only finally admitted yesterday that the forcing effect of water vapour is 'negligible'.
Whoops.

Wrong again,
Do not quote me if you are going to get it wrong

What is wrong with you
You do not get to pull this sort of bullshit when it comes to scientific matters

That's why I'm right and totally honest

,
Totally honest????????
You are with out a doubt the the most dishonest person I have ever encountered

because I've been posting here with quotes from the IPCC backing up my claim that CO2 drives climate change as its a forcing effect on the climate while water vapour (whose forcing effect you now admit is 'negligible') only acts as a feedback effect to changes from CO2 levels.

Same thing I've been saying here for 11 pages.
Honestly.

Honestly?
You do not have the slightest clue what you are taking about

The forcing effect is absorption of infrared radiation by water Vapour and Co2
simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
you refuse to explain this

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

No, then they would say it 'drives' the climate instead of 'amplifying' changes made by CO2 level changes.
You should take an English course or two.

You should take/ pass your first science course

I don't care if you 'buy' the science.
The fact that you'll never accept it or understand it doesn't mean its not happening.

It is not happening
Look Einstein
We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
Do you need your leader Greta to explain this to you? because you are not cluing in

Ok, so now you're willing to quote sentences from their reports but then turn around and say their work is 'absurd'?
What is absurd is your total lack of understanding, after 11 pages of remedial help, in understanding basic scientific concepts

.

It is your source & yes claiming one single molecule measure in parts per million is the man-made control knob for the climate is absolutely absurd
Remedial help????
Too funny
You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

But it only amplifies changes made by CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Explain the physics behind that ridiculous statement & lets see you reconcile that statement with the FACT that water Vapour absorbs infrared radiation
You cant
1. You do not understand this at all
2. Your statement is dead wrong

Would you stop quoting the first sentence of an argument and then ignoring its culmination?
Its just pathetic.
The end of that explanation includes this, far more important sentence:
CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate

Shad up
Would you stop trying to fake your way through a scientific argument with grade six level thinking

We have also firmly established that all humans live on the surface of the planet and that climate change and the greenhouse effect have changed the temperature here on the surface.
Fixing on the temperature in the clouds, where it is 40ºC cooler, is idiotic.

Your Grade six level thinking for a scientific problem would be funny if it were not so sad

Look Einstein
We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument

By the way, fixating on an old chart from Dr Roy Spence is also idiotic.
There is a clear reason why you refuse to show updated and corrected charts from him.
Because they also show warming.

#1 it is John Christys chart
#2. you have zero basis for making that claim. that is complete speculation on your part
#3. It clearly shows the models are broken. Did you think they got fixed in the last few years?
When testing a hypothesis one repeatable false test invalidates the hypothesis
thats is how science works

Take a look at this, from his latest readings:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2019-0-38-deg-c/
That is just too funny
+0.38 c in 2019
gee what was the highest value for the satellites in this chart (john Christys chart)
It looks like + 0.38 C vs the 1.2 degrees C for the models. the models were broken in 2015 and they are still broken

Too bloody Funny
You really do not understand what you are talking about
Thanks for updating the confirmation that the satellite & balloon data STILL shows the IPCC models are broken

All this time you've been pushing a bullshit, old chart and claiming it as proof.
But the satellite temps show warming as well as the surface temps do.

man you as just too slow putting the pieces together
0.38 degrees over 30 years is
a) well within the natural variability of temperature changes over the history of recorded temperature
b) 1/3 of what the IPC models predicted would happen
Odd how the missing 2/3 is due to the projected feedbacks which just do not appear to be happening

Your last argument is dead, larue.
dead.

too funny
You just proved my argument
Take a science course
& stop lying

You are a scientific know-nothing and do not understand the greenhouse gas theory at all and you are completely void of any integrity

 

[Frankfooter]

because 99% of the atmospheric water Vapour is found in the troposphere, where the forcing effect of water vapour is dominate

WRONG!
IPCC

water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather
than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change.

You are with out a doubt the the most dishonest person I have ever encountered

Hilarious, you accuse me of being dishonest but can't find one single example.
I've got an easy one for you:
You keep trying to dishonestly compare surface temperature projections against troposphere measurements, where there is a 40ºC difference in temperature.
Dishonest.

The forcing effect is absorption of infrared radiation by water Vapour and Co2
simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
you refuse to explain this

You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

Its irrelevant to why water vapour is a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate.
Its not worth discussing.

=
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument

The latest chart from Christy/Spencer shows warming in the atmosphere.
End of argument.
.

Shad up
Would you stop trying to fake your way through a scientific argument with grade six level thinking

Using kindergarten level taunts isn't making a scientific argument, larue.

We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument

There is warming in the atmosphere, as shown.
End of argument.

#1 it is John Christys chart
#2. you have zero basis for making that claim. that is complete speculation on your part
#3. It clearly shows the models are broken. Did you think they got fixed in the last few years?
When testing a hypothesis one repeatable false test invalidates the hypothesis
thats is how science works

When testing a hypothesis you don't substitute measurements from another source, that's how science works.
The IPCC projects warming surface temperatures but you and Christy substitute troposphere temperatures as tests, that's not science, that's bullshit.

0.38 degrees over 30 years is
a) well within the natural variability of temperature changes over the history of recorded temperature
b) 1/3 of what the IPC models predicted would happen
Odd how the missing 2/3 is due to the projected feedbacks which just do not appear to be happening

The IPCC projects 0.2ºC warming per decade on the surface and Christy/Spencer show 0.13ºC warming in the clouds, or troposphere, where there is a 40ºC difference in base temperatures.
The Christy/Spencer UAH measurements are lower than measurements from RSS satellite measurements, which show 0.14ºC more warming over the same period.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data

Those RSS measurements show as much warming in the troposphere as the IPCC projects for surface temperatures.
End of argument.


A proper test of this hypothesis is to judge projections of surface temperatures against measurements of surface temperatures.
As done here:

End of argument.

 

[JohnLarue]

WRONG!

No I am right

Hilarious, you accuse me of being dishonest but can't find one single example.
I've got an easy one for you:
You keep trying to dishonestly compare surface temperature projections against troposphere measurements, where there is a 40ºC difference in temperature.
Dishonest.

One single example?
Your have soooo many to would take to long to list them (30,000 posts filled with inaccuracies , misrepresentations and lies + an unknown number when you were Groggy)
Lets just go with your repeated attempts to misquote me and your despicable character assassinations on honest scientist when you do not understand the science at all

Here is another perfect example of your rotten to the core, despicable dishonestly
You were asked to explain your ridiculous statement "water vapour is only a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate."

Originally posted by JohnLarue
The forcing effect is absorption of infrared radiation by water Vapour and Co2
simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation

Your response

Its irrelevant to why water vapour is a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate.
Its not worth discussing.

A complete dishonest and evasive answer to an extremely relevant question
You made a false statement which you claim is a scientific fact
You have been asked to prove this and you say is not worth discussing

This is a dishonest and evasive as it gets
answer the damn question

The truth of the matter is your statement is false and you know it is
Prove me wrong and explain the physics behind your lie

The latest chart from Christy/Spencer shows warming in the atmosphere.
End of argument.

1/3 of the warming of the IPCC models proving the models are junk and the climate change hysteria is unjustified
0.38 of a degree over three decades is also well within any natural viability of temperature records on any time scale


.

Using kindergarten level taunts isn't making a scientific argument, larue.

But you think Saying "Cuz that where the peoples is " is a scientific argument?????
Too funny
You are scientific know-nothing and prove this with each post

There is warming in the atmosphere, as shown.
End of argument.

No enough to justify the hysteria or to justify scaring the living hell out of children

When testing a hypothesis you don't substitute measurements from another source, that's how science works.

Really??
You should tell that to the IPCC
1. Their measurements of atmospheric CO2 are a combination of ice core samples up until the mid 20th century and actual measurements afterwards
2. Their surface temperature records are a mix-mass of data sources combined together with all kinds of assumptions and adjustments
3. Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick was a series of weight proxies designed to erase a thousand years of temperature history . A big portion was based upon one tree ring sample
It seems to me you had no issue with the use of proxies when defending his fraudulent attempt to mis-present history

The IPCC projects warming surface temperatures but you and Christy substitute troposphere temperatures as tests, that's not science, that's bullshit.

1. We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
2. Why did you post a up-to-date picture of John Christy's / Roy spencer's work?
Because you thought it proved something.
Too bad it proved the IPCC models are junk

The IPCC projects 0.2ºC warming per decade on the surface and Christy/Spencer show 0.13ºC warming in the clouds, or troposphere, where there is a 40ºC difference in base temperatures.
The Christy/Spencer UAH measurements are lower than measurements from RSS satellite measurements, which show 0.14ºC more warming over the same period.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data

Oh boy. Did you think one could not see this coming?

Comments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset
July 6th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
It was inevitable that the new RSS mid-tropospheric (MT) temperature dataset, which showed more warming than the previous version, would be followed with a new lower-tropospheric (LT) dataset. (Carl Mears has posted a useful FAQ on the new dataset, how it differs from the old, and why they made adjustments).

Before I go into the details, let’s keep all of this in perspective. Our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade, while the new RSS trend has increased to about +0.17 C/decade.

Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.

The rest of the article can be found here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/

BTW 1.25 degrees over 40 years is not 0.2 degrees per decade as you claim
The IPCC models are clearly broken

Those RSS measurements show as much warming in the troposphere as the IPCC projects for surface temperatures.
End of argument.

No they do not
why do you have this relentless need to lie

A proper test of this hypothesis is to judge projections of surface temperatures against measurements of surface temperatures.
As done here:
End of argument.

A proper test??????
The planet is theoretically warming and the theory dictates this warming is caused by a phenomenon occurring in the atmosphere
And you insist the atmospheric temperatures do not matter
Nope
1. We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
2. The surface record is incomplete and is tainted by the urban Island heat effect