Idiotic.
The IPCC did not 'exclude' water vapour.
You just can't understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects, larue.
You're not bright enough, I can only lead you to the classes, I can't make you learn.
too funny coming from a high school drop out, scientific know nothing
here learn something
International Journal of Geosciences (IJG) is an openly accessible journal published monthly. The goal of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of geosciences.
www.scirp.org
The exclusion of water vapor from consideration is perplexing. The Total Relative Absorption shown in Table 5, places it 84 times more effective than CO2. None of the six IPCC assessment reports included an investigation on whether water vapor was the main cause of the Greenhouse Effect. They excluded water vapor because it is not linked to human-made actions. However, that is not true.
Basic chemistry shows that burning fossil fuels produces more water than CO2.
here is the combustion reaction for methane
There are also valid scientific principles supporting a water connection rather than a CO2 connection.
First, CO2 is only present in the atmosphere in trace amounts (0.04%) and lacks sufficient enthalpy to have any measurable effect on the atmosphere’s temperature.
Second, if the Earth is warming for reasons other than CO2, then under Henry’s Law, the solubility of CO2 in ocean water goes down when the water temperature goes up [26]. Therefore, an increase in the ocean’s temperature would cause CO2 to be released into the atmosphere [27]. The oceans contain 93% of all carbon dioxide on the planet [28]. Many studies have shown that the CO2 concentration only goes up after the temperature rises [6] [29]-[34]. That is, CO2 lags behind the temperature.
This is inconsistent with CO2 being responsible for warming the atmosphere.
In 2007, the IPCC admitted that the climatic changes preceded changes in CO2 [7]. They changed their position to reflect that CO2 enhances, rather than causes, the temperature changes. But they did not present any data showing such enhancements.
Third, the basis cited by the IPCC for CO2 being responsible for the Greenhouse Effect was a comparison of Mars and Venus [3]. Mars’ atmosphere is 80% CO2 and has a temperature of a minus 47˚C. Venus has an atmosphere of 90% CO2 and has a temperature of 477˚C. Earth is midway between the two, has only trace amounts of CO2 (0.04%), and has an average temperature of 59˚F (15˚C). An exhaustive study in 2007 addressed this issue. The exhaustive study reached the conclusion that Venus or Mars did not support a Greenhouse-CO2 relationship [35].Earth has a significant amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and vast oceans, while Mars and Venus have extraordinarily little. The Greenhouse Effect argument using Mars and Venus would support the idea that water may M. Nelson, D. B. Nelson DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2024.153015 264 International Journal of Geosciences be the determining factor and not CO2.
Fourth, the absorption studies presented in section 4, show that water vapor surpasses CO2 in both concentration and infrared absorption abilities.
6.3. Cloud Fraction and Temperature Relationship
The data mainly focus on recent years due to the availability of satellites. Figure 10 is a plot of the cloud fraction and atmospheric temperatures from 1982 to 2018. The trendlines show an inverse relationship between cloud percent and atmospheric temperature. As the cloud cover goes down, the temperature goes up and vice versa.
Scientific principles discussed under the paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 above support a cloud temperature connection. Changes in cloud cover adjust the amount of sun’s radiation hitting the ground. As a result, the ground warms up and the temperature rises. The similarity between the two trendlines is remarkable. They have nearly identical slopes (0.0717x verses 0.066x both round to 0.7x, except for the inverse relationship). The graph shows that the observational studies are consistent with scientific principles and physical laws. But the Figure standing alone does not prove causation. That is, did temperature cause the clouds to diminish or vice
versa. However, the heat transfer and reflection analysis support the view that clouds were the driving force.
Experts like Charles Blaisdell have pointed to individual deviations that may have caused some spikes. He points to the volcanic ash from Mount Pinatubo in
the early 90s and the clear cut logging in the Amazon rain forest. But that does not explain the trend. Some opined that it could be a combination of the AMO
(Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) in the Northern Hemisphere, which has a 60 - 80 year reoccurring period, and the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) also
called El Nino. Other experts opine that cloud formations are sometimes like Black Swan Events, i.e. an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally
expected. But there may be some observational evidence of causation.
s in the atmosphere, the data showed that water vapor dominated. It absorbed 84 times more than CO2, 407 thousand times more than methane, 452 thousand times more than ozone and 2.6 million times more than nitrous oxide. The study analyzed why the Climate Change organizations such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United States EPA excluded water vapor from consideration. They addressed this issue in their action plan documents. Water vapor was not considered as a cause because
it was not associated with man-made activities. They concluded that water vapor and clouds constituted a feedback mechanism based on CO2.
