If you can't understand the difference between forcing and feedback effects you really should not be talking about climate change at all.
If you're not smart enough to understand the basics, larue.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
If you're not smart enough to understand the basics, larue.
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.
Last edited:
Prove it, larue.
too funny coming from a high school drop out, know nothing
Explain the difference between a forcing and feedback effect for the climate.
too funny coming from a high school drop out, scientific know nothing
here learn something
International Journal of Geosciences - SCIRP
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
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.
I asked you a basic question, you can't answer it.
too funny coming from a high school drop out, scientific know nothing
You can't understand the difference between a forcing and feedback effect for the climate.
That's really basic, larue.
If you can't understand the difference you shouldn't be posting here.
i do not give a rats ass what you ask
you are a high school drop out/ pathological lair, pretending to be knowledgeable about scientific matters
do not ever tell me or anyone else where they can or can not post
Can't even get the word "blather" correct.
Even if water vapour is 96% and ignoring the feedback loops, using that as an excuse not to act is like saying incurable diseases cause 96% of human deaths so we shouldn't bother acting on the others.
not even close you blithering moron
water vapor is the greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet
Last edited:
I expect I've got more degrees than you, larue.
There is no way you have even an undergrad degree based on your writing skills and your total ignorance towards science.
If you can't understand forcing and feedback climate effects the only degree you would earn would come from an ancient matchbook.
Forcing vs feedback, larue.
Clearly you just aren't bright enough to understand the subject.
water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet
Last edited:
not a chance
water vapor is the greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet
you have clearly shown your scientific ignorance
go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on
Last edited:
Larue, you can't understand the basics of climate science.
Greenhouse gases have forcing effects on the climate.
Water vapour is a feedback effect.
You're not smart enough to understand the difference and its incredibly basic science.
You are hopeless.
I'm sure there are many climate scientists who are smarter and more informed than I. That doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Which is to reconstruct with a high level of certainty what the global climate was 2 million years ago, 200 million years ago or 2 billion years ago.
When you hear 2023 was the warmest year on record, how many climate data points does the record encompass? And how accurate and reliable is the record? Furthermore, why is 2°C some sort of 'tipping point'? Most living organisms are preconditioned to warming of at least 4-6°C. A warming climate is a much better alternative than a cooling climate.
The "experts" are predicting a record number of hurricanes this year.
Lets revisit their prediction in November to see if they were right
www.yahoo.com
Lets revisit their prediction in November to see if they were right
New preseason hurricane forecast is highest ever issued. Brace yourself, Florida
NOAA predicts 17 to 25 named storms, 8 to 13 hurricanes and 4 to 7 major hurricanes.
They don't need or try to reconstruct the temp from 2 billion years ago with a high level of certainty.
The planet's climate would be quite different with 2ºC warmer, with the 4ºC or so we are headed towards right now vast chunks become unliveable.
There are tons of studies, you could easily find out.
World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
www.theguardian.com
I'd be tempted to take the side of climate activists if climate skeptics and
deniers are using that as an excuse not to cut back on consumption of gas
and other fossil fuel products. In reality people, non climate-deniers included,
don't want to compromise their lifestyle. Climate denial is not a significant
factor in rising carbon emission.
there is a difference between compromising a lifestyle and pushing billions of people into abject poverty and starvation via stupidity.
restricting fossil fuel supply will reverse this truly wonderful trend
hmm
blither
1. to talk a lot in a way that does not have much meaning and is not very…
dictionary.cambridge.org
now this blithering
Water vapour is responsible for 90 to 96% of the greenhouse effect
feedbacks in nature tend to be counter to to any change. its called Le Chatelier's principle
btw
restricting the use of fossil fuels will kill millions perhaps even billions
you will not win this argument as the proposed solutions to the non problem i.e. "end fossil fuel use now" and " net zero " are the equivalent of "medieval bleeding" or amputation to address an annoying hangnail
besides it is impossible to cure a mis-diagnosed disease
you want to perform brain surgery to cure a headache
Last edited:
