Climate Change

[Adam_hadam]

Judging by how lush my garden is this year, its getting warmer eg lilacs are almost done for the year, they're usually coming out at the beginning of June. Everything is blooming sooner, I avoid the Scotts miracle gro.

 

[JohnLarue]

You think all triatomic molecules act the same?
Do you think they all have the same forcing and feedback effects?

provide the scientific rational to distinguish between CO2 and H2) ?
they both are capable of absorbing infrared radiation , although water vapour absorbs at far more frequencies


defining one triatomic black body radiator differently than another triatomic black body radiator in order to fit a false narrative is not science

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change
This study determines if there is a correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and global warming. Historical data were reviewed from three different time periods spanning 500 million years. It showed that the curves and trends were too dissimilar to establish a connection. Observations...

www.scirp.org

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple


and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................

1. because he dropped out of high school
2. because he does not want to figure it out

 

[Frankfooter]

provide the scientific rational to distinguish between CO2 and H2) ?
they both are capable of absorbing infrared radiation , although water vapour absorbs at far more frequencies

larue, I can explain it again but you're not smart enough to understand.
This is as simple as I can make it, even skoob could understand this.
Feedback vs forcing

Water vapour levels change with the amount of heat in the atmosphere - more heat = more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. Water vapour is feedback effect, it reacts to more heat. Put more water vapour in the atmosphere and it will hit a saturation point and become rain, leaving the atmosphere.

Put more CO2 in the atmosphere and it works like a blanket trapping heat. CO2 is a forcing effect. Adding more heat to the atmosphere won't increase CO2 levels, unlike water vapour.

Do I need to link to the Ontario science program, NASA and the IPCC yet again?
Will you ever figure out the difference?

 

[JohnLarue]

larue, I can explain it again but you're not smart enough to understand.

this will be entertaining, however not scientific

Water vapour levels change with the amount of heat in the atmosphere - more heat = more water vapour the atmosphere can hold.

Water vapour is feedback effect, it reacts to more heat.

there is no reaction
no chemical bonds are formed or broken

water / water vapour are natures universal temperature moderators

Put more water vapour in the atmosphere and it will hit a saturation point and become rain, leaving the atmosphere.

convection / condensation energy transfers are orders of magnitude greater than any incremental radiative energy transfer.
you are very confused by scale

Put more CO2 in the atmosphere and it works like a blanket trapping heat.

a blanket @ 400 parts per million ?
now that is a a very loose and ineffective weave



you are very confused about scale

CO2 is a feedback effect.

????
you previously defined CO2 as a forcing molecule and defined water vapor as a feedback only molecule
now you have this ass backward
you are a clueless clown

Adding more heat to the atmosphere won't increase CO2 levels, unlike water vapour.

adding heat to the oceans will increase CO2 release into the atmosphere from the ocean ( recall it is a global warming theory)
CO2 solubility in water is inversely proportional to temperature
the natural cycle of CO2 is 50 X what man produces

Do I need to link to the Ontario science program, NASA and the IPCC yet again?

no you need to enroll in https://www.ilc.org/pages/what-we-offer-ossd

Earn a High School Diploma and Change Your Life

Will you ever figure out the difference?

determining the difference between a person who has scientific training vs. a pathological lair who dropped out of high school is not that challenging

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple


and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................

1. because he dropped out of high school
2. because he does not want to figure it out

 

[Frankfooter]

water / water vapour are natures universal temperature moderators
convection / condensation energy transfers are orders of magnitude greater than any incremental radiative energy transfer.

Yes, water vapour is a moderator, its a feedback effect.
Add more heat and more water vapour can be absorbed by the atmosphere.
Add more water vapour and it falls out of the sky as rain/snow.

That's the first part.
The next is understanding that CO2 is a forcing effect.
For some reason you think that trace elements can't effect larger bodies, like trace amounts of aspirin, alcohol or cyanide effecting humans.

Those same amounts of ink in water can effect the amount of light passing through, so why do you think every single scientist in the world is wrong about this and you are right?

 

[JohnLarue]

Yes, water vapour is a moderator, its a feedback effect.

nope
it absorbs IR as CO2 does
it absorbs at many more frequencies / wavelengths

what part of 90 to 96% contribution to the greenhouse effect confuses you so much ?

Add more heat and more water vapour can be absorbed by the atmosphere.
Add more water vapour and it falls out of the sky as rain/snow.

Again convection / condensation energy transfers are orders of magnitude greater than any incremental radiative energy transfer.
you are very confused by scale

That's the first part.
The next is understanding that CO2 is a forcing effect.
For some reason you think that trace elements can't effect larger bodies, like trace amounts of aspirin, alcohol or cyanide effecting humans.

those are chemical effects, not physical effects
this has been explained to you numerous times

a very telling trait of high school drop outs - they just do not learn

you will repeat your nonsense again in the future

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple


and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................

1. because he dropped out of high school
2. because he does not want to figure it out

 

[Frankfooter]

nope
it absorbs IR as CO2 does
it absorbs at many more frequencies / wavelengths

That's not the point, larue.
You missed it again.

The IPCC knows water vapour is part of the climate and absorbs IR but the point is that its a feedback effect.
You're also still lying about the IPCC not discussing water vapour, its an incredibly stupid lie.

Why can't you understand such a simple concept as feedback and forcing effects, larue?
Are you really that stupid?

 

[bver_hunter]

This video explains in a very concise manner what is occurring in several Asian Nations. Thankfully it has subtitles, otherwise I would have needed someone to translate:

 

[Frankfooter]

This video explains in a very concise manner what is occurring in several Asian Nations. Thankfully it has subtitles, otherwise I would have needed someone to translate:

Mexico too, right now.
Both places are close to wet bulb temperature.

Loading…

www.cbc.ca

 

[canada-man]

Heatwaves in India occur in before the monsoon rainy season which starts in mid June to July. it has nothing to do with climate alarmism invented by the the club of rome and eugenics and nazi linked families like the Rockefellers

 

[JohnLarue]

That's not the point, larue.
You missed it again.

no i did not

The IPCC knows water vapour is part of the climate and absorbs IR but the point is that its a feedback effect.

there is no scientific rational to exclude water vapor and designate it as a feedback only molecule

You're also still lying about the IPCC not discussing water vapour, its an incredibly stupid lie.

nope
you can not just label something you do not like or do not understand as a lie

the paper refences are extensive and include quotes from the IPCC report supporting a non-scientific rational for excluding water vapor

so shad up


https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg

References

[1] National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NASSA Facts, FS-2005-9-074-GSFC. The Balance of Power in the Earth-Sun System. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf [

2] Biello, D. (2011) Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-sou rce-of-more-than-half-of-Earths-heat/

[3] Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.T. and Ephraums, J.J. (1990) Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

......
[40] Webb, P. (2020) Introduction to Oceanography. https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple


and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................

1. because he dropped out of high school
2. because he does not want to figure it out

Why can't you understand such a simple concept as feedback and forcing effects, larue?
Are you really that stupid?

sure i can
however there is no scientific rational to label Water Vapour differently than CO2 as both are greenhouse gases and both can absorb infrared radiation
the physical laws of nature do not distinguish molecules the way your propaganda does

pseudoscience .........pure and simple

 

[Frankfooter]

there is no scientific rational to exclude water vapor and designate it as a feedback only molecule

They didn't exclude water vapour, larue, don't be an idiot.
You just can't read and understand the IPCC reports so are totally incompetent to realize how idiotic your claims are.

Your entire argument is based off of one paper that wasn't even peer assessed or properly published.
Its an idiotic position that no climatologist or scientist who's not taking oil money would back.

You can't do basic research, can't read a scientific paper and can't tell legit work from oil funded disinformation.

 

[JohnLarue]

They didn't exclude water vapour, larue, don't be an idiot.
You just can't read and understand the IPCC reports so are totally incompetent to realize how idiotic your claims are.

Your entire argument is based off of one paper that wasn't even peer assessed or properly published.
Its an idiotic position that no climatologist or scientist who's not taking oil money would back.

You can't do basic research, can't read a scientific paper and can't tell legit work from oil funded disinformation.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple




no god damn wonder the climate models are so piss poor

 

[Frankfooter]

https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg



exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple

View attachment 328613


no god damn wonder the climate models are so piss poor

View attachment 328614

larue, now you're back to the apples to oranges chart that compares out dated satellite temperatures in the troposphere with surface temperatures?
Not only can you not learn anything new you can't even remember what you posted last week.

You're totally hopeless.
Clearly unable to learn the basics.
You can't read the IPCC reports, can't understand high school level posts on NASA and can't remember what you did a week ago.

Leave it alone and stick to yelling at clouds.

 

[JohnLarue]

larue, now you're back to the apples to oranges chart that compares out dated satellite temperatures in the troposphere with surface temperatures?
Not only can you not learn anything new you can't even remember what you posted last week.

this has been explained to you numerous times
but you just do not learn

the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
& the surface temp record is a god damn mess

the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
if you had the first clue about scientific discovery you would understand the importance of that fact.
It proves the climate models are a mess >>>> No wonder when they treat water vapour as a feedback only molecule , exclude clouds and exclude ozone

You're totally hopeless.
Clearly unable to learn the basics.
You can't read the IPCC reports, can't understand high school level posts on NASA and can't remember what you did a week ago.

the physics of our climate is so much more complex than high school level
you are void of scientific understanding

Leave it alone and stick to yelling at clouds.

nope

you leave it alone and stick to something you understand
lets us know when you figure out what that is

 

[Frankfooter]

the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
if you had the first clue about scientific discovery you would understand the importance of that fact.
It proves the climate models are a mess >>>> No wonder when they treat water vapour as a feedback only molecule , exclude clouds and exclude ozone


View attachment 328846

You can't learn, larue.

Why does your satellite data stop in 2015?
Answer.

 

[JohnLarue]

You can't learn, larue.

says the high school drop out

Answer: are you going to pay Dr. John Christy to do reanalysis on 107 failed models to bring them up-to-date ?
I believe the first reanalysis took 2 years

they point has been made

the models run too hot
they have not modelled the code to replicate the physics ( ie treat water vapor as a feedback only moles, omit clouds, omit O3)

Science Under Attack

The weaknesses of computer climate models – in particular their exaggeration of global warming’s impact – have long been denied or downplayed by modelers. But in a recent about-face published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature , a group of prominent climate scientists tell us it’s t

www.scienceunderattack.com

"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman

Climate Science Establishment Finally Admits Some Models Run Too Hot
May 30, 2022







(SSP5-8.5) is the basis for all the bullshit doom and gloom propaganda you spew

Science Under Attack

But the models have a dismal track record. Apart from failing to predict a recent slowdown in global warming in the early 2000s, climate models are known even by modelers to consistently run hot. The previous generation of models, known in the jargon as CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project P

www.scienceunderattack.com

"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman

Latest Computer Climate Models Run Almost as Hot as Before
February 22, 2021

You may be wondering why all these comparisons between models and observations are made high up in the atmosphere, rather than at the earth’s surface which is where we actually feel global warming.

The reason is the atmosphere at 9 to 12 km (6 to 7 miles) above the tropics is a much more sensitive test of CO2 greenhouse warming than it is near the ground. Computer climate models predict that the warming rate at those altitudes should be about twice as large as at ground level, giving rise to the so-called CO2 “hot spot.”
But the hot spot doesn’t show up in measurements made by weather balloons or satellites. This mismatch between models and experiment is important because the 30,000-40,000 feet band in the atmosphere is the very altitude from which infrared heat is radiated away from the earth. The models run hot, according to Christy, because they trap too much heat that in reality is lost to outer space – a consequence of insufficient negative feedback in the models.

 

[Frankfooter]

says the high school drop out

Answer: are you going to pay Dr. John Christy to do reanalysis on 107 failed models to bring them up-to-date ?
I believe the first reanalysis took 2 years

they point has been made

the models run too hot
they have not modelled the code to replicate the physics ( ie treat water vapor as a feedback only moles, omit clouds, omit O3)

Science Under Attack

The weaknesses of computer climate models – in particular their exaggeration of global warming’s impact – have long been denied or downplayed by modelers. But in a recent about-face published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature , a group of prominent climate scientists tell us it’s t

www.scienceunderattack.com

"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman

Climate Science Establishment Finally Admits Some Models Run Too Hot
May 30, 2022

View attachment 328895


View attachment 328896


(SSP5-8.5) is the basis for all the bullshit doom and gloom propaganda you spew

Science Under Attack

But the models have a dismal track record. Apart from failing to predict a recent slowdown in global warming in the early 2000s, climate models are known even by modelers to consistently run hot. The previous generation of models, known in the jargon as CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project P

www.scienceunderattack.com

"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman

Latest Computer Climate Models Run Almost as Hot as Before
February 22, 2021

Why is your chart using air pressure tropical anomalies in a debate about global temperatures larue?
How can you post stuff like that and not notice?

Are you really that clueless?

 

[JohnLarue]

Why is your chart using air pressure tropical anomalies in a debate about global temperatures larue?
How can you post stuff like that and not notice?

Are you really that clueless?

the high school drop out once again displays his ignorance

what part of Temperature anomalies confuses you ?


the 300-200 hPa is the pressure altitude of the troposphere

Pressure altitude - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given an atmospheric pressure measurement, the pressure altitude is the imputed altitude that the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) model predicts to have the same pressure as the observed value.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published the following formula[1] for directly converting atmospheric pressure in millibars (mb) to pressure altitude in feet (ft):

ℎ=145366.45[1−(Station pressure in millibars1013.25)0.190284].

and once again you demonstrate how you are completely void of scientific understanding and
once again you demonstrate how your decision to drop out of high school continues to haunt you

what a fool

 

[Frankfooter]

the high school drop out once again displays his ignorance

what part of Temperature anomalies confuses you ?
View attachment 328948

larue, are you really that stupid or are you that willfully ignorant?
This is a discussion about surface temperatures and you keep posting troposphere, or atmospheric stats.
I call you out on this every single time and then eventually you run away and return to your idiotic claims that water vapour is a forcing effect, not CO2.
Then eventually you run away from that and get back to posting apple to orange comparisons of troposphere to surface temperatures.

Its the same, incredibly idiotic claims.
Over and over again.