Climate Change

[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.

 

[JohnLarue]

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.

we have already resolved this
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
hence the troposphere is where to look

This is a discussion about surface temperatures and you keep posting troposphere, or atmospheric stats.

nice try
nope
you are not bright enough to understand the scientific principals , yet you want to ring fence the subject matter >>> fail

what a clown

 

[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?

you are that clueless
pressure is used to determine altitude

did you think pilots daggle long tape measures out the plane so they know their altitude ?

what a clown

 

[Frankfooter]

we have already resolved this
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
hence the troposphere is where to look

We live on the surface of the planet, larue, not in the clouds.

Stop being such a dishonest dipshit.
If you want to use temperatures in the troposphere find projections for the troposphere and chart them together.
Stop posting bullshit surface projections against temperatures in the troposphere.

Its idiotically dishonest.

The IPCC models surface temps, not troposphere.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795455386088083912

 

[JohnLarue]

]We live on the surface of the planet, larue, not in the clouds.

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

Stop being such a dishonest dipshit.

shad up

If you want to use temperatures in the troposphere find projections for the troposphere and chart them together.
Stop posting bullshit surface projections against temperatures in the troposphere.

just arrange for funding for Dr, Christy and ask him politely

Its idiotically dishonest.[

you have never posted anything honest

The IPCC models surface temps, not troposphere.

hence their abysmal track record
they can not even model the past , a bare minimum requirement for any predictive model
the ipcc models are junk
garbage in >> garbage out

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



explain how the surface is heating up faster than the troposphere using the greenhouse gas theory ?

you can not

the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
the satellite records are accurate

the surface temperature record is flawed
the ipcc models are junk
garbage in >> garbage out

 

[Frankfooter]

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

So stop being a dishonest dipshit and find projections for climate change in the troposphere and compare those to your satellite measurements.
Then stop being a dipshit by using old, faulty satellite data that stops in 2015.

Or, tell the people of India to move to the troposphere where its 6ºC cooler.
Just get them a massive ladder so they can climb up to the clouds.

Otherwise, admit you're a dishonest dipshit who refuses to compare surface projections to surface temperatures because you know that proves the IPCC is correct and you're just peddling fossil fuel disinformation that will make your kids lives miserable.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795769215879983549

 

[JohnLarue]

So stop being a dishonest dipshit and find projections for climate change in the troposphere and compare those to your satellite measurements.
Then stop being a dipshit by using old, faulty satellite data that stops in 2015.

yawn

look stupid

the satellite data is verified by independent weather balloon data sets
therefore the satellite data is accurate. verified by separate experiment >>> scientific proof

the greenhouse effect occurs in the troposphere

therefore all you need to do is explain (using scientific fundamentals ) how the greenhouse effect is somehow warming the surface at a faster rate than the troposphere (where the greenhouse effect occurs)?

you can not explain that

the only logical explanation is the surface temperature data record & the models based on it are flawed
we already know the surface temperature data record is

1. filled with errors
2. biased by the urban Island heat effect
3. is woefully incomplete
4. .has been fiddled with

you are a purveyor of bovine scatology and a scientific know nothing

 

[Frankfooter]

the satellite data is verified by independent weather balloon data sets
therefore the satellite data is accurate. verified by separate experiment >>> scientific proof

the greenhouse effect occurs in the troposphere

Wow, you are still acting like a dishonest dipshit, but now an incredibly stupid dipshit.

The IPCC projects changes in surface temperatures and checks those projections with surface temperatures.

If you want to fly a weather balloon 5km up in the sky and report that its not quite so hot up there you are free to do so, but you should also expect to be called an idiot. But if you want to say that because its cooler in the clouds you think the IPCC is wrong, then you're really a total moron.

 

[Frankfooter]

53C in Delhi. Yikes.

I think you'd have a heat stroke in that kind of heat.

Yikes indeed.
Same in Mexico right now.

The planet is hitting wet bulb temperatures where humans can't survive.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/india-2024-heat-wave-1.7218119

Mexico heat dome seeing monkeys drop dead from trees as temperatures rocket

Last week, environmentalists had reported that 138 of the midsize primates, known for their roaring vocal calls, had been found dead in the Gulf coast state of Tabasco since May 16

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[K Douglas]

i respectfully disagree as do Lightfoot and Mamer

View attachment 328087

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.

Homepage

globalchange.mit.edu

This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr

This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.

 

[Frankfooter]

You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.

Homepage

globalchange.mit.edu

This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2010JD014287?src=getftr

This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??

And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.

You realize that article proves that larue is wrong, don't you?

This is consistent with the idea that much of the watervapor and cloud impacts in the climatological greenhouseeffect are feedbacks to the trace greenhouse gas contribu-tions. That implies that were CO 2 to be somehow com-pletely removed from the atmosphere, a large part of theother greenhouse constituents would be reduced as well,producing a cooling much greater than the “no‐feedback”response (at least according to this model). Indeed, a modelsimulation performed with zero GHGs gives a global meantemperature changes of about −35°C and produces an icecovered planet (A. Lacis, personal communication)