Climate Change Denial

Spearthrower · **#161** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 8:09 am

Macdoc wrote:What links.?
I don't think you understand the process at all.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived.

this is a founding principle that water vapour is a feedback and transient.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases — gavin @[color=#CC0000][b] 6[/b][/color] April 2005 - ()
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/

what is a common misconception is that it is not....are you going to argue with Gavin on this??

Water vapour is NOT a forcing - it is a feedback and it is transient.
There is only one scenario that is could be used as a forcing and that is by way of cloud ships to shift the albedo temporarily.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... rming.html

Your stance is nonsensical and misleading to readers.

And you appear to have difficulties parsing common English.

Ihavenofingerprints · **#162** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Jan 04, 2013 8:14 am

I haven't read much of the ongoing discussion. But it reminds me of a cool paper that might have some relevant info:

http://www-atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/m ... -sci10.pdf

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2
) is the single most important
climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4,
and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases,
which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable
temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via
feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the
radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial
greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

Spearthrower · **#163** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 8:17 am

From discussions related to your link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

[Response: You're right about moisture being replenished, and that's why it's part of a feedback process. The important aspect, I think, is the rate at which misture is being added to the atmosphere versus the rate at which it is being removed.

My scenario, which I perfectly clearly outlined right from the first words I typed in this thread, involves the forcing of water vapour into the atmosphere at a rate where it is not being removed as quickly as it is is being replenished.

I realise that this is an 'if' scenario, which is why I used the word 'if' from the start. This hypothetical scenario appears to be giving people difficulty.

Spearthrower · **#164** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 8:19 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I haven't read much of the ongoing discussion. But it reminds me of a cool paper that might have some relevant info:

http://www-atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/m ... -sci10.pdf

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2
) is the single most important
climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4,
and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases,
which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable
temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via
feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the
radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial
greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

As I understood it, there's also the point regarding the specific wavelengths of infrared radiation CO2 absorbs and emits, which coupled with its longevity, coincide to make it the most potent gas in destablising our present atmosphere.

UndercoverElephant · **#165** by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 04, 2013 9:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:From discussions related to your link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

[Response: You're right about moisture being replenished, and that's why it's part of a feedback process. The important aspect, I think, is the rate at which misture is being added to the atmosphere versus the rate at which it is being removed.

My scenario, which I perfectly clearly outlined right from the first words I typed in this thread, involves the forcing of water vapour into the atmosphere at a rate where it is not being removed as quickly as it is is being replenished.

I realise that this is an 'if' scenario, which is why I used the word 'if' from the start. This hypothetical scenario appears to be giving people difficulty.

Yes, it does. That's because, for the fourth time, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature, not the amount released. In other words, your hypothetical scenario is impossible. You can't force water vapour into the atmosphere faster than it is being removed. The result will simply be more rain.

Spearthrower · **#166** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 9:26 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:From discussions related to your link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

[Response: You're right about moisture being replenished, and that's why it's part of a feedback process. The important aspect, I think, is the rate at which misture is being added to the atmosphere versus the rate at which it is being removed.

My scenario, which I perfectly clearly outlined right from the first words I typed in this thread, involves the forcing of water vapour into the atmosphere at a rate where it is not being removed as quickly as it is is being replenished.

I realise that this is an 'if' scenario, which is why I used the word 'if' from the start. This hypothetical scenario appears to be giving people difficulty.

Yes, it does. That's because, for the fourth time, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature, not the amount released. In other words, your hypothetical scenario is impossible. You can't force water vapour into the atmosphere faster than it is being removed. The result will simply be more rain.

Magically instantly falling rain, UE?

You realise that the process takes several days to weeks, right? If I am pumping out sufficient water vapour throughout those few days, then the temperature will increase, resulting in higher temperatures, permitting more water vapour to be stored, increasing the temperature... and so on.

My hypothetical scenario is not impossible - it's happened before and the sources I've presented and which others have presented acknowledge what I've said as being correct too. While I am not, and never have been saying that the anthropogenic input IS sufficient to do that (this was expressly my fucking point :lol:

), that it IS at least theoretically possible for anthropogenic input to achieve this - particularly in the stratosphere, although naturally there's no real reason why we'd want to do that!

Actually, the problem appears to be a limitation of imagination of a hypothetical scenario.

UndercoverElephant · **#167** by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 04, 2013 10:22 am

Spearthrower wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:From discussions related to your link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

[Response: You're right about moisture being replenished, and that's why it's part of a feedback process. The important aspect, I think, is the rate at which misture is being added to the atmosphere versus the rate at which it is being removed.

My scenario, which I perfectly clearly outlined right from the first words I typed in this thread, involves the forcing of water vapour into the atmosphere at a rate where it is not being removed as quickly as it is is being replenished.

I realise that this is an 'if' scenario, which is why I used the word 'if' from the start. This hypothetical scenario appears to be giving people difficulty.

Yes, it does. That's because, for the fourth time, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere is limited by the temperature, not the amount released. In other words, your hypothetical scenario is impossible. You can't force water vapour into the atmosphere faster than it is being removed. The result will simply be more rain.

Magically instantly falling rain, UE?

No and yes. There's no magic involved, but water vapour really does instantly precipitate out of the atmosphere when the air temperature drops. Compared to the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere (decades), the length of time any excess water vapour stays there is negligible. Maybe not instant, but close enough.

You realise that the process takes several days to weeks, right?

Which makes it irrelevant compared to CO2 and CH4.

Macdoc · **#168** by **Macdoc** » Jan 04, 2013 10:48 am

Exactly. You are wrong on this ST and it makes you look foolish trying to defend an incorrect position. When you are talking days and weeks that is transient in terms of any sort of climate impact...the best could be said it's a micro-climate factor like the sun coming out after a storm and evaporating water. These cycles can be even hours as you would know if you ever flew sail planes and depended on the thermal activity to stay in the air.

Anything to do with water vapour in terms of climate is weather related beyond the overall ability of a warmer atmosphere to hold more which is the feedback from the GHG increase.
Read the RealClimate article so you understand for the future.

Spearthrower · **#169** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 10:52 am

Macdoc wrote:Exactly. You are wrong on this ST and it makes you look foolish trying to defend an incorrect position. When you are talking days and weeks that is transient in terms of any sort of climate impact...the best could be said it's a micro-climate factor like the sun coming out after a storm and evaporating water. These cycles can be even hours as you would know if you ever flew sail planes and depended on the thermal activity to stay in the air.

Anything to do with water vapour in terms of climate is weather related beyond the overall ability of a warmer atmosphere to hold more which is the feedback from the GHG increase.
Read the RealClimate article so you understand for the future.

Your own link disagrees. And you're calling me foolish? :lol:

Macdoc · **#170** by **Macdoc** » Jan 04, 2013 10:54 am

Talk is cheap - point exactly where Gavin agrees with your position.

Your idiotic comment just says how little you understand this process and you are still trying to defend an indefensible position and just digging a deeper hole......just admit you are wrong and move on.

and Rasmus concurs here - water vapour is transient.

Water Vapour Feedback
Filed under: Glossary — rasmus @ 28 November 2004 - ()
Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback.

One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

Spearthrower · **#171** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 11:29 am

Macdoc wrote:Talk is cheap - point exactly where Gavin agrees with your position.

Your idiotic comment just says how little you understand this process and you are still trying to defend an indefensible position and just digging a deeper hole......just admit you are wrong and move on.

and Rasmus concurs here - water vapour is transient.

Water Vapour Feedback
Filed under: Glossary — rasmus @ 28 November 2004 - ()
Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback.

One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

I am sorry I can't help you if your reading comprehension is insufficient for the task.

I never once said that water vapor is not transient - it turns out the idiot is your strawman.

Instead, I said right from the very beginning, in absolutely plain English, that if one were to push out sufficient water vapour, above and beyond the normal PPM at a sufficient rate, it would cause significant climatic effects. It's a hypothetical scenario.

I cited other fools from NASA climate research who agree with me. I've also noted that there are other papers addressing the small effect that anthropogenic water vapor actually has on the climate, and similarly noted that in Earth's history and in Venus' history, that there have been incidents where extreme water vapor feedback loops have resulted in planetary wide climatic events.

As you can't seem to process hypothetical scenarios, and keep treating my hypothetical scenario as if I am saying it is actually that way, I don't see how I am supposed to penetrate this layer of stupid.

I think I understand the problem: a lot of denialists use the water vapor canard as a denialist position. What's ironic is that I was contesting the claims of a denialist position by positing a hypothetical scenario.

I now understand that one cannot possibly enter into what if scenarios with you, and that we can only address actually what is the case right now.

Thanks ever so much for remaining civil though. :lol:

It is always incredible when people get emotionally aggressive over something like this, I'm so glad you resisted for all of one post.

Spearthrower · **#172** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 11:43 am

Spearthrower wrote:From discussions related to your link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133

YOUR OWN SOURCE wrote:[Response: You're right about moisture being replenished, and that's why it's part of a feedback process. The important aspect, I think, is the rate at which misture is being added to the atmosphere versus the rate at which it is being removed.

My scenario, which I perfectly clearly outlined right from the first words I typed in this thread, involves the forcing of water vapour into the atmosphere at a rate where it is not being removed as quickly as it is is being replenished.

I realise that this is an 'if' scenario, which is why I used the word 'if' from the start. This hypothetical scenario appears to be giving people difficulty.

Just A Theory · **#173** by **Just A Theory** » Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am

Perhaps if I can interject for one second to discuss the impact of a arbitrarily sized bolide into the ocean. That would immediately cause a large amount of H2O to be launched into the upper atmosphere where it, at least according to models of the Chixulub impact that I've seen, would cause sufficient cloud cover to affect planetary albedo for months.

I know that the carrying capacity of the atmosphere wrt water is a function of temperature. Hell, I linked the Krasting paper that said precisely that. I'm just curious on how to reconcile the two scenarios.

Spearthrower · **#174** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 12:01 pm

Just A Theory wrote:Perhaps if I can interject for one second to discuss the impact of a arbitrarily sized bolide into the ocean. That would immediately cause a large amount of H2O to be launched into the upper atmosphere where it, at least according to models of the Chixulub impact that I've seen, would cause sufficient cloud cover to affect planetary albedo for months.

I know that the carrying capacity of the atmosphere wrt water is a function of temperature. Hell, I linked the Krasting paper that said precisely that. I'm just curious on how to reconcile the two scenarios.

I think it sort of answers itself, doesn't it?

Such a <forced> introduction of water into the atmosphere necessarily results in climatic effects.

Just A Theory · **#175** by **Just A Theory** » Jan 04, 2013 1:13 pm

Yes, but is a saturation effect? Is there a maximum rate of precipitation? Let's face it, a 10km bolide slamming in to the Gulf of Mexico is likely to have a far greater effect than our man-made industry.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there some sort of threshold or saturation level above which the effects of H2O become more lasting?".

Spearthrower · **#176** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 1:24 pm

Just A Theory wrote:Yes, but is a saturation effect? Is there a maximum rate of precipitation? Let's face it, a 10km bolide slamming in to the Gulf of Mexico is likely to have a far greater effect than our man-made industry.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there some sort of threshold or saturation level above which the effects of H2O become more lasting?".

I'd imagine that water being injected into the otherwise largely dry stratosphere would have a much longer-lasting impact. I also assume that the heat of the collision would permit a much higher level of saturation. Beyond that, I dunno - but it looks like something interesting to model.

In a way it's a 'why didn't this start a run-away feedback loop?' and I can't answer why not.

Macdoc · **#177** by **Macdoc** » Jan 04, 2013 2:14 pm

what bunch of bullshit you are spouting trying to keep your pride intact and now you just look foolish when caught

I stated correctly

Macdoc wrote:
It's also transient as it drops out of play unlike other GHG.

This is what you wrote in response to that with no other commentary or qualification you contradicted that easily understood and backed statement.

spearthrower wrote

Again, that's unfortunately not true. It appears to be a common misunderstanding

spearthrower now produces this

I never once said that water vapor is not transient -

....what a lie you now are caught in :nono:

Getting as bad as some outright deniers in imaginary physics and contradicting themselves.

•••

You ask why no feedback loop in the case of a bolide.....it's because it's transient so even with a super heated atmosphere and a chunk of missing ocean and rock it will rain out as water vapour does not persist and the higher the gradient the more rapidly the rain out will occur.

a feedback loop like methane from the taiga requires some persistence of the forcing - which methane has.

and you are right about one thing

.....you "dunno" :coffee:

Spearthrower · **#178** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2013 2:31 pm

I've explained this for you already Macdoc, but every time I respond to you, you just get more obnoxious and angry and now seemingly intend to take everything I say out of context, including stalking my posts in other threads to extend your sense of overwhelming disdain there.

As I mentioned in the 2nd or 3rd of your replies to me, by which time you'd already started calling me a fool: I am more than happy to join the other fools I cited which include NASA climatologists, and leave you to your immaculate expertise.

You really need to try not taking things so personally.

UndercoverElephant · **#179** by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 04, 2013 3:12 pm

Just A Theory wrote:Perhaps if I can interject for one second to discuss the impact of a arbitrarily sized bolide into the ocean. That would immediately cause a large amount of H2O to be launched into the upper atmosphere where it, at least according to models of the Chixulub impact that I've seen, would cause sufficient cloud cover to affect planetary albedo for months.

I know that the carrying capacity of the atmosphere wrt water is a function of temperature. Hell, I linked the Krasting paper that said precisely that. I'm just curious on how to reconcile the two scenarios.

You are talking about two other things here. Firstly there's the issue of cloud cover, which is related to water vapour but so far hasn't been discussed in this thread. But the key difference with this scenario is that the stuff thrown up by the impact (dust or water) gets itself into the upper atmosphere. The important point is that there isn't much mixing between different layers of the atmosphere so once stuff gets launched that high, it can stay there for a while. But in terms of what we're talking about, this is all a bit irrelevant, because the water vapour being released by human activity stays in the troposphere, and gets precipitated out quite quickly. So I'm not sure any reconciliation is required.

UndercoverElephant · **#180** by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 04, 2013 3:16 pm

Just A Theory wrote:Yes, but is a saturation effect? Is there a maximum rate of precipitation?

I don't know, but I do know that however much water vapour heads north over the subcontinent during monsoon season, none of it makes it over the Himalayas to the other side (or not enough to form clouds when it gets there.) It all falls as rain on the Indian side, regardless of how much there is.

ETA: Thought about it, and the answer is no. There is no maximum rate that water vapour can precipitate out of air. That would be like a "traffic jam" of water molecules unable to turn from gas to liquid, which doesn't make any sense from a point of view of physics. It works the other way around. Pressurised containers keep gases as liquid, because there is a "traffic jam" the other way around.

I guess what I'm asking is, "is there some sort of threshold or saturation level above which the effects of H2O become more lasting?".

No. The only relevant threshold is the one where the air can hold no more water vapour, which is the point that clouds form.

Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Re: Climate Change Denial

Who is online