clouds and water vapor

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
A number of posters have continued to state, with various degrees of smarmy smirkiness, that the 'warmers' never take clouds and water vapor into account. Besides once again demonstrated their incredible ignorance, they sometimes spread doubt among those that have not researched the subject.

So, here is a chapter from a text on the subject by a leading expert in the field of climatology.


http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

5.1 Introduction
As the previous chapters have noted, the climate system is forced by a number of factors,
e.g., solar impact, the greenhouse effect, etc. For the greenhouse effect, clouds,
water vapor, and CO2 are of the utmost importance. The emergence of computers
as a viable scientific tool in the 1960s in conjunction with the availability of spectroscopic
data enabled us to treat the numerous complexities of infrared-radiative
transfer in the atmosphere. While such calculations set the stage for estimating accurately
(decades later in the 1990s) the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
and clouds, they did not yield the necessary insights into the physics of the problem
nor did they yield any explanation of the relevant phenomenon. Such insights
needed physically based analytic approaches to the problem. It is in this arena that
Dr. Robert Cess excelled and provided the community with important insights into
numerous radiative processes in the atmosphere of Earth and other planets including
Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. A few examples that are relevant to the main
theme of this chapter are given below.
 
A number of posters have continued to state, with various degrees of smarmy smirkiness, that the 'warmers' never take clouds and water vapor into account. Besides once again demonstrated their incredible ignorance, they sometimes spread doubt among those that have not researched the subject.

So, here is a chapter from a text on the subject by a leading expert in the field of climatology.


http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

5.1 Introduction
As the previous chapters have noted, the climate system is forced by a number of factors,
e.g., solar impact, the greenhouse effect, etc. For the greenhouse effect, clouds,
water vapor, and CO2 are of the utmost importance. The emergence of computers
as a viable scientific tool in the 1960s in conjunction with the availability of spectroscopic
data enabled us to treat the numerous complexities of infrared-radiative
transfer in the atmosphere. While such calculations set the stage for estimating accurately
(decades later in the 1990s) the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
and clouds, they did not yield the necessary insights into the physics of the problem
nor did they yield any explanation of the relevant phenomenon. Such insights
needed physically based analytic approaches to the problem. It is in this arena that
Dr. Robert Cess excelled and provided the community with important insights into
numerous radiative processes in the atmosphere of Earth and other planets including
Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. A few examples that are relevant to the main
theme of this chapter are given below.

i thought this thread was going to be about your most recent cranial CAT scan.

live and learn


if you can
 
A number of posters have continued to state, with various degrees of smarmy smirkiness, that the 'warmers' never take clouds and water vapor into account. Besides once again demonstrated their incredible ignorance, they sometimes spread doubt among those that have not researched the subject.

So, here is a chapter from a text on the subject by a leading expert in the field of climatology.

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

5.1 Introduction
As the previous chapters have noted, the climate system is forced by a number of factors,
e.g., solar impact, the greenhouse effect, etc. For the greenhouse effect, clouds,
water vapor, and CO2 are of the utmost importance. The emergence of computers
as a viable scientific tool in the 1960s in conjunction with the availability of spectroscopic
data enabled us to treat the numerous complexities of infrared-radiative
transfer in the atmosphere. While such calculations set the stage for estimating accurately
(decades later in the 1990s) the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
and clouds, they did not yield the necessary insights into the physics of the problem
nor did they yield any explanation of the relevant phenomenon. Such insights
needed physically based analytic approaches to the problem. It is in this arena that
Dr. Robert Cess excelled and provided the community with important insights into
numerous radiative processes in the atmosphere of Earth and other planets including
Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. A few examples that are relevant to the main
theme of this chapter are given below.

In their defence, Old Rocks, you really cannot blame them.

They're stupid.
 
It's not for the layman. In fact, I'm not sure who the audience is, there is no executive summary so they expect you to read through 30 pages of history and observations and I didn't. I read the first 7 pages, then skimmed through the rest. There are a lot of formulas and charts but there are some very interesting statements in here. Here's the one that caught my eye:

"Cloud feedback. This is still an unresolved issue (see Chapter 8). The few results we have on the role of cloud feedback in climate change is mostly from GCMs. Their treatment of clouds is so rudimentary that we need an observational basis to check the model conclusions. We do not know how the net forcing of −18 W m−2 will change in response to global warming. Thus, the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain. Cloud radiative forcing effects are concentrated regionally (Figure 5.5). The data reveal three regions of major interest for future study."

In short, this is another article that Old Rocks didn't bother to read before he posted it because like the meaning of the word "inconceivable" in the movie "The Princess Bribe" I don't think this article means what Old Rocks thinks it means.

Here are some highlights:

"..the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of polyatomic gases."

I liked the above sentence. The "Polyatomic gases" meant we didn't have to deal with the lowbrow mono-atomic gases (N2 and O2) that comprise 98+% of our atmosphere.

"This study conducted in the early 1990s (Cess et al., 1990) revealed cloud feedback to be the major source of model differences in climate sensitivity and established cloud feedback as a major focus of research."

Translation: Clouds do matter

"A few decades later, John Tyndall (1861), using results from his detailed laboratory experiments, deduced that water vapor is the dominant gaseous absorber of infrared radiation."

John Tyndall, the first Denier

"However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surface temperature increase due to an increase in CO2."

S. Arrhenius: the first Warmer, the Father of Warmers, Patron Saint of the Warmers

"Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive."

But this does not prevent Old Rocks and the Warmers from safely saying with complete assurance that your SUV is melting the polar ice caps.

Water Vapor warms the planet more than CO2? That's Inconceivable!
 
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.
 
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.

Unlike you, I read the article and not just cut and pasted little snippets that seemed to agree with my worldview. The only part that I had no patience for was the formulas. I read the parts that matter, that is, what they understood from their formulas and again, the article basically says, "we're still not sure what's going on with clouds and their impact on the climate"
 
A number of posters have continued to state, with various degrees of smarmy smirkiness, that the 'warmers' never take clouds and water vapor into account. Besides once again demonstrated their incredible ignorance, they sometimes spread doubt among those that have not researched the subject.

So, here is a chapter from a text on the subject by a leading expert in the field of climatology.


http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

5.1 Introduction
As the previous chapters have noted, the climate system is forced by a number of factors,
e.g., solar impact, the greenhouse effect, etc. For the greenhouse effect, clouds,
water vapor, and CO2 are of the utmost importance. The emergence of computers
as a viable scientific tool in the 1960s in conjunction with the availability of spectroscopic
data enabled us to treat the numerous complexities of infrared-radiative
transfer in the atmosphere. While such calculations set the stage for estimating accurately
(decades later in the 1990s) the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
and clouds, they did not yield the necessary insights into the physics of the problem
nor did they yield any explanation of the relevant phenomenon. Such insights
needed physically based analytic approaches to the problem. It is in this arena that
Dr. Robert Cess excelled and provided the community with important insights into
numerous radiative processes in the atmosphere of Earth and other planets including
Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. A few examples that are relevant to the main
theme of this chapter are given below.






HOLY MOTHER OF GOD................does this guy have issues or what???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
It's not for the layman. In fact, I'm not sure who the audience is, there is no executive summary so they expect you to read through 30 pages of history and observations and I didn't. I read the first 7 pages, then skimmed through the rest. There are a lot of formulas and charts but there are some very interesting statements in here. Here's the one that caught my eye:

"Cloud feedback. This is still an unresolved issue (see Chapter 8). The few results we have on the role of cloud feedback in climate change is mostly from GCMs. Their treatment of clouds is so rudimentary that we need an observational basis to check the model conclusions. We do not know how the net forcing of −18 W m−2 will change in response to global warming. Thus, the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain. Cloud radiative forcing effects are concentrated regionally (Figure 5.5). The data reveal three regions of major interest for future study."

In short, this is another article that Old Rocks didn't bother to read before he posted it because like the meaning of the word "inconceivable" in the movie "The Princess Bribe" I don't think this article means what Old Rocks thinks it means.

Here are some highlights:

"..the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of polyatomic gases."

I liked the above sentence. The "Polyatomic gases" meant we didn't have to deal with the lowbrow mono-atomic gases (N2 and O2) that comprise 98+% of our atmosphere.

"This study conducted in the early 1990s (Cess et al., 1990) revealed cloud feedback to be the major source of model differences in climate sensitivity and established cloud feedback as a major focus of research."

Translation: Clouds do matter

"A few decades later, John Tyndall (1861), using results from his detailed laboratory experiments, deduced that water vapor is the dominant gaseous absorber of infrared radiation."

John Tyndall, the first Denier

"However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surface temperature increase due to an increase in CO2."

S. Arrhenius: the first Warmer, the Father of Warmers, Patron Saint of the Warmers

"Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive."

But this does not prevent Old Rocks and the Warmers from safely saying with complete assurance that your SUV is melting the polar ice caps.

Water Vapor warms the planet more than CO2? That's Inconceivable!

Indeed. And of a matter of course? The EPA wants to classify Water Vapor as a pollutant.

And interesting as well? They wish people to drive in vehicles that produce the same. And as luck would have it? 2/3rds of the Earth's surface is covered with it...which evaporates as a matter of course due to a huge fireball that drives the weather on the planet...within the Solar System itself.

There's alot of conflict here...actually there isn't...only manufactured by nuts that think they can control what's natural. Oh and as a consequence? That vapor falls back to Earth...and without it? We would all die.
 
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.


I've never recieved a satisfactory answer to this question:

"If the amount of water vapor is constant even though the actual molecules change and the Greenhouse effect of every molecule is identicle, what difference does it make if the molecules change over time?"

You constantly refer to the residency time as if it means something, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the forcing power as long as the sum total of the water vapor is constant or nearly so.

What difference does this make?
 
Last edited:
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.


I've never recieved a satisfactory answer to this question:

"If the amount of water vapor is constant even though the actual molecules change and the Greenhouse effect of every molecule is identicle, what difference does it make if the molecules change over time?"

You constantly refer to the residency time as if it means something, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the forcing power as long as the sum total of the water vapor is constant or nearly so.

What difference does this make?

LOL, he will come back calling you ignorant and asking for your link....:lol:

he has no room for thought he has an agenda to push...:lol:
 
Old Fraud,

Here is a link to a graph that compares peer reviewed estimates of CO2 residency times with the estimate made by the IPCC. As you can see the IPCC estimate of 100 to 200 years is many times greater than the VAST majority of peer reviewed estimates which peg the res time at between 5 and 15 years.

Now I wonder why they chose to make such an outlandish estimate?????

C3: The Liberal Attack On Science: The IPCC Fabrication of Atmospheric CO2 'Residence Time'

And this link is from a warmist scientist and while he has some cogent observations the real interesting information is in the comments section after the essay. Some good reading there.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/debate-part-5-the-planetary-atmosphere-and-climate-change/
 
Last edited:
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.


I've never recieved a satisfactory answer to this question:

"If the amount of water vapor is constant even though the actual molecules change and the Greenhouse effect of every molecule is identicle, what difference does it make if the molecules change over time?"

You constantly refer to the residency time as if it means something, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the forcing power as long as the sum total of the water vapor is constant or nearly so.

What difference does this make?

Just what the hell are you stating? That the amount of water vapor in the air is the same in the winter as the summer? That cold air holds as much water vapor as hot air?

You are very good with words, Code, and you can pull the wool over the people like gslack, Westwall, but not of anyone with a even a minimal interest in science.

The amount of water vapor in the air is hardly constant. That is what the humidity numbers are all about. And that is why when the air cools, the humidity numbers go up. Cold air will not hold as much water as warm air. Its saturation point, the point at which the humidity is 100% is much lower.

The sum total water vapor will be less when the atmosphere is cooler. Warm the atmosphere with an increase in CO2, which is what we are doing, and the amount of water vapor will increase. The amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere. Since the residence time of water vapor is less than ten days, if the air is cooler after the water condenses out, the atmospher will pick up less water vapor than it had in it before it condensed. If the atmosphere is warmer, the amount of water vapor will increase.

CO2 has about a two century residence time in the atmosphere before it weathers out, so by increasing the CO2 level, you are creating a two century increase of water vapor. Water vapor is a feedback loop, not a forcing agent. CO2, CH4, and NOx are forcing agents. Along with some very potent industrial GHGs.
 
I find it very curious oldsocks only showed the first paragraph in that PDF file... SO I did the unthinkable and actually read a little more of it. And look what I found in the very next paragraph....
"Within the lower atmosphere of many planets (first 10kmof Earth; 5 kmfor Mars;
and 60 km for Venus) the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened
vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of
polyatomic gases. Typically, the absorption and emission of radiation occurs in
discrete bands with thousands of rotational lines within each band. Even with modern
day supercomputers it is impossible to estimate the radiative transfer due to
all of these lines and bands through the atmosphere for the entire planet. Thus a
three-dimensional characterization of the radiative heating rates from equator to
pole using the line-by-line approach is impractical.
What is normally done is to use 120 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor."

Notice the part I bolded and underlined.... yeah thats the reality in all of it.. All the big talk and overly complex theories and nonsense and in the end they tell us its impossible to estimate radiative transfer...

Yeah.....:lol:
 
Frank, old fool, how many times has the fact that the residency time for H2O is less than ten days, and that of CO2 about two centuries, been explained to you?

And you are correct. That is not a book for the likes of you. No hollow moon in it.


I've never recieved a satisfactory answer to this question:

"If the amount of water vapor is constant even though the actual molecules change and the Greenhouse effect of every molecule is identicle, what difference does it make if the molecules change over time?"

You constantly refer to the residency time as if it means something, but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the forcing power as long as the sum total of the water vapor is constant or nearly so.

What difference does this make?

Just what the hell are you stating? That the amount of water vapor in the air is the same in the winter as the summer? That cold air holds as much water vapor as hot air?

You are very good with words, Code, and you can pull the wool over the people like gslack, Westwall, but not of anyone with a even a minimal interest in science.

The amount of water vapor in the air is hardly constant. That is what the humidity numbers are all about. And that is why when the air cools, the humidity numbers go up. Cold air will not hold as much water as warm air. Its saturation point, the point at which the humidity is 100% is much lower.

The sum total water vapor will be less when the atmosphere is cooler. Warm the atmosphere with an increase in CO2, which is what we are doing, and the amount of water vapor will increase. The amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere. Since the residence time of water vapor is less than ten days, if the air is cooler after the water condenses out, the atmospher will pick up less water vapor than it had in it before it condensed. If the atmosphere is warmer, the amount of water vapor will increase.

CO2 has about a two century residence time in the atmosphere before it weathers out, so by increasing the CO2 level, you are creating a two century increase of water vapor. Water vapor is a feedback loop, not a forcing agent. CO2, CH4, and NOx are forcing agents. Along with some very potent industrial GHGs.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! you don't understand what he said or meant do you...:lol:

LOL
 
I find it very curious oldsocks only showed the first paragraph in that PDF file... SO I did the unthinkable and actually read a little more of it. And look what I found in the very next paragraph....
"Within the lower atmosphere of many planets (first 10kmof Earth; 5 kmfor Mars;
and 60 km for Venus) the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened
vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of
polyatomic gases. Typically, the absorption and emission of radiation occurs in
discrete bands with thousands of rotational lines within each band. Even with modern
day supercomputers it is impossible to estimate the radiative transfer due to
all of these lines and bands through the atmosphere for the entire planet. Thus a
three-dimensional characterization of the radiative heating rates from equator to
pole using the line-by-line approach is impractical. What is normally done is to use 120 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor."

Notice the part I bolded and underlined.... yeah thats the reality in all of it.. All the big talk and overly complex theories and nonsense and in the end they tell us its impossible to estimate radiative transfer...

Yeah.....:lol:

And isn't it interesting Old Smelly Socks subscribes to something that cannot be charted?
 
There are many processes that involve enough complexity that even with modern computers, we measure only the main factors. Note the last line, As in other areas of science, they are using what they understand at present to be the main forcing elements.

Can that understanding change? Yes. However, we use what we have, and by measuring the results against reality, see where we have to change our model, or add elements.

That is a bit better than standing out in left field, shouting 'neener, neener' as the world changes around you.


"Within the lower atmosphere of many planets (first 10kmof Earth; 5 kmfor Mars;
and 60 km for Venus) the greenhouse effect is dominated by pressure-broadened
vibration–rotational lines (e.g., CO2 and CH4) or pure rotational lines (H2O) of
polyatomic gases. Typically, the absorption and emission of radiation occurs in
discrete bands with thousands of rotational lines within each band. Even with modern
day supercomputers it is impossible to estimate the radiative transfer due to
all of these lines and bands through the atmosphere for the entire planet. Thus a
three-dimensional characterization of the radiative heating rates from equator to
pole using the line-by-line approach is impractical. What is normally done is to use 120 Radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor."
 

Forum List

Back
Top