Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[Poohta]

There was a time when the clergy and scientists harmoniously declared that the Earth was FLAT. This dogma was mandated and forced upon everyone until the flat-earth theory was undeniably disproved.

Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people’s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.

There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.

One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable “fact”. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?

There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been “educated” to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These “newly enlightened” environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.

The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been “educated” to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new “greens” were once the “save-the-planet” environmentalists, but they have been “educated” to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their “education” that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.

According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”

My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?

Amitakh Stanford

 

[konradv]

There was a time when the clergy and scientists harmoniously declared that the Earth was FLAT. This dogma was mandated and forced upon everyone until the flat-earth theory was undeniably disproved.

Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people’s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.

There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.

One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable “fact”. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?

There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been “educated” to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These “newly enlightened” environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.

The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been “educated” to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new “greens” were once the “save-the-planet” environmentalists, but they have been “educated” to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their “education” that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.

According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”

My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?

Amitakh Stanford

Let's see if you have YOUR facts straight.

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

 

[Old Rocks]

In simple terms, the author of this blather is an idiot. We have known for over 150 years that GHGs exist in the atmosphere. And in that 150 years, we have increased them radically.

 

[Big Fitz]

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

And we produce less than one tenth of what is produced by nature. Yeah that's going to make a difference.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

But we cannot prove that our insignificant output is the source of any increase or decrease previous to modern technology in the mid 1900's

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

That is syllogism, not correct logic. It assumes:

1, only manmade sources increased production since the beginning of the industrial age which also started at the end of the little ice age during the mid to late 1800's

2, Sun activity being system neutral.

3, Volcanic activity has been stagnant during that period

No, you have spouted a syllogism. All ravens are birds. All ravens are black. Therefore all birds are black.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

Next?

 

[konradv]

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

And we produce less than one tenth of what is produced by nature. Yeah that's going to make a difference.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

But we cannot prove that our insignificant output is the source of any increase or decrease previous to modern technology in the mid 1900's

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

That is syllogism, not correct logic. It assumes:

1, only manmade sources increased production since the beginning of the industrial age which also started at the end of the little ice age during the mid to late 1800's

2, Sun activity being system neutral.

3, Volcanic activity has been stagnant during that period

No, you have spouted a syllogism. All ravens are birds. All ravens are black. Therefore all birds are black.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

Next?

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from? I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it? Volcanic output(<1%) is dwarfed by human emissions. My syllogism was in correct form and your objections are either unsupported or ireelevant. Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical. You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle". Look it up and get back to me.

 

[Big Fitz]

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from?

73% of the world's surface is covered by Ocean. I suggest you start looking there. The #1 CO2 sink AND producer.

I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it?

Wow... REALLY???? Fucking moron. what do you think that big fusion reactor in the sky DOES produce? Good feelings? It produces radiation all across the spectrum which makes HEAT. It is THE primary source of warmth on this planet. Number one with a bullet. To assume (because you're doing so much of it) it has zero impact on the weather is the acme of stupidity.

Volcanic output(<1%) is dwarfed by human emissions.

You do realize that we also do not know where all the volcanic vents are, right? 188 trillion tons of CO2 is produced by natural sources. Volcanoes are only one part of that. From black smokers to Mount Pinatubo. Mount Kilueah for instance, produces 8 to 20 million tons of CO2 daily. That means one volcano, with relatively steady and mild production produced at the minimum of 3.7 and 16 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. That's just one volcano.

Again the total composition of the atmosphere of CO2 is 200 trillion tons. We can be potentially responsible for 12 trillion at any one time (and that is NOT yearly production). We are not a threat compared to what nature produces.

My syllogism was in correct form and your objections are either unsupported or ireelevant.

really? The atmospheric concentration has gone OVER 0.039% of the total content?? Please show me where and how that happened. I don't know of anyone willing to say that's true yet.

Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical.

Quoted from a college textbook on Elementary Logic, dipshit. It's a syllogism. It's an example of FAULTY LOGIC.

You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle".

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... gasp.... AAAAAHHAHAHAHAHhaAH!!!!!!

Way to commit your own accusation. Thanks for proving my point.

And as a last point. We're freaking out about hitting a 400ppm of CO2, right? Why is it that greenhouses regularly pump up the CO2 to 1200-1400ppm? Because it's great for the plants. Not to mention, that when plants go nuts THEY ABSORB MORE CO2!!!!!! Whatta concept! It seems we have a long way to go before this even could be considered a threat.

 

[westwall]

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

And we produce less than one tenth of what is produced by nature. Yeah that's going to make a difference.



But we cannot prove that our insignificant output is the source of any increase or decrease previous to modern technology in the mid 1900's

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

That is syllogism, not correct logic. It assumes:

1, only manmade sources increased production since the beginning of the industrial age which also started at the end of the little ice age during the mid to late 1800's

2, Sun activity being system neutral.

3, Volcanic activity has been stagnant during that period

No, you have spouted a syllogism. All ravens are birds. All ravens are black. Therefore all birds are black.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

Next?

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from? I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it? Volcanic output(<1%) is dwarfed by human emissions. My syllogism was in correct form and your objections are either unsupported or ireelevant. Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical. You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle". Look it up and get back to me.

Vostock ice cores identify a 800 year lapse from the time warming begins to the time CO2 levels increase. The MWP was 5-6 degrees warmer than the present and was 800 years ago. That's where the CO2 is coming from. And please note the temperatures recognised in the Antarctic rose and fell INDEPENDANT OF CO2 LEVELS. In fact in one peer reviewed article that olfraud provided it was found that the CO2 level rose and remained static for over 1000 years while the planet went through two temperature cycles, of hot and cold. Then the CO2 level dropped down to the current levels, and we had a further four temperature cycles!

Hey olfraud, how about posting that article again, I can't find it.

 

[westwall]

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from?

73% of the world's surface is covered by Ocean. I suggest you start looking there. The #1 CO2 sink AND producer.

I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it?

Wow... REALLY???? Fucking moron. what do you think that big fusion reactor in the sky DOES produce? Good feelings? It produces radiation all across the spectrum which makes HEAT. It is THE primary source of warmth on this planet. Number one with a bullet. To assume (because you're doing so much of it) it has zero impact on the weather is the acme of stupidity.



You do realize that we also do not know where all the volcanic vents are, right? 188 trillion tons of CO2 is produced by natural sources. Volcanoes are only one part of that. From black smokers to Mount Pinatubo. Mount Kilueah for instance, produces 8 to 20 million tons of CO2 daily. That means one volcano, with relatively steady and mild production produced at the minimum of 3.7 and 16 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. That's just one volcano.

Again the total composition of the atmosphere of CO2 is 200 trillion tons. We can be potentially responsible for 12 trillion at any one time (and that is NOT yearly production). We are not a threat compared to what nature produces.

really? The atmospheric concentration has gone OVER 0.039% of the total content?? Please show me where and how that happened. I don't know of anyone willing to say that's true yet.

Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical.

Quoted from a college textbook on Elementary Logic, dipshit. It's a syllogism. It's an example of FAULTY LOGIC.

You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle".

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... gasp.... AAAAAHHAHAHAHAHhaAH!!!!!!

Way to commit your own accusation. Thanks for proving my point.

And as a last point. We're freaking out about hitting a 400ppm of CO2, right? Why is it that greenhouses regularly pump up the CO2 to 1200-1400ppm? Because it's great for the plants. Not to mention, that when plants go nuts THEY ABSORB MORE CO2!!!!!! Whatta concept! It seems we have a long way to go before this even could be considered a threat.

I can't rep you yet but very well said!

 

[Big Black Dog]

Another day, another spin on the global warming that is going to kill us all. Sometimes I wish it would hurry up and get here just so the kooks would shut up.

 

[IanC]

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

And we produce less than one tenth of what is produced by nature. Yeah that's going to make a difference.



But we cannot prove that our insignificant output is the source of any increase or decrease previous to modern technology in the mid 1900's

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

That is syllogism, not correct logic. It assumes:

1, only manmade sources increased production since the beginning of the industrial age which also started at the end of the little ice age during the mid to late 1800's

2, Sun activity being system neutral.

3, Volcanic activity has been stagnant during that period

No, you have spouted a syllogism. All ravens are birds. All ravens are black. Therefore all birds are black.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

Next?

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from? I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it? Volcanic output(<1%) is dwarfed by human emissions. My syllogism was in correct form and your objections are either unsupported or ireelevant. Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical. You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle". Look it up and get back to me.

konradv- CO2 does make it more difficult to radiate heat into space. so the earth does warm up enough so that the inward and outward radiation balances again. it is not the heat captured by CO2, which is trivial, but the extra resistance in the system. alarmists assume that other parts of the system remain the same or even become a positive feedback to this increase.

reality does not support this. the earth has maintained a stable range of temperature during its billions of years even though there has been many large disruptions to the system, and even though the sun itself had a much smaller output billions of years ago.

clouds and their heat transport are the likely 'thermostat' for earth and until we understand them much more clearly we are fundimentally in the dark. CO2 is a factor but only a small one. ocean currents, solar output, and orbital differences are also factors. until we start pumping money into natural causes in the same way as we fixate on CO2 and other manmade effects we are not going to solve the question of climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes. Until we study the natural forcings in the climate, we should not consider what the rapid increase in GHGs is doing to that climate. And, by the way, we are going to defund all such studies since we know they are useless anyway.

Platform Of Willful Ignorance Babelgum Michael Sharp | someecards.com

 

[antagon]

Let's see if you have YOUR facts straight.

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

the argument is that this effect is what has caused global warming to the extent we've been able to measure. this is where i think your logic does not support the conclusion that CO2 is indeed responsible. of course i've made it abundantly clear to you exactly how that conclusion is not drawn from a plausible cause-effect relationship: the effect being too significant to stem from such an insignificant and under-leveraged cause.

never, ever have you responded despite my welcoming you to. because you continue to propose the same 'ol shit, notwithstanding, you are a dogmatic, illogical believer in your hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you consider the effect of the feedback effect from water vapor, the effect is very significant.

Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature -- Lacis et al. 330 (6002): 356 -- Science

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth&#8217;s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth&#8217;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.

 

[westwall]

When you consider the effect of the feedback effect from water vapor, the effect is very significant.

Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature -- Lacis et al. 330 (6002): 356 -- Science

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

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.

Except for the simple fact that EVERY AGW proponent says that water vapor is a positive forcer, but the empirical evidence comeing in says it is a negative forcer.

 

[Big Fitz]

When you consider the effect of the feedback effect from water vapor, the effect is very significant.

Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature -- Lacis et al. 330 (6002): 356 -- Science

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

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.

Except for the simple fact that EVERY AGW proponent says that water vapor is a positive forcer, but the empirical evidence comeing in says it is a negative forcer.

It's both.

 

[antagon]

When you consider the effect of the feedback effect from water vapor, the effect is very significant.

i dont believe that this forcing/feedback relationship is as realistic as it is being put across in these studies. it is taken for granted that this is the case -- a valid mechanism, but it is not accurate that atmospheric temperature is the chief actor in vaporising standing water, say in the ocean. what forces this is infrared energy from the sun and the storage of this energy on the surface. once standing water has stored a certain amount of energy it will vaporize. this is basic heat transfer, Rocks, thermodynamic deference to denser materials such that the influence of solids > liquids > gasses. this forcing idea works as if gas > liquid. that is false. what i suspect that the climate models dont account for is the heat transfer from the surface to the troposphere, particularly through water vapor, a denser-than-atmospheric medium which transfers substantial energy from our oceans to our atmosphere. i have doubts that the models account for specific differences in the interaction of the atmosphere with media like earth, and water. this is a big hole in the applicability of these models to our planet, and in the basis of the forcing/feedback simplex.

Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

i've not gone as far as watching this video.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature -- Lacis et al. 330 (6002): 356 -- Science
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth&#8217;s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth&#8217;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.

you have to pay to see the whole lacis study behind this link, however, you posted summary of this study in another thread and i am familiar with the basis of its argument.

i have characterized this as BS for drawing the conclusion in the extract which you have provided from observing the results of a computer model where CO2 and other noncondensing (NC) GhGs were zeroed out. this is not an ad lapidem dismissal.

1. it is an absurd scenario. this is way out of bounds of what could possibly happen on this planet and is a foolish basis for natural sciences for that reason. similarly, a total elimination of so-called feedback gasses would have dramatic cooling effect. more dramatic than what was measured. yet this effect was not accounted for in the conclusion.

2. because it does not replicate CO2 levels' escalation from pre-industrial levels to current levels and account for a commensurate increase in atmospheric temperature, it cannot offer credible support for that hypothesis.

3. it does not present anything new, either. you had argued something quite similar prior to the release of the study. it does not provide or augment "Ample physical evidence [that] shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth&#8217;s atmosphere."

this is bad science. you learn in university to only conclude what the evidence supports. it is a stretch to draw that conclusion from zeroing out CO2 on a computer. can you argue how i'm not reasonable for pointing that out?

the statement is disingenuous to start with. water vapor, 'forced' or not is the most abundant GhG. it is also more potent, molecule by molecule across the light spectrum. this is before accounting for its tropospheric role in clouds. doesn't this stand to refute Lacis and his buddies' 'most-important' characterization from a reasonable, factual position?

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

 

[Old Rocks]

There were several times silicate weathering reduced the amount of CO2 in the earths atmosphere to the point where nearly the whole of the globe was glaciated. That is a what the model mimics.

What is the Snowball Earth Hypothesis?

 

[Old Rocks]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

 

[westwall]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

CO2's residence time is NOT 200 years! It is between 5 and 15 years.

CO2 Science

 

[Big Fitz]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

CO2's residence time is NOT 200 years! It is between 5 and 15 years.

CO2 Science

And of course the British Academy of Sciences just admitted that the CO2 residency time was wrong due to a basic math error... wrong by a factor of over 10 IIRC.