Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures

[ScienceRocks]

Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures
Jul 25, 2011; 5:16 PM ET

A Boston University professor may have found an explanation for the leveling off of the long term global warming trend that occurred between 1998 and 2008.
Robert Kaufmann, a College of Arts & Sciences professor and chair of the department of geography & environment at Boston University, along with researchers from the University of Turku in Finland and from Harvard have determined that sulfur particles mostly emitted from coal burning power plants in Asia had reflected enough solar energy back to space to almost cancel out global warming for the period from 1998 to 2008.

The team analyzed data that might influence the earth's surface temperature collected between 1998 and 2008, including such things as greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, sulfur pollution, and El Nino and La Nina warming and cooling patterns. The researchers plugged their data into a computer model, and found that it replicated the actual conditions: even while carbon dioxide increased, the surface temperature remained steady, according to BU Today.

Today, China is now using scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions which is good for the environment but will likely allow the globe to resume a fairly steady warming, according to the story


-----

Keep in mind that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to El Nino and so the period started off with an unusually high temperature anomaly.

I also believe that the 1998-2008 period is still short enough for long term climate that it can still qualify as a period of normal "noise" within the upward trend.

AccuWeather.com - Climate Change | Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures


Working with researchers from the University of Turku in Finland and from Harvard, Kaufmann analyzed data that might influence the earth’s surface temperature collected between 1998 and 2008, including such things as greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, sulfur pollution, and El Niño and La Niña warming and cooling patterns. The researchers plugged their data into a computer model, and found that it replicated the actual conditions: even while carbon dioxide increased, the surface temperature remained steady.

“We showed that a model based on the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be explained by the observed temperatures between 1999 and 2008,” says Kaufmann. “It’s a simple and elegant test of the hypothesis.”

The bad news, says Kaufmann, is that his scientific evidence that climate change is indeed influenced by human activities was “trashed by Rush Limbaugh,” whose remarks precipitated a rash of hate mail sent to Kaufmann.

What happens next, says Kaufmann, is good news and bad news. China, which doubled its coal consumption in just four years in the early 2000s, is now using scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions, a move that will clean up the atmosphere but may also lead to a period of rapid warming.
Global Warming Research Heats Things Up | BU Today

Grand minimum my friends is what is causing the negative forcing, but yes the sulfur could be adding some to the equation to. These people are starting to catch up with what I knew for about 5-6 years now. Holy shit!

Yes the skeptics were right with the big assed decrease rate of warming, but were off on the reasons for it.

I wish Hansen would of been honest earlier.

The truth is the debate over the missing energy is all about knowing the total observed energy going into the atmosphere and reaching the surface...How much of it stays within the oceans, reflected off of sea ice, land ice, reflected off of clouds. ect. You put that together to find how much reaches the surface of our planet, now wire believes at at least water vapor that makes up 91 percent of ghg, but causes only 36 or so percent of the green house effect because it is not uniformly across the earth surface.

Let me see if I can figure out wires case
Lets say that the particles of co2 don't readmit the energy the the energy goes right through at the speed of light for co2 and even if it did readmit that the em energy from all vectors are making sure no energy is admitted towards the surface of the earth. Why, he says it is because that a molecule can't transfer energy onto another molecule of co2. In such case being that all this energy is within all vectors away from the earth to space. (wirebenders case)

"Clip: What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind."

If this is true then how on earth could you explain the needed green house effect to warm the planet from 1980-2010? Tsi topped out in 1955 and has been slowly sloping downwards...You can't decrease "energy output" going into the climate system and have a warming planet.

So we know it is not the sun, which is a producer of the energy. In there is only two ways major ways to warm a planet like earth, 1# the suns solar output and 2# the green house effect.

We know it is not 1#, but 2# is the green house effect. Know based on water vapor blocking the wave length(polar bears case) within the co2 area of the spectrum that and the reasons above make co2 worthless for warming the planet. So you just have water vapor, but it is not uniform over the planet, but it is the only other answer.

But Polar bear, which is also very smart made a case that co2 can cause warming and works log wise in its warming effects. Using the same laws more or less. So we got two men getting two using two different methods to get the same conclusion. Then you have the large percentage of the climate field saying that co2 causes warming. The general public can be really confused very quickly.

Wirebander
One of the things is he believes that the 2nd law of thermal dynamics applies for any energy reratiated back towards the surface, meaning cold can't warm up a warmer body as the surface of the earth is, meaning it is losing energy(1st law). But others believe that there is a "net" energy and a lot of people that should understand this do to.
"However, the concept of energy in the first law does not account for the observation that natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. For example, spontaneously, heat always flows to regions of lower temperature, never to regions of higher temperature without external work being performed on the system. The first law is completely symmetrical with respect to the initial and final states of an evolving system. The key concept for the explanation of this phenomenon through the second law of thermodynamics is the definition of a new physical property, the entropy.

A change in the entropy (S) of a system is the infinitesimal transfer of heat (Q) to a closed system driving a reversible process, divided by the equilibrium temperature (T) of the system.[1]"

"Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1] "

So this proves wire right!

I will keep thinking about it and will read some of wires post so I can try to understand. it is not easy, but I will try to think.

 

[westwall]

A cute article but it doesn't address any of the real questions because it is still promulgating the theory that CO2 drives the bus. It appears that our atmosphere acts much like a blanket. If we had no atmosphere the planet would heat up to around 107 degrees C during the day and drop to a chilly -153 degrees C at night (those are the mean temps of the Moon, the extreme temps are a bit higher for the day and significantly colder for the night time), but we thankfully do have one.

The AGW folks are looking at the atmosphere from the wrong perspective. It doesn't warm anything. It keeps things from getting too hot and too cold.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” « The Science of Doom

What DLR Measurements Exist?

Hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of researchers over the decades have taken measurements of DLR (along with other values) for various projects and written up the results in papers. You can see an example from a text book in Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation.

Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation « The Science of Doom

Sensible” heat is that caused by conduction and convection. For example, with a warm surface and a cooler atmosphere, at the boundary layer heat will be conducted into the atmosphere and then convection will move the heat higher up into the atmosphere.

Latent heat is the heat moved by water evaporating and condensing higher up in the atmosphere. Heat is absorbed in evaporation and released by condensation – so the result is a movement of heat from the surface to higher levels in the atmosphere.

There is also radiations that moves from hot surface to cold atmosphere.

So we now have the understanding of why the heat energy moves from surface to the Atmosphere, but then

"Twenty of these stations (according to Vardavas & Taylor) include measurements of downwards longwave radiation (DLR) at the surface. BSRN stations have to follow specific observational and calibration procedures, resulting in standardized data of very high accuracy:"

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” « The Science of Doom

downwards radiation? Doesn't going from cold Atmosphere to warm earth break the second law of thermal dynamics. This brings questions as there is a ton of measurements to go along with it. The second clue that something is off is wirebander believes that water vapor "retransmit" or "holds" or to be more precise slows down the energy from going to space, which is part of the theory of the green house effect, which would go against the second law as it would tranfer energy back towards surface.

So if that breaks a law then it can't happen. If water does it then there brings the possibility that it really does mean "net" energy transfer, which would make water vapor and any part of the green house theory work.

A few things that need to be thought through is
1# can co2 do the same thing? which either a molecule can't absorb another such molecule of such.
2# You'ed think that would mean the same thing for a molecule of ho2(water), which would mean it can't retransment heat back to the surface in the same.

So if both works on a wave length of IR radiating from the surface(warm to cold) then water vapor can up its energy level or at least slow down energy.

Those stations show that there is downward radiation. So it is my conclusion it really could be the net flow.

Why would a molecule of co2 and water be different with the vector theory?

Polar bears case makes more sense in some areas being that he says that water vapor is a green house gas and doesn't out right kills the whole green house theory as energy can get back to the surface to warm the planet, but he says that water vapor controls that part of the spectrum and so co2 doesn't have a lot of effect.

As
1# co2 rises in a log manner
2# co2 is ruled over by water vapor
but he doesn't have some vector theory of a uniform nature making sure molecules can't transfer back to the surface either.

Now onto skeptical sciences case
The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that at absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

So what this see's is that the net flow is still outwards towards the Atmosphere, bu because the upward thermal emissions(energy going to the colder Atmosphere) is greater then the downwards Atmospheric backradiation. This shows why the green house effect works!!!

So water vapor can be a green house gas, but now we need to figure out
1# wires uniform vector theory and the fact that molecules of the same kind can't transfer heat to each other.---There is a quote from the United states department of energy bringing support of such, which means that the same molecules can't absorb energy or transmit energy at a lower energy level of the same molecule, more or less.
2# Polar bears theory that co2 is more or less water vapors bitch, meaning it rules the area that it is supposed to transmit within the spectrum. We got to solve for that to then to even consider what effects it might have?

Lets say skeptical science is right about the net throw thing and that it is possible for energy to readmit back towards the surface. We still have the problems in 1# and 2#.

It has to be right or wirebander is wrong to as water vapor couldn't transfer a iotta of energy back to the surface if not.

 

[wirebender]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” « The Science of Doom

What DLR Measurements Exist?

Hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of researchers over the decades have taken measurements of DLR (along with other values) for various projects and written up the results in papers. You can see an example from a text book in Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation.

Crock. Fraud. Misleading pseudoscience. Sure, hundreds or thousands of measurements have been taken Matthew. And each and every one was taken by an instrument that was cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. Without cooling the instrument, no measurenemt could be taken because no radiation emits downward from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. The instrum
ent must be cooled to a temperature far below the temperature of the atmosphere in order to artificially create a vector in which radiation can move towards the surface.

We have been through this before Matthew. Either you don't believe the statements that I have made regarding EM fields, in which case, I invite you to bring forward some information that proves that the atmosphere and earth are exempt from the forces that determine the transport of energy via EM fields or you simply grabbed the information you linked to without even beginning to think critically about it and just used it because it agreed with a point you were trying to make.

Field vector calculus rules when the topic is Em fields, Matthew. Either the people who took those measurements with those supercooled instruments didn't grasp the obvious fact that there was a reason they had to cool the instrument in order to get a meaningful measurement, or they, and those who cite the measurements are perpetrating a deliberate fraud. My suspicion leans toward deliberate fraud.

So water vapor can be a green house gas, but now we need to figure out

Water vapor is the only greenhouse gas in so far as it can actually absorb and retain energy without necessarily getting warmer itself. Of course, it can't radiate energy against an EM field of greater magnitude and warm an object warmer than itself, but that is a whole different discussion.

1# wires uniform vector theory and the fact that molecules of the same kind can't transfer heat to each other.---There is a quote from the United states department of energy bringing support of such, which means that the same molecules can't absorb energy or transmit energy at a lower energy level of the same molecule, more or less.

First, wirebender doesn't have a uniform vector theory. Wirebender is simply applying known and accepted mathematics to a crackpot hypotheses in an effort to show people that the hypothesis is unphysical. And I have said that a molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. That is a quite different thing than you just attributed to me.

2# Polar bears theory that co2 is more or less water vapors bitch, meaning it rules the area that it is supposed to transmit within the spectrum. We got to solve for that to then to even consider what effects it might have?

I doubt that polar bear has a theory either. He, like me is simply applying known physical principles to a questional hypothesis and showing, like me, that the hypothesis does not stand up to physical reality. Consider the fact that a packet of energy takes 0.0245 seconds to radiate from the surface of the earth to space passing through water vapor while it takes a mere 0.0049 seconds for the same packet of energy to radiate from teh surface of the earth to space passing through CO2. I believe I provided you with a link that demonstrates the math. Water vapor completely overwhelms any effect that CO2 might have Matthew. No amount of CO2 that would allow life as we know it on the planet to continue living can have a statistically important effect on atmospheric temperatures.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation” « The Science of Doom

What DLR Measurements Exist?

Hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of researchers over the decades have taken measurements of DLR (along with other values) for various projects and written up the results in papers. You can see an example from a text book in Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation.

Crock. Fraud. Misleading pseudoscience. Sure, hundreds or thousands of measurements have been taken Matthew. And each and every one was taken by an instrument that was cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. Without cooling the instrument, no measurenemt could be taken because no radiation emits downward from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. The instrum
ent must be cooled to a temperature far below the temperature of the atmosphere in order to artificially create a vector in which radiation can move towards the surface.

We have been through this before Matthew. Either you don't believe the statements that I have made regarding EM fields, in which case, I invite you to bring forward some information that proves that the atmosphere and earth are exempt from the forces that determine the transport of energy via EM fields or you simply grabbed the information you linked to without even beginning to think critically about it and just used it because it agreed with a point you were trying to make.

Field vector calculus rules when the topic is Em fields, Matthew. Either the people who took those measurements with those supercooled instruments didn't grasp the obvious fact that there was a reason they had to cool the instrument in order to get a meaningful measurement, or they, and those who cite the measurements are perpetrating a deliberate fraud. My suspicion leans toward deliberate fraud.

That makes sense as they super cool it to makes it colder then the Atmosphere, which is why the devise can only get a measurement if you cool it(warm to cold object). This proves the green house effect to be a fraud! A total crock.

About the vector being uniformed in all possible outward directions that would put another nail into the green house theory. In since energy can't be transported to another molecule of its kind then it can't work.

 

[konradv]

A cute article but it doesn't address any of the real questions because it is still promulgating the theory that CO2 drives the bus. It appears that our atmosphere acts much like a blanket. If we had no atmosphere the planet would heat up to around 107 degrees C during the day and drop to a chilly -153 degrees C at night (those are the mean temps of the Moon, the extreme temps are a bit higher for the day and significantly colder for the night time), but we thankfully do have one.

The AGW folks are looking at the atmosphere from the wrong perspective. It doesn't warm anything. It keeps things from getting too hot and too cold.

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold. You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased? You seem to accept the Greenhouse Effect as a given, but discard it when it interferes with what I can only conclude is a political position, having already conceded the scientific point!!!

 

[wirebender]

About the vector being uniformed in all possible outward directions that would put another nail into the green house theory. In since energy can't be transported to another molecule of its kind then it can't work.

A molecule that absorbs IR in the frequency that a CO2 molecule emits could absorb the energy. Water vapor for instance, can absorb energy emitted by CO2 but it doesn't really matter since it can't radiate the energy back to the earth and it could absorb that energy even if the CO2 molecule weren't present, or the bulk of it anyway. My only statement was that a CO2 molecule can't abosrb the emission of another CO2 molecule and in the grand scheme, that is nothing more than a curiosity. It certainly wouldn't alter an energy budget. We know how long it takes a "packet" of energy to radiate from the surface of the earth to space going through any known gas or liquid. The fact that CO2 can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule doesn't change a thing as far as energy transport into cold space is concerned.

 

[wirebender]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold.

Are you aware konradv that when you put a blanket over yourself that your skin temperature actually drops? It does, and it is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. You could throw a hundred blankets over yourself and you would never be able to raise your body temperature. To do so would be creating energy and I am afraid that doesn't happen.

You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased?

Because earth gets X energy from its only energy source. You can't radiate more energy than you recieve. According to energy budgets pushed by warmists, the earth receives ~168 watts per square meter of energy from its only energy source but manages to radiate more than twice that amount of energy. Even if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector, which it isn't, the most energy it could radiate would be ~168 watts per square meter. A single watt above that number represents the creation of energy; perpetual motion and the second law of thermodynamics forbids it.

 

[konradv]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold.

Are you aware konradv that when you put a blanket over yourself that your skin temperature actually drops? It does, and it is precisely what the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. You could throw a hundred blankets over yourself and you would never be able to raise your body temperature. To do so would be creating energy and I am afraid that doesn't happen.

You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased?

Because earth gets X energy from its only energy source. You can't radiate more energy than you recieve. According to energy budgets pushed by warmists, the earth receives ~168 watts per square meter of energy from its only energy source but manages to radiate more than twice that amount of energy. Even if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector, which it isn't, the most energy it could radiate would be ~168 watts per square meter. A single watt above that number represents the creation of energy; perpetual motion and the second law of thermodynamics forbids it.

LOL!!! I guess we're all just imagining that we're warmer, when we throw on an extra blanket in the winter time!!! You're just TOOOOOOOOO screwy for words, wirebender.

 

[IanC]

obviously there are a lot of people here that focus on a small detail and ignore the larger picture that contradicts their favourite theory. energy comes in, energy goes out. thermodynamic laws work on a large scale and finding local examples that appear to contradict them doesnt disprove them.

Im no climate scientist but I can find a huge source of energy that can be lost or found just in the errors bars. an inperceptible change in width or speed of ocean currents can mask a dramatic amount of energy change as well as causing a cascade of other climate changes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, one can consult what real physicists have to say.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, I am going to continue to post that site until a I find a better one. The world's most prestigious scientific society of physicists wrote that, and made it available for the whole world to use. People like Bent can deny it, and make false statements about how science works all they want. That will not change the physical laws that control the universe.

Ain't no error bars in the melting of most of the world's glaciers, or the melting of the world's ice caps. No error bars in the fact that the worlds oceans have had a major increase in stored heat in the last 100 years.

What we are seeing here is people trying desperately to divert attention from the fact that things are changing rapidly, and the affects of the changes are not good for any of us.

 

[westwall]

A cute article but it doesn't address any of the real questions because it is still promulgating the theory that CO2 drives the bus. It appears that our atmosphere acts much like a blanket. If we had no atmosphere the planet would heat up to around 107 degrees C during the day and drop to a chilly -153 degrees C at night (those are the mean temps of the Moon, the extreme temps are a bit higher for the day and significantly colder for the night time), but we thankfully do have one.

The AGW folks are looking at the atmosphere from the wrong perspective. It doesn't warm anything. It keeps things from getting too hot and too cold.

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold. You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased? You seem to accept the Greenhouse Effect as a given, but discard it when it interferes with what I can only conclude is a political position, having already conceded the scientific point!!!

As the post above makes plain, H2O vapor overwhelms any possible impact CO2 could have. They affect the same spectra and because H2O vapor is THE DOMINANT GHG in the atmosphere (by many orders of magnitude) CO2 is a non entity. If you removed every bit of CO2 from the atmosphere I doubt if the effect could be measured.

Your observation is likewise meaningless. With no atmosphere the Earth heats up to temperatures that kill all life but microbes. Then in the darkness of night it cools to temperatures unfathomable to most people. An over 200 degree C swing in hours.

Water vapor prevents that, not some barely measurable trace gas.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course, one can consult what real physicists have to say.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, I am going to continue to post that site until a I find a better one. The world's most prestigious scientific society of physicists wrote that, and made it available for the whole world to use. People like Bent can deny it, and make false statements about how science works all they want. That will not change the physical laws that control the universe.

Ain't no error bars in the melting of most of the world's glaciers, or the melting of the world's ice caps. No error bars in the fact that the worlds oceans have had a major increase in stored heat in the last 100 years.

What we are seeing here is people trying desperately to divert attention from the fact that things are changing rapidly, and the affects of the changes are not good for any of us.

"real"...........indeed..........just like the real articles you posted up this past weekend from far left environmental websites like the "Pacific Insitute" etc.........

really bogus..........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures

Oh PRAISE GAIA!

We were getting desperate. The grants are drying up faster than a 50 year old nun. The facts substantially refute our faith and we need SOMETHING to convince the suckers to keep funding us. (Otherwise, we might have to get productive jobs - Gaia forbid!)

Our beloved fraud has suffered over the last decade - no one with half a brain believes us. Smart people are either involved in the con, or trash us as the hacks and frauds we all are. It is a desperate time, we need to convince the stupid people that our beloved religion is real and that only we of the intelligentsia can save the from the volcano god, er, I mean GLOBAL WARMING.

Sincerely;

Al Gore

 

[Old Rocks]

A cute article but it doesn't address any of the real questions because it is still promulgating the theory that CO2 drives the bus. It appears that our atmosphere acts much like a blanket. If we had no atmosphere the planet would heat up to around 107 degrees C during the day and drop to a chilly -153 degrees C at night (those are the mean temps of the Moon, the extreme temps are a bit higher for the day and significantly colder for the night time), but we thankfully do have one.

The AGW folks are looking at the atmosphere from the wrong perspective. It doesn't warm anything. It keeps things from getting too hot and too cold.

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold. You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased? You seem to accept the Greenhouse Effect as a given, but discard it when it interferes with what I can only conclude is a political position, having already conceded the scientific point!!!

As the post above makes plain, H2O vapor overwhelms any possible impact CO2 could have. They affect the same spectra and because H2O vapor is THE DOMINANT GHG in the atmosphere (by many orders of magnitude) CO2 is a non entity. If you removed every bit of CO2 from the atmosphere I doubt if the effect could be measured.

Your observation is likewise meaningless. With no atmosphere the Earth heats up to temperatures that kill all life but microbes. Then in the darkness of night it cools to temperatures unfathomable to most people. An over 200 degree C swing in hours.

Water vapor prevents that, not some barely measurable trace gas.

LOL. You are still an idiot, Walleyes.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

The skeptic argument...
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

 

[westwall]

I'm afraid you've got the wrong perspective. To say CO2 is warming the planet is incorrect. It's actually preventing cooling, like throwing on an extra blanket when it's cold. You say that without our atmosphere and its naturally occurring GHGs, keep the Earth's temp in balance. So, why wouldn't we expect more warming, if GHGs were increased? You seem to accept the Greenhouse Effect as a given, but discard it when it interferes with what I can only conclude is a political position, having already conceded the scientific point!!!

As the post above makes plain, H2O vapor overwhelms any possible impact CO2 could have. They affect the same spectra and because H2O vapor is THE DOMINANT GHG in the atmosphere (by many orders of magnitude) CO2 is a non entity. If you removed every bit of CO2 from the atmosphere I doubt if the effect could be measured.

Your observation is likewise meaningless. With no atmosphere the Earth heats up to temperatures that kill all life but microbes. Then in the darkness of night it cools to temperatures unfathomable to most people. An over 200 degree C swing in hours.

Water vapor prevents that, not some barely measurable trace gas.

LOL. You are still an idiot, Walleyes.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

The skeptic argument...
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

Show us a single shred of empirical data to support your mindless blatherings olfraud. No computer model BS, real hard data that supports it even a tad.