The cause of global cooling is a global water radiator

[ding]

Wrong.
Water vapor has zero effect on retention of earth heat because it condenses out at the cold temperatures of the high stratosphere.
There is no water vapor at the edge to space, so it has no effect on retaining heat or not.
Water vapor absorbing heat energy at sea level, is pointless.
That has nothing at all to do with whether the planet warms or cools.
The only place where molecular energy absorption mattes is at the very top edge of the stratosphere.
No where else.
The only heat retention that matters is if the heat would otherwise radiate out into space, if not retained by a carbon containing molecule.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Water vapor has zero effect on retention of earth heat because it condenses out at the cold temperatures of the high stratosphere.

Because clouds don't stop heat from radiating into space..........Huh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2.

Until yesterday, he thought warmer water dissolved more CO2 than colder water.

He's still learning. Very, very slowly.

 

[Rigby5]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2.

Wrong.
When someone uses the term "greenhouse" as to global warming, they are not really even talking about the right science at all.
The greenhouse effect is from the glass altering photon frequency, and having a differential in frequency transmission.
That has nothing at all to do with whether or not solar energy leave the earth or not.
Water vapor has ZERO effect on whether or not solar energy leaves the planet or not.
That is because there is ZERO water vapor at the boundary layer to space.
It is far too cold.
Any water would condense out at much lower altitudes.

The term "greenhouse gas" really is a misnomer and does not really apply/

{... Anything warmed radiates energy related to its temperature – the Sun at about 5,500 °C (9,930 °F) sends most as visible and near infrared light, while Earth's average surface temperature about 15 °C (59 °F) emits longer wavelength infrared radiant heat.[2] The atmosphere is transparent to most incoming sunlight, and allows its energy through to the surface. The term greenhouse effect comes from a flawed analogy comparing this to transparent glass allowing sunlight into greenhouses, but greenhouses mainly retain heat by restricting air movement, unlike this effect.[4] ...}

Think about it.
When the earth surface is hit by sunlight and warms up, then that heat if free to conduct and convect then to the atmosphere.
With conduction, time, and convention, that heat will uniformly transfer to atmosphere.
So then what makes a planet warmer or colder?
It is whether or not that heat can radiate back out to space or not.
And that is determined entirely by whether or not there is carbon containing molecules at the boundary layer to space, to block photonic radiation.
Any greenhouse gas anywhere else, will just be over come by conduction or convection.

 

[Rigby5]

Because clouds don't stop heat from radiating into space..........Huh?

Clouds only slightly slow heat transfer because when you block radiation, there is still conduction and convection.
When it comes to a whole planet heating or cooling, it is only the top boundary layer to space that matters.
As a matter of fact, clouds increase albedo and cause a planet to be cooler, by reflecting the initial solar light energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clouds only slightly slow heat transfer because when you block radiation, there is still conduction and convection.

No conduction or convection to space.

 

[Rigby5]

No conduction or convection to space.

That is the point.
Anywhere EXCEPT the boundary to space, heat will easily uniformly distribute due to conduction and convection.
So greenhouse gases are IRRELEVANT, except at the boundary layer to space.
That boundary layer to space is the only place where a greenhouse gas will prevent solar energy from leaving the planet.
Anywhere else, greenhouse gases are irrelevant because then conduction and convection will move the solar energy instead.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
When someone uses the term "greenhouse" as to global warming, they are not really even talking about the right science at all.
The greenhouse effect is from the glass altering photon frequency, and having a differential in frequency transmission.
That has nothing at all to do with whether or not solar energy leave the earth or not.
Water vapor has ZERO effect on whether or not solar energy leaves the planet or not.
That is because there is ZERO water vapor at the boundary layer to space.
It is far too cold.
Any water would condense out at much lower altitudes.

The term "greenhouse gas" really is a misnomer and does not really apply/

{... Anything warmed radiates energy related to its temperature – the Sun at about 5,500 °C (9,930 °F) sends most as visible and near infrared light, while Earth's average surface temperature about 15 °C (59 °F) emits longer wavelength infrared radiant heat.[2] The atmosphere is transparent to most incoming sunlight, and allows its energy through to the surface. The term greenhouse effect comes from a flawed analogy comparing this to transparent glass allowing sunlight into greenhouses, but greenhouses mainly retain heat by restricting air movement, unlike this effect.[4] ...}

Think about it.
When the earth surface is hit by sunlight and warms up, then that heat if free to conduct and convect then to the atmosphere.
With conduction, time, and convention, that heat will uniformly transfer to atmosphere.
So then what makes a planet warmer or colder?
It is whether or not that heat can radiate back out to space or not.
And that is determined entirely by whether or not there is carbon containing molecules at the boundary layer to space, to block photonic radiation.
Any greenhouse gas anywhere else, will just be over come by conduction or convection.

Again... water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. It's not even close.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is the point.
Anywhere EXCEPT the boundary to space, heat will easily uniformly distribute due to conduction and convection.
So greenhouse gases are IRRELEVANT, except at the boundary layer to space.
That boundary layer to space is the only place where a greenhouse gas will prevent solar energy from leaving the planet.
Anywhere else, greenhouse gases are irrelevant because then conduction and convection will move the solar energy instead.

That is the point.

Yes, that is your error.

That boundary layer to space is the only place where a greenhouse gas will prevent solar energy from leaving the planet.

IR is intercepted and re-radiated throughout the atmosphere, not just at the boundary with space.

Anywhere else, greenhouse gases are irrelevant because then conduction and convection will move the solar energy instead.

Radiation is much, much faster than either conduction or convection.

 

[ReinyDays]

RESPIRATION:
The action of breathing
MEDICINE

a single breath​

"observation of the patient's respirations will gradually be decreased"​

BIOLOGY

a process in living organisms involving the production of energy typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex oranic substances.​

TRANSPIRATION
BOTANY

(of a plant or leaf) the exhalation of water vapor through the stomata.​

"plants lose more than 90 percent of their water through transpiration"​

Respiration as a process does not make use of water. Water gets evaporated by circulating air from inside the body and leaves through respiration. No water is produced. Water lost through evaporation must be replaced by consumption. Transpiration is the movement of water out of plants. That water entered the plants from the soil through the roots. Plants consume water in the process of photosynthesis (sunlight + 6H2O + 6CO2 -> C6H1206 + 6O2), they do not produce it.

So, I'm sorry, but once again you are wrong.

PS, I am the fellow in the avatar photograph. If you think I look like a middle schooler or that young ladies are commonly bald with full beards and moustaches, I don't think I want to hang out in your milieu. If you doubt that is me in the photograph, I can change it to one of me holding a sign mentioning this conversation and you personally. Say the word. Or continue to act like... a middle schooler.

You're disputing AGW Theory? ... pray tell, why do you think deforestation causes climate change? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Wrong.
Water vapor has zero effect on retention of earth heat because it condenses out at the cold temperatures of the high stratosphere.
There is no water vapor at the edge to space, so it has no effect on retaining heat or not.
Water vapor absorbing heat energy at sea level, is pointless.
That has nothing at all to do with whether the planet warms or cools.
The only place where molecular energy absorption mattes is at the very top edge of the stratosphere.
No where else.
The only heat retention that matters is if the heat would otherwise radiate out into space, if not retained by a carbon containing molecule.

So much here is wrong ... starting with the top edge of the Troposphere ... that's above 82% of the atmosphere and all weather occurs below this surface ... the top edge of the Stratosphere has less than 1% of the atmosphere above it, far above even the ozone layer where solar UV is converted to safer energy levels ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this Environmental forum ... this has almost all human knowledge concerning radiative physics ... you need to oblige yourself with some of this ... you're following a very simple model of something that is anything but simple ...

The only place where molecular energy absorption mattes is at the very top edge of the [troposphere]. No where else.

That's not how gradients work ... you think of this as a blanket and it's not ... the flow of out-bound energy is slowing due to GHGs, during this extra time the energy spends in our atmosphere, it has to exist somehow, and this turns out to be kinetic energy, which we can measure with temperature ... the energy is still and continuously out-bound ... never stored in the atmosphere ...

The ocean is a different matter ... here we can store amazing amounts of energy with very little change in temperature ... and the world's oceans will always dampen any changes in temperature due to GHGs ... not only water's heat capacity, but also her ability to evaporate ... the real action takes place at the bottom of the troposphere, where air and water meet ...

 

[ding]

Bam!

 

[ding]

Which is why you can take it to the bank that the recent warming trend won't continue and that colder temperatures will eventually end all of this nonsense talk.

 

[Crick]

Again... water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. It's not even close.

Water vapor is responsible for 50-60% of greenhouse warming, carbon dioxideI for one-third, the rest from methane, nitroous oxide and several fluorinated gases. The big difference between water vapor and the other greenhouse gases is that water vapor levels are driven solely by the warming from other gases (or changes in TSI or orbital forcings). If the Industrial Revolution had not begun increasing greenhouse warming by increasing levels of CO2, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere would have remained unchanged.

Water vapor levels do not change without initial warming BECAUSE unlike those other gases, water is precipitable and thus participates in the huge global cycle moving between the atmosphere, the oceans and the land as vapor, liquid and ice. Because of its precipitability, it's concentration in the atmosphere is controlled entirely by temperature. The temperature of the atmosphere dictates the maximum amount of vapor that a given volume can hold. If a temperature decrease leads to super-saturation, the vapor precipitates out. This is not true of the non-precipitable gases and their levels can grow without bounds. Water vapor has only about one one-hundredth the atmospheric proportion by volume as CO2 and it's larger greenhouse effect is due not to its mass in the atmosphere but to the width of its absorption spectrum.

Precipitability leads the frigid upper atmosphere to be almost entirely devoid of water vapor and thus the final escape of IR energy to space is dictated almost entirely by the CO2 present there. Down in the troposphere, if the planet is warmed - by whatever cause - evaporation will increase and the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor will increase. This puts more water with more thermal energy into the atmosphere where it enhances the greenhouse effect and increases the severity of weather. One of the affects of global warming has been an increase in the volume of water both evaporating and precipitating. Precipitability also affects water vapor's lifespan in the atmosphere. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 300 to 1,000 years while the average water molecule will last for 9 days.

So, the conclusion here is that water vapor is not and CAN NOT be responsible for the warming seen over the last century or so.

 

[expat_panama]

Water vapor is responsible for 50-60% of greenhouse warming, carbon dioxideI for one-third, the rest from methane, nitroous oxide and several fluorinated gases. The big difference between water vapor and the other greenhouse gases is that water vapor levels are driven solely by the warming from other gases (or changes in TSI or orbital forcings). If the Industrial Revolution had not begun increasing greenhouse warming by increasing levels of CO2, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere would have remained unchanged....

This is (imho) subject to debate, and at the very least you and I should be able to agree that these statements are controversial. Furthermore, the statements are not fact, such as the fact that water boils at 100C, but imho they're the product of scant empirical data and a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[ding]

water vapor levels are driven solely by the warming from other gases (or changes in TSI or orbital forcings).

Water vapor is driven by temperature.

 

[ding]

If the Industrial Revolution had not begun increasing greenhouse warming by increasing levels of CO2, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere would have remained unchanged.

That's an incorrect assumption. Again... water vapor is driven by temperature. You are starting with the answer you want and working backwards by arguing absent increases in CO2 there will be no changes in temperature.

 

[ding]

Water vapor levels do not change without initial warming BECAUSE unlike those other gases, water is precipitable and thus participates in the huge global cycle moving between the atmosphere, the oceans and the land as vapor, liquid and ice.

Water vapor is changing all the time because temperatures change all the time. There are many factors which affect temperature and water vapor. It's a dynamic ever changing complex process with lots of moving parts all happening at the same time across the globe.

 

[ding]

So, the conclusion here is that water vapor is not and CAN NOT be responsible for the warming seen over the last century or so.

Who is arguing the recent warming trend was due to increased water vapor? In my mind water vapor acts to dampen temperature changes through cloud formation and precipitation at the exact same time it chokes the flow of heat on it's journey to outer space. It's a complicated process.

 

[Crick]

Who is arguing the recent warming trend was due to increased water vapor? In my mind water vapor acts to dampen temperature changes through cloud formation and precipitation at the exact same time it chokes the flow of heat on it's journey to outer space. It's a complicated process.

A number of people here have argued that AGW was actually due to water vapor. And the net effect of clouds on temperature is still not settled science to my knowledge.