Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

I watched the whole thing. Another real good piece of propaganda by a charlatan.

And it was wrong because....?

[RandomGuy]

The no mention does matter. H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas. It is a lie by omission, making the viewer think that only increased CO2 can be the cause. Any starting changes in the earths temperature will increase the H2O content in the air also.

CO2 changes by what? Around 50%? H2O changes by more than that. If we go to the alarmist belief that CO2 increases temperature by 3C for doubling, then a 50% increase is about a 1C increase for CO2. However, the forcing of water vapor is at least 3 times that of CO2. Doubling of water vapor is at least 9C then.

Have you ever seen how the Water vapor content in the air changes over the earth during these long term changes?

Could a 12 minute video addressing a single topic address every single possible point you want it to make?

You are claiming it is some deliberate "lie by omission", when it is entirely possible that point may have been addressed elsewhere.

Have you looked at the author's other material to be able to say this for certain?

We both know the answer is "no, I have not, nor will not, look at all of this other material, I just slapped that claim on there to make myself feel better about my dismissing it out of hand".

Emotional arguments suck when it comes to getting at the truth.

[RandomGuy]

Shocking.

Google is your friend. "climate crock of the week water vapor" found this in one tenth of a second.

[Wild Cobra]

Shocking.

Google is your friend. "climate crock of the week water vapor" found this in one tenth of a second.

In don't even know where to start addressing that. Since you posted the propaganda, and obviously do not understand the sciences to believe why i would claim as I do, it's probably pointless.

Yes... Propaganda.

It starts with a rolling mist, which is not the same as H2O in the atmosphere you cant see.

Notice that levels are never assigned.

He states something like 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect is from various form of water in the air, but then claims CO2 has a greater effect because it is well mixed and H2O is only in the troposphere. CO2 having a greater volume does not mean it has a greater effect. Why didn't he say that the consensus is that CO2 is thought to have 95 to 26% of the greenhouse effect?

Bringing up extreme views of "deniers" at 95% (90%?) then giving a top range of 85% is also su ions. Not a whole lot of difference between 85% and 95%.

Calling H2O a feedback from CO2 forcing (implied) is ridiculous, especially after correctly pointing out H2O has a loose boundary of percentage in the air by temperature. Not only is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas, but temperature is also increased by the sun, which isn't poi9nted out. To say that the claimed 0.6C assumed increase makes a large enough change in H2O concentration to have an increased radiative forcing is laughable. Assuming we change the equatorial air from around 40C to 41C, you may get around a 5% increase in water vapor. this is pretty meaningless when at these temperatures, it is already near the horizontally flat part of the logarithmic curve. Now in the polar regions, where it is claimed the air may be a couple degrees warmer, the change may be around 10%. This may be from increased H2O, but as he pointed out, the percentage is around 0.2% in the polar regions.

Where does he make any claim about where the increased temperature, enough to affect H2), is from Co2?

He brings out facts, clumps them together, and without directly lying... lets the viewer get the wrong impression.

It's funny. So few studies on H2O forcing. I was looking for a clear graph to post, concentration vs. forcing, and didn't find any. Anyway, these changes are more notable at low levels that already high levels.

When I do look for H2O forcing, a common theme I find is it isn't studied because it isn't man made. At the same time, they claim extra forcing from temperature. Again, is it too much to ask to make sure they are not including natural forcing in their results when looking for anthropogenic forcing?

[Wild Cobra]

Random...

What I see, maybe you can relate to mathematically.

If I make a claim, and show some fancy calculations, but never show them together, and how the results are achieved, what you you think? That's what I see in these videos. He is baffling people who don't understand at the levels needed with his bull .

[Wild Cobra]

Though I usually don't see "Skeptical Science' as anything other than another AGW site, the work by Kevin Trenberth here is a good piece. Even though he is one of the "alarmists," and a lead author for the IPCC, his bias seems to be tempered in the words of his works. I suggest anyone wanting to understand the greenhouse effect better see if this helps. I still don't like a few statements like:

There is often confusion about how the greenhouse effect works. Greenhouse gases are those with more than two atoms, and water vapor is most important (H2O). But water has a short lifetime in the atmosphere of 9 days on average before it is rained out. Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, has a long lifetime, over a century, and therefore plays the most important role in climate change while water vapor provides a positive feedback or amplifying effect: the warmer it gets, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold by about 4% per degree Fahrenheit.

He seems to dismiss H2O like the others do as the primary greenhouse gas. Regardless that it having a short lifespan, it's always there to some degree, and is measured in percentage, rather than ppm.

Revised numbers:



Click on graphic for another good link.

[MannyIsGod]

Water Vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. It is not the most important. If you had any understanding of atmospheric workings, you would understand why. Even when you read explanations the go over your head.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a dumb ass understand how that water works in the atmosphere.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Soot and water have an effect on the thermodynamics of the Earth so of course that means that CO2 does not. Don't you understand MiG?

[Wild Cobra]

Water Vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas. It is not the most important. If you had any understanding of atmospheric workings, you would understand why. Even when you read explanations the go over your head.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a dumb ass understand how that water works in the atmosphere.

That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims.

I believe the generally accepted numbers are that H2O accounts for 70% +/- a little of the greenhouse effect and that water is generally accepted at 9% to 26%. When both change, and claims are made that H2O doesn't matter because we don't produce it.... WTF...

I find this very laughable that the AGW crowd says water vapor increases with temperature, amplifying CO2's effect, but seem to refuse that the balancing point for CO2 in the atmosphere vs. ocean changes with ocean warming.

If we look at it from a life issue, and they say CO2 stays for 20+ years, and water for less than 10 days... I say it's another play on facts to mislead from the truth.

Long term, over the last 250 years that have been fairly extensively studied, we see less than a 1C increase. The fact that the AGW crowd focuses on close to that number for recent decade changes should say something.

How can CO2 possibly account for the 1.6 watts/sq. meter of warming stated by the IPCC when other factors, with revised higher numbers would make the total forcing higher than it is?

[RandomGuy]

In don't even know where to start addressing that. Since you posted the propaganda, and obviously do not understand the sciences to believe why i would claim as I do, it's probably pointless.

Yes... Propaganda.

It starts with a rolling mist, which is not the same as H2O in the atmosphere you cant see.

Notice that levels are never assigned.

He states something like 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect is from various form of water in the air, but then claims CO2 has a greater effect because it is well mixed and H2O is only in the troposphere. CO2 having a greater volume does not mean it has a greater effect. Why didn't he say that the consensus is that CO2 is thought to have 95 to 26% of the greenhouse effect?

Bringing up extreme views of "deniers" at 95% (90%?) then giving a top range of 85% is also su ions. Not a whole lot of difference between 85% and 95%.

Calling H2O a feedback from CO2 forcing (implied) is ridiculous, especially after correctly pointing out H2O has a loose boundary of percentage in the air by temperature. Not only is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas, but temperature is also increased by the sun, which isn't poi9nted out. To say that the claimed 0.6C assumed increase makes a large enough change in H2O concentration to have an increased radiative forcing is laughable. Assuming we change the equatorial air from around 40C to 41C, you may get around a 5% increase in water vapor. this is pretty meaningless when at these temperatures, it is already near the horizontally flat part of the logarithmic curve. Now in the polar regions, where it is claimed the air may be a couple degrees warmer, the change may be around 10%. This may be from increased H2O, but as he pointed out, the percentage is around 0.2% in the polar regions.

Where does he make any claim about where the increased temperature, enough to affect H2), is from Co2?

He brings out facts, clumps them together, and without directly lying... lets the viewer get the wrong impression.

It's funny. So few studies on H2O forcing. I was looking for a clear graph to post, concentration vs. forcing, and didn't find any. Anyway, these changes are more notable at low levels that already high levels.

When I do look for H2O forcing, a common theme I find is it isn't studied because it isn't man made. At the same time, they claim extra forcing from temperature. Again, is it too much to ask to make sure they are not including natural forcing in their results when looking for anthropogenic forcing?

If your ideas are that good, get out there and publish. Quit ing about "propaganda" and do something about it, mouse.

Here is what I think:

You obviously don't understand the sciences involved. Every time I have taken the effort to delve into your claims, they have proven to be pretty bad takes on both the science involved, and sound reasoning itself.

If your understanding was as good as you claim, you would be publishing.

Since you are not publishing, I can only assume that if you presented this to someone who did understand the sciences, they would rightly shred your claims and assertions.

You do this with a variety of things beyond this.

Sorry, I don't accept your claim that this is spurious propaganda. I do not take your word at it.

[RandomGuy]

How can CO2 possibly account for the 1.6 watts/sq. meter of warming stated by the IPCC..

Present an alternate value, then submit that to a peer-reviewed journal.

Don't be afraid. Real scientists want to know the truth.

[Wild Cobra]

If your understanding was as good as you claim, you would be publishing.

Not my thing to do. I have a job that I actually enjoy doing. Why should I do something that is less interesting?

[Wild Cobra]

Present an alternate value, then submit that to a peer-reviewed journal.

Don't be afraid. Real scientists want to know the truth.

I think real scientists know the truth, but either sell their souls, or know better than bucking the system.

Climate scientists that disagree with the current dogma do get forced out.

[TeyshaBlue]

"That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims."
lol...I dont understand how it works I just know it's wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

"That all depends on if AGW is your religion or not I guess. I am not claiming to understand the workings of something too complex to actually understand like you do. What I see is obvious errors in the claims."
lol...I dont understand how it works I just know it's wrong.

I can comprehend how the variables play out in the system, the problem is with the multiple variables, there is no way to make any solid claim. There is no solid understand of a complete climate system, by anyone. It is impossible for anyone to say that CO2 is the culprit it is, with any integrity.

[TeyshaBlue]

The converse is every bit as true using that "logic".

[Wild Cobra]

The converse is every bit as true using that "logic".

Hence, skeptic.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hence uninformed opinion.

[MannyIsGod]

There really aren't all that many variables on the global scale that need to be quantified. We can represent the Earth's energy budget rather simply. Its not perfect, but it doens't need to be to represent what CO2 is doing.

WC calling scientists liars because he's got no scientific skill is rich (and status quo).

[Agloco]

[Wild Cobra]

There really aren't all that many variables on the global scale that need to be quantified. We can represent the Earth's energy budget rather simply. Its not perfect, but it doens't need to be to represent what CO2 is doing.

WC calling scientists liars because he's got no scientific skill is rich (and status quo).

I'm questioning their assessment of CO2 warming. Using SpectralCalc in the areas that CO2 produces warming, it takes a tube length 1000 times longer than with H2O to get comparable absorption. Considering there is about 10 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2, how do you explain that?

---edit add---

There is one part that doesn't need the 1000 times longer length to have merit, and it is the primary discussed range for CO2. However, when looking at it for the spectrum of earth emitted IR, it looks like this:

[MannyIsGod]

No one is disputing that water vapor is a higher contributor. What is being disputed is that you fail to realize that water vapor in the atmosphere is hard capped and is a function of temperature. That is why it is a feedback and that is why CO2 is more important.

In other words, you (per usual) have no ing clue what you're talking about because you're a parts changer with no education in the field that believe you know enough to lecture experts in. Its not even just atmospheric science; its pretty much EVERY field. You think you know more than the experts.

[MannyIsGod]

I mean it should be self evident that if H2O was the primary driver behind AGW we would have no oceans and a temperature much higher because higher temps evap more water raising the temp etc etc. Why doesn't it happen? I wonder. (not really)

[Wild Cobra]

No one is disputing that water vapor is a higher contributor.

Good.

What is being disputed is that you fail to realize that water vapor in the atmosphere is hard capped and is a function of temperature. That is why it is a feedback and that is why CO2 is more important.

As I have pointed out in the past, CO2 is not the only thing driving temperature.

If CO2 was respnsible for ~0.6C increase, then that is very little more to add any water to the atmosphere. there would be almost no change for a few reasons, but H2O, like CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, is logarithmic in forcing vs. quan y. Solar energy however, with it's known changes since the 1700, has directly warmed the oceans more than in the past. This will also create more humidity in the air, and almost for certain, more than any amount of CO2 has done.

I mean it should be self evident that if H2O was the primary driver behind AGW we would have no oceans and a temperature much higher because higher temps evap more water raising the temp etc etc. Why doesn't it happen? I wonder. (not really)

What a silly statement.

If H2O caused AGW...

Really now...

In these more recent days, you need to remember. I pointed out H2O as increasing with temperature as well, besides CO2, coming out of the ice age. All you fear-mongers do is talk about CO2.

Would you agree there was a significant increase in H2O levels coming out of the ice age or not?

CO2 only increased about 50%. H2O more than doubled. CO2 increased slightly coming out of the maunder minima. I'll bet H2O almost doubled.

[MannyIsGod]

Show me your math, WC. You know, the way that has been done for CO2 over the past 100+ years. Show your math, or STFU already.