I thought you guys were "winning"...?

ginwilly said:

Thanks for your service man, sorry about the weak mind.

I don't mind helping with my tax dollars to support you, people like you are the ones that actually need it. Is it for life or can you get better?

We can talk about something else if you'd like. Let's try decency.

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

The queen of butt hurt is still Sir Greenthumb.

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

Here it is again, feedback loop explained. The claim that skeptics make about water vapor debunked.

Click to expand...

No feedback loop "explained". Furthermore, if there were these "synergies" present, they would need to manifest in some manner of overlap which you say isn't an issue. So which is it?

CO2? With more evidence like that, you may wind up convincing me to set up a giant air-conditioner in the front yard to remove that pesky water vapour from the air so the IR can run freeeeeee back into the Cosmos. But then I have to hide the water from the rest of the IR. I can stick it underground, perhaps? It will be safe there!
Or maybe drink it, and collect the water from my urine later when I smuggle it across the border to sell on the lucrative American X-ray Market.

Luckily, Obamapanels will be there to supply power for all my needs.



Working off nothing but his high-albedo smile...
/sarcasm (off)
​

heckler73 said:

Did you read Evans 2006? No feedback loop "explained". Furthermore, if there were these "synergies" present, they would need to manifest in some manner of overlap which you say isn't an issue. So which is it?
View attachment 3259161

So, water vapour (1)has wild fluctuations, (2) has a greater "radiative forcing" by factors of magnitude and (3)squashes the effect of the other "GHGs" acting as a regulator.
Did you also note the particular dates of experiment and locations, and who issued funding grants?

As for Kiehl 1996, I don't know what to make of it. It is a model, not a measurement. There is no explanation, and wide margins of --ahem--error (thanks to water vapour, again).
BTW In relation to my prior post of NIST spectra for H2O & CO2 gases, I neglected to include Water itself (i.e. the liquid form).​

View attachment 3259162

CO2? With more evidence like that, you may wind up convincing me to set up a giant air-conditioner in the front yard to remove that pesky water vapour from the air so the IR can run freeeeeee back into the Cosmos. But then I have to hide the water from the rest of the IR. I can stick it underground, perhaps? It will be safe there!
Or maybe drink it, and collect the water from my urine later when I smuggle it across the border to sell on the lucrative American X-ray Market.
Luckily, Obamapanels will be there to supply power for all my needs.

View attachment 3259153

Working off nothing but his high-albedo smile...
/sarcasm (off)
​

Click to expand...

heckler73 said:

Did you read Evans 2006? No feedback loop "explained". As for Kiehl 1996, I don't know what to make of it. It is a model, not a measurement.

Click to expand...

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

Yes, Evans 2006 measurements of IR radiation returning to the surface confirmed the proportion described by the Kiehl 1997 model. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2.

You can do what you want to with the measurements but the conclusion is that even though water vapor traps more heat, more CO2 = more water vapor.

Click to expand...

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Click to expand...

Pinworm said:

View attachment 3259172

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

You're dumb. I'm referring to the study.

Click to expand...

ginwilly said:

If your living is based on receiving government grants for researching a problem, solving that problem is counter-intuitive. Your grants will end with the solution.

If your goal is glory, it works, if your goal is to make a living, it doesn't.

Click to expand...

ginwilly said:

True Doer, but you deal with people all day. If we operated without deadlines, how efficient would you say we'd be?

Besides, I still like the idea of a defined goal before we throw money at something (not saying all of the research falls under this). "We choose to go to the moon not because it's easy..."

Make alternative fuel a competition with fame and fortune as the carrot. Make the prize enough that our brightest minds may see the risk is worth the reward.

The amount of money involved now is a great temptation for fraudulent behavior. Agree that more money isn't the solution.

Just spit balling ideas. Like I said, I planted trees and take the bike instead of the truck on nice days. I feel like I'm helping.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

I like the billion dollar idea

Do you feel this same way about pharmaceuticals? Why do we have vaccines?

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Well, that is all very cool, but I effect my self rule such that I don't have to feel like I'm helping.

Helping does not solve this problem. Cold Fusion would not...if there was such a thing.

The "problem" is so big there is nothing that can be done. Our Orbit is changing. When we studied that we found we should be cooling quite dramatically these last 100 years and we are not.

That is the ultimate insanity for thinking monkeys. It can't be fixed and if we do fix it we are fucked. Maybe that is what we are seeing?

BTW, what good did going to the moon do us? We can't do that anymore. We can't fly supersonic civilan transport anymore. There are many more.

Soon, the humans may not live on the surface anymore. But still, in our glory day, we almost nuked the planet and we did go the moon. Meeh. People that really know are being driven insane at the very thought of what is to come.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Well, Bill Gates doesn't think that playing Monopoly is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

ginwilly said:

Fair enough on not being able to do anything, I just disagree. We can stop polluting. I see benefits from living on a cleaner planet.

Dude, NASA rocks! You can attribute cell phones, computers, video games to name just a few. The expeditions themselves inspired a generation of kids to go into science. The benefit of that is unquantifiable.

Click to expand...