Water Vapor Is The Dominant Greenhouse Gas

[A-wal]

No.  I am saying there is a warming AND cooling effect due to water vapor.  Warming due to its reflection of IR radiation; cooling due to higher albedo of clouds.

And those scientists are saying that the cooling effect of clouds had been greatly underestimated and that cloud cover does in fact have a net cooling effect.

 

Nope.  But feel free to keep guessing.

Maybe it would make your points a bit clearer if you didn't tie yourself in so many knots trying justify your biased position on climate change in the face of such overwhelming counter evidence that invalidates it.

 

You said before that you think the cooling effect of clouds doesn't overpower the warming effect. I've quoted new evidence showing that it does. Have a bit of integrity and learn to take it on the chin when somebody shows that you're wrong.

 

Volcanic activity is pretty average right now.  If anything, over the past 100 years (the timescale of climate change) it has increased.

 

http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/the-human-impact-of-volcanoes-a-historical-review-of-events-1900-2009-and-systematic-literature-review/

Volcanic activity has been well below average (not sure quite how far that goes back). It may have increased lately but it's still well below past levels.

 

It's funny how so many climate change denier arguments end with the denier screaming and cursing when their theories don't hold together in the face of facts.

Not as funny as some dosy climate change muppet attempting to smugly claim victory when they've been shown to not have the first clue what they're talking about and every one of their points has been invalidated.

 

This is one of the examples of why a person like you has some real fcuking nerve using the word honest.

Edited October 9, 2018 by A-wal

[billvon]

 

And those scientists are saying that the cooling effect of clouds had been greatly underestimated and that cloud cover does in fact have a net cooling effect.

 

 

Yes, clouds on the sun side have a net cooling effect.  Clouds on the dark side have a net warming effect.  Most estimates I have seen indicate that they are approximately equal.  If you want to say that the cooling effect dominates, fine.  If it does, it's not by much.

 

However, again, you are talking about clouds, not water vapor.  Water vapor has a very strong warming effect overall, and is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere (see original post.)

Maybe it would make your points a bit clearer if you didn't tie yourself in so many knots trying justify your biased position on climate change in the face of such overwhelming counter evidence that invalidates it.

 

 

Perhaps if you stopped imagining what my positions were, you would confuse yourself a little less.

 

Volcanic activity has been well below average (not sure quite how far that goes back). It may have increased lately but it's still well below past levels.

 

 

 

And I have posted evidence showing that that is not true - that on the timescale of the warming we are seeing (1850-2018) that volcanism has increased, not decreased.  If you have alternative evidence, please post it.  If not, your claim is not credible.

 

 

Not as funny as some dosy climate change muppet attempting to smugly claim victory when they've been shown to not have the first clue what they're talking about and every one of their points has been invalidated.  This is one of the examples of why a person like you has some real fcuking nerve using the word honest.

 

Again, screaming curses just makes you look angry and ill-informed.

Edited October 9, 2018 by billvon

[A-wal]

Yes, clouds on the sun side have a net cooling effect.  Clouds on the dark side have a net warming effect.  Most estimates I have seen indicate that they are approximately equal.  If you want to say that the cooling effect dominates, fine.  If it does, it's not by much.

That's not what the recent study has shown. They thought before that it was approximately equal but "The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur".

 

You're refusal to accept new data that doesn't conform to your preexisting (empty propaganda based) beliefs nicely highlights the lack of integrity and intellectual honesty me and GAHD have been pointing out.

 

However, again, you are talking about clouds, not water vapor.  Water vapor has a very strong warming effect overall, and is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere (see original post.)

The point is that increased cloud cover due to increased warming acts to slow down further warming. So does increased CO2 consumption from plant life (probably far more so) and er, at least one other thing that I can't remember right now. These are never taken into account in future climate models and that makes those models agenda driven horseshit.

 

Perhaps if you stopped imagining what my positions were, you would confuse yourself a little less.

Perhaps if you discussed the issue with a little more honesty and stopped trying to maintain such a rigid and untenable position in the face of obvious counter evidence then you wouldn't have to tie yourself up with logical inconsistencies and I wouldn't have to attempt to make sense of your contradictory statements.

 

And I have posted evidence showing that that is not true - that on the timescale of the warming we are seeing (1850-2018) that volcanism has increased, not decreased.  If you have alternative evidence, please post it.  If not, your claim is not credible.

Yes it's increased slightly in the time of the recent warming, but it was already well down on the average before that and still is today. This is one of the factors that pushed the temperature up. Stop trying to manipulate facts to suit your baseless position!

 

Every time I've posted evidence that refutes the dishonest climate models it's been ignored. Find it yourself.

 

Again, screaming curses just makes you look angry and ill-informed.

You're hollow rhetoric, refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence and dishonest debating tactics are more than a little annoying. Sometimes cursing is warranted. In your case I believe it is and attempting to claim that somehow invalidates my points is very desperate of you. Try being unjustly smug with me sunshine when I've shown just how hollow your arguments really are and you'll get attitude back. What do you expect?

[A-wal]

I'm going to have to retract my claim that volcanic activity has been below average in recent decades, for now at least. I can't find anything solid on it.

[TooMuchFun]

 

 

You're (sic) hollow rhetoric, refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence and dishonest debating tactics are more than a little annoying. Sometimes cursing is warranted. (IF YOU'RE IMMATURE AND CANNOT CONTROL YOURSELF.) In your case I believe it is and attempting to claim that somehow invalidates my points is very desperate of you. Try being unjustly smug with me sunshine when I've shown just how hollow your arguments really are and you'll get attitude back. What do you expect?

 

Says the unjustly smug boy.   

 

 Only 30% of children raised in atheist homes remain atheists.  This is a far lower proportion than Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, or any other reasonable and sane belief, which of course atheism is not. So much for the pretense of "intellectualism" and rationality.

[A-wal]

Only 30% of children raised in atheist homes remain atheists.

That sounds like bullshit to me.

 

This is a far lower proportion than Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, or any other reasonable and sane belief, which of course atheism is not. So much for the pretense of "intellectualism" and rationality.

How can any religion be considered sane when (leaving aside the fact that purely faith based beliefs are insane by definition) there's so damn many different versions? What makes any one more likely to be true? You're very nearly an atheist, ask yourself why you don't believe in religions other than the one you were brought up with and you'll understand why yours is horseshit.

 

Besides, I never said I was an atheist. I hate religion, not a belief in something greater.

[TooMuchFun]

You're hateful, condescending, and childish.  This forum is the poorer for you.  

You never open your mouth without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge.

[A-wal]

You're hateful, condescending, and childish.

Yes I am when it comes to religion. I think it's a perversion of spirituality and I find it offensive. It should be for each person to discover their own enlightenment, not preached to them by dogmatic institutions designed to enslave the stupid and put everyone else off from anything spiritual.

 

This forum is the poorer for you.

It's the poorer for quite a few of it's members. I'm nothing special.

 

You never open your mouth without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge.

I don't think that's how it would work even if what I said was wrong.

[GAHD]

 

 

 

Says the unjustly smug boy.   

 

 Only 30% of children raised in atheist homes remain atheists.  This is a far lower proportion than Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, or any other reasonable and sane belief, which of course atheism is not. So much for the pretense of "intellectualism" and rationality.

You are clearly demonstrating how hateful and bitter you are. No doubt you are a Leftist.

 

There is some serious Irony here. Stick to the point, and admit you're wrong when you're wrong. Otherwise, you're just acting like a democrat. You wanna be known as a democrat?

'Cause you're switching gears entirely here, it's obvious, childish, and quite silly. 

You're hateful, condescending, and childish.  This forum is the poorer for you.  

You never open your mouth without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge.

 

So, topic. points. Don't try to switch it to a discussion about Imaginary Friends for adults to hide from yourself not being all-knowing like some fictitious being on Mt Olympus.

[billvon]

I'm going to have to retract my claim that volcanic activity has been below average in recent decades, for now at least. I can't find anything solid on it.

Excellent.  Progress!  Good for you for reconsidering previous (incorrect) claims based on new evidence.  Let's hope this trend continues.

[A-wal]

Excellent.  Progress!  Good for you for reconsidering previous (incorrect) claims based on new evidence.  Let's hope this trend continues.

Now are you going to admit new information shows that the warming effect of cloud cover at night isn't enough to fully counteract its cooling effect during the day so there's an overall net cooling effect I wonder?

[billvon]

Now are you going to admit new information shows that the warming effect of cloud cover at night isn't enough to fully counteract its cooling effect during the day so there's an overall net cooling effect I wonder?

Nope.  We simply don't know yet.

 

For example, Kate Marvel and Joel Morris have done a lot of work on cloud formation; their research shows that warming is causing two effects - clouds are shifting towards the poles (on average) and are getting higher (on average.)  Both are positive feedback effects; both trap more heat than they reflect.  Clouds over the pole reflect very little light because there's not much sunlight up there; they reflect IR as well as they always do.  Similarly, higher clouds reflect sunlight as well as they usually do, but are better at trapping heat.  (More/warmer air is beneath them compared to lower clouds.)

 

On the other hand we have the Yin/Porporato study which indicates that clouds are forming later than climate models predict.  This can affect cloud model results, since (as I mention above) nighttime cloud formation is generally warming, and daytime cloud formation is generally cooling.  So that could be a negative-feedback effect.  However, even in that study, they note that "this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming."  (DCC is the diurnal cycle of clouds, or an accounting of when clouds form and dissipate.)  Which means that it's not significant enough to make a big difference.

 

So we don't know yet.  From the studies out there, there's a reasonably strong argument that the feedback is positive, and a less strong argument that the feedback is negative.  The IPCC mirrors this; they conclude that cloud formation is the least well understood feedback mechanism.  Hopefully future research will shed more light on the effect.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/clouds-get-high-on-climate-change-1.20230

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1

https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

[exchemist]

Nope.  We simply don't know yet.

 

For example, Kate Marvel and Joel Morris have done a lot of work on cloud formation; their research shows that warming is causing two effects - clouds are shifting towards the poles (on average) and are getting higher (on average.)  Both are positive feedback effects; both trap more heat than they reflect.  Clouds over the pole reflect very little light because there's not much sunlight up there; they reflect IR as well as they always do.  Similarly, higher clouds reflect sunlight as well as they usually do, but are better at trapping heat.  (More/warmer air is beneath them compared to lower clouds.)

 

On the other hand we have the Yin/Porporato study which indicates that clouds are forming later than climate models predict.  This can affect cloud model results, since (as I mention above) nighttime cloud formation is generally warming, and daytime cloud formation is generally cooling.  So that could be a negative-feedback effect.  However, even in that study, they note that "this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming."  (DCC is the diurnal cycle of clouds, or an accounting of when clouds form and dissipate.)  Which means that it's not significant enough to make a big difference.

 

So we don't know yet.  From the studies out there, there's a reasonably strong argument that the feedback is positive, and a less strong argument that the feedback is negative.  The IPCC mirrors this; they conclude that cloud formation is the least well understood feedback mechanism.  Hopefully future research will shed more light on the effect.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/clouds-get-high-on-climate-change-1.20230

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1

https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

But, for the avoidance of doubt, these (condensed phase) cloud effects have to be added to the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which arises from its strong absorption in the IR in the same way as the greenhouse effect from CO2.

[A-wal]

Nope.  We simply don't know yet.

 

For example, Kate Marvel and Joel Morris have done a lot of work on cloud formation; their research shows that warming is causing two effects - clouds are shifting towards the poles (on average) and are getting higher (on average.)  Both are positive feedback effects; both trap more heat than they reflect.  Clouds over the pole reflect very little light because there's not much sunlight up there; they reflect IR as well as they always do.  Similarly, higher clouds reflect sunlight as well as they usually do, but are better at trapping heat.  (More/warmer air is beneath them compared to lower clouds.)

 

On the other hand we have the Yin/Porporato study which indicates that clouds are forming later than climate models predict.  This can affect cloud model results, since (as I mention above) nighttime cloud formation is generally warming, and daytime cloud formation is generally cooling.  So that could be a negative-feedback effect.  However, even in that study, they note that "this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming."  (DCC is the diurnal cycle of clouds, or an accounting of when clouds form and dissipate.)  Which means that it's not significant enough to make a big difference.

 

So we don't know yet.  From the studies out there, there's a reasonably strong argument that the feedback is positive, and a less strong argument that the feedback is negative.  The IPCC mirrors this; they conclude that cloud formation is the least well understood feedback mechanism.  Hopefully future research will shed more light on the effect.

 

https://www.nature.com/news/clouds-get-high-on-climate-change-1.20230

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1

https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

It was thought before the new study that the warming and cooling effects of cloud cover were pretty much balanced (as you even said yourself). The new information shows that the cooling effect had been greatly underestimated. Therefore now that the new information is available the only logical conclusion has to be that there must be an overall cooling effect. It's pretty simple, if it was thought to be balanced before when the cooling effect had been underestimated then it can't reasonably thought to be balanced now.

 

And that sir is why you are a dishonourable turd-head without even a shred of intellectual honesty.

[billvon]

It was thought before the new study that the warming and cooling effects of cloud cover were pretty much balanced (as you even said yourself). The new information shows that the cooling effect had been greatly underestimated.

 

No, it doesn't.  In fact, the very study you posted says that it "does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming."  You may disagree (that's fine) but in that case you'd have to explain why you now disagree with a source you yourself just posted.

And that sir is why you are a dishonourable turd-head without even a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

 

And that is why no one takes you seriously.  I make a post and link to four sources for my opinions, including two from the journal Nature.  The very best intellectual response you can come up with is "turd head."  

[A-wal]

No, it doesn't.  In fact, the very study you posted says that it "does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming."  You may disagree (that's fine) but in that case you'd have to explain why you now disagree with a source you yourself just posted.

I'm not saying that the cooling effect of increased cloud cover is enough to overturn climate predictions by itself. I'm simply pointing out that cloud cover has an overall cooling effect. You claimed that it doesn't and I provided a source that shows that you're wrong.

 

And that is why no one takes you seriously.  I make a post and link to four sources for my opinions, including two from the journal Nature.  The very best intellectual response you can come up with is "turd head."  

I didn't just call you a turd-head head though did I? This:

It was thought before the new study that the warming and cooling effects of cloud cover were pretty much balanced (as you even said yourself). The new information shows that the cooling effect had been greatly underestimated. Therefore now that the new information is available the only logical conclusion has to be that there must be an overall cooling effect. It's pretty simple, if it was thought to be balanced before when the cooling effect had been underestimated then it can't reasonably thought to be balanced now.

Is why you're are a dishonourable turd-head without even a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point of how completely full of **** you are.

[billvon]

I'm not saying that the cooling effect of increased cloud cover is enough to overturn climate predictions by itself. I'm simply pointing out that cloud cover has an overall cooling effect. You claimed that it doesn't and I provided a source that shows that you're wrong.

.

 

The source you post does not state that it has an overall cooling effect.  Your source stated that the cloud formation models they use have more error than they expected. They did NOT show clouds have an overall cooling effect.  From the source you posted: "consistent biases in DCC between present and future climates give rise to similar TOA reference irradiance, so that the model tuning made for current climate conditions still remains largely effective for the global mean temperature projections. "  In other words, they do not affect current predictions for temperature increases.  They do, however, "have the potential to increase the uncertainty of climate projections."

 

Now, you can argue with that if you like.  However, you will then be arguing against your own source.

 

turd-head head  . . . dishonourable turd-head without even a shred of intellectual honesty. . .  how completely full of **** you are

 

 

Yep.  About the level of rationality you are capable of, sadly.

Edited October 18, 2018 by billvon