Re: Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"
If you can't attack the science then by all means attack the person. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you refute the science and not just the scientist?
I'm hung over and tired, so this is going to be ugly. Pardon the typos.
Roy Spencer has a deceptive graph he parrots constantly involving the model runs. He's basically lying his butt off. If that isn't unethical, I don't know what is. There's a good reason I named him as one I believe behaved unethically when you threw the goofball accusation at me that I believe it of al contrarian scientists.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. If you want the deceptive nature of the graph explained in detail, I'll be happy to do so at your request.
As for water vapor, it is counted on in the positive feedback loop in many climate models that indicate catastrophic consequences and the most extreme outliers in temperature that scaremongers love to spout on about.
Reference for this portion.
The best way to have a significant effect on water vapor is to somehow raise temperatures. There are many complexities with feedbacks discussed in the reference above. The point is that it is a feedback, because humidity is so strongly influenced by temperature, rather than by emissions.
As a GHG, I would estimate it's about 2x as important as CO2, but it's pretty much inhibited by temperatures. If you add a lot of wate into the atmosphere, it rains out, so humidity is maintained at and equilibrium. Therefore addingwater into the atmosphere don't have much effect on the total water vapor content. The best way to have a significant effect on water vapour is to raise temperatures. This is why water vapor is a feedback, and carbon dioxide as a forcing. Added carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere a long time, and contributes to a stronger greenhouse effect and higher temperatures. This tends to raise specific humidity, which increases water in the atmosphere as well, and that makes the greenhouse effect stronger again. Again, there are many complexities here. Try reading the above paper.
CO2 has diminishing return on investment as a warming agent because the relationship is not linear. It is because of this LAW of diminishing returns as the concentration of a GHG increases that positive feedback mechanisms like water vapor are so important to the climate models' wild extreme increases in temperature. There is very little left in the capacity of CO2 as a GHG because it has reached close to 95% of its total possible warming effect.
Reference. Also my own experience concerning spectrometers.
The Inference of substantial forcings for increasing CO2 is perfectly consistent with scientific LAW, thank you very much.. I'm well aware of the logarithmic nature concerning CO2's absorption characteristics. If you are are asserting that CO2 is not a potent GHG and further emissions are of little consequence, then that's an odd and frankly wrongheaded assertion. you are mixing up the effect of a single frequency of light with the effect on the whole spectrum.
The major effect of increasing concentrations of a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs thermal radiation, CO2, for instance, is to increase absorption in the shoulders or wings of the main absorption band. This is a basic detail of the transmission of light in a gas which should be covered in any decent text on the matter. CO2 absorbs strongly in one particular band, so pretty much all of that frequency is absorbed. Further increases of CO2 have negligible further effect on the absorption in the middle of that band. However, the width of the saturated band increases, as more and more frequencies shift from being marginally absorbed to mostly absorbed and the net effect of this is the basis for the logarithmic relation between density and temperature.
I find it hilarious when people try to minimize our emission and the nature of CO2. It's one of the most solidly established aspects of the whole problem!
Going to sleep. Rest of your post and more cleanup tomorrow.