Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Sdajii]

The peer review process resolves these concerns.
You keep clutching at straws.

The peer review process contains the same bias. Surely this should be obvious. Sadly it isn't, I suppose.

Do I need to give another link to show your claim is false?

You're welcome to if you like. I'll request that you discuss the topic without emotive, baiting language, but hey, even if you can't, sure, go for it.

Water vapour is a feedback.
You seem to be oblivious to this.
Unless water vapour can heat itself, then its concentrations are stable. The role of water vapour in global warming is insignificant.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. While it absorbs less heat per molecule than methane or nitrous oxide, it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not. As a result carbon dioxide is responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance leading to warming.
But you can disagree with scientists on this, rather than me.

...and you accuse me of trying to waffle on and twist things.

Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this. Go check Wikipedia or something if you want a basic overview.

Obviously the amount of CO2 has changed more than the amount of water in recent times. That seems to be what you're saying, but I don't disagree with that and you seem to just be trying to misrepresent what I'm saying for the sake of an excuse to disagree.

 

[rederob]

Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this. Go check Wikipedia or something if you want a basic overview.

I linked to what climate scientists say.
Water vapour is abundant.
In terms of how it affects climate, here's the IPCC's words:
"As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change."
Or this might be clearer for you, again from the latest IPCC Report:
"The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing."

Please tell us what it is that you believe is consistent with climate science, as you appear to know very little that makes sense.

 

[Sdajii]

I linked to what climate scientists say.
Water vapour is abundant.
In terms of how it affects climate, here's the IPCC's words:
"As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change."
Or this might be clearer for you, again from the latest IPCC Report:
"The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing."

Please tell us what it is that you believe is consistent with climate science, as you appear to know very little that makes sense.

Once again, you're trying to convince me of something I already agree with and have never disputed. I have already even clarified this for you, yet you continue.

It's no wonder you don't think I know much when you use your imagination you ascertain what I believe rather than what I say. I've repeatedly explained this too.

 

[rederob]

Once again, you're trying to convince me of something I already agree with and have never disputed. I have already even clarified this for you, yet you continue.
It's no wonder you don't think I know much when you use your imagination you ascertain what I believe rather than what I say. I've repeatedly explained this too.

You claim water vapour to be the most important GHG. No scientist agrees.
Your exact words: "Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this." So despite showing what the IPCC state, you remain firm believing your lies.

You claim CO2 is not very important, yet it is the principal driver of climate change. You have never yet shown any evidence for your claim. My link to IPCC AR5 shows your ideas have no merit.

 

[Sdajii]

You claim water vapour to be the most important GHG. No scientist agrees.
Your exact words: "Water vapour is literally the most important greenhouse gas. Literally no one disputes this." So despite showing what the IPCC state, you remain firm believing your lies.

Good grief, go google "What is the most important greenhouse gas". Tell me what it says.

You claim CO2 is not very important, yet it is the principal driver of climate change. You have never yet shown any evidence for your claim. My link to IPCC AR5 shows your ideas have no merit.

I didn't say it wasn't important, I said it wasn't the most important. Again, don't twist my words.

 

[Sdajii]

In case you are too lazy to use a search engine...

Note that CO2 is included *as a part of* 'other'. Whether or not you want to include clouds, water is still the most important greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes this, no matter how hard you protest.

 

[explod]

In case you are too lazy to use a search engine...

Note that CO2 is included *as a part of* 'other'. Whether or not you want to include clouds, water is still the most important greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes this, no matter how hard you protest.

Could you please include a reference of where this article and graph came from so that the context can be verified.

 

[rederob]

Your quotes:

It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is.

You're welcome to if you like. I'll request that you discuss the topic without emotive, baiting language, but hey, even if you can't, sure, go for it.

Biological adaptation is seldom mentioned, so here's how a biologist disagrees with you.
In terms of natural variation to climate we are left with chemical processes and, separately, irradiance.
We can discount irradiance as solar cycles are too slow to affect climate such that the rate of change would be dissimilar to what we know from modern data and astronomical cycles.
On the chemical front we have weathering which releases CO2. There are no reliable data beyond 66 million years, so here's what we do know.

 

[rederob]

Note that CO2 is included *as a part of* 'other'. Whether or not you want to include clouds, water is still the most important greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes this, no matter how hard you protest.

We are discussing GHG radiative forcing effects, not composition of the atmosphere.
You are so far off the mark here it is little wonder you make absurd claims on such a regular basis.
Please tell me the radiative forcing contribution of water vapour to the energy imbalance over any period of time you wish to choose.

 

[Sdajii]

Could you please include a reference of where this article and graph came from so that the context can be verified.

Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.

 

[explod]

Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.

Some time back I was reprimanded on ASF for not providing a reference to my posts. I'm simply asking for your reference in this case

 

[Sdajii]

We are discussing GHG radiative forcing effects, not composition of the atmosphere.
You are so far off the mark here it is little wonder you make absurd claims on such a regular basis.
Please tell me the radiative forcing contribution of water vapour to the energy imbalance over any period of time you wish to choose.

...and you accuse me of being scientifically illiterate.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV

https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=2&secNum=4

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Literally no actual climate scientist is in doubt about water vapour being the most important greenhouse gas.

 

[rederob]

Are you kidding me? Check any reference you like. From Wikipedia to any climate science department you like, you'll get the same general picture. Do I seriously need to provide a reference for a chart this basic and universally accepted? If you need a reference for this you shouldn't be in the discussion, you should go do some research and grasp the most basic... I mean... wow... I have no words.

In other words you do not have a scientific basis for showing a compositional chart which has very little to do with climate change - too funny.

 

[explod]

What is the percent composition of CO2?
Chemistry The Mole Concept Percent Composition
1 Answer

Manish Bhardwaj
Apr 17, 2016
Answer:
Mass percentage of Oxygen is 72.7%
Mass percentage of Carbon is 27.3%

 

[Sdajii]

Some time back I was reprimanded on ASF for not providing a reference to my posts. I'm simply asking for your reference in this case

I'm not using this as a reference as an amazing authority or anything, it was just the first chart which came up, but any chart will show a similar relative amount. CO2 is the most important gas in the 'other' category. The page that chart came from is here: https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/what-gases-are-greenhouse-gases/

I posted some links to other sites which are more credible or likely to be taken as credible when saying water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. NASA was the first one, I hope that's credible enough. It probably won't be for some.

 

[rederob]

.Literally no actual climate scientist is in doubt about water vapour being the most important greenhouse gas.

Not a single scientist was quoted.
No mention was made of radiative forcing effects in any of your links.
We are talking about climate change here, not raw composition.
Please use actual science papers which show how your idea of water vapour is changing climate, given I have never yet found one.

 

[Sdajii]

In other words you do not have a scientific basis for showing a compositional chart which has very little to do with climate change - too funny.

Oh good grief, I never said it was related to climate change, I said it was a chart showing the gases by importance (how much each contributes) to the greenhouse effect I provided the link so you can verify that. I also provided further links which were more relevant if you want links with authoritative data rather than a convenient visual aid.

 

[Sdajii]

Not a single scientist was quoted.
No mention was made of radiative forcing effects in any of your links.
We are talking about climate change here, not raw composition.
Please use actual science papers which show how your idea of water vapour is changing climate, given I have never yet found one.

So NASA doesn't have scientists working for it?

You can continually say "We are talking about..." to move the goal posts after I say something, but it's just silly. Of course you're going to disagree with me if you change the context of what I'm saying and misrepresent it rather than just looking at what I actually say!

You're so desperate to argue with me and find things we disagree on, so why not stick to things we actually disagree on? I'm not going to defend things which I've never said and don't agree with.

 

[Sdajii]

What is the percent composition of CO2?
Chemistry The Mole Concept Percent Composition
1 Answer

Manish Bhardwaj
Apr 17, 2016
Answer:
Mass percentage of Oxygen is 72.7%
Mass percentage of Carbon is 27.3%

I am at a complete loss as to why you posted this. It relates only the relative weight of the constituents of CO2 and has nothing to do with how much of it is in the atmosphere or its effect on anything.

 

[Sdajii]

In case anyone is wanting a chart similar to the one I posted earlier, but with CO2 shown individually rather than lumped in with all others (the original chart was just to show that water was the most important), here is another chart which shows greenhouse gas by contribution to the greenhouse effect, with CO2 shown individually.

And again, this is not designed to be a reference in itself, use one of my above links (the one to NASA's data should probably be a good one for most people, and I hope NASA is seen as credible!) if you want to read more about it from a source most should consider authoritative.