Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas

Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas08-05-2018 17:09
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (105)	While priests of climate change sharia wail and gnash their teeth over 1.38 ppmv annual change in total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, this has, to date, brought the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 up to just over 400 ppmv. Compare this number to water vapor, which averages 15,000 ppmv. Moreover, the infrared spectrum of water vapor shows far greater absorption than that of carbon dioxide. So CO2 is quite trivial quantitatively and qualitatively. The best excuse the priests can come up with is the cockamamey claim of "forcings." Please, spare learned people. Absorption is absorption. Furthermore, the priests claim that CO2 doesn't recycle as quickly as water vapor. Immaterial. The concentration of gases is independent of how long any individual molecule has been up there, one day or one decade. Think about it. One molecule, old or new, is like the next.
08-05-2018 18:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	RenaissanceMan wrote: While priests of climate change sharia wail and gnash their teeth over 1.38 ppmv annual change in total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, this has, to date, brought the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 up to just over 400 ppmv. Compare this number to water vapor, which averages 15,000 ppmv. Moreover, the infrared spectrum of water vapor shows far greater absorption than that of carbon dioxide. So CO2 is quite trivial quantitatively and qualitatively. The best excuse the priests can come up with is the cockamamey claim of "forcings." Please, spare learned people. Absorption is absorption. Furthermore, the priests claim that CO2 doesn't recycle as quickly as water vapor. Immaterial. The concentration of gases is independent of how long any individual molecule has been up there, one day or one decade. Think about it. One molecule, old or new, is like the next. Absorption of surface infrared light by anything in the atmosphere doesn't warm the Earth anyway. It's just another way for the surface to cool (by losing energy) to heat something else (the atmosphere), which in turn just radiates it all into space anyhow. For 'global warming' and 'greenhouse gases' to work as described by the Church of Global Warming, these materials would have to in turn heat the surface. But they are colder than the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold. It doesn't flow from cold to hot...ever...not even by radiance. That's the little problem the Church of Global Warming has with things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the law of energy conservation. The Church of Global Warming denies science. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 08-05-2018 18:10
08-05-2018 18:39
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: While priests of climate change sharia wail and gnash their teeth over 1.38 ppmv annual change in total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, this has, to date, brought the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 up to just over 400 ppmv. Compare this number to water vapor, which averages 15,000 ppmv. Moreover, the infrared spectrum of water vapor shows far greater absorption than that of carbon dioxide. So CO2 is quite trivial quantitatively and qualitatively. The best excuse the priests can come up with is the cockamamey claim of "forcings." Please, spare learned people. Absorption is absorption. Furthermore, the priests claim that CO2 doesn't recycle as quickly as water vapor. Immaterial. The concentration of gases is independent of how long any individual molecule has been up there, one day or one decade. Think about it. One molecule, old or new, is like the next. Absorption of surface infrared light by anything in the atmosphere doesn't warm the Earth anyway. It's just another way for the surface to cool (by losing energy) to heat something else (the atmosphere), which in turn just radiates it all into space anyhow. For 'global warming' and 'greenhouse gases' to work as described by the Church of Global Warming, these materials would have to in turn heat the surface. But they are colder than the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold. It doesn't flow from cold to hot...ever...not even by radiance. That's the little problem the Church of Global Warming has with things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the law of energy conservation. The Church of Global Warming denies science. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. What a friggin' circular argument itn. I can smell it where I'm at. Can I join your "church" that isn't a church. you just love yourself, don't you ? ..Examples of self love; Into the Night wrote: It's just another way for the surface to cool (by losing energy) to heat something else (the atmosphere),There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. ..Notice the problem everyone ? The surface loses heat to the atmosphere when the atmosphere can't be warmed. ..Just another example of itn posting a circular argument. It is possible that he has no clue as to what he's saying but he just wants to sound smart or intellectual or something. And in reality believes that what he's posting is factual when it's actually paradoxes that he's creating because of his own confused mind. Could be why he says that science is falsifiable. He just doesn't understand what science "is". For him to consider science he might have to accept it as God or the Spirit in the Sky because he might believe that is all there is.
08-05-2018 23:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: While priests of climate change sharia wail and gnash their teeth over 1.38 ppmv annual change in total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, this has, to date, brought the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 up to just over 400 ppmv. Compare this number to water vapor, which averages 15,000 ppmv. Moreover, the infrared spectrum of water vapor shows far greater absorption than that of carbon dioxide. So CO2 is quite trivial quantitatively and qualitatively. The best excuse the priests can come up with is the cockamamey claim of "forcings." Please, spare learned people. Absorption is absorption. Furthermore, the priests claim that CO2 doesn't recycle as quickly as water vapor. Immaterial. The concentration of gases is independent of how long any individual molecule has been up there, one day or one decade. Think about it. One molecule, old or new, is like the next. Absorption of surface infrared light by anything in the atmosphere doesn't warm the Earth anyway. It's just another way for the surface to cool (by losing energy) to heat something else (the atmosphere), which in turn just radiates it all into space anyhow. For 'global warming' and 'greenhouse gases' to work as described by the Church of Global Warming, these materials would have to in turn heat the surface. But they are colder than the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold. It doesn't flow from cold to hot...ever...not even by radiance. That's the little problem the Church of Global Warming has with things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the law of energy conservation. The Church of Global Warming denies science. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. What a friggin' circular argument itn. No circular argument. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. James___ wrote: I can smell it where I'm at. Smell what? Carbon dioxide is odorless and colorless. So is methane. James___ wrote: Can I join your "church" that isn't a church. you just love yourself, don't you ? ..Examples of self love; Not a church. There is no initial circular argument. Theories of science are no longer circular arguments. They have survived tests designed to destroy them. James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: It's just another way for the surface to cool (by losing energy) to heat something else (the atmosphere),There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. ..Notice the problem everyone ? None. James___ wrote: The surface loses heat to the atmosphere when the atmosphere can't be warmed. The atmosphere CAN be warmed. It is warmed by the surface by conduction and by radiance. Like the surface, the atmosphere radiates into space. James___ wrote: ..Just another example of itn posting a circular argument. No circular argument. The atmosphere is just another part of the Earth radiating energy into space. James___ wrote: It is possible that he has no clue as to what he's saying but he just wants to sound smart or intellectual or something. This is a statement from someone that simply refuses to understand. James___ wrote: And in reality believes that what he's posting is factual when it's actually paradoxes that he's creating because of his own confused mind. No paradox. It is YOU that is confused. Fallacy fallacy. James___ wrote: Could be why he says that science is falsifiable. I don't. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not something that is falsifiable in and of itself. James___ wrote: He just doesn't understand what science "is". Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. James___ wrote: For him to consider science he might have to accept it as God or the Spirit in the Sky because he might believe that is all there is. Nope. No god or gods are required to have a falsifiable theory. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-05-2018 00:08
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (105)	James___ wrote: He just doesn't understand what science "is". For him to consider science he might have to accept it as God or the Spirit in the Sky because he might believe that is all there is. Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever doesn't "understand science" either, does he, as Professor Giaever smashes the Global Warming Hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=452s

09-05-2018 05:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	RenaissanceMan wrote: James___ wrote: He just doesn't understand what science "is". For him to consider science he might have to accept it as God or the Spirit in the Sky because he might believe that is all there is. Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever doesn't "understand science" either, does he, as Professor Giaever smashes the Global Warming Hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=452s .. Will have to watch the video tomorrow. You don't know my position, do you ? The last few inter-glacial periods have warmed more than what we have experienced so far. .. I think we have much to learn. With itn, just wants to play mind games with people. Climate change gives him that opportunity.
09-05-2018 09:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@All, If we don't know why ice ages are cyclical then how can we know we're influencing it? Edited on 09-05-2018 09:47
09-05-2018 14:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	@All, ..Why does a less than 10% increase in CO2 levels allows for 2 1/2 times more ice ages? Is it because the planets warms more quickly and then when peak heat is reached cooling happens more quickly ? ..Or maybe our understanding of our atmosphere is in complete ? ..At the moment there is no comprehensive understanding of why ice ages comes and goes. ..With me, I can show where there seems to be no relationship between ever increasing levels of CO2 and warming. Edited on 09-05-2018 14:04
09-05-2018 15:22
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (105)	Couldn't agree with you more, James___. Increased CO2 comes from degassification of the ocean if, and when, its mean temperature increases. So CO2 is a following indicator, not a cause. Claiming otherwise is like saying umbrellas cause it to rain. Here's a clue to the priests of climate change sharia: umbrellas don't cause it to rain. So stop with your panic and end of the world claims.
09-05-2018 23:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	RenaissanceMan wrote: Couldn't agree with you more, James___. Increased CO2 comes from degassification of the ocean if, and when, its mean temperature increases. So CO2 is a following indicator, not a cause. Claiming otherwise is like saying umbrellas cause it to rain. Here's a clue to the priests of climate change sharia: umbrellas don't cause it to rain. So stop with your panic and end of the world claims. ..With water vapor in the atmosphere, it can help to prevent the warming that Iran has been experiencing over the last several years. it is possible that as Lake Urmia dries up that it is influencing the hotter temperatures. This is because as water absorbs heat it can help to promote vegetation of various types. https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/jan/23/iran-lake-urmia-drying-up-new-research-scientists-urge-action ..A look at countries/regions that have water vapor in their atmosphere, they are cooler. Deserts are found at 40° N. Latitude and higher because of a lack of atmospheric water vapor. And around the equator where it should be hotter, water vapor allows for a better climate. This is where draining lakes for their fresh water might actually be making things worse. https://www.mapsofworld.com/map-of-countries.html
10-05-2018 00:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: [quote]RenaissanceMan wrote: Couldn't agree with you more, James___. Increased CO2 comes from degassification of the ocean if, and when, its mean temperature increases. So CO2 is a following indicator, not a cause. Claiming otherwise is like saying umbrellas cause it to rain. Here's a clue to the priests of climate change sharia: umbrellas don't cause it to rain. So stop with your panic and end of the world claims. ..With water vapor in the atmosphere, it can help to prevent the warming that Iran has been experiencing over the last several years. it is possible that as Lake Urmia dries up that it is influencing the hotter temperatures. This is because as water absorbs heat it can help to promote vegetation of various types. Water vapor generally comes from the oceans, plants, and any lakes. The bulk of the water vapor for a region comes from the ocean. The reason the deserts are where they are is because the descending air predominant at that that latitude has already had the water squeezed out of it when it ascended somewhere else. Just south of the desert band (in the Northern hemisphere) is an area of predominantly ascending air, and with it, lots of rain...the tropical band. These conflicting ascending and descending currents are what creates the jet streams of Earth. It's also why the poles are generally quite dry. A predominant high forms over them called the 'polar high' (that lately the press has called the 'polar vortex'). Iran happens to lie in the same desert band as the southwest deserts of the United States. Lake Urmia is a trapped body of water. It has no inlet other than what little runoff in the immediately surrounding area. It was initially formed when the Aras river once flowed into it. Since then, the Aras has change it's course, leaving Lake Urmia to slowly dry out. It is exactly the same thing that created the Salton Sea (except the river was the Colorado). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas:

Threads	Replies	Last post
A Gas Can Be A Barrier	8	17-04-2024 13:39
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
A Gas Can Be ing A Barrier	0	12-02-2024 04:51
Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change	25	04-01-2024 06:33
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45