Feedbacks vs Forcings

That Isn’t CO2

One of the dumbest arguments of all times. It goes like this – CO2 is a forcing and H2O is a feedback. CO2 has a long residency time, H2O doesn’t. CO2 controls the climate by feeding back H2O . …. Blah blah blah. This argument forms  the basis of global stupidity warming theory, but is fundamentally flawed.

  1. You could never get water vapor concentration down to CO2 levels. There will always be more H2O resident in the atmosphere than CO2.
  2. Humans introduce huge amounts of H2O into the atmosphere through irrigation, artificial lakes, burning fossil fuels, jet engines, etc.
  3. If positive feedback was actually a problem, anthropogenic H2O would be causing more feedback than anthropogenic CO2. Does the climate care which greenhouse gas molecule is making things hotter?
About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Feedbacks vs Forcings

  1. suyts says:

    #3 If positive feedback was actually a problem, anthropogenic H2O would be causing more feedback than anthropogenic CO2. Does the climate care which greenhouse gas molecule is making things hotter?
    ====================================================

    This one always struck me as the most vapid argument. Especially concerning clouds. Most models predict a decrease in clouds, thus more solar energy hitting the earth. All at the same time more flooding is predicted……….. :-\

    This is very reminiscent of a CCR song. “Have You Ever Seen the Rain?”

    And, of course, if we throw in nitrous oxide, there is almost no unique absorption of the spectrum to CO2.

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,

    do you have any numbers for Anthropocentric sources of H2O in the atmosphere that would not be there from natural sources? and the compare that amount to H2O form natural sources?
    Since there is at least 10x more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2, then how much do you consider to be huge, since you consider the 3% of Anthropocentric CO2 added the atmosphere to be miniscule.
    It appears that you are again in direct conflict with Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Pilke, etc

    • Why are you comparing as a percentage of H2O? I’m talking about ratios of man made H2O to man made CO2.

    • suyts says:

      Its an interesting question. Many assert that the hydrology is fixed. However, man’s quest for water drives him to dig for it, even today. The question then becomes this, do the liquids that we pull from the ground add to the total content? Some, certainly was already part of the hydrological system. How much? All? Probably not. And then there is the question of whether we displaced the H2O and artificially moved it to the atmosphere? I would assert, that there is no way to quantify how we’ve added and how much we’ve displaced.

      An interesting side note……… in my part of the country, we’ve recently started drilling for natural gas. Lots of it! One of the things that accompanies these holes in ground is a pump…….not to pump the gas, but to pump water off of the gas. This is an ongoing process, not a one-time occurrence. Where is the water going? The holes are deeper than any tree roots. Where did it come from to begin with?

  3. Just Having Fun says:

    “Does the climate care which greenhouse gas molecule is making things hotter?”
    NO

    “Why are you comparing as a percentage of H2O?
    I’m talking about ratios of man made H2O to man made CO2.”
    Which is WHY most clear thinking people would consider that a statement by a Mad Monk in the 17th Century, and not a Climate Science educated person in the 21st !!!

    When I boil my jug for a morning coffee, are you counting that excess steam as “MAN MADE H2O in the atmosphere” and therefore a small part of the “man-made GHG” Forcing & Feedback Equations and BELIEVE you can COMPARE that in some “meaningful way” as a RATIO with CO2 from industrialized emissions and it’s specific EFFECT on the Atmosphere vs Water Vapour ? HUH?

    Are you really THIS mad, or just another Stupid Loud Mouthed American Climate Change Denier who will do anything and SAY ANYTHING so long as it “sounds good” to you … ???

    The Truth and the SCIENTIFIC PROVEN FACTS by actual qualified and peer reviewed Scientists be damned !

    Man-made water vapour ????

    Man, you DO need a vacation ………… either that, or an enema to the head.

    Hey Steve, I am “Just Having Fun” .. ok?
    rotflmao – sheesh – sigh

    • So you think the opaque gas coming out of the smokestack in the photograph is CO2?

      • suyts says:

        Steve, most alarmist do think that. You might have to dumb this down for toon boy.

        BTW toon boy,

        “The Truth and the SCIENTIFIC PROVEN FACTS by actual qualified and peer reviewed Scientists be damned !”

        Peer review isn’t synonymous with proven or factual.

  4. Layne Blanchard says:

    If CAGW is a runaway train of water vapor warming, a single humid day would have set off a self perpetuating spiral of warming that would have fried us all by now. Water can’t know or care where it got the energy from.

    And humidity can fluctuate more than 2 orders of magnitude greater than the entire CO2 concentration if I’m not mistaken.

    But we can’t die in this death spiral of CAGW anyway, because we all starved to death in Y2K. :-)

  5. Andy Weiss says:

    It would seem logical that manmade water vapor would cause more clouds and rain/snow. More clouds and rain/snow would counteract global warming.

    Is that a correct assumption? Sometimes what seems logical is not scientifically valid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s