Post by BatteriesNotIncluded on Mar 3rd, 2016 at 3:28pm
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 3 March 2016
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
shorter arationofreason @228, "I have had this random thought bubble. This random thought bubble disagrees with the conclusions of 1000s of scientists who have devoted tens of thousands of person hours to the problem. Therefore the 1000s of scientists must be wrong, and so wrong that only utter stupidity or corruption could explain the error."
The breath taking arrogance displayed demonstrates that 'arationofreason' is on a very short ration of reason indeed.
Among the facts that arationofreasonneglects in his thought bubble are that:
1) The CO2 contribution to the total greenhouse effect is about 20%, not 1%;
2) The 1.7 W/m^2 is the change in the CO2 contribution since the preindustrial, not the total contribution;
3) Because CO2 does not precipitate out with reduced temperature, while water does, the upper troposphere has very much less H2O than does the surface, but very close to the same amount of CO2, resulting in CO2 dominating IR absorption and reemission in the upper troposphere;
4) Because H2O precipitates out with reduced temperature, eliminating all CO2 (and hence 20% of the total greenhouse effect) would result in the precipitation of a great deal of the H2O in the atmosphere, reducing the IR impact of the remaining H2O. That in turn would precipitate out yet more H2O, and so on. The net effect (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-a-CO2-free-atmosphere-look-like.html) is that in the absence of all long lived greenhouse gases, and assuming there had been no increase in the extent of ice sheets and/or deserts (ie, that albedo only changed due to reduced cloud cover, and increase in snowfields), only 10% of the current H2O would remain in the atmosphere, and temperatures would plumet by around 35 degrees celcius.
You don't need to be stupid or corrupt to not realize the above. All you need to do is to mistake abysmal ignorance for wisdom.
Moderator Response:
[PS] You know better but thanks for tackling the substance.
source: comment 229, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=19
shorter arationofreason @228, "I have had this random thought bubble. This random thought bubble disagrees with the conclusions of 1000s of scientists who have devoted tens of thousands of person hours to the problem. Therefore the 1000s of scientists must be wrong, and so wrong that only utter stupidity or corruption could explain the error."
The breath taking arrogance displayed demonstrates that 'arationofreason' is on a very short ration of reason indeed.
Among the facts that arationofreasonneglects in his thought bubble are that:
1) The CO2 contribution to the total greenhouse effect is about 20%, not 1%;
2) The 1.7 W/m^2 is the change in the CO2 contribution since the preindustrial, not the total contribution;
3) Because CO2 does not precipitate out with reduced temperature, while water does, the upper troposphere has very much less H2O than does the surface, but very close to the same amount of CO2, resulting in CO2 dominating IR absorption and reemission in the upper troposphere;
4) Because H2O precipitates out with reduced temperature, eliminating all CO2 (and hence 20% of the total greenhouse effect) would result in the precipitation of a great deal of the H2O in the atmosphere, reducing the IR impact of the remaining H2O. That in turn would precipitate out yet more H2O, and so on. The net effect (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-a-CO2-free-atmosphere-look-like.html) is that in the absence of all long lived greenhouse gases, and assuming there had been no increase in the extent of ice sheets and/or deserts (ie, that albedo only changed due to reduced cloud cover, and increase in snowfields), only 10% of the current H2O would remain in the atmosphere, and temperatures would plumet by around 35 degrees celcius.
You don't need to be stupid or corrupt to not realize the above. All you need to do is to mistake abysmal ignorance for wisdom.
Moderator Response:
[PS] You know better but thanks for tackling the substance.
source: comment 229, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=19