whiteknight wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 2:09pm:


So which climate has been wrecked? The climate scare wreck?

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:


And since? you do know ice extent is not static. In fact the high point was in the 1970's. So it is not surprising it has declined since. Does that mean AGW only started in 1980?

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:


You do know Methane is measured in dry air in the laboratory? That means no humidity whatsoever. So tell us where we find 0% humidity on earth. Also the 86 times CO2 warming is measured at equal concentrations. But methane is measure in  PPB(Billiion), CO2 PPM(Million).

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:


"By the numbers, the 2024 wildfire season is on track to be the second-worst wildfire season in terms of area burned since 1995, with more than 5.3 million hectares burned so far. That trails far behind last year, when more than 15 million hectares burned."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/wildfires-2024-charts-1.7341341

BTW - Copernicus only goes back to 2003.



"The year saw the second-highest wildfire carbon emissions since the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service measurements began in 2003, behind only the historically destructive 2023 season. By total area burned—over 5.3 million hectares (13 million acres)—it was one of the six worst years in the preceding 50."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Canadian_wildfires

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:


Nope. Perhaps you can explain how CO2 heats water to depth. Only the top couple of mm is able to be reached by IR.


Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:


Not quite correct. A warmer atmosphere MAY hold more water, but it may also may not. Examine the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and look at the variables.

lee wrote on May 6^th, 2025 at 5:55pm:



Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 3:59pm:



Rubbish. The jet stream has been known since the 1836 and its wavering effects.

https://www.metcheck.com/WEATHER/jetstream_archive.asp

Now all you have to do is verify your AI model.

Quote:


Your argument raises two technical points about methane (CH₄) and its role in global warming, but it misinterprets how scientists measure and quantify methane's climate impact. Here’s why the reasoning is flawed:

1. "Methane is measured in dry air in the lab—but Earth has humidity!"
Fact: Methane concentrations are reported as "dry air mole fractions" (after removing water vapor) in datasets like those from NOAA or the IPCC.

Why this isn’t a problem:

Scientists remove water vapor for consistency, because humidity varies wildly by location and time. Reporting methane in dry air allows apples-to-apples comparisons across datasets.

This doesn’t mean methane’s warming effect is overstated. Water vapor is a separate greenhouse gas (GHG) that amplifies methane’s impact (via feedback loops), not negates it.

Instruments in the real world (e.g., satellites, ground stations) measure methane in situ, then adjust for humidity to align with global standards.

Key point: Methane’s warming potential is calculated based on real-world atmospheric physics, not just lab conditions. The "dry air" convention is a standardization tool, not a distortion.

2. "Methane is measured in PPB, CO2 in PPM—comparing them at equal concentrations is misleading!"
Fact: Yes, methane is ~2000 parts per billion (ppb) today, while CO₂ is ~420 parts per million (ppm). The "86x" warming figure compares equal molecular concentrations (e.g., 1 ppm CH₄ vs. 1 ppm CO₂).

Why this is valid:

The "Global Warming Potential" (GWP) metric accounts for this. Over 20 years, 1 kg of methane traps 86x more heat than 1 kg of CO₂ because methane absorbs infrared radiation far more efficiently.

But methane’s total contribution is smaller than CO₂’s because there’s much less of it. This is already factored into climate models.

Example:

CH₄: ~2000 ppb = 2 ppm → 2 ppm × 86 = 172 ppm-CO₂-equivalent

CO₂: ~420 ppm → 420 ppm-CO₂-equivalent
→ Total CH₄ forcing is ~29% of CO₂’s (not 86x larger).

Key point: The "86x" stat is not deceptive—it’s a per-molecule comparison used to weigh different gases’ impacts. Policy decisions (e.g., IPCC reports) use absolute warming contributions, where CO₂ dominates.

3. What You’re Missing: Real-World Permafrost Feedback Loops
The original statement highlighted methane leaks from permafrost thaw—a process that’s accelerating.

Wet environments (lakes, seabeds) are major methane sources because microbes in waterlogged, oxygen-poor soils produce CH₄ (not CO₂).

Satellites (e.g., ESA’s Tropomi) detect methane plumes over Siberia and Arctic lakes, confirming that these emissions are rising.

Conclusion: Why This Matters
Your points sound like technical gotchas, but they don’t undermine methane’s role in warming. Scientists:

1 Standardize measurements (dry air) to avoid noise from humidity.

2 Use GWPs to fairly compare gases per unit.

3 Track absolute impacts (where CO₂ is still the biggest problem).

Permafrost methane is a growing threat because even small leaks (from PPB-level concentrations) can have outsized short-term warming effects—potentially triggering more thaw (a vicious cycle).

Bottom line: The science accounts for these nuances. Methane’s impact is real, even if it’s measured in PPB or reported in dry air.

Quote:



You're raising several points about Canadian wildfires, their CO₂ emissions, and historical context. Let's break this down scientifically and address potential misconceptions:

1. The 2023-2024 Wildfire Anomaly
2023 was record-breaking:

Emissions: 1.5 billion tons of CO₂ (3x Canada’s annual human-caused emissions).

Area burned: 15 million hectares (2.5x the previous record).

2024 is severe, but not as extreme (so far):

Emissions: ~50-60% of 2023 levels (still massive).

Area burned: 5.3 million hectares (on track for a top-6 worst year in 50 years).

Why This Matters:
Even a "less bad" 2024 still signals a destabilizing fire regime. Two back-to-back megafire years are not normal in Canada’s climate history.

The 2023 fires alone emitted more CO₂ than 100+ countries do in a year, showing how climate feedback loops can amplify emissions.

2. Copernicus Data Limitations (Since 2003)
You’re correct that Copernicus’s direct emissions monitoring started in 2003, but:

Proxy data (tree rings, sediment cores) show pre-2003 fire activity was far less intense. For example, Canada’s average burned area from 1990–2019 was ~2.5 million hectares/year—now dwarfed by 2023-2024.

Satellite records (e.g., NASA/MODIS) extend back to the 1980s, corroborating the recent surge.

Key Takeaway:
The rate of increase in fires (and emissions) is unprecedented in the industrial era, even if absolute historical comparisons are limited.

3. Is This Just Natural Variability?
No. While Canada has always had wildfires, climate change is:

Lengthening fire seasons: Earlier snowmelt + hotter summers = more flammable forests.

Increasing "fire weather": Studies show the fire-conducive Fire Weather Index (FWI) has risen sharply since the 2000s.

Drying fuels: Boreal forests are warming 2-3x faster than the global average, turning trees into tinder.

Attribution Science:
Research (e.g., Nature Communications, 2023) found climate change made 2023’s fire season 2x more likely.

The IPCC notes boreal wildfires are now "outside the range of historical variability" due to human-caused warming.

4. The Bigger Picture: Feedback Loops
Wildfires don’t just emit CO₂—they also:

Destroy carbon sinks: Boreal forests store ~30% of land-based carbon. Burning them turns long-term storage into short-term emissions.

Accelerate permafrost thaw: Soot (black carbon) from fires darkens ice/snow, increasing Arctic warming.

Create "zombie fires": Smoldering peat can reignite years later, making fires harder to control.

Conclusion: This Isn’t Just a "Bad Year"
The 2023-2024 fires are part of a climate-driven trend, not an outlier.

Even if 2024 ends up "less bad" than 2023, the baseline for "normal" fire seasons is rising—consistent with IPCC projections for boreal regions.

This is what climate change looks like: More energy in the system → more extreme fire behavior → more CO₂ → more warming.

Bottom line: Cherry-picking year-to-year variability misses the forest for the trees (literally). The long-term signal is clear.

Quote:


You're correct that the Clausius-Clapeyron (C-C) equation governs the relationship between temperature and water vapour capacity, but your objection ("it may or may not hold more water") misinterprets how this plays out in Earth's climate system. Here’s the breakdown:

1. What the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation Actually Says
The C-C equation describes the exponential increase in saturation vapour pressure (maximum possible water vapour) with temperature:

(below)

Key takeaway: For every 1°C warming, the atmosphere’s water-holding capacity increases by ~7% (assuming constant relative humidity).

2. Why "It May or May Not Hold More Water" Is Misleading
Your objection suggests uncertainty, but in reality:

Relative humidity (RH) is roughly stable globally (observed over decades). This means as temperature (
T
T) rises, absolute humidity (actual water vapour content) increases proportionally to the C-C relationship.

Exceptions exist locally (e.g., over deserts or sinking air regions), but globally, observations confirm a net increase in atmospheric water vapour (~4% more since the 1970s, matching warming trends).

Observed Evidence:
Satellite data (e.g., AIRS, ERA5) shows increasing total column water vapour over oceans and moist regions.

IPCC AR6: "It is virtually certain that global mean tropospheric water vapour has increased since the 1970s."

3. Why Water Vapour Feedback Is Strong and Positive
The original statement called water vapour the "strongest GHG amplifier" because:

Warmer air → more water vapour (per C-C).

Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas (traps outgoing longwave radiation).

This traps more heat → further warming → more evaporation (a self-reinforcing cycle).

Why Negative Feedback Is Rare:
Your "may not" scenario would require large-scale, sustained drops in RH to offset warming. But:

Over oceans (71% of Earth’s surface), RH is tightly coupled to temperature.

Even over land, feedbacks like increased evaporation from soils/plants typically maintain or increase humidity.

4. Caveats (Where Your Point Has Merit)
Upper troposphere: Here, water vapour feedback is debated because:

Cold air has low absolute humidity, so warming’s effect is smaller.

Some models suggest RH might decrease slightly here (but this is uncertain and offset by lower-altitude increases).

Stratosphere: Warming here lowers water vapour (due to tighter cold-trapping), but this is a minor effect.

Conclusion: The Original Statement Holds
While the C-C equation depends on variables , real-world observations confirm that warming does increase atmospheric water vapour globally, creating a strong positive feedback. Your objection applies only in niche scenarios (e.g., subsiding air over deserts), not the climate system as a whole.

Bottom line: Water vapour feedback is robust—and the primary reason climate sensitivity to CO₂ is high (~3°C per doubling).

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:


Oh? Just over the oceans and moist regions. You mean there is no global increase?  How odd.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:


Yes it is. It is the dominant GHG. That means CO2 only plays a bit part, if at all. Thanks for that.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:



But then you are ignoring increased CO2 reduces the stomata of plants so they don't lose as much by evaporation.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:


And?

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:


So you are sayingthe Cluusius-Clapeyron equation doesn't necessarily hold true.

Ai_Took_Our_Jobs wrote on May 31^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:


No, the water feedback is strong which reduces the effect of CO2.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/TPW-and-GHE.pdf

Oh Guido. You are so funny.