Except, you know, the IPCC:
[
[QUOTE=IPCC]
Q1-2-3.
Why is water vapour not covered by the IPCC Guidelines?
A: There is a natural greenhouse effect which is largely driven by water vapour (H2O) and other greenhouse gases which occur to a certain extent naturally in the atmosphere. However anthropogenic emissions of water vapour do not contribute significantly to the change of atmospheric water vapour concentration. Thus, the IPCC Guidelines do not deal with water vapour as an anthropogenic GHG.
[/QUOTE]
](FAQs - IPCC-TFI)my bolding.
I’m not sure what you mean by “star of the show.” Do you dispute that generally speaking, the predictions of bad things happening from the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from mankind’s CO2 emissions are based on the hypotheses that any warming will be significantly amplified by water vapor feedback?
Then let’s assume for the sake of discussion that water vapor feedback will be minimal or non-existent, okay?
The point is that you aren’t grasping what the actual dispute is about. But perhaps that’s okay if you will stipulate for the sake of discussion that water vapor feedback will be minimal or non-existent.
As far as I can tell, this is your argument:
(1) mankind’s CO2 emissions are leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
(2) since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increase in CO2 will raise the amount of energy in the climate system.
(3) an increase in energy in the climate system will have significant negative consequences and we know this because this is what happened during the Carboniferous Era.
Points 1 and 2 I agree with. To sustain Point 3, you need to show how much extra energy was in the climate system during the Carboniferous Era; show that’s similar to where we are headed today; show that there were negative effects on the climate during the Carboniferous Era; and show that those negative effects were due to the extra energy you posit.
Of course without Point 3, your whole argument collapses. I realize that you would prefer to focus on the part of your argument which is strong (points 1 and 2) and ignore Point 3, but that’s pretty much a waste of time since I don’t dispute points 1 and 2.
So will you back up Point 3 or not?
What exactly is the basis for those predictions?
It’s not really necessary since I believe in “global warming” as you seem to define it. I do find it interesting that of the 3 examples you choose, two of them are things which are pretty much known to a certainty not to be the case. And the third, you don’t seem to think it would “disprove” anything.
Edit: By the way, if the total energy in the system is measured and found to decrease over a few years, do you think that would disprove the “global warming” theory as you have defined it?
On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar ” constant ” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.
I don’t know. Show me a cite about it if I seem uninformed.
CO2 is a rather powerful greenhouse gas. Our atmosphere has contained ~300 ppm for as long as humans have been around. If it were closer to 100ppm, we might never have evolved- the ice caps would probably reach all the way to the equator. If CO2 levels really get out of control, Earth would get hot enough to boil the oceans. Increasing CO2 levels by a third or more in just the last 200 years is what is driving climate change. Rising sea levels and temperatures could cause vast expanses of permafrost to thaw, releasing as much carbon as we ourselves have released already. Droughts can cause rain forests to collapse (like happened in the carboniferous), which would also cause CO2 levels to rise more quickly.
Water vapor may play a role, but humans aren’t really changing water vapor levels, and so it doesn’t get much attention wrt AGW. Seriously, post a cite if I seem to be missing something important.
First of all, we don’t really need to make references to the carboniferous era to support the AGW theory- the observation of rising CO2 levels is enough by itself and carries (broadly) predictable consequences. The kind of trouble I am thinking of is the fact that sea levels were as much as 350 feet higher during that time due to a lack of ice. I’m sure humankind would survive that, but I think we’d mostly rather not have to.
What two things are not the case?
Yes, all other things being equal. The whole point is that higher CO2 levels prevent as much infrared radiation from escaping into space as did at lower levels, instead trapping it in the atmosphere or back at the surface, or as kinetic energy in higher winds, or maybe more evaporation, more melting ice and so on. I don’t know if ‘a few years’ is enough or not- so far we are on a decades-long trend, and the cumulative effects will take perhaps hundreds of years to reach their zenith even if we quit emitting carbon tomorrow. But yes.
If CO2 ever reached that low of a level we would have all died. Because all the plants would die.
Modern plants evolved in a high CO2 atmosphere, and plants still love higher CO2 levels than we have seen for a long time.
While the voices of doom keep trying to paint higher CO2 levels as “death to almost everything and coming soon”, in reality we are already seeing more plant growth from the higher levels of CO2. We might be freaking out over the thought of rising seas, more rain, and warmer temperatures, but the plant kingdom is all “Oh hell yeah, bring it”. Bitches.
The reason it’s important to know the theory of global warming, is because with out it, there is no way to tell if higher GhGs is driving climate change.
All the theorizing about CO2 as driver, as the thermostat for the planet, totally depend on water vapor and other feedbacks. With out them, CO2 can’t control the global climate. It has too little effect, and water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect for most of the planet already.
And as Callendar found, any increase in heat leads to a negative feedback from water vapor. We know this is actually true, because we can observe the actual real world each year as the solar energy builds with the seasons. It doesn’t just keep getting hotter. More heat does not equal more chaos, more water vapor, then more heat, as the sure voices of doom keep repeating… If that is how things worked, we would observe it all the time.
It’s not like we don’t have a drastic change in the heat balance each year. We can observe the effect of a lot of heat, we know it does not cause a feedback loop that causes it to keep getting hotter. If that was how the atmosphere and oceans worked, life would not even exist on our planet.
This “more extreme weather” tactic, which came up after the warming didn’t happen, is such a load of bullshit. It’s one main reason why intelligent meteorologists are such skeptics of the wild claims from the warmers.
Then you have this shithead idea that “warmer means more snowfall”, so that the same fucked in the head shitheel that was telling us how winters would be warmer, less snow, now want to say the warming is causing the colder winters.
The crazy never ends with this global warming shit.
The problem isn’t the identity of the dominant source of global warming but the effects of increased GHG on these sources. The argument is studied carefully in the NAS final report, and conclusions are given here:
Also, the same source given earlier to define global warming and refer to its effects (such as rising sea levels) also mentions extreme weather and global warming. For example,
“The Impact of Climate Change on Natural Disasters”
I have my own rules of debate, and one rule is that I will not look for cites unless the other person represents to me that they are seriously skeptical of a claim. The reason for this is that my impression is that a lot of people ask for cites not because they actually dispute a point but because they want to waste my time for rhetorical purposes.
So first answer my question: Are you seriously skeptical of the claim that generally speaking, the predictions of bad things happening from the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from mankind’s CO2 emissions are based on the hypotheses that any warming will be significantly amplified by water vapor feedback?
Anyway, your position seems to be that water vapor feedback is not important:
Again my question: Then let’s assume for the sake of discussion that water vapor feedback will be minimal or non-existent, okay?
Well the “AGW theory” (according to you) is that mankind’s CO2 emissions will result in an increase in the energy in the climate system, regardless of whether that increase is small in relation to other influences. Right?
If so, I would agree with you that references to the Carboniferous Era are not necessary.
Ok, and in order to show that much higher sea levels would result from AGW theory as you describe it, you need to show how much extra energy was in the climate system during the Carboniferous Era; show that’s similar to where we are headed today; and show that the rise in sea level was due to the extra energy you posit.
Will you do it or not? If not, then your argument collapses.
The volcanos and CO2 not being a greenhouse gas.
And do you have any other basis for your predictions besides comparison to the Carboniferous Era?
You are confused. They do not consider the water vapor mankind adds to the atmosphere to be a forcing. That isn’t the same thing that we were discussing at all.
The IPCC reports certainly discuss water vapor as a feedback. It’s a key issue.