Cite? I would love to see a derivation of this.
Well, it was a direct quote of and response to his words:
Emphasis added.
Do you mean “mechanism”?
You realize, of course, that you just called your own “argument” speculative. If you claim (which I would dispute) that we can’t infer anything about CO2’s contribution to global warming until we fully understand the past half-million years’ glacial CO2 cycles illustrated by the figure in your link, then we can’t tell whether or not the CO2 contribution is “secondary at best”.
Do you mean “water vapor feedback”? Because that’s what we’ve been talking about here.
As near as I can figure, what you have now suddenly switched to talking about is the radiation absorption percentages or “percent of greenhouse effect” attributable to various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is not the same thing as the phenomenon of water vapor feedback.
What you are referring to by “an engineer posted a correction” is completely unclear. I honestly cannot make out whether you posted this drunk or whether you’re just basically oblivious to what you’re writing and the context in which you’re writing it.
Questioning a scientific claim is certainly not “anti-science”. Incoherently and ignorantly attacking the use or validity of well-established scientific concepts, on the other hand, definitely qualifies as “anti-science”.
Then it’s not clear why you were previously so freaked out (as per above quote) by wolfpup’s incontrovertible and uncontroversial statement that “water vapor is a feedback” of rising temperatures.
You didn’t read a single word of that paper, did you?
Happy Fun Ball, in case you’re wondering, watchwolf appears to be referring to the statement on p. 206 of that link to the effect that “carbon dioxide contributes 26% to the clear sky radiative forcing”.
And no, there is nothing about that phenomenon that violates any principle of thermodynamics, as watchwolf seems to be claiming.
What’s a degree Kelvin?
The delusional warmist actually thinks the only thing water vapor does is cause more warming, and that any increase in energy, from solar or greenhouse gas changes, will result in more water vapor, which they actually believe, with all their hearts, will make it warmer, by a feedback loop.
This ignores basic Meteorology, and it is insane to think any climate expert actually goes along believing this is “the truth”.
A basic example that most people should understand is a hurricane. It involves a huge amount of water vapor, from the warm ocean surface, from both wind and low pressure. This massive heat engine moves heat from the warm sea surface to both cooler ocean regions, as well as land. Long distances, huge distances, massive amounts of water, and after it is over, do you think the ocean surface, the land, and the atmosphere is warmer?
Do you actually think that the end result is more warming of the planet?
That bit I got. He means the unit of temperature known as “one kelvin” or equivalently “one degree Celsius”: the Kelvin scale of temperature is the same as the Celsius scale except that its zero-point is different. Absolute zero or 0 kelvin equals -273.15 degrees Celsius.
Strawman. Nobody here, AFAICT, has claimed that the only thing water vapor does is cause more warming.
On the contrary, see my post #1631 above, where I explicitly pointed out that the feedback effect of water vapor serves to amplify atmospheric cooling as well as warming.
Not from what I see. The denial and pseudoscience is to claim water vapor is a feedback only, never a “forcing”, or a prime mover in climate. That myth is madness.
I gave a specific example of water vapor and heat, or energy, in action.
Don’t avoid the question.
I don’t see where that backs up what you said. Can you clarify?
Don’t avoid the question.
[/QUOTE]
Um, it would help if you specified whom your question is directed to. Neither of your posts concerning this question is explicitly responding to anybody but yourself.
I presume that I’m not the one whose opinion you’re asking for, because I’ve already pointed out (twice so far) that water vapor feedback plays a role in atmospheric cooling as well as warming.
Oh please. Now you are playing the pedant?
That is a rather impressive chart, especially since it goes back almost 450,000 years. You are correct about that sharp increase 130,000 years ago as well, and if you go back 320,000 years you’ll see that it reached the high point in that entire 450,000 year span, right around 300 ppm.
What’s that? The ppm today? Oh yeah, 30% higher than any of the data points on that chart.
Keep linking!
I don’t think it’s that simple, but some certainly act like that.
As others mention, right-wing organizations do have paid shills posting comments on the Internet. However, the idea that FXMasturbater would be paid by denialists is absurd. (I do admit the likelihood that he is an unpaid troll for the pro-science community, trying to discredit denialists with his stupidity.)
And I do want to thank Dopers for quoting people I have set to Ignore. I get the amusing highlights without the tedious crap. For example:
Honest self-assessment is a beautiful thing. 
[/QUOTE]
On the topics of stupidity and Dopers I see only when others quote them, watchwolf49 would be a strong candidate for best example of Dunning–Kruger effect except for one thing: some of his posts seem to admit that he knows how very limited his knowledge and understanding is. But why then does he persist in prattling his misunderstandings in such an insulting and pretentious manner? 
The more salient question would be “what is ‘air’?”