Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.
So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific publication?
Not exactly true though is it? If water vapour were driven by temp and it is the biggest greenhouse gas then we would have runaway increases in both.
This indicates that the expected effect of greenhouse gas isn't quite right.
Would you like to inform us of why it doesn't runaway?
They tend to get sacked?
The '43%' figure originally came from here.
I'm sure they have. Plenty of references here:-
Mainly by increasing cloud cover.
That was discounted by the alarmists as it also means that the clean air acts in Europe resulted in less cloud and could account for the temp rise.
Try and learn to read and write, dear boy. Revelation.
Of course the issue is does water vapour make the world warmer or cooler, and what happens when it rises*above* the bulk of the CO2 laden atmosphere and turns into ice and snow..releasing huge amounts of energy to space and reflecting back even more sunlight energy before it gets here..
Not in the models? Oh dear oh dear.
No it did not! The figure of 43% does not appear anywhere in that document or in the peer reviewed paper by the same authors. The lead author has pointed out that it is a misrepresentation of their work.
A tiny number, 0.7% of published papers on climate science papers rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
(a) They do, but the media doesn't report it and they usually lose their jobs shortly afterwards (b) because the peer review process is now not scientific, but political, and the science magazines like nature are totally discredited.
Of course it's in the models,
So does more water and cloud make the earth warmer, or colder?
Are cloudtops above or below the area of greatest CO2 concentration?
How much radiant energy do clouds reflect back to space?
How much radiant energy does snow reflect back to space?
How much radiant energy do clouds reflect back to earth at night?
How does the turbulent nature of convection get modelled in the standard climate models?
Are any of the above issues correctly handled in any of the climate models?
Try actually LOOKING.
You would be appalled at what is not in the models.
Or is covered by some grand sweepi8ng assumption that can easily be shown to be totally unjustified. The whole issue of 'climate sensitivity' which has been adjusted threefold over the political life of AGW shows that the equations can't be bent to fit reality.
The Emeperor's New Green Clothes are looking tattered these days.
Its nothing but sleaze, troughing and pressure on academics.
Total disgrace.
If it's been discounted then why do they include it in their models?
Back to the conspiracy theories again.
Yeah. its the Koch brothers wot financed it for sure ;-) Or big oil. Just like the tobacco companies innit?
Is hypocrisy and the Big Lie a requirement for being a Green, or is it just easier to lie anyway?
The Koch brothers and big oil are funding scientists to say things which hurt their financial interests? You make even less sense than usual.
You are claiming that the vast majority of climate scientists, science journal editors, peer reviewers, funding bodies, national and international science academies and the media are engaged in a global conspiracy. It's not remotely credible.
ITYM why do they include a fudge factor for it in their models.
You are making the mistake of thinking the models actually model physical processes.
There is no evidence that they do model physical processes, in fact the evidence says they do not model physical processes as they have failed to make any predictions that have been true. All they have done is mathmatically fitted the model to past data and each time they have then extrapolated that into the future it has produce predictions that have been alarmist and that have failed to happen.
Now that is either proof the models dont work or that the alarmists are deliberately being alarmist because they want more cash to "fix" the models.
PS. they include it in their models so they can say it isn't the cause, you can include almost anything and then discount it if you don't get the physical model correct.
Do you want to say which models its in and how you know?
I don't see why the quantity has any relevance. Its like the daily mail saying a story is true because the daily mail has printed 2000 articles on it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.