‘wasted wind’)

AGW protagonists claim that its water vapour that is responsible for amplifying global warming by 3:1 over what the CO2 alone suggests.

So yet another example of doublethink ?

The only thing I’m unpicking is your claim that increased water vapour in the atmosphere does not cause climate change. And you have not answered that.

Your claim was “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change”. And that is nonsense. Once the water vapour is in the atmosphere it will act as it normally does. Why do you think it is otherwise?

I want to know why increases in atmospheric water vapour, the dominant greenhouse gas, do not result in climate change. Your NASA quote says this is so.

You might do better if you stopped regurgitating things you don’t understand.

From Wikipedia:

Get your calculator out. And use it.

You spend 15 seconds running an AI bot to regurgitate rubbish yet expect me to spend a couple of hours demolishing the tripe you posted. The AI can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction, it isn’t that bright.

Another sleight of hand.

WTF does ‘potent over a 100 year period’ even mean?

So water vapour is in the atmosphere all the time, and CO2 isn’t. Well, well. What does that do for climate change?

OFFS. Any molecule has ‘gaps’ in its absorption spectrum! That’s how spectroscopy works!

My advice: get a better AI bot, preferably one with a bit more I in it.

I did. How on earth did you think I knew the ratio? Just a tip - how much of the earth's surface is (anywhere near) -42C?

I'm not sure, but I think it's something to do with the decay of gases - some take a lot longer to dissipate. Why 100 years was chosen I'm not sure - any length of time could have been selected to make the point.

Well, it actually says CO2 is in the atmosphere, and it can 'persist for centuries'.

Your point?

No, that's the point at issue. Different gases have different rates of absorption.

I remember when this issue was first discussed on this NG - may years ago. And TNP tried to explain to the group: CO2 is present in such *tiny* amounts compared to water vapour. How could it possibly contribute to climate! He didn't understand this basic point (then, maybe he does now). Do you?

I'm using Claude Sonnet 4. If you've any better suggestion I'm more than happy to try.

Water vapour is still a (the main) contributory factor, though. It is still a greenhouse effect gas. You've been told this many times now.

Well, and I'd have thought that you would know this, water vapor is considered an indirect cause of climate change because it acts as a feedback mechanism rather than a primary driver of warming. The 'feedback' variables include temperature dependency, short life, and the amplification effect (it amplifies primary drivers).

Primary drivers are, in the main, human-added (CO2, N2O and CH4).

But that's just my view. I accept that you think water vapour is a primary driver in this context - largely because, it seems to me at least, climate is a context-free topic in your view. So I'm happy to leave that there.

They do. I think you've been told this, by me, six times now. Water vapour not only contributes to climate change, it is the biggest single variable. I have never said otherwise. What I have tried to impress on you is the significance of other variables, and how they 'lean' on water vapour and influence climate.

I understand what I've written. Beyond that, I can't comment.

Snipped as rather sideways to your points..

Do we know the contribution from air travel to atmospheric water vapour? This seems very much avoided by media/govt. for suspected reasons!

You still have not:

- justified your post in which it is claimed that increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change

- justified your claim that the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2

I suggest you research the basis of that claim.

My point is that something that is ‘considered’ to be in a particular state is not necessarily well-founded scientifically.

OFFS. Any molecule has ‘gaps’ in its absorption spectrum! And different levels of absorption in their absorption bands. That’s how spectroscopy works!

It isn’t clear from that what ‘basic point’ you are attempting to make. It seems to be a swipe at TNP.

You use AI as a substitute for knowledge. Others use knowledge as a substitute for AI.

I’ve never said otherwise.

However, the NASA source that you originally posted said that increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change.

This is the fourth time I have asked you to justify that claim.

Now you are shifting the goalposts.

You originally posted that increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change; now you are saying it only acts indirectly through some feedback mechanism. Therefore it does act to cause climate change.

These are two incompatible points.

Please make up your mind as to what you are claiming, perhaps keeping to your original one already referred to.

Perhaps you meant to say ‘greatest contributor’ instead of ‘primary driver’?

Whatever is this ‘lean on’ mechanism you have now introduced?

Ne supra crepidam sutor judicaret.

It is clear that you do not.

These statements are irreconcilable.

If water vapour really is infinitesimal, then a doubling of CO2 will only raise global temperatures by a degree or so. Mild, probably beneficial - the CO2 certainly is for plants and life in general - and all in all nothing like as large an increase as has happened several times in the last 10,000 years.

And if it turns out to be bigger, well its not CO2 that is causing it so we had better get used to it, because all the windmills in the world cant stop something we are unaware of.

Tim I haven't read the whole thread but if we are talking vapour rather than droplets of water in a "vapour trail" my understanding is that the frequencies of radiation emitted by the earth's surface that are absorbed by water vapour are quickly absorbed in the lower atmosphere, so adding more water vapour to the atmosphere has no additional effect. It has always acted as a warm blanket, at least during human existence.

Umm. These *droplets* seem to disappear rather than disperse so I assume they transition to vapour.

There has been media discussion about choosing flight levels to minimise any impact so I assume there is some relevance.

"Water plays a significant role in climate feedback loops, particularly through water vapor. As temperatures rise, more water evaporates, and since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this leads to further warming, creating a positive feedback loop. This effect is estimated to amplify warming from other sources like increased CO2"

That's part of the standard Climate Dogma.

Needed to explain why their scary graphs dont match the *calculated* effects of CO2.

The inconvenient truth is this. Of and by itself increased CO2 is reckoned to have a climate sensitivity of about 0.8°C per doubling of CO2. That's what the physics says. However warming since 1980 is claimed to be more than that. At this point the warmunists have a choice. Lose their funding and admit that something else is *independently* causing warming as well, or concoct a theory of "positive feedback" that says that "something else"

And they picked on water vapours.

But note, any climate change by any means is *amplified* by this, not just CO2, which is why I mentioned the paper on Pinatubo that used the unamplified effect of volcanic emissions to exactly calculate the observed effect and then transferred that to CO2 which WAS multiplied to give 'the right result'

So this water vapour seemingly only *amplifies* climate change caused by CO2, which is remarkably clever of it.

My retired PhD geologist BIL whose life has been spend sorting out the prehistory of the earth as revealed by rocks, categorically states that this feedback is simply impossible and completely inconsistent with the geological record.

There is also strong evidence to show that CO2 rises in the atmosphere follows global warming periods, as its then released from the warming seas.

I don't know the real story, but the one we are bullied with constantly is pure unadulterated wombat turds.

A most convenient lie that has allowed enormous sums of money to be extracted from the general public and transferred to the pockets of people who absolutely do not deserve to have it.

The albedo effect of vapours trail is similar to that of altocirrus which is credited with reducing long wave radiation at night and reducing incoming radiation by day.

This tends to reduce temperature extremes, and prevent uber cold nifhgts that clear skies give you.

Water droplets - clouds - are massively significant in modulating radiation in and out - probably more so than water vapour in the air.

Cloud cover reduces incoming insolation by 4-100 times depending on how thick it is. That is simply MASSIVE .

Which, if what am am saying is near right, won't be absorbing any more of the relevant frequencies emitted by the earth, that is not to say they will not absorb any incoming radiation.

A different matter.

There is definitely some impact from contrails.

When the USA went all 911 the night time temps dropped a couple of degrees.

Just to try and be clear.

I have never made that claim. In fact I have said that it is the single largest variable. I'd ask you to point to the post where I state otherwise.

See above.

See above.

And, see above.

You seem to be ignoring what I write, and inserting something of your own making. So let's start here. Please identify the post where I make the claim: "increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change".

Again, where do I state "water vapour in the atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2".

I'm not about to start justifying staements I never made.

Yes, I realise that may have confused you. By 'lean' I mean 'act upon'. As in if you lean on something, you act upon it.

The rest of the text snipped as you seem to be variously completely baffled, or misrepresenting what I've written elsewhere.