Climate-gate

[wellwisher]

Another consideration is when CO2 forms from combustion, there is less O2 in the atmosphere. For each molecule of CO2 that is formed one less molecule of O2 is found in the atmosphere. We need to compare loss and gain.

If you look at the graph, O2 absorbs with a peak in the warmer IR range of the blue output heat, while CO2 absorbs, with a broader band, in the cooler IR range. When we swap molecules, during combustion, we loose some warmer IR (O2) but will gain cool IR (CO2).

 

[rpenner]

Another consideration is when CO2 forms from combustion, there is less O2 in the atmosphere. For each molecule of CO2 that is formed one less molecule of O2 is found in the atmosphere. We need to compare loss and gain.

That is an unbelievably ignorant argument. O₂ is a diatomic molecule and has no IR footprint near 10 µm (100000 Å).
http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd8.pdf
It is Ozone (O₃) which has the bending mode which allows a 10 µm absorption peak.
http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o3.pdf ( first image )
And further since the concentrations go: [O₂] > [CO₂] > [O₃] and the current absorption amount of O₃ is much less than that of CO₂, any percentage change in [CO₂] can only cause a much smaller percentage change in [O₂] and thus indirectly [O₃] which means the absolute change in O₃ absorption is vanishingly small compared to that of CO₂.

I believe this argument, backed only by a misreading of the graph, is analogous to clutching at straws. It seems desperate, poorly thought-out and ultimately futile.

It also illustrates the opposite of scientific epistemology. Rather than discarding your hypothesis when you encounter data inconsistent with it, you cling to your hypothesis and seek only data that tends to confirm it. This is confirmation bias, one of the defects in human reasoning that is poisonous to scientific progress.

 

[wellwisher]

It also illustrates the opposite of scientific epistemology. Rather than discarding your hypothesis when you encounter data inconsistent with it, you cling to your hypothesis and seek only data that tends to confirm it. This is confirmation bias, one of the defects in human reasoning that is poisonous to scientific progress.

I will go back to my original argument that manmade global warming has no precedent in historical data. All the historical data is connected to natural causes apart from manmade. There is no hard historical data, after the fact, so we can quantify the impact of manmade global warming by comparing it to a known example so we can unravel connections. It only has what you said above, in the quote, since it is still a prototype theory. It does not have the same weight as natural causes, yet is sales pitched as a done deal. This is not how science is supposed to work.

The manmade theory has been put to some pilot test, via model predictions stemming from extrapolation of this assumptions. What ended up changing, was not the theory, but a rebranding from the original global warming to climate change, because climate change is fuzzier to quantify. The polar caps were supposed to have melted, by now, but since they didn't, this was due to climate change. This is how you erase bad pilot data. How about we go back to the manmade global warming brand, since this will make it easier to quantify without PC language games. The affordable care act brand was used by this same support group to substitute a clever jingle, for the disaster it was creating due to poor knowledge of cause and effect.

 

[rpenner]

I will go back to my original argument that manmade global warming has no precedent in historical data. All the historical data is connected to natural causes apart from manmade. There is no hard historical data, after the fact, so we can quantify the impact of manmade global warming by comparing it to a known example so we can unravel connections. It only has what you said above, in the quote, since it is still a prototype theory. It does not have the same weight as natural causes, yet is sales pitched as a done deal. This is not how science is supposed to work.

As you have made it abundantly clear, you have no idea how history or science works. France historically never invaded Russia until they did. Science doesn't care about the argument "well it's never happened before" since science advanced by finding new things that require new generalizations. Anthropogenic climate change is not fundamentally new in that no new principles of chemistry or physics are needed. Within the limits of conservation of energy, the blackbody law modified for greybodies, and the spectrum of components of the atmosphere are all that is needed to model the most basic truth of of anthropogenic climate change -- More CO₂ means a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface of the Earth, all other things being equal. Detailed measurements confirm we do have higher amounts of CO₂ and that man introduced these by burning fossil fuels (another thing that is a historical first -- industrial exploration of coal and petroleum on a global scale) and that other things are on the average equal. The detailed answers of how much, how bad, where bad, and what hope remains require detailed studies. Ignoring those studies or the largely accurate summaries produced by the IPCC is willful ignorance. Claiming the science is not good enough is moving the goal posts ex post facto. The science being used is as tested as the science that got man to the moon (also a historical first).

The manmade theory has been put to some pilot test,

In the 1980's.

via model predictions stemming from extrapolation of this assumptions.

Extrapolation is the wrong word. Assumptions is the wrong word.

What ended up changing, was not the theory, but a rebranding from the original global warming to climate change, because climate change is fuzzier to quantify.

That's an argument that speaks of your ignorance of science. The monopole solution "global warming" was settled science in the 19th century. The 21st century brought us the multipole solutions of detailed regional impact assessment "climate change" which does not weaken the strength of the science behind the monopole solution. Science is about refining human knowledge and having refined the main effect, secondary effects (like moisture patterns) are a natural thing to study. So as the picture increases in precision and resolution, you claim this is fuzzier. In addition, the facts don't support you claim of a "brand change" since both topics (there's two!) have been studied under those names for decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

The polar caps were supposed to have melted, by now, but since they didn't, this was due to climate change.

They are mostly melted (Sept 2012 ice volume was less than half of recent historical averages) and your reliance on a sensational popular press claim does not weaken the actual scientific predictions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered-intermediate.htm
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...ume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp.../ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

This is how you erase bad pilot data. How about we go back to the manmade global warming brand, since this will make it easier to quantify without PC language games. The affordable care act brand was used by this same support group to substitute a clever jingle, for the disaster it was creating due to poor knowledge of cause and effect.

So you are not here to talk science but rather politics.

 

[Photizo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...bal-warming-argument-fuels-denier-skepticism/

 

[iceaura]

So this guy is now putting up bi-level, nested posts of bare links quoting his own former posting of bare links. Sendup? Performance art?

The lack of argument or discussion seems easily explained - the title of the first lower level link includes a sincere, non-parody reference to "the wisdom of Krauthammer" with reference to AGW, which was a far as I got. Not much room for discussion, there.

 

[Photizo]

So this guy is now putting up bi-level, nested posts of bare links quoting his own former posting of bare links. Sendup? Performance art?

The lack of argument or discussion seems easily explained

Quite easily. Someone does not want to take the time to mow their lawn, so, they call a professional to do it. In the same way, when someone says something that I think but has already written it down and does it well, why should I go through unnecessary/duplicate effort? The links were all related. I quoted them because I figured you would need help making the connections.

which was a far as I got.

Why am I not surprised?

If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.

 

[wellwisher]

This is how you erase bad pilot data. How about we go back to the manmade global warming brand, since this will make it easier to quantify without PC language games. The affordable care act brand was used by this same support group to substitute a clever jingle, for the disaster it was creating due to poor knowledge of cause and effect.

So you are not here to talk science but rather politics.

I was pointing out how the same people who support manmade-up global warming tend to use marketing gimmicks to sell other second rate products; liberals. Why would you call a more expensive option, the affordable care, when anyone with half a brain could have inferred this would raise cost of health care. This sales pitch group is known for being full of crap leading to huge expenses for everyone else.

The same group is marketing manmade global warming. The liberal playbook says, is if you say something enough, true or not, there are plenty of gullible people who will buy the lie. Now we are stuck with one disaster, that will cause problems for many years while lowering quality. The next goal is to apply this scam to energy, so it too get expensive with spins off other social degradations.

What I would like to see is more accountability. If this turns out to be a scam, down the line, would the marketeers and accomplices agree that all their assets can be seized The way it is being set up is, even if this is shown to be scam, those who set it the scam up already have their golden parachutes designed into the scam. The same people who voted for the affordable care act, also set up supplements to offset the extra costs. They pitch to everyone else, and act for themselves based on reality. If this was not divided down political lines I would approach it differently, but science is not in charge of the money. The money is conditional to the scam.


Let me walk through the science again. Manmade global warming has no hard data precedent in the history of the earth. What we have now, at very best, would be the first example, in the history of the earth. Nobody of sound mind can challenge this. The operative word is "best" case and not done deal for the one data point. What we do have plenty of hard data for, based on billions go years of precedent, is natural warming and cooling and climate change happens naturally. Maybe we can place these data side by side to see which has more data. The big stack of data is not allowed to play, which is how you know this is a scam. One does not have to assume anything with the natural data since the data is end result. Only the fake or the manmade angle needs propping up, by the masters of liberal illusions.

If this was real science, science would weigh all the data and give weight to the most data. Or it would run a pilot test to show the unique is possible with more than just a thought experiment. I could see if man-made up global warming had no funding and therefore it had to depend on inference, by default. I would cut them slack under those spartan conditions. But they have all the money, so there is no excuse for not running a large scale test, with controls to factor out all the natural trends that also might be running. But they are using the standard of a poor man while being wealthy. Instead, they invest in marketing and targeting of the competition that use the preponderance of the data. This raises a red flag to me.

What would happen if politics were removed so there is no marketing?

 

[iceaura]

Someone does not want to take the time to mow their lawn, so, they call a professional to do it. In the same way, when someone says something that I think but has already written it down and does it well, why should I go through unnecessary/duplicate effort?

You are now on record as taking responsibility for the contents of those links - according to you, they are merely duplicating what you would post, so we can treat that pile as coming directly from you, as if the words were your own. We can post quotes, for example, as things you said.

Yes or no?

What would happen if politics were removed so there is no marketing?

Among other benefits, we'd never have to scroll past another one of your posts in any scientific thread on this forum, ever again.

Or what did you think you were posting, amid all this silly obsession with "liberals"?

 

[rpenner]

What ended up changing, was not the theory, but a rebranding from the original global warming to climate change, because climate change is fuzzier to quantify.

There was no rebranding. The two named have existed side-by-side in the scientific literature because the discuss two different but related phenomena.

That's an argument that speaks of your ignorance of science. The monopole solution "global warming" was settled science in the 19th century. The 21st century brought us the multipole solutions of detailed regional impact assessment "climate change" which does not weaken the strength of the science behind the monopole solution. Science is about refining human knowledge and having refined the main effect, secondary effects (like moisture patterns) are a natural thing to study. So as the picture increases in precision and resolution, you claim this is fuzzier. In addition, the facts don't support you claim of a "brand change" since both topics (there's two!) have been studied under those names for decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature ... 'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. ... Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

Both Terms Have Long Been Used
The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'. Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term. In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years... And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature

The polar caps were supposed to have melted, by now, but since they didn't, this was due to climate change.

You continue to misunderstand that anthropogenic global warming is one thing and anthropogenic climate change is another related thing. I don't know where you source your claim that the arctic ice cap was supposed to have melted by now, and I serious doubt any model predicted an ice-free Antarctica by 2014, but the situation for the arctic ice is clearly dire:

They are mostly melted (Sept 2012 ice volume was less than half of recent historical averages) and your reliance on a sensational popular press claim does not weaken the actual scientific predictions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered-intermediate.htm

to which I add:

Ice-free summers are now probably inevitable, but it’s not clear how soon because the Arctic is melting much faster than any model predicted. Mark Serreze, Director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, says we’re “looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.” A few scientists argue that September sea ice could be essentially gone within the next decade.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming.htm

"All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years."

(i.e. between 2030 and 2040) http://nsidc.org/news/press/20101004_minimumpr.html

Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski ... forecast: “If this trend persists for another 10 years–and it has through 2005–we could be ice free in the summer.” And again, that was in 2006, so he was talking about [potentially] being ice free in 2016! ...
[Mark] Serreze said a couple of years ago he believed the models that predicted an ice-free Arctic in “2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2007/12/04/202152/global-warming-bet-arctic-ice-melting/ But if you read Maslowski's paper you actually get a more nuanced claim

Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km³, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover.

But nowhere do you point to someone saying the arctic is not melting away because "climate change" trumps "global warming" so you have only a naked assertion.

This is how you erase bad pilot data.

If you are motivated by science and not politics, please point to where the IPCC or more than one post-1980 scientific paper predicts complete polar ice cap melting by 2014. Where is the "bad pilot data" that is being "erased"? Please support the points you are raising.

How about we go back to the manmade global warming brand, since this will make it easier to quantify without PC language games. The affordable care act brand was used by this same support group to substitute a clever jingle, for the disaster it was creating due to poor knowledge of cause and effect.

So you are not here to talk science but rather politics.

I based this on your off-topic criticism of America's foolish catering to their insurance industry rather than implementing a sensible single-payer system. But as to the "PC language games" it was a Bush-era recommendation to Republicans (who, as I understand it, have been the socially conservative party in the United States for the past 6 decades) who made the proposal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

No Reason to Change the Term
Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, ... the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It's time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

...

Summary
So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

Frank Luntz quote taken directly from http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf (page 142)

I was pointing out how the same people who support manmade-up global warming

You are not supporting your assertion that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening.

tend to use marketing gimmicks to sell other second rate products; liberals. ... The same group is marketing manmade global warming. The liberal playbook says, is if you say something enough, true or not, there are plenty of gullible people who will buy the lie.

Pointless vitriol against "liberals" since the suggestion to change debate terms came from the conservative side of the spectrum.

What I would like to see is more accountability. If this turns out to be a scam, down the line, would the marketeers and accomplices agree that all their assets can be seized

I entirely agree. You and I disagree however on who is scamming and who supports their assertions with facts. This is why I frequently ask you to support your assertions. Unfortunately, in the United States, the First Amendment is universally interpreted as giving wide protections to overtly political speech.

Let me walk through the science again.

You don't know any science. You have at best empty-headed “talking points.”

Manmade global warming has no hard data precedent in the history of the earth.

Specious as a human population of seven billion also has no hard data precedent in the history of the Earth. Your claim here is analogous to an accused murderer claiming no one saw him shoot the victim and therefore he cannot be convicted. Of course he can because we can run GSR tests to prove he recently fired a gun, he owns the gun found in the victims flat, cameras recorded him in the victim's building on the night of the shooting, etc. In the same way, a chain of evidence demonstrates the globe is actually heating, the CO₂ is the primary cause and human activity burning fossil fuels are the primary cause of that primary cause. In fact not all of the carbon that humans liberate from fossil fuels goes into driving the temperature increases, but ocean acidification and photosynthesis simply can't keep pace with the rates CO₂ are being added to the atmosphere. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

one data point.

A specious argument, since conservation of mass-energy is an empirical law supported by every relevant observation. So if the Earth's temperature is rising then it must be taking on more energy than it is releasing to space. Satellites show it's not the sun, but it is that the atmosphere is releasing less energy to space. And the anthropogenic rise in CO₂ accounts for that. Further, Hansen's 1988 model (scenario B, adjusted with a more modern sensitivity to doubling of CO₂ levels) and more recent IPCC models are accurately demonstrating that we understand with some precision how much global warming is expected from so much anthropogenic rise in CO₂.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
In science you don't say a model "isn't good enough" -- you replace it with something better. But as I have already noted the predictions from the contrarian camp are not validated by nature and fail to refute the IPCC models.

What we do have plenty of hard data for, based on billions go years of precedent, is natural warming and cooling and climate change happens naturally.

But we know it is not similar to natural changes because of the rate of change, related to the rate of CO₂ being added. Pre-industrial climate studies do strongly support the models because they tell us that you can't dump that much CO₂ into the air and not expect temperatures to go up.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Maybe we can place these data side by side to see which has more data.

Pointless since the graph on the link previous above shows agreement, not disagreement, between modern and pre-industrial climate sensitivity to CO₂.

The big stack of data is not allowed to play, which is how you know this is a scam.

Untrue.

One does not have to assume anything with the natural data since the data is end result. Only the fake or the manmade angle needs propping up, by the masters of liberal illusions.

Gibberish.

If this was real science, science would weigh all the data and give weight to the most data.

Science already does. Why don't you? The issue isn't which side has the most data or even the best data, the issue is what is the most parsimonious explanation for all the data. And that is anthropogenic changes in the atmosphere, mostly CO₂ increase, leading to increased optical depth near 10 µm, leading to a paleological data-based empirical prediction AND a naive conservation-of-energy-based prediction of anthropogenic global warming.

Or it would run a pilot test to show the unique is possible with more than just a thought experiment. I could see if man-made up global warming had no funding and therefore it had to depend on inference, by default. I would cut them slack under those spartan conditions.

You are not the boss of science. You espouse opinions not grounded in empiricism. I have no funding and I have shown you to not base your posts on science. Therefore, by your lights, it is you who should have your posting cut until you actually support your assertions with science.

But they have all the money,

Spoken like someone who has never taken an economics course, opened the Wall Street Journal or been involved in academia.

so there is no excuse for not running a large scale test, with controls to factor out all the natural trends that also might be running.

Have you not read the IPCC WG1 reports?

What would happen if politics were removed so there is no marketing?

You wouldn't have these fact-free talking points and baseless assertions to parrot. Think about it -- this is 2014 -- many of the pages I quote date back to 2010 or earlier. So why are you still advocating the same tired and fact-free arguments and assertions?

 

[Photizo]

You are now on record as taking responsibility for the contents of those links - according to you, they are merely duplicating what you would post, so we can treat that pile as coming directly from you, as if the words were your own. We can post quotes, for example, as things you said.

Yes or no?

Let the record reflect that "you are now on record" via the above quote as providing an example/duplicate/facsimile of your thought processes/reasoning. It all makes sense now.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes, iceaura is one of the many good folks here who does not play games. At present you appear to be flying solo.

 

[Photizo]

Yes, iceaura is one of the many good folks here who does not play games. At present you appear to be flying solo.

To your 'eyes' maybe, "but we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."

To wit:

A) I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

B) I am with you always, to the end of the age.

C) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you.


In fact it is you who is flying solo--and you know this; but (sadly) you are unable to 'see' this nor do anything about it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Uh . . . so God wants you to rape the planet?

 

[Write4U]

Uh . . . so God wants you to rape the planet?

No, God wants me to rape the planet for him.

 

[rpenner]

Actually, God planned the second inundation of the Earth back in Genesis where He promised never to do it again. This time, it's our turn.

The Bible as co-authored by M. Night Shyamalan and O. Henry.

 

[wellwisher]

If we go back to the diagram below, water also has peaks connected to the incoming energy from the sun. Global warming will add more water to the atmosphere for more absorption/scattering of solar energy higher in the atmosphere. The result is cooling. If you were ever at the beach, tanning, and a cloud passes by, it feels cooler due to water in the atmosphere as clouds.

Even if we have more CO2 to trap the heat from the earth, that is trying to leave, this graph shows the main impact if the CO2 is at the cooler end of the outgoing IR heat from the earth (right side of the blue area).The hotter IR freely escapes up to the ozone layer, which is in equilibrium with the O2. Say there was a period of low UV from the sun, so there is less ozone, would more hot IR escape?

 

[rpenner]

Having no response to being refuted on every point so far, wellwisher goes back to anti-science talking points.

If we go back to the diagram below, water also has peaks connected to the incoming energy from the sun.

True, it has thin peaks of relatively low intensity in the IR tail of the solar spectrum.

Global warming will add more water to the atmosphere for more absorption/scattering of solar energy higher in the atmosphere.

You can't demonstrate that the added water vapor will be necessarily be higher in the atmosphere from this diagram. The water vapor will tend to accumulate first near warm water, i.e. in the lower atmosphere and the primary effect would be to heat the portions of the atmosphere with the most water vapor.

The result is cooling.

As I said, your model cannot be demonstrated from the diagram. It appears to be wishful thinking.

If you were ever at the beach, tanning, and a cloud passes by, it feels cooler due to water in the atmosphere as clouds.

That has effect has nothing to do with water vapor. Also, whether clouds heat or cool the Earth (a topic unrelated to the diagram) is primarily related to the time of day and the altitude. Venus is 100% covered in clouds but they don't make Venus cool.

Even if we have more CO2 to trap the heat from the earth, that is trying to leave, this graph shows the main impact if the CO2 is at the cooler end of the outgoing IR heat from the earth (right side of the blue area).The hotter IR freely escapes up to the ozone layer, which is in equilibrium with the O2. Say there was a period of low UV from the sun, so there is less ozone, would more hot IR escape?

The hypothesis of variability of UV from the sun is not based in empiricism. The greybody radiation law doesn't work like that -- only total weighted albedo matters. The O₃ peak is minor in width and intensity compared to the CO₂ peak, so it is a relatively bit player. A distraction.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You can't demonstrate that the added water vapor will be necessarily be higher in the atmosphere from this diagram.

As expected your recitation of the science is irrefutable.

It may be simpler for the docile minds to simply recognize that water vapor has a nominal concentration due to equilibrium. CO[sub]2[/sub] on the other hand is a trace gas with no such constraint. This was clear enough by the late 19th c. that the question of anthropogenic emissions even surfaced in the first place. I'd love to see Bill Nye The Science Guy take on Rush Limbaugh over this. Hell, I'd pay to see you go up against Limbaugh or any of the mouthpieces of crankdom.

The Bible as co-authored by M. Night Shyamalan and O. Henry.

Funny to read that next to Photizo's name crossed out.

 

[wellwisher]

You can't demonstrate that the added water vapor will be necessarily be higher in the atmosphere from this diagram. The water vapor will tend to accumulate first near warm water, i.e. in the lower atmosphere and the primary effect would be to heat the portions of the atmosphere with the most water vapor.

Water concentration in the atmosphere will increase with temperature. If we go back to the absorption diagram of the earth with respect to atmospheric gases, more water in the atmosphere, will cause more absorption at both the incoming and outgoing energy.

The CO2 has some impact on incoming energy, with three peaks at the end of incoming curve, in the range of warm IR. According to the diagram, CO2 absorbs best at cooler IR temperatures than warmer IR temperatures, except at the level of incoming. This cool IR absorption, may be useful to heat the poles, but not the equator. Maybe the manmade model can show us how water is connected, since water is the main player with respect to incoming and outgoing.

There is also that O2/O3 or oxygen/ozone peak in the warm IR region of the outgoing. If ozone was to increase, due to higher solar activity sending more UV to excite the oxygen to ozone, we also get a global warming effect in a warmer IR region. This will heat the equator.