That's a known. Earth would be way below freezing if not for water vapor.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".
I'm not sure. In the message I received from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming. That's all I can say about it -- database is empty beyond that datum.
I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?
Sounds good, now how does CO2 contribute to temperature increase if it only absorbs and re-radiates quantum 15micron IR radation,(i.e. a delayed spontaneous & random process). Hint, it can't, It must lose the absorbed IR excitation in collisions with other molecules to manifest as a change in temperature(i.e. velocity of molecules).
No doubt about that. Everything I've read about the greenhouse effect says that CO2 and other GHGs "absorb and re-radiate" longwave radiation. Presumably if some of the re-radiated radiation is transferred to other molecules, the atmosphere heats up.
So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,
I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature (i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.
That makes more sense. What you said initially didn't make sense to me.
At 15 microns, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.
I understand that to be the core of their argument, and I did find it curious to read the section you called the "caveat" (one of two reasons that I wanted you to comment on that section). My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause. All I can conclude for the GHG argument is that increasing CO2 by ppm is not a "small amount" of gas. If that was not the case, then there wouldn't be any CO2 greenhouse effect to speak of. Since the IPCC speaks of a CO2 greenhouse effect, I have to draw the conclusion above -- and I can't argue it beyond that. Together we've stated Hug and Barrett vs. the IPCC: we can't push the argument any further. If Hug and Barrett's argument has merit, they'll eventually get more notice. Hug has published (though it's a German journal). If the give-and-take there gets noisy enough, it will get picked up elsewhere.
The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is too thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?
The injected aerosols themselves are molecules absorbing solar radiation as well as upwelling blackbody radiation and imparting any absorbed energy to the stratosphere in collisions with upper atmosphere molecules. So where is any inconsistency? Those "volcanic" aerosols are only sporadically part of the picture.
Actually (drum roll) they might end up being a significant influence. Just saw this while looking at new pictures in the NASA Earth Observatory:
Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.
Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.
No, you haven't. But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion that their experimental result doesn't transfer properly to the atmospheric system due to an overlooked dynamic process. And before making a considerable effort to try and convince me (though you can do whatever you want in terms of illustrating the point), I'll tell you that there isn't much more you can say for my thick-headed benefit. I understand Hug and Barrett's point enough to perceive how it conflicts with the standard GHG-induced warming view. I don't think you can provide any material that resolves that conflict.
from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming.
In short he passed off to the IPCC view of water vapor as feedback by selective redefinition so it can be shunted aside as the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. To admit to H20 being a GHG that would be to admit to the inconsequentiality of anthropogenic CO2 as a problem.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?
N,o I am saying the stratosphere's composition is such that water vapor is not the dominant factor of longwave absorption that it plays in the troposphere. The IR transmission window is much broader in the stratosphere, with O3 @ 10 & 15u playing the dominant role of any "longwave absorption" on very narrow absorption lines.
CO2 absorption above 11km is virtually nonexistant. H2O absorption is very attenuated. There is virtually no IR absorption by N2 and O2, they absorb UV radiant energy only and aquire heat from kinetic collision with IR active gasses.
But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion
The UN's IPCC and their modellers perhaps? I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the UN sponsored IPCC Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.
ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT:
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
***
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
And what did they sign?
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause.
Certainly depends on what they mean by "small", an increase of 320ppm is no "large" increase in my book, especially in comparison to H20 concentrations that vary from nil to 20000ppm as a matter of natural variation day to day and from geographical area to area, and have a direct impact on how much IR is available for absorption by CO2 as well as the problems associated with the CO2 IR extinction distance of <100ft at ground level.