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.
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.
Remember the Earth Observatory article about clouds I offered a couple of days ago? Well, the next one in the series is out. It provides a very clear description of the interaction of CO2 and water vapor. At least for this group, it's pretty obvious that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Does the Earth have an Iris Analog?
In particular, note the paragraphs beginning "Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity..." and "This is a terrifically important feedback," Lindzen concludes..."
So at least for Lindzen, one of the more important skeptical scientists, there's no doubting the importance of the water vapor feedback we've been discussing.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?
No, 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.
That is MUCH clearer now. Obviously ozone is significant in the stratosphere because ozone depletion is affecting stratospheric temperatures to an extent.
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.
OK. (I want to do a bit of research on this, but not while posting this reply.)
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.
Not everybody is in the IPCC. What they need is a respected maverick: somebody who is known well enough to be influential, but someone who considers alternatives to the mainstream consensus. Not to drop names, but someone I am aware of who fits this "profile" is Raymond Pierrehumbert.
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.
Well, in that vein, I emailed Henry Pollack about some outstanding borehole temperature questions that I would like to resolve. Haven't heard back from him yet, but it has only been a day.