[alancalverd]

We haven't added a third as much water again into the atmosphere like we have with CO2.

I'm impressed. Nobody else knows how to measure it, let alone how much has been added, in what state, or at what level, to the atmosphere in the last 100 years. Citation, please? Then we can get on with looking at the relative absorption spectra of water and CO2 and the effect of clouds.

Thus, we can predict that more CO2 makes it warmer and we can observe that we have more CO2, and it's warmer.

Which would be interesting were it not for the fact that it was warmer 500 years ago when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. Meanwhile salmon have reappeared in the Thames since I stopped smoking. Correlation does not prove causality.

[Bored chemist]

Nobody else knows how to measure it,

" Leonardo da Vinci built the first crude hygrometer in the 1400s. "
from
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-hygrometer-1991669

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer#Chilled_mirror_dew_point_hygrometer

[alancalverd]

And the first balloon radiosonde measurements of humidity were made in 1936. The presence of water as gas, liquid and solid in the atmosphere turns meteorology from science to art at the best of times.

[Bored chemist]

And art has been recording atmospheric water for a long time
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/constable-cloud-study-n06065
The funny thing is that they look like modern clouds.

This is all very entertaining.
The problem is that you seem to have forgotten who is making the extraordinary claim and thus whose job it is to offer proof.

Correlation does not prove causality.

How fortunate that nobody said it did.

Which would be interesting were it not for the fact that it was warmer 500 years ago when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Please stop trying to pretend that anyone ever said that CO2 was the only factor.
Also, re "it was warmer 500 years ago"
No it wasn't.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
And it also wasn't warmer during  the mediaeval warm period (which I guess might be what you meant).

[alancalverd]

You probably won't be interested in https://fullspectrumbiology.blogspot.com/2013/06/bryophytes-recolonization-of-polar.html but anyone who thinks facts are more important than cartoons will realise that this is clear evidence that a glacier which has recently retreated, was even smaller 400 years ago. Others may see this as a reason to stop London's traffic and glue themselves to trains, or maybe not, but my interest is simply in finding a climate model that explains it, and clearly a CO2 forcing function doesn't.

Constable's cloud studies were indeed excellent renditions of the classic forms, but if you want to base your numerical analyses on his paintings, you will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only four cows in Suffolk, and Salisbury Cathedral is permanently in the midst of a thunderstorm.  The determinant of global mean temperature is principally the distribution of clouds and water vapour in 4 dimensions over the entire planet, and only satellite mapping can provide that data, so we have nothing worth using as model inputs before about 1970.

[Bored chemist]

Still waiting for the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that we have raised the amount of water in the air by a third.

but if you want to base your numerical analyses on his paintings, you will quickly come to the conclusion that there are only four cows in Suffolk,

Strawman.

a glacier which has recently retreated, was even smaller 400 years ago.

That's a quarter as many glaciers as cows, by your arithmetic.

[Bored chemist]

anyone who thinks facts are more important than cartoons

Do you really not understand that you can convey facts by cartoon?

[Petrochemicals]

Ive got it, this is a trick question,

Carbon dioxide produces acidic atmospheres !

What do i win ?

Mars and venus have similar percentages of co2 yet venus is far denser and has larger ammounts therefore. Venus is heated by this greenhouse effect yet mars with this low ammount of co2  is cool. I know venus is closer,  but mars recieves 50 % of earths radiation and its atmosphere us not screened of visuble solar radiation in any way (exept long wave IR) One can only summise that low densities of co2 have a negligable effect.

[Bored chemist]

Carbon dioxide produces acidic atmospheres !

What do i win ?

A chance to say which definition of "acid" you are using.

[alancalverd]

That's a quarter as many glaciers as cows, by your arithmetic.

Einstein was asked to comment on a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work. He replied "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient."

Anyway, you can't compare Suffolk (where the glaciers may never have reached) with Canada (where they still are).

[alancalverd]

Do you really not understand that you can convey facts by cartoon?

And a fair amount of bullshit too. I wouldn't recommend the biophysics of anvil impact, as demonstrated by  Tom and Jerry, as a basis for factory safety.

[Bored chemist]

I wouldn't recommend the biophysics of anvil impact, as demonstrated by  Tom and Jerry, as a basis for factory safety.

And once again, that's a strawman, isn't it?

Why persist in using logical fallacies?
Is it because you have nothing better to offer?

Einstein was asked to comment on a paper signed by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work. He replied "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient."

It is true that, if I had said that no glacier was doing well, you would (sort of) have a point.
But neither I , nor anyone else, did.
So, it's another strawman.

BTW, it was you who suggested that counting the 4 while ignoring all the other cows in the world was a problem.
Why didn't you realise the same issue applies to glaciers?

[alancalverd]

I haven't discounted any glaciers. The particular one in question is not "doing well", if by that you mean growing.

Whilst Constable certainly studied meteorology (as far as was possible at the time) his cloudscapes cannot be considered representative of East Anglian skies, any more than Holbein's portrait of Henry VIII represents the effects of alcoholism and syphilis. Art is not science.

[Bored chemist]

Still waiting for the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that we have raised the amount of water in the air by a third.

[puppypower]

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR. In other words, if CO2 and other greenhouse gases can trap heat from the  earth, they should also be able to trap heat from the sun; block solar heating. The earth gets its the majority of its heat from the sun each day. If this is absorbed and deflected by CO2, there is less to heat to escape from the earth at night. CO2 does not care where the IR comes from.

As an analogy, cloud cover, caused by water, works as a two way valve. If it is cloudy during the day, less solar heat reaches the surface during the day. While at night, a cloud cover can prevent excessive cooling compared to a clear night.  A good example is the desert where less daily cloud cover causes extremes between night and day. CO2 should be a thermal moderator.

This two way valve affect could explain why the models are always higher than reality; exaggerated. A model that assumes a one way CO2 valve, could lead to that an overly ambitious conclusion. 

The CO2 cover should also act like a sponge in the sense that at thermal saturation, adding more water'CO2  to the sponge, will cause water;CO2 to leak out the other side. The CO2 should have a saturation point, where all energy levels are full, and the CO2 starts to drip IR from the other side. CO2 cannot absorb and deflect infinite energy. Since the sun is the big dog, it will hand off a saturated CO2 sponge to the earth at night, more so than the earth hands off a saturated sponge to the sun, the next morning. I hope the models take this into account or else they will be too high.

[alancalverd]

The thermal moderator concept is worth studying as we do have reasonably good day and night temperature records for hot deserts for the last 100 years or so. Whatever the mean, a significant influence of CO2 should reduce the range.

Even so, you would have a problem separating the data from water content. Clouds do appear over deserts, they just don't precipitate. But the hottest and coldest temperatures occur in the absence of clouds, so just plotting range against date should show some underlying correlation with CO2 concentration.

[chiralSPO]

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR. In other words, if CO2 and other greenhouse gases can trap heat from the  earth, they should also be able to trap heat from the sun; block solar heating. The earth gets its the majority of its heat from the sun each day. If this is absorbed and deflected by CO2, there is less to heat to escape from the earth at night. CO2 does not care where the IR comes from.

True that CO₂ doesn't care where the IR comes from, but it still matters.

Most of the energy that comes from the sun is in the visible region of the EM spectrum (to which CO₂ is transparent). Most of the energy that radiates from the Earth is in the IR spectrum (some of which the CO₂ absorbs).

Here is a diagram that I found online that shows this (CO₂ absorbs at about 3 µM, 4 µM, and 15 µM)

Screen Shot 2019-11-14 at 12.46.15 PM.png (53.75 kB . 578x432 - viewed 1031 times)

[puppypower]

I did a web search for "solar IR output" to get some numbers, and this quote came up from Wikipedia

In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).

The amount of solar IR in sunlight is considerable. My guess are sun spots will black body radiate at higher wavelength than solar flairs. Sun spot activity might play a role in this.

I got this idea of the two wave CO2 IR valve from insulated windows. They can keep the heat in during the winter and the heat out doing the summer. They work in the direction of the thermal gradient which flips each day on the earth.

My guess is the Sun will saturate the green house gas IR sponge during the day; all the possible energy levels are full. This will allow early evening IR to leak out faster, than it will later in the evening. In the morning, the IR sponge is no longer saturated. This blocks the solar IR for s short time in the early morning, but the IR sponge quickly becomes saturated.

Since the earth is rotating, we have a moving IR green house gas sponge affect to complicate the two way valve.analysis. I am not sure how lateral affects can be modeled or the degree of leaking neat the edges.

[Bored chemist]

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is, CO2 is not mono-directional in terms of IR.

No, we aren't missing it.
The Sun emits light, to which CO2 is transparent.
The Earth emits IR to which CO2 is not transparent.
That makes CO2 act as a (sort of) one way valve.

If you really haven't understood that point, it could easily explain why you are not on the side of the consensus.

If, on the other hand, you do understand it, but choose to ignore it, you are trolling.

Which is it?

[Bored chemist]

My guess is the Sun will saturate the green house gas IR sponge

That's just not how it works.