Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Simple
Read the thread cbacba.
Well informed arguments have been posted previously.
Water vapour amplifies CO2 warming by a factor of 2 due to fact that air holds more water as it warms, it is simple physics. Like the fact oceans hold less CO2 as they warm one of those pesky positive feedbacks, it is also important to remember that the oceans have absorbed 40-50% mans CO2 emissions, and at present the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are still in the steep part of the log curve and that >50% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere has only occured since 1970, makes explaining that cool spell from 1950-70 easier then and there is a lag of about 5-10years for warming and
|
Perhaps you should look at it from a slightly different perspective. Such as the h2o vapor has caused warming which has released more co2. Last time I looked, relatively high humidity holds in far more heat that relatively low. That's the difference between the Arizona desert at night and the Florida swamp at night. Losing 25-30 deg C over night with 15% relative humidity versus perhaps 4 - 5 deg C at 90% relative humidity - both with the same amount of co2 or perhaps with slightly less amounts in Florida.
Obviously, one can use h2o vapor as the reference, being forced by various amounts of co2 released/absorbed due to the temperature variations as well. After all, you've pointed out that co2 levels vary depending on temperature just like h2o vapor, even if to a lesser extent. As for a major cause of variations, one can look to cloud formation and blocking of incoming solar across the spectrum.
I'm not sure what you mean by steep part of the curve for co2 blocking of IR. This is clearly in the logrithmic area and is much less than a linear relationship. As you stated, as temperature rises, so does co2 levels and so does h2o vapor concentrations (and potentially, so does cloud formation).
It's just a fact of nature that systems dominated by positive feedback are totally unstable and 'go off in the weeds' at the earliest opportunity.
The IPCC has yet to prove that the 0.7 deg C rise during the last supposed doubling of co2 has a functional mechanism rather than an overblown number with no justification. They could well be off by over a factor of 10 and the rise in temperature could be the cause of the additional co2 levels rather than the other way around. That's referred to as causality.
Perhaps if the desert didn't cool down at night anymore than the florida swamp, you might have a case.
As for your models, when primary and secondary effects are excluded or unknown, the consequences of tertiary effects aren't really relevent.