The "Water Vapor Noise Eliminates the CO2 Signal" Denier Arg

[Bret Cahill]

of course, but the greater absorption spectrum of water vapor,
as well as its greater amount, "swamps" carbon dioxide

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?

In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is much
less than that of the noise. After integrating the signal over a few
thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger than the noise.
The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate and eventually vanishes.

H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess
H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or
centuries.

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2
has
_already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows
more water vapor in the atmosphere.

This is a _positive_ feedback.


Bret Cahill

 

[P E Schoen]

"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
news:b52aef99-9c7a-40af-9a5c-deaea5992bfe@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?

Sssh! The AGW deniers don't want anyone to think their "research" is flawed.
People might get scared and "go green" and that would be bad for "business
as usual".

In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is
much less than that of the noise. After integrating the signal
over a few thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger
than the noise. The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate and
eventually vanishes.

I think you are confusing the skeptics here and they might become
frightened!

H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any
excess H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or
centuries.

Is that why gasbags like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump have hung around so
long, polluting the weak minds of right wangers?

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent
that CO2 has _already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher
temp. due to CO2 allows more water vapor in the atmosphere.

Will the evaporation of the oceans keep them from rising? Another straw for
junk scientists to cling to.

This is a _positive_ feedback.

And that causes a LOT of whining and unpleasant noise. Just see what happens
when the far righteous confabulators start weighing in. They're probably
yelling with their fingers in their ears, "Nya Nya Nya I don't wanna hear
that! Waah!"

Paul
www.baltimoregreenforum.org

 

[Chom Noamsky]

On 12/13/2012 2:30 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

of course, but the greater absorption spectrum of water vapor,
as well as its greater amount, "swamps" carbon dioxide

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?

In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is much
less than that of the noise. After integrating the signal over a few
thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger than the noise.
The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate and eventually vanishes.

H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess
H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or
centuries.

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2
has
_already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows
more water vapor in the atmosphere.

This is a _positive_ feedback.

And what is the overall net forcing effect of H2O? That's never been
conclusively settled. Lots of evidence suggests strong negative
feedback from cloud cover, which can only increase with more
evaporation. Even the "how to debate a skeptic" websites admit this
remains the most uncertain, unsettled aspect of climate science.

 

[Chom Noamsky]

On 12/13/2012 5:37 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

of course, but the greater absorption spectrum of water vapor,
as well as its greater amount, "swamps" carbon dioxide

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?

In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is much
less than that of the noise. After integrating the signal over a few
thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger than the noise.
The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate and eventually vanishes.

H2O isn't a gas like CO2. H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess
H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or
centuries.

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2
has
_already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows
more water vapor in the atmosphere.

This is a _positive_ feedback.

And what is the overall net forcing effect of H2O?

Not enough to keep polar ice from melting because of the CO2.

Now it's time to do what deniers always do: Deny that polar ice is
melting and then suggest that NASA, NOAA, _Scientific American_ and
every university on the planet except Liberty U. is involved in a
conspiracy.

Thus concludes my attempt to have an intelligent conversation with Bret
Cahill.

 

[Bret Cahill]

of course, but the greater absorption spectrum of water vapor,
as well as its greater amount, "swamps" carbon dioxide

How does a lot of noise eliminate the signal?

In phase sensitive detection the initial input from the signal is much
less than that of the noise.  After integrating the signal over a few
thousand cycles, however, the signal is much larger than the noise.
The noise doesn't integrate / accumulate and eventually vanishes.

H2O isn't a gas like CO2.  H2O a condensable _vapor_ and any excess
H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a gas and any excess CO2 hangs around for decades or
centuries.

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2
has
_already_ warmed the atmosphere.  The higher temp. due to CO2 allows
more water vapor in the atmosphere.

This is a _positive_ feedback.

And what is the overall net forcing effect of H2O?

Not enough to keep polar ice from melting because of the CO2.

Now it's time to do what deniers always do: Deny that polar ice is
melting and then suggest that NASA, NOAA, _Scientific American_ and
every university on the planet except Liberty U. is involved in a
conspiracy.


Bret Cahill

 

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I use "swamping" merely as a descriptive of hydrological cycles,
not that CO2 is not "appreciable," whether or not its amount
is considered to be a "trace."

what a transparent farceur.

the presuppositions about the Arctic ice are flat-earther's,
viz Snell's law; there is no where, thereat. anyone who has
seen footage of the nine tenths, knows about this ... even if
they cannot do any spherical trig.

And what is the overall net forcing effect of H2O?

Not enough to keep polar ice from melting because of the CO2.

 

[Bret Cahill]

I use "swamping" merely as a descriptive of hydrological cycles,

At least you are creative enough to come up with your own wing nut
theories.

The denier who keeps invoking the word "trace" as though that
automatically leads to some quantitative science conclusion is getting
a bit tiresome.

Keep up the good work!


Bret Cahill

 

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

also, of course, insolation varies from zero to max to zero,
sinusoidally ever day, mod twilight (i.e. at the arctic circles).

smeday, someone in here will do the trig of Snell's law,
thereunto.

> Keep up the good work!

 

[Peter Muehlbauer]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:30:37 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill wrote:

That's why H2O only enters the AGW equation to the extent that CO2
has
_already_ warmed the atmosphere. The higher temp. due to CO2 allows
more water vapor in the atmosphere.

This is a _positive_ feedback.

There was one thing you hadn't reckoned with.
You have to differ water vapor in models and water vapor in reality.

This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major
significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume
that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon
dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has
continued to increase, but global water vapor has not.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor

Doh!