Michael

As we all probably know, the classic argument for the alleged AGW is that GH heating from atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric H2O vapor, called a "feedback". Since H2O vapor is actually the stronger GHG, this feedback H2O could "amplify" the GH heating from CO2 (called a "forcing").

Now, we must keep in mind that H2O molecules have strong spectral absorption lines in the IR rage regardless of phase (ie. solid , liquid, or gas). Therefore, we must regard clouds (which consist of tiny water droplets or ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere) as GHGs with much the same strength as H2O vapor. This means that feedback H2O vapor formed by the CO2 GH heating of clouds contributes little or nothing to the total GH effect. This is because the H2O molecules from the vaporized water droplets and ice crystals were already participating in the GH effect, and the CO2 GH heating did not bring any additional H2O molecules into the process. Therefore, there is no amplification of the CO2 GH heating.

Now the GH effect takes place in the troposphere, but at high enough altitudes to allow absorption and re-emission of IR radiation to different parts of the globe. At these altitudes, however, the only way the CO2 GH heating can produce more H2O vapor is by vaporizing portions of the clouds. Therefore, it seems that the feedback H2O vapor from the CO2 GH effect has little to no effect on the total GH heating, and there is no "amplification" as feared by AGW believers.

As I understand it, H2O vapor cannot cause changes in atmospheric temperature (through the GH effect) as a forcing, but only as a feedback mechanism. Now, as far as I can tell, all H2O molecules up there are identical, but somehow they all know if they are part of the forcing or part of the feedback, and I would like to know HOW they know. My hypothesis is that each H2O molecule has its own little iPad and at some point it gets a text message saying "forcing" or "feedback". If it s a "forcing" message, the molecule immediately shuts down all sending and receiving of photons, and if it s a "feedback" message, the molecule continues business as usual catching IR photons coming up from the surface, and re-emitting them in a downward direction, thus reducing loss of heat.

Now I realize my hypothesis is a bit "far out" for most us, but thus far, it s all I ve come up with. Please post an answer if you believe you have something better.

From a few other questions I recently posted, I got many comments to the effect that H2O vapor does not control temperature, CO2 does. This is then used as the basis for neglecting GH heating from H2O. But with the relatively weak CO2 GH effect and low CO2 concentrations, some warming occurs but not nearly enough to actually be a threat. Now it is assumed that H2O GH heating DOES control temperature and magnifies the small amount of heating from CO2. So which is it? Does H2O vapor affect temperature, or does it not?

To this date, the "control knob" theory of Svante Arrhenius remains the basis for handling CO2 concentrations as a forcing instead of a feedback, despite the fact that historical followings of CO2 vs. time to temperature vs. time seems to indicate the opposite. In his theory, Arrhenius noted that CO2 concentrations and fluid motions were much more stable than those of H2O vapor. This, he reasoned, implied that CO2 was controlling H2O concentrations through the GH effect. He argued that if more CO2 were released into the atmosphere, there would be more GH heating and temperatures would go up. This would allow the air to hold more water vapor, which is actually the more important GHG. In this case, the GH heating from the water vapor would greatly magnify the GH heating from CO2, which is the scenero greatly feared by AGW believers.

As I see it, however, GH heating is dominated by the GHG that is strongest and most abundant. Instability or rapid changing of the concentrations of the GHGs is irrelevant. If you feel I have missed something or my arguments are incorrect, please post an answer to this question and explain your reasoning.

To this date, the "control knob" theory of Svante Arrhenius remains the basis for handling CO2 concentrations as a forcing of instead of a feedback, despite the fact that historical followings of CO2 vs. time to temperature vs. time seems to indicate the opposite. In his theory, Arrhenius noted that CO2 concentrations and fluid velocities were much more stable than those of H2O vapor. This, he reasoned, implied that CO2 was controlling H2O concentrations through the GH effect. He argued that if more CO2 were released into the atmosphere, it would cause some warming of the atmosphere through increased CO2 GH heating. This warming would allow the atmosphere to hold more H2O, which is actually the important GHG. In this case the GHG heating from CO2 would be greatly magnified by the corresponding heating from H2O vapor.

As I see it, however, the stability of GHG concentrations has nothing to do with forcings and feedbacks associated with the GH effect. It is the strongest and most abundant GHG that dominates the GH heating while the other GHGs make smaller contributions. Therefore I strongly believe that current climate models should regard H2O vapor concentration as a forcing and CO2 concentration as a feedback. If you feel I have missed something or my arguments are incorrect, please post an answer to this question and explain your reasoning.

I have heard time many times about the climate models predicting global warming due to the CO2 greenhouse effect, and that humans are the primary cause. It is assumed in each of these models that CO2 is the primary driver of the temperature, and that H2O vapor is merely the feedback. Actually it s the other way around but I won t argue that here.

Now, if we propagate such a model over time, we will find exponential growth in temperature and CO2 concentration, and given enough time, the earth will get as hot as we want it. Note that we have assumed no human CO2 emissions. Therefore, it seems that the model predicts catastrophic global warming without the help of any human emissions. Our "warmer" politicians, however, keep urging us to cut our energy use in order to save the planet. So which is it? Are we doomed by these models or is there hope that they include some feature that allows us to predict the effects specifically of CO2 emissions from humans.

As it is now, I only hear that the models predict AGW is real and poses a threat to life on earth. I haven t heard, however, about the models predicting just how much time we do have, and how much we need to cut back. Instead, I hear politicians reciting figures ranging from about 10-50 years, none of which have any scientific substantiation. This is why I need to pose the current question. If AGW is a hoax or an inevitable, then there is absolutely no point in the government taking action to save the planet.

When I worked for Department of Defense contractors, my security clearance would have been revoked if I was "extremely careless" about handling classified material. WHY HASN'T HILLARY'S?