Have you AGW believers ever noticed a major inconsistency in your arguments?

No

It takes heat to turn water into water vapor. Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas. Do we agree on that? Next: Clouds DO reflect a certain amount of incoming solar energy, but not all. Do we agree on that? When water vapor condenses it gives up the heat that was required to turn it from a liquid to a gas. It's called the 'latent heat of condensation. Still with me?That heat stays in the atmosphere along with that days incoming solar radiation. As the Earth turns the excess accumulated heat index escapes back into space. The problem is that not all of the excess heat escapes given the current load of greenhouse gases and that includes water vapor. That heat moves rapidly to a colder venue..seawater and ice. We see evidence of this in higher seawater temperatures and the melting of considerable amounts of ice.

This is why the atmospheric temperatures have not risen more than a degree or so over the last century... the atmospheric heat is absorbed. So...there is no inconsistency.... the science, the data and the physics of atmosphere and heat all add up.

It's not an inconsistency, it is at worst a poor description.

Let me throw an analogy at you.

Picture a bulldozer. A bulldozer can move a lot of dirt, but if there's no one driving it, no one making it do anything, it will just sit there. A person can't move a whole lot of dirt on their own. But, a person driving a bulldozer can move a *lot* of dirt.

If there was no water on Earth, the effect of CO2 warming would be pretty small--like the person trying to move dirt with just their hands. Not a lot of temperature rise.

If there was water vapor, but no CO2, well... unless Earth was a lot closer to the sun, there wouldn't be water vapor (at least, not very much water vapor) for very long, it would just rain out of the sky. It would just sit there, like the bulldozer with no driver.

But pair the CO2--the person--with the water vapor--the bulldozer--and you get a lot of effect, well over what you get from either alone.

Keep in mind, of course, that the only perfect analogy for a thing is the thing itself. But, would you say that the bulldozer is controlling how much dirt is getting moved? Or would you say that the *person* is?

Please study some feedback theory, say in electrical systems so the "climate change" label doesn't get in the way of your understanding, before you try to reconfirm your mistaken views.

Any greenhouse gas is a climate change driver.

The only way known to cause a significant trend in atmospheric H20 is to change the heat in the atmosphere, and this will continue to be the case as long as the world has oceans.

It's not that hard to understand--if you add water vapor without raising temperature, it will just precipitate out without changing the temperature over the long term. There is no way to significantly change the water vapor content of the atmosphere without changing the temperature.

If you raise temperature by some other means, such as adding CO2 , decreasing albedo or increasing the sun's luminosity, you will raise the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and cause an additional increase in temperature until an equilibrium is achieved.

There is no inconsistency. The system achieves equilibrium based on all its constituents.

Steroids were NOT the main reason Barry Bonds hit so many home runs, but they WERE key to him being able to break as many records as he did. If you are so feeble-minded as to not understand the difference, please obsess on endless fake questions designed to spread the fable that baseball is a socialist hoax, and stay away from more intellectually taxing topics like climate science.

H20 is overwhelmingly the most powerful greenhouse gas, no climate scientist denies that, but as we have no control over water vapor and it is has short life in the atmosphere, they turn their attention towards CO2.

However water vapor has negative effects as well as positive ones, the old myth that an increase in temperature will cause an increase in water vapor (it does) and that water vapor will cause a further increase in temperature in an upward spiral has been disproved.

When a forcing such as an El Nino causes a rise in temperature, a rise in water vapor follows, but as soon as the forcing dissipates water vapor falls as well.

Here's the way it works,

First and foremost you're not a scientist,

Everything was balanced and unchanging before man,

Therefore the only change must be caused by humans.

It's how you get statements like if you remove the natural variations it would have actually been much warmer.

'Have you AGW believers ever noticed a major inconsistency in your arguments'

No

H2O vapor does affect temperature as a feedback mechanism.

Ha! Ha! Just look at ole James, "If you raise temperature by some other means, such as adding CO2." Just adding CO2 will increase the heat? Only if the CO2 is hotter than the substance being added to. Simple law of thermodynamics. Ole James even admits he doesn't know at what temperature water boils (Something most grade school kids know.). The only way possible is that there would be a chemical reaction between the CO2 and the substance, but since CO2 is an inert gas, that is highly improbable.

These people who are self ordained Earth savers, have many inconsistencies in their arguments and experiments. Here is an example of James' hero, Bill Nye. It is good for a laugher.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gor...

Want to see a real funny prediction?

Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."

Then to top that off here is where John Holdren, Obama's science Czar, predicted that a billion people ill die by starvation by the year 2020. No kidding.

http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=3...

But these global warmers can't see the inconsistencies because they are too busy taking George Soros' money and covering their derriere.