alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time.
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were
to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production >over
the whole year” then I think the current plan is succeeding, albeit at
the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
It’s possible but the best evidence is that global temperatures are
rising
far faster and in parallel with rising CO2 levels.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
On 10/07/2025 16:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/2025 14:57, Tim+ wrote:
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were toBut that isn't actually happening is it?
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >>> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
The current plan is NOT succeeding in reducing CO2.
Devils advocate....
As a solar panel will not be CO2 neutral for at least three years, and a
wind turbine or EV for much longer. Any mass adoption of these
technologies in a short time is only going to add a lot more CO2 to the environment.
It's debatable how much CO2 a wind turbine will save when considering
regular maintenance, especially when installed in remote areas.
As an example of possible increased CO2 usage, where I regularly visit
which is a rural area with electricity delivered via overhead cables
there are regular flights with two helicopters flying low monitoring the overhead lines. I'm assuming one carries a thermal camera. I've seen
them land for the occupants to examine the state of the poles.
On 11/07/2025 08:54, RJH wrote:
Do you (or anyone) happen to have a reasonable assessment of the environmental
impact of renewables? I've read a few articles but end up more confused than >> when I start . . .
Of course, No one wants to make a clear statement like 'renewables have
done diddly squat'
All you have to do is look at CO2 data
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Tim+ <[email protected]> wrote:
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/07/2025 13:31, Tim+ wrote:
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
There is another solution, stop building tens of thousands of mini power >>>>> stations in far flung remote areas and start producing near population >>>>> centres and where an adequate grid already exists.
It’s great to have a dream but it’s just not happening, is it?
A nuke in every big city would be great, but I’m not holding my breath. >>>>
+1
What we are likely to end up with is a system that is going to require a >>> lot of additional expensive infrastructure and backup that is going to
keep our bills high for the next 10 to 20 years.
I note today on the media the green brigade bragging about how much
solar has contributed to the overall European electricity demand last
month and how close it was to Europe being fossil fuel free. I'll bet
they will not be publicising how much solar contributed in 6 months time. >>>
I hold the view that it's not a success if the system cannot generate
much when needed most - in winter.
Well that’s just one narrow interpretation of “success”. If you were to
define “success” as “very significantly reducing our CO2 production over
the whole year” then I think the current plan *is* succeeding, albeit at >> the cost of increasing our energy bills.
Of course nobody here seems to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Tim
No-one on here ’believes’ in AGW because they believe in science and facts
instead.
I have calculated, using IPCC equations and published information, that if the UK’s current CO2 emissions were stopped now, and all the UK’s previous
emissions to date were captured and stored, the difference in temperature would be 0.07degC.
This would of course end the UK’s economy
and result in what population was
left living in mud huts, wearing sackcloth, crapping in a hole in the
ground, and living on beets and turnips.
Meanwhile the elites would be jetting overhead at FL350 while dining on
Kobe steaks and swilling fine wines.
OTOH, if you wanted to end climate change, all you need to do is
circularise the Earth’s orbit and reduce its axial tilt to 0 degrees.
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is >> happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC crapflood.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >>> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why
we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
If domestic electricity was 9p a unit, nobody would install solar panels
and batteries, which just happen to have the benefit of easing the loads
and their variation on the grid and make generating electricity easier and
by save money on grid structure and large-scale battery storage. Cui bono?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC
crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
You would need to ask that of the IPCC, as I was using their data and equations.
Keep in mind they don’t model the Earth’s most powerful and plentiful greenhouse gas.
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
climate science = constantly fiddling the model or the data so the two
match or ignoring 99.99% of the runs from the model if they don't give
the expected result.
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate
change is happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is
caused by anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the
IPCC crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you
not need any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or
skills at modelling for example?
On 13/07/2025 17:33, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:17:33 BST, alan_m wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
climate science = constantly fiddling the model or the data so the two
match or ignoring 99.99% of the runs from the model if they don't give
the expected result.
OK, fair enough, I'm sure you know enough about it to come to such a clear >> conclusion. I spent 40 years in my field and I'm still not sure . . . in fact
less sure than I was 40 years' ago! But good for you, must be reassuring.
OoI, do you work as a climate scientist?
'You don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows'
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Follow the money, sunshine, follow the money.
You've obviously never worked for a university :-)
That’s true, I had a real job.
Ask yourself why we have a
Renewables Obligation and not a CO2 Reduction Obligation. Ask yourself why >>> we have very expensive energy, if sun and wind is free and the electricity >>> produced by them is cheap to make and dear to buy.
That's nothing to do with the science of climate. That's to do with markets >> and the allocation of a scarce resource.
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the ‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
If domestic electricity was 9p a unit, nobody would install solar panels >>> and batteries, which just happen to have the benefit of easing the loads >>> and their variation on the grid and make generating electricity easier and >>> by save money on grid structure and large-scale battery storage. Cui bono?
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, >>>>>> but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
You would need to ask that of the IPCC, as I was using their data and
equations.
But you do understand the data I take it? You can obviously deal with high >> level maths and understand the algorithms, but do you understand what you're >> calculating?
Looks like I have to keep saying this: it’s the IPCC’s equations and data.
I don’t have to understand it, I merely used it. If you want to know more, ask the IPCC.
Keep in mind they don’t model the Earth’s most powerful and plentiful >>> greenhouse gas.
OK. So long as you're sure.
Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
OK. What makes you know that academics 'follow the money' sunshine?
Funding. Funding is critical to academic scientists. Research into ‘global >> warming’ doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t
advance.
Apologies, that should have read “Research into ‘global warming’ that doesn’t support the narrative doesn’t get funded, papers won’t be published, careers don’t advance”.
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on >> privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
The last figure I saw was that some wind farms are *subsidised* to the tune of £174 per MWh. That’s 17.4p per unit. Then on top of that there’s the price of the energy produced, which is the same price as paid to the
highest cost generator for that 30-minute slot.
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by >>> anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.Neither. Do your own research, like I did.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Apparently not, since almost none of the people involved appear to have it.
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not,
but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC
crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
Climate science is for third rate academics who want a safe sinecure and
the chance to be famous without doing any really hard research.
On 16/07/2025 07:35, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 21:19:04 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:39, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 15:19:51 BST, Spike wrote:
The vast majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic climate change is
happening.
At least you didn’t claim that ‘97% of scientists agree…’ and which is
probably still being touted by believers, that global warming is caused by
anthropogenic climate change.
But ‘vast majority’ is somewhat over-egging the cake.
This is a list of some of the most prominent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ive never gheard of any of them
Hardly Einsteins are they?
You might find one or two in there that deny AGW.Neither. Do your own research, like I did.
I'm left with a conundrum. Do I trust you, or them?
Is that the 2012 piece you circulated recently? You stand by the assertions >> and conclusions as relevant and applicable today?
Apparently not, since almost none of the people involved appear to have it. >>>
I accept of course that you're one of the scientists who does not, >>>>>> but remain curious . . .
Any school kid with a calculator that does logarithms could do the
calculations, if they ever found where the data was buried in the IPCC >>>>> crapflood.
Is that all there is to climate science - 'doing logarithms'? Do you not need
any background understanding of what you're looking at? Or skills at modelling
for example?
That wasn't my question. Do you (and others on this thread) need a background
understanding or modelling skills for example?
Climate science is for third rate academics who want a safe sinecure and >>> the chance to be famous without doing any really hard research.
As I say, in my limited experience that's nonsense. But you obviously have >> your own reasons for reaching that conclusion.
The PhD academics I know who are in or near that field are top notch and
all are skeptical.
The graduates I know from less prestigious places of study mostly are
still in awe of Science and are Believers
On 14/07/2025 10:12, RJH wrote:
the academics I know wouldn't publish lies to save their skin.
I have been reading "The politically incorrect book on climate change"
and the author's observations include that if you want to write
something that provides some endorsement of the AGW cause of climate
change there are grants to be had, and if you want to write something
that denies the AGW contribution, you not only won't receive funding but
you won't get your output published in any recognised way.
On 14/07/2025 08:29, RJH wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 23:40:19 BST, Spike wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2025 at 17:10:00 BST, Spike wrote:
Don’t be silly. All the renewables claptrap came about because of the
‘global warming caused by CO2’ narrative, and the ‘need’ to ‘do something’
about it, started by a fake story about the issue.
I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of
infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of
infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks.
There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the
atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice
to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times
as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only
an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would
considerably improve crop yields.
The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour
and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.
The initial trigger was a mathematical model which got named the hockey
stick graph because it predicted runaway temperature increases in the
future and that prediction section looked similar to a hockey stick.
The other (attempted to be suppressed by the IPCC but it had been
leaked) thing I found out was a doubtful scientist who managed to get
some research time on the model discovered that there was a fault in the calculation process and it didn't matter what data he fed in, even
different sets of completely random numbers, the output was always
exactly the same. The whole global warming fiasco has been based on
faulty arithmetic. The IPCC timescale was the change since the
Industrial Revolution, so about 200 years or so, which is far too short
to recognise that climate changes recur to a pattern. I found a
scientific report from 1995, updating previous research in 1969, which
shows that the pattern of change since the Industrial Revolution is
almost identical to the pattern of change from 8000 years earlier. This
is roughly the time when humans migrated from hunter gatherers to a crop growing agrarian existence, so they can't be blamed for global warming.
The reason we have 'very expensive electricity' is because the UK relies on >> privatised energy generation, procurement and distribution.
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual
cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
On 27/07/2025 23:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual
cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of renewable energy
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?
That page contains this: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change”.
So the increases in the dominant greenhouse gas are “not a direct cause of climate change”, but increased
levels of a trace gas are, so we are told, catastrophic for the planet.
Apart from this unexplained phenomenon, also unexplained is the claim that increasing temperatures causes increasing levels of atmospheric
water-vapour from the oceans, but that that isn’t a direct cause of climate change.
Unless there is further explanation somewhere, the statement quoted above
is scientifically incorrect.
Perhaps you could explain this.
On 28/07/2025 13:22, RJH wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 12:39:44 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/2025 23:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this country
bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost per kilowatt of
natural gas on the open market. Until they change that link, the actual >>>> cost of generating the electricity will remain irrelevant.
That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of renewable >>> energy
Not according to this:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
Or at current prices (LCOE):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Anything in particular you'd object to there?
Again/as usual, do you have anything to back up your figures? Or is it
generated from your own special maths? Or your 2012 figures (when admittedly >> you'd have been ballpark correct)?
Itrs written at te bottom of my electricity bills.
On 28/07/2025 15:02, RJH wrote:
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as muchI think you will find that that is manifestly incorrect
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
On 28/07/2025 14:55, RJH wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 14:08:05 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Or at current prices (LCOE):
On 28/07/2025 13:22, RJH wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 12:39:44 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/2025 23:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
The reason why we have expensive electricity is because this
country bases the cost per unit of electricity on the cost
per kilowatt of natural gas on the open market. Until they
change that link, the actual cost of generating the
electricity will remain irrelevant.
That is not correct. The cost of gas is about 1/4 the price of
renewable energy
Not according to this:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/background-briefings/how-cost-effective-is-a-renewables-dominated-electricity-system-in-comparison-to-one-based-on-fossil-fuels/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Anything in particular you'd object to there?
Again/as usual, do you have anything to back up your figures? Or
is it generated from your own special maths? Or your 2012 figures
(when admittedly you'd have been ballpark correct)?
Itrs written at te bottom of my electricity bills.
Oh well yes, even I know that. The question was related to costs of
generation.
The problem is that 'costs of generation ' alone do not reflect the
cost of renewable energy.
Let's say you are running a company in Milton Keynes, and someone offers
you free, or very low cost staff.
But..
- they may not turn up.
- you have to organise a bus every day to Scotland, where they live.
Even when they don't turn up.
- you need to hire temporary staff to cover for the days when they don't
show up.
- those temporary staff - because they have to be available at a moments
notice and then get laid off arbitrarily, demand much higher wages to
cover their living expenses.
- You need to organise extra desk space for these people who don't
always show up.
- sometime too many turn up and you have to pay them anyway.
- they are Bolshie, and if the work gets too hard they simply down tools
so you
need to have extra very short term staff on hand.
- all of these extra things cost far more money than permanent staff do.,
- Unfortunately there is an EU directive requiring that you employ these
work-shy Scottish fuckers.
At some level any one who is economical with the truth and tells you
they are cheap, doesn't reflect your true bottom line .
They are three times more expensive to employ than your permanent staff.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 16:47:49 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/07/2025 15:02, RJH wrote:
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
I think you will find that that is manifestly incorrect
According to AI, I am (for once) spot on:
OFFS.
The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is about 100x that of CO2.
If it was only 10% as effective as an absorber as your favourite bête noir, it would still have TEN TIMES THE EFFECT.
You’ve been deceived by a simple sleight of hand.
ICBA to pick holes in the rest of the AI claptrap.
Hypothesis: water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much as methane,
CO2, NO, or CFCs
You're absolutely right that water vapor has a much lower warming potential >> per molecule compared to those other greenhouse gases. The key differences >> are:
Molecular absorption strength: Methane is about 25-30 times more potent than >> CO2 over a 100-year period, while nitrous oxide (N2O) is roughly 300 times >> more potent, and some CFCs can be thousands of times more effective at
trapping heat than CO2 on a per-molecule basis.
Atmospheric behavior: Water vapor also behaves very differently - it cycles >> through the atmosphere in days to weeks through evaporation and precipitation,
while CO2 can persist for centuries, methane for about a decade, and some CFCs
for decades to over a century.
Feedback vs. forcing: Water vapor acts more as a feedback mechanism - warmer >> air holds more moisture, which then amplifies warming. The other gases you >> mentioned are considered "forcing agents" that directly drive temperature
changes through human activities.
Spectral absorption: While water vapor does absorb infrared radiation, it has
some gaps in its absorption spectrum where other greenhouse gases are
particularly effective, especially in the atmospheric "window" regions.
So while water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by volume, you're >> correct that these other gases punch well above their weight in terms of their
warming effect per molecule and their role in driving climate change.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, Spike wrote:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?
That page contains this: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas,
but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, >>> it is not a direct cause of climate change”.
So the increases in the dominant greenhouse gas are “not a direct cause of
climate change”, but increased
levels of a trace gas are, so we are told, catastrophic for the planet.
Apart from this unexplained phenomenon, also unexplained is the claim that >>> increasing temperatures causes increasing levels of atmospheric
water-vapour from the oceans, but that that isn’t a direct cause of climate
change.
Unless there is further explanation somewhere, the statement quoted above >>> is scientifically incorrect.
Perhaps you could explain this.
The answer AIUI is that water vapour doesn't trap warmth anything like as much
as methane, CO2, NO, or CFCs.
That’s a statement that has no scientific meaning, as you are using undefined terms.
I want to know why increases in atmospheric water vapour, the dominant greenhouse gas, do not result in climate change. Your NASA quote says this
is so.
As you have advanced NASA’s statement, would you kindly explain it.
Water vapour is still a contributory factor,
though. It is still a greenhouse effect gas.
You can read more about it in the context of CO2 (not the most malign), here:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-when-water-vapor-much-more-common-greenhouse
Let’s get the NASA claim about increases in water vapour not causing increases in climate change out of the way.
After all, you asked “Is there
anything on that page which is incorrect?” and I have put forward one major concern, and it is now up to you to respond appropriately.
On 29/07/2025 09:18, RJH wrote:
No, that's the point at issue. Different gases have different rates of
absorption.
I remember when this issue was first discussed on this NG - may years ago. And
TNP tried to explain to the group: CO2 is present in such*tiny* amounts
compared to water vapour. How could it possibly contribute to climate! He
didn't understand this basic point (then, maybe he does now). Do you?
It is clear that you do not.
1/. Water vapour it is claimed by you has infinitesimal effect
2/. Water vapour as claimed by the Climate Scientist is responsible for
the positive feedback that turns the really mild *direct* effect of a doubling of CO2 into a planet wrecking monster.
These statements are irreconcilable.
If water vapour really is infinitesimal, then a doubling of CO2 will
only raise global temperatures by a degree or so. Mild, probably
beneficial - the CO2 certainly is for plants and life in general - and
all in all nothing like as large an increase as has happened several
times in the last 10,000 years.
And if it turns out to be bigger, well its not CO2 that is causing it so
we had better get used to it, because all the windmills in the world
cant stop something we are unaware of.
From Wikipedia:
“The percentage of water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C
(-44 °F)[15] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F)”
Get your calculator out. And use it.
I did. How on earth did you think I knew the ratio? Just a tip - how much of >> the earth's surface is (anywhere near) -42C?
You still have not:
- justified your post in which it is claimed that increasing levels of
water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change
- justified your claim that the proportion of water vapour in the
atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2
They do. I think you've been told this, by me, six times now. Water vapour not
only contributes to climate change, it is the biggest single variable. I have
never said otherwise. What I have tried to impress on you is the significance
of other variables, and how they 'lean' on water vapour and influence climate.
Whatever is this ‘lean on’ mechanism you have now introduced?
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 at 10:29:46 BST, Spike wrote:
From Wikipedia:
“The percentage of water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 °C
(-44 °F)[15] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 °C (86 °F)”
Get your calculator out. And use it.
I did. How on earth did you think I knew the ratio? Just a tip - how much of
the earth's surface is (anywhere near) -42C?
You still have not:
- justified your post in which it is claimed that increasing levels of
water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate change
You seem to be ignoring what I write, and inserting something of your own
making. So let's start here. Please identify the post where I make the claim:
"increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere do not cause climate
change".
Nice swerve.
You posted this:
Quote:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Is there anything on that page which is incorrect?
Unquote
I responded to that, pointing out an inconsistency in what NASA said about increases in water vapour not causing climate change.
So far you haven’t come up with a justification.
- justified your claim that the proportion of water vapour in the
atmosphere is between 6 and 10 times that of the trace gas CO2
Again, where do I state "water vapour in the atmosphere is between 6 and 10 >> times that of the trace gas CO2".
It followed the post I made saying if it was 100 times, etc.
HTH
I'm not about to start justifying staements I never made.
You didn’t make the water vapour post, you pointed to a NASA web page and asked if anything was incorrect.
The first incorrect item was NASA’s claim about increases in water vapour not causing climate change.
Apart from your ducking and diving around the issue, including some AI claptrap you thought justified your position, you haven’t dealt with the point.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 at 10:29:46 BST, Spike wrote:
They do. I think you've been told this, by me, six times now. Water vapour not
only contributes to climate change, it is the biggest single variable. I have
never said otherwise. What I have tried to impress on you is the significance
of other variables, and how they 'lean' on water vapour and influence climate.
Whatever is this ‘lean on’ mechanism you have now introduced?
Yes, I realise that may have confused you. By 'lean' I mean 'act upon'. As in
if you lean on something, you act upon it.
I knew what you meant when you said ‘lean on’, but I note you’ve yet again
taken a minor issue and used it to avoid answering the main one. Which was ‘what is the mechanism involved’,
The rest of the text snipped as you seem to be variously completely baffled, >> or misrepresenting what I've written elsewhere.
Just answer the issue raised from the NASA link you posted.
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of >> view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI, >> and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most >> abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity >> of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses. >>
On 31/07/2025 09:36, RJH wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Either water vapour creates global warming or it doesn't. There is no
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>>>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI,
and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity
of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses. >>>>
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional, >> direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This >> has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between
direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and >> many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
such thing as an 'indirect' variable.
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:36, RJH wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 at 11:15:34 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:Except when it needs to, to make scary climate predictions.
I've already clarified the distinction between direct and indirect aspects of
greenhouse gases. You don't accept, or understand, that distinction. I'd >>>>>> suggest you take that up with NASA. Not me.
It’s your link, you posted it hoping to squash opposition to your point of
view by bringing in the might of NASA. It didn’t work. Then you tried AI,
and it returned claptrap. You *still* can’t explain why the world’s most
abundant greenhouse gas doesn’t increase global warming when the quantity
of it in the atmosphere increases, unlike all the other greenhouse gasses.
The NASA piece points to the *indirect* nature of water vapour. Additional, >>> direct, variables impact upon the climate, creating the greenhouse effect. The
second paragraph of that piece lists water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This >>> has been explained to both of you several times.
I accept (of course) that Spike doesn't recognise the distinction between >>> direct and indirect variables in this context. But that's the way NASA, and >>> many others, deal with the mention of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
Either water vapour creates global warming or it doesn't. There is no
such thing as an 'indirect' variable.
Well said.
RJH is studiously ignoring the fact that NASA is claiming that:
a) there are a number of greenhouse gases
b) greenhouse gases cause climate change
c) water vapour is a greenhouse gas
d) water vapour doesn’t cause climate change on its own.
I have repeatedly asked him to state the scientific basis for this absurd position.
Since water vapor is itself a potent greenhouse gas, this
additional moisture traps even more heat, amplifying the original warming.
But that’s not what you used as justification.
You have been asked repeatedly why NASA said water vapour doesn’t directly affect climate change, and now you are saying it does do so.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 22:43:59 BST, Spike wrote:
Since water vapor is itself a potent greenhouse gas, thisBut that’s not what you used as justification.
additional moisture traps even more heat, amplifying the original warming. >>>
You have been asked repeatedly why NASA said water vapour doesn’t directly
affect climate change, and now you are saying it does do so.
Might as well just dispense with this little nugget. As it seems to form the >> basis of your, and your comrade's, compound misunderstandings.
I have always maintained water vapour is a greenhouse gas. As has NASA. They >> keep good company.
The distinction is that, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, it's
an indirect variable. Water vapour is affected by certain human created direct
factors. Hence the 'anthropogenic' bit. I've given you far more detailed
explanations of the direct and indirect aspects elsewhere.
I think you have a problem with this as you think the topic is context free, >> and readily explained with nothing more than some figures (doesn't seem to >> matter which) and an ability to add up. Which IMHO is mistaken. But do carry >> on.
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you
is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
On 02/08/2025 12:42, RJH wrote:
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists. As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications,
I have never concealed my qualifications
data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
I have never concealed my data or theoretical position either
The question on this case can be expressed simply.
The claim is that water vapour does not 'cause' climate change but *amplifies* temperature change *caused by CO2*.
But does *not* amplify temperature change caused by *anything else*.
E.g volcanic eruptions.
If you cannot see the logical flaws in that position then there is
little point discussing this any further.
This isn't about data, or models or theories, its about *logical
consistency* in the assumptions.
That are simply absent.
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 09:01:48 BST, Spike wrote:
I’m afraid that you have totally failed to justify NASA’s position that >>> water vapour in the atmosphere is both a Potent Greenhouse Gas, except when >>> it isn’t, and it acts indirectly except when it doesn’t.
That has been explained to you many times. You need to deal with the
explanation *before* looking for justification.
But then again, you have said you believe the experts, so all this for you >>> is a faith issue rather than a scientific one.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists.
And how do you define ‘proper scientists’?
As
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, >> data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 15:11:06 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/2025 12:42, RJH wrote:I've not noticed. But then I concede that point as you seem to be saying qualifications aren't needed beyond basic numeracy. I say they are, and we'll just have to differ on that.
Well, yes, I have a reasonable amount of faith in proper scientists. AsI have never concealed my qualifications
opposed to anonymous social media pundits who conceal their qualifications, >>
data, and theoretical ideas, while managing to commit to a position. So we do
agree on that.
I have never concealed my data or theoretical position either
You mean your 2012 paper? If so, how do you think it would be received if you presented it as current thinking?
The question on this case can be expressed simply.
The claim is that water vapour does not 'cause' climate change but
*amplifies* temperature change *caused by CO2*.
But does *not* amplify temperature change caused by *anything else*.
E.g volcanic eruptions.
Volcanic eruptions are not caused by humans (so far as I know), so are unlikely to feature as a central point in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. It's the direct influence of humans that's under discussion. Not volcanoes. Or indeed meteorites.
That's not to say natural phenomena can have devasting consequences on climate. Ask the dinosaurs. This is a discussion about human influence, and the direct impact humans have on climate.
If you cannot see the logical flaws in that position then there is
little point discussing this any further.
This isn't about data, or models or theories, its about *logical
consistency* in the assumptions.
That are simply absent.
Well, it makes sense to me.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he >>> will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties”.
Oh the irony!
Now *that* is ironic.
Keep in mind that the predictions made below include those by academics, PhDs, and Professors, while asking yourself why you weren’t led by them:
Top 10 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Failed
Environmental freaks have warned of global apocalypse for decades
By Andrew Stiles March 6, 2025
Whatever the facts are it is clear that the current narrative owes
little to science and little to facts but an awful lot to politics and corporate marketing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:23:42 |
| Calls: | 12,112 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,521 |