2011 Global Temperatures

[Clifford]

TSI for 2008 was about 1360.82 (average)

TSI for 2011 is about 1361.12 (average)

The difference is small, around 0.022%

It is probably best to think of temperatures in Kelvin.

So...

Say if the temperature was 300K.

That gives one about a 0.07 degree difference between the sun in 2008 and today. Certainly enough to be picked up with our weather calculations.

I've been comparing the TSI, F10.7, and the temperature anomalies.

The TSI and the F10.7 don't always coincide.

Increased solar activity causing spikes in the TSI (or F10.7) often result in visible global temperature changes on the order of 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius.

There are certainly many temperature changes that can't be accounted for by the TSI. Often the temperature changes follow the F10.7 better than the TSI indicating other possible influences.

One of the reasons that the TSI is a relatively recent measurement, and still is poorly calibrated is that not all of the EM radiation reaching our upper atmosphere actually reaches the troposphere, or the surface of the planet.

[WeatherRusty]

TSI for 2008 was about 1360.82 (average)

TSI for 2011 is about 1361.12 (average)

The difference is small, around 0.022%

It is probably best to think of temperatures in Kelvin.

So...

Say if the temperature was 300K.

That gives one about a 0.07 degree difference between the sun in 2008 and today. Certainly enough to be picked up with our weather calculations.

I've been comparing the TSI, F10.7, and the temperature anomalies.

The TSI and the F10.7 don't always coincide.

Increased solar activity causing spikes in the TSI (or F10.7) often result in visible global temperature changes on the order of 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius.

There are certainly many temperature changes that can't be accounted for by the TSI. Often the temperature changes follow the F10.7 better than the TSI indicating other possible influences.

One of the reasons that the TSI is a relatively recent measurement, and still is poorly calibrated is that not all of the EM radiation reaching our upper atmosphere actually reaches the troposphere, or the surface of the planet.

Thanks for the numbers. Looks like TSI has increased a bit since 2008.

[WeatherRusty]

The oceans are not a body with a temperature? The globe as a whole is not a body with a temperature?

You're arguing something completely different Mr. Rusty. My argument has never been against the GHE, or how CO2/Water Vapor contribute.

Even if what is below is BS in your mind.....that doesn't change the argument at hand in regards to significance.

Incoming energy is what causes the warming

The greenhouse effect (GHE) only works when there is sufficient energy of the appropriate frequency, AND

sufficient GHGs such as CO2 and water vapor.

In the case of the Earth, the energy is limited by what comes in and goes out and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL).

In the air there is excess CO2, above what is used for the GHE, because whenever the temperature cools down some

of the CO2 thatwa s being used to transport energy to space (& to produce the GHE), is no longer needed at the

cooler temperatures and with the smaller amounts of transportable energy. Thus there is always, and MUST

BE, excess CO2 in the air. It must be available to handle the daily global warming when the sun comes up and the

available energy increases, or else the GHE will not function each morning.

The Hansen/NASA/GISS Model E & IPCC conclusion, (or the Global Computer Models-GCMs) that adding extra

CO2 automatically causes added warming is a misapplication of the Arrhenius greenhouse effect. The GHE

requires BOTH excess GHG AND added energy to create an increased GHE. The energy passing through the Earth

dictates the allowed amount of GHE. When the Earth is at equilibrium, and the energy in equals the energy out, then

the GHE is limited and can NOT cause any more warming since there is no extra energy available for the GHE to

process to cause warming. As long as there is excess GHG then the amount of excess is irrelevant to the GHE. In the

case of the Earth, the CO2 is extra, there is no extra energy.

What actually happens is that the extra added CO2 becomes excess in the air, available to increase the GHE,

WHEN the added energy comes into the Earth (as it does every morning) BUT the energy also decreases every

evening, freeing up excess CO2.

Since, by computer model and IPCC assumptions, the solar insolation/sunlight is (erroneously) the sole source of

energy coming in and going out (gravity, which is not addressed in the GCMs, causes tides and friction in the ocean

and in the liquid Earth core among other things), then any increase of the GHE is limited by an increase in the

energy in, which according to scientific measurements and IPCC has not changed significantly since about 1960.

This means several things:

First since global warming has increased from 1970 through 1998, then the computer models are not correct.

Second, added CO2 does NOT cause warming. and

third, there MUST be an additional source of kinetic energy coming into the Earth in addition to solar insolation.

Finally, since there is excess CO2 in the air, then removing CO2 by Cap & Trade, underground storage etc. will only

remove the excess CO2, and cost a fortune. It will not result in lower temperatures. The Kyoto Treaty is

scientifically unsound, not to mention costly, foolish, harmful to GDP and mankind, and an outright fraud. The very

idea that mankind by adding a few extra CO2 molecules to the air, could actually change the global temperature,

(without adding any extra energy) is scientifically impossible.

http://www.scribd.co...ss-CO2-Scenario

Then

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

And even if THAT were untrue in yourmind, that still doesn't change the argument at hand in regards to manifesting temperature, & then how the heat energy is stored and recycled!

My argument has always been in the realm of atmospheric response in temperature, from increasing a trace gas at 0.038% with a Logorithmic WP. My main argument...we are over-estimating the impact of CO2 increase The thing you always seem to miss, 75% of the warming "predicted" is achieved through feedbacks within the atmosphere. And due to our lack of understanding, enough negative feedbacks, and the factors we don't even know about such as GCR, the warming cannot commence.

THEN, we get into the issue of the atmospheres response to CO2 alone...forcings applied are almost unrelated. The GHE in general, and how the effect will be altered through changes in the GHG's involved, are again, 2 completely different things.

You seem not to be understanding what I am telling you, either in detail or in general.I don't understand why, you certainly appear not to lack in intelligence.

[BethesdaWX]

You seem not to be understanding what I am telling you, either in detail or in general.I don't understand why, you certainly appear not to lack in intelligence.

I do understand you, I just, personally, do not like the way you view the GHE Energy Balance/Climate, Relationship. I tend to hone in upon the reasons why "AGW" will not work out... not basic principles that have no bearing in the end.

Incoming Energy is everything, changing the profile of the GHG is almost an unrelated issue here.

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks for the numbers. Looks like TSI has increased a bit since 2008.

Earth will experience more cooling during a Weak SC24 than during an intracycle Minimum. All 11yr minimums bottom out near Zero...the changes we see in global temperatures in coprrelation to the sun obviously correlate to the changes in Solar Maximums. A weak solar maximum is a huge loss of energy for the Earth.

I just want to make sure you understand that not only is intracycle cooling from a solar minimum Minor at best, but the cooling that will result from a weak solar maximum is "the" actual cooling.

The heat from the modern max will be with us for awhile, but we'll erase that completely if we can string 2-3 weak cycles. 3 should bring us pre-industrial.

[WeatherRusty]

I do understand you, I just, personally, do not like the way you view the GHE Energy Balance/Climate, Relationship. I tend to hone in upon the reasons why "AGW" will not work out... not basic principles that have no bearing in the end.

Incoming Energy is everything, changing the profile of the GHG is almost an unrelated issue here.

If you understood me you would not make this comment:

The thing you always seem to miss, 75% of the warming "predicted" is achieved through feedbacks within the atmosphere.

As for incoming energy being everything, the article you just posted as the source of that claim is in clear contradiction to all of what we know with regard to how the greenhouse effect works. It is more of an opinion piece designed to confused the uninformed. The temperature of anything is always a function of energy in versus energy out. All matter with a temperature radiates energy away always and thus wants to cool always. This must be balanced by equal energy in if the body is to maintain a constant temperature. The article is crap. Don't fall for it.

[WeatherRusty]

Earth will experience more cooling during a Weak SC24 than during an intracycle Minimum. All 11yr minimums bottom out near Zero...the changes we see in global temperatures in coprrelation to the sun obviously correlate to the changes in Solar Maximums. A weak solar maximum is a huge loss of energy for the Earth.

I just want to make sure you understand that not only is intracycle cooling from a solar minimum Minor at best, but the cooling that will result from a weak solar maximum is "the" actual cooling.

The heat from the modern max will be with us for awhile, but we'll erase that completely if we can string 2-3 weak cycles. 3 should bring us pre-industrial.

You are correct with respect to timing issues, but you are wrong about the magnitude of intrinsic solar variability. The loss of energy is not huge in comparison to the whole. The decrease in energy is about 0.1% of the average solar irradiance or 1.3W versus 1366 watts.

Pre-industrial TSI was probably 1.3W to 2.6W less than today giving a radiative forcing not likely greater than 0.25W/m^2.

Less than 10 years of greenhouse warming at the current rate of CO2 accumulation will equal and surpass that degree of intrinsic solar variability.

[BethesdaWX]

If you understood me you would not make this comment:

As for incoming energy being everything, the article you just posted as the source of that claim is in clear contradiction to all of what we know with regard to how the greenhouse effect works. It is more of an opinion piece designed to confused the uninformed. The temperature of anything is always a function of energy in versus energy out. All matter with a temperature radiates energy away always and thus wants to cool always. This must be balanced by equal energy in if the body is to maintain a constant temperature. The article is crap. Don't fall for it.

whaaa? Our arguments always tend to split. The "article" is not debating how the GHE works as we all know it, its debating the significance of increased CO2 in the atmosphere on the energy profile. You cannot say "CO2 has these properties, so the atmosphere has to respond in this way"...that is hypothesis. Correlations are not evidence...and our climate has correlated to the Sun/Oceans much better than CO2 at this time. We don't need any CO2 warming to reach our current GTA.

Now I'll say this, I do not view AGW exactly the way he does, in those terms, but my view is similar.

1) According to your formula, how much warming should result from CO2 increasing from 275ppm to 400ppm?

2) Knowing the Solar formula is incorrect based on changes of 1-2C between the MWP & the LIA, & the MWP/CWP comparison...factor that in.

3) Drivers such as the PDO/AMO contributing to near 50% of the warming seen since 1976..factor that in

4) At this point, we do not need much, if any, CO2 warming to reach our current GTA, not accounting for changes in GCC that most likely make up for the 0.1C remaining,along with UHI/contamination, poor data before 1960...there you have it.

[BethesdaWX]

You are correct with respect to timing issues, but you are wrong about the magnitude of intrinsic solar variability. The loss of energy is not huge in comparison to the whole. The decrease in energy is about 0.1% of the average solar irradiance or 1.3W versus 1366 watts.

Pre-industrial TSI was probably 1.3W to 2.6W less than today giving a radiative forcing not likely greater than 0.25W/m^2.

Less than 10 years of greenhouse warming at the current rate of CO2 accumulation will equal and surpass that degree of intrinsic solar variability.

Wrong. You're trying to disprove me based on hypothesized formulas that are shown to be incorrect?

We can tell based on the 1.5 - 2C difference between the MWP/LIA that the formula is wrong. The solar Increase in the 20th century, in terms of the rapid increase, is unprecedented in our years of measuring, and we've blown past the MWP in terms of 10BE/constant flux, which is more important than sunspot cycles. Really, solar is somewhat of a hockeystick shape.

You cannot use hypothesized formulas of solar influence as proof of ANYTHING, its ridiculous and laughable. Formulas change for a reason...they are hypothesis based on our weak understandings...its not evidence of anything.

[WeatherRusty]

Wrong. You're trying to disprove me based on hypothesized formulas that are shown to be incorrect?

We can tell based on the 1.5 - 2C difference between the MWP/LIA that the formula is wrong. The solar Increase in the 20th century, in terms of the rapid increase, is unprecedented in our years of measuring, and we've blown past the MWP in terms of 10BE/constant flux, which is more important than sunspot cycles. Really, solar is somewhat of a hockeystick shape.

You cannot use hypothesized formulas of solar influence as proof of ANYTHING, its ridiculous and laughable. Formulas change for a reason...they are hypothesis based on our weak understandings...its not evidence of anything.

I am not wrong and 1.3W versus 1366W is not from formula, it is measured.

[BethesdaWX]

I am not wrong and 1.3W versus 1366W is not from formula, it is measured.

Measured through what?

Again we're splitting here, even on solar!.....forcings applied vs Atmospheric response in temperature. We cannot accurately gauge how the Sun will affect the climate, but we know...based on the Sun ceating the MWP, LIA, and the large 1-2C difference between them, we know that the formula is incorrect.

[WeatherRusty]

whaaa? Our arguments always tend to split. The "article" is not debating how the GHE works as we all know it, its debating the significance of increased CO2 in the atmosphere on the energy profile. You cannot say "CO2 has these properties, so the atmosphere has to respond in this way"...that is hypothesis. Correlations are not evidence...and our climate has correlated to the Sun/Oceans much better than CO2 at this time. We don't need any CO2 warming to reach our current GTA.

Now I'll say this, I do not view AGW exactly the way he does, in those terms, but my view is similar.

1) According to your formula, how much warming should result from CO2 increasing from 275ppm to 400ppm?

2) Knowing the Solar formula is incorrect based on changes of 1-2C between the MWP & the LIA, & the MWP/CWP comparison...factor that in.

3) Drivers such as the PDO/AMO contributing to near 50% of the warming seen since 1976..factor that in

4) At this point, we do not need much, if any, CO2 warming to reach our current GTA, not accounting for changes in GCC that most likely make up for the 0.1C remaining,along with UHI/contamination, poor data before 1960...there you have it.

There is excess CO2 in the atmosphere? What a bunch of crap. The fact that most of the warming of climate has occurred during night time hours illustrates the fallacy of his argument. Why doesn't he say there is excess H2O in the air? Water vapor is 50% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 is 20% after all. What a bunch of bull.

1) At equilibrium about 0.6C. Minus aerosol forcing, plus black carbon forcing, plus other long lived greenhouse forcing, plus increased water vapor forcing, minus low cloud forcing, plus high cloud forcing, plus solar forcing etc. Net 1.6 watts since about 1750. The system is not a equilbrium with the net forcing of 1.6W as evidenced by the 0.85W TOA imbalance, so there is more warming to be had down the road even if we emit zero CO2 starting today.

2) What solar "formula"? Volcanism? Positive feedback?

3) Irrelevant in the long term.

4) Summing all known natural factors fails to account for the warming experienced to date.

[BethesdaWX]

There is excess CO2 in the atmosphere? What a bunch of crap. The fact that most of the warming of climate has occurred during night time hours illustrates the fallacy of his argument. Why doesn't he say there is excess H2O in the air? Water vapor is 50% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 is 20% after all. What a bunch of bull.

1) At equilibrium about 0.6C. Minus aerosol forcing, plus black carbon forcing, plus other long lived greenhouse forcing, plus increased water vapor forcing, minus low cloud forcing, plus high cloud forcing, plus solar forcing etc. Net 1.6 watts since about 1750. The system is not a equilbrium with the net forcing of 1.6W as evidenced by the 0.85W TOA imbalance, so there is more warming to be had down the road even if we emit zero CO2 starting today.

2) What solar "formula"? Volcanism? Positive feedback?

3) Irrelevant in the long term.

4) Summing all known natural factors fails to account for the warming experienced to date.

It traces back to significance...the GHE does not change a resulting energy profile unless both ends meet.

1) WV is alot more than 50% of the GHE. I've never seen a number so low number mentioned.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

2) Again, it doesn't fit, the formula you attribute to the Sun is Incorrect. We've warmed about 1C since 1750..the MWP-LIA difference is at least 1.5C...the LIA would not be possible in the formula you give!.....neither would the MWP......what don't you understand about that? The MWP is similar, if not higher, than our CWP, and we have HIGHER solar today...the MWP was completely solar induced...why is the CWP not solar induced when both maxes and he resulting temps were similar? We've seen the highest jump in solar ever in our knowledge base.

3) Very relavent in the past 30yrs.

4) Summing for all the natural factors accounts completely for the warming seen to date.

<><><> .09 to .30W/m^2 since 1750 is definitely in significant error, given the LIA, MWP, RWP, and CWP all correlate with solar Perfectly, significant in the means of short term changes, all over 0.5C, most likely higher. Difference between the LIA dip & MWP peak is 1-2C depending on the proxies you use....MWP & CWP are very similar, solar activity is very similar. The solar formula is incorrect.

<><><>The formulas for CO2 are obviously not the same, but the issues are somewhat more drastic here actually. We do not know how 0.038% CO2 3.7W/m^2 will initiate the expected Response is the problem. Heck, we don't know where the "missing heat" is, or if it exists, the Stratospheric Cooling has been Busting....if that Low energy Profile cannot be affected, why should high energy profiles be effected by the disruption of increased Co2 & GHGes? A "forcing", and the response in initiates, are two different things completely.

Thus, formulas are changed.

This is the problem...Your formulas gauge the forcing applied to the atmosphere...they do not gauge the response of the atmosphere to the forcings, and better yet, its temperature, and to what extent! This is why current temps have fallen out of the IPCC cone of confidence....when Every Driver was aligned warmer than ever!...and we scrape the bottom barely, and now we fall out!...we didn't need any CO2 warming to do that! This is getting ridiculous.

This is not simple sh*t as you make it out to be, its too complicated to even think about accuracy levels. Bringing up "verification" for the future is laughable.

Note the "Solar Hockeystick", in a NOAA study. And they are right. But...comparing the sunspots of individual cycles (AKA, decreasing since 1970's) is pointless to find a trend, since the solar cycles are not representative of each aspect of the cycle.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

The overall "bunched" energies released.

Add in both Maxes, and its a good fit...

[salbers]

One simple way I like to understand the GHE is that GHGs will make the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. Thus the apparent radiating surface (viewed from space) is at a higher level in the atmosphere - and a colder level. Therefore the colder radiating surface will radiate less. This creates an imbalance that is overcome by increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.

[WeatherRusty]

One simple way I like to understand the GHE is that GHGs will make the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. Thus the apparent radiating surface (viewed from space) is at a higher level in the atmosphere - and a colder level. Therefore the colder radiating surface will radiate less. This creates an imbalance that is overcome by increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.

That is correct. The atmosphere becomes opaque to IR radiation, it's optical density in the infrared is increased. Infrared radiation is absorbed, emitted, absorbed and emitted countless times while only escaping to space from an average altitude of about 16,000 feet. This constant "scattering" of infrared slows it's eventual loss to space thereby maintaining a higher kinetic energy within the troposphere than if no greenhouse existed. The more GHG's the thicker or more opaque the atmosphere becomes to infrared and the warmer it will become.

The effective temperature of the Earth at it's distance from the Sun and given the Earth's albedo is 255K. The average wavelength of infrared 255K radiates at is centered on about 10 micrometers. If the Earth had no greenhouse effect, the surface would radiate at the characteristic wavelength for a body at 255K. As it is the surface is at 288K due to the greenhouse effect, so the atmosphere radiates the colder 255K radiation to space from high above that surface. 255K is the temperature the Earth must radiate at to balance the incoming sunlight.

[WeatherRusty]

Bathesda,

1) WV is alot more than 50% of the GHE. I've never seen a number so low number mentioned.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

CO2 ~20%

WV ~50%

Clouds ~25%

Everything else ~5%

[LakeEffectKing]

Good place to insert this visual.

This is for "deniers" and "warmists"....

To bolster deniers claims that MM CO2 is too small of a percentage to A.) Make a difference....B.) Be measured or C.) Both

For warmists, they can lay claim to the unbelievable progress science has made (in order to be "very confidently sure", regarding MM CO2 impacts) to be able to assess such accurate readings, variations, and impactful conclusions to such small changes to such an extremely small portion of our atmospheric composition. (It is remarkable!)

[WeatherRusty]

Good place to insert this visual.

This is for "deniers" and "warmists"....

To bolster deniers claims that MM CO2 is too small of a percentage to A.) Make a difference....B.) Be measured or C.) Both

For warmists, they can lay claim to the unbelievable progress science has made (in order to be "very confidently sure", regarding MM CO2 impacts) to be able to assess such accurate readings, variations, and impactful conclusions to such small changes to such an extremely small portion of our atmospheric composition. (It is remarkable!)

The lower atmosphere is opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, CH4, H2O etc. That's a fact. They all exist in differing concentrations yet they all effectively absorb to extinction at their specific wavelengths. The other skeptic argument is that CO2 absorption is already saturated. How contradictory is that? One says CO2 is feeble, the other that it effect is already maximized and adding more can have no further effect. Both mutually exclusive arguments are wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

Bathesda,

CO2 ~20%

WV ~50%

Clouds ~25%

Everything else ~5%

Randomly spitting out your numbers again I see?

Water Vapor+Cloud Cover is about 95% of the GHE.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

From CO2.......

75% of predicted warming comes from feedbacks in the atmosphere. Enough negative feedbacks, as we've seen, eliminate the issue not accounting for insignificance of increase.

[Clifford]

The lower atmosphere is opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, CH4, H2O etc. That's a fact. They all exist in differing concentrations yet they all effectively absorb to extinction at their specific wavelengths. The other skeptic argument is that CO2 absorption is already saturated. How contradictory is that? One says CO2 is feeble, the other that it effect is already maximized and adding more can have no further effect. Both mutually exclusive arguments are wrong.

Here is a good Wikipedia image of the absorption spectra of various atmospheric gases.

http://en.wikipedia..../Greenhouse_gas

The concentration of Methane (and various halo-alkanes) are measured in parts per billion.

CO₂ is measeured in parts per million.

CO₂ saturates its absorption spectrum, although adding more CO₂ may broaden the peak slightly.

Methane doesn't, although it may be masked in part by water, it might still have a minor additive role in the absorption.

I believe the atmospheric halflife for Methane is about 10 years (after which it is converted to CO₂).

There is both an anthropogenic component, as well as a temperature dependent component.

The atmospheric concentration of Methane had been leveling off mid-decade, but appears to have resumed an upward trend torwards the end of the decade. If 2011 continues to be a cool year, it is likely that the methane concentration will level off again.

Part of the Greenhouse theory is that while the CO₂ spectrum may be saturated, adding more might lower the heat slightly in the troposphere.

[WeatherRusty]

Here is a good Wikipedia image of the absorption spectra of various atmospheric gases.

http://en.wikipedia..../Greenhouse_gas

The concentration of Methane (and various halo-alkanes) are measured in parts per billion.

CO₂ is measeured in parts per million.

CO₂ saturates its absorption spectrum, although adding more CO₂ may broaden the peak slightly.

Methane doesn't, although it may be masked in part by water, it might still have a minor additive role in the absorption.

I believe the atmospheric halflife for Methane is about 10 years (after which it is converted to CO₂).

There is both an anthropogenic component, as well as a temperature dependent component.

The atmospheric concentration of Methane had been leveling off mid-decade, but appears to have resumed an upward trend torwards the end of the decade. If 2011 continues to be a cool year, it is likely that the methane concentration will level off again.

Part of the Greenhouse theory is that while the CO₂ spectrum may be saturated, adding more might lower the heat slightly in the troposphere.

In much the same way as when water vapor increases the temperature of the troposphere is lowered, right?

Misunderstanding acknowledged in a following post.

[Clifford]

Part of the Greenhouse theory is that while the CO2 spectrum may be saturated, adding more might lower the heat slightly in the troposphere.

In much the same way as when water vapor increases the temperature of the troposphere is lowered, right?

I suppose my wording wasn't clear.

The theory is that the more CO₂, the more heat is trapped at lower altitudes.

Water is much more complicated.

As vapor, it obscures both the incoming light (near-IR) and outgoing IR (Mid IR), and likely would be neutral.

As solid/liquid droplets (clouds), it absorbs and scatters much more, both in the visible and IR spectra, at which point, it likely has an overall cooling effect during the day,and warming effect during the night.

There is probably a seasonal shift to the effect of clouds too... so the clouds would have a net cooling effect during the summer (more sunlight), and a net warming effect in the winter (less sunlight, more night time).

[WeatherRusty]

I suppose my wording wasn't clear.

The theory is that the more CO₂, the more heat is trapped at lower altitudes.

Water is much more complicated.

As vapor, it obscures both the incoming light (near-IR) and outgoing IR (Mid IR), and likely would be neutral.

As solid/liquid droplets (clouds), it absorbs and scatters much more, both in the visible and IR spectra, at which point, it likely has an overall cooling effect during the day,and warming effect during the night.

There is probably a seasonal shift to the effect of clouds too... so the clouds would have a net cooling effect during the summer (more sunlight), and a net warming effect in the winter (less sunlight, more night time).

Ok, glad you cleared that up. Greenhouse gases slow the propagation of certain wavelength ranges of IR radiation through the troposphere. The more of the particular greenhouse gas is present the broader the bands of absorption become. This "line broadening" is why there is no saturation of a greenhouse gas. Adding more gas will continue to increase the optical density of the lower atmosphere at an ever decreasing rate for a give amount of gas. Thus we have the logarithmic response which applies to all greenhouse gases.

The large line broadening of water vapor is due to it's being typically 1,2,3,4% of the atmosphere. The line broadening of CO2 is much less, but because there is so much less of it than water vapor, adding a bit more makes a larger impact. CO2 going from 280ppm to 560ppm has about the same impact as water vapor going from 1% of the atmosphere to 2%.

Methane is said to be some 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas over a 100 year horizon than CO2. This has nothing to do with the characteristics of the CH4 molecule. It is the consequence of there being so very much less CH4 in the atmosphere, which means only having to increases from 1800ppb (billion) to 3600ppb to double in amount, although the logarithmic relationship probably does not hold exactly at such a low concentration.

[skierinvermont]

As vapor, it obscures both the incoming light (near-IR) and outgoing IR (Mid IR), and likely would be neutral.

No.

What did you just decide this yourself? Clifford vs physicists!!!

[BethesdaWX]

No.

What did you just decide this yourself? Clifford vs physicists!!!

No? Did you just say WV does not obscure incoming and outgoing?!?

[skierinvermont]

No? Did you just say WV does not obscure incoming and outgoing?!?

No I did not say that.

[BethesdaWX]

No I did not say that.

Then what were you implying?

[tacoman25]

Then what were you implying?

That it's not a neutral balance.

[Clifford]

That it's not a neutral balance.

So...

Enlighten Us.

Is Water Vapor (not clouds, but gaseous vapor)....

A Greenhouse Gas (causing net warming)?

Blocks the incoming sunlight (causing net cooling)?

Seasonal in its effects, not counting the warm/cool air capacity? For example cooling in the summer, warming in the winter.

And...

Does it dwarf the effects of CO₂?

[BethesdaWX]

So...

Enlighten Us.

Is Water Vapor (not clouds, but gaseous vapor)....

A Greenhouse Gas (causing net warming)?

Blocks the incoming sunlight (causing net cooling)?

Seasonal in its effects, not counting the warm/cool air capacity? For example cooling in the summer, warming in the winter.

And...

Does it dwarf the effects of CO₂?

Yes.

You also mean in Cloud Cover, right? Low Level CC is the biggest reflector in the GHE.