On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 14:54:36 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
Not making sense here. You are saying the Arctic is warming 3 times
faster than elsewhere because there is no WV forcing in the Arctic (it's
all CO2 forcing).

Then you are saying that once there is WV forcing it will warm even
faster.

What I am saying is that the greenhouse effect from water vapour is saturated in the tropics. Any increase in CO2 has very little effect there because the temperature has already been maxed out by the water vapour producing clouds. Of course it is more complicaed than that because there are no clouds in parts of the sub tropics e.g. the Sahara Desert, and clouds can be produced by orography not just convection.

In the cryosphere there is, in effect, no water vapour until the ice melts, so the warming is due to CO2. However, once the ice melts the positive feedback from water vapour will kick in and temperatures will soar as they did at the start of the Holocene (end of the Younger Dryas) when the sea ice in the GIN (Greenland, Iceland, and Norwegian ) Seas disappeared. See

https://cdn.britannica.com/s:1500x70...s-addition.jpg

Note the ice concentration on that diagram is land ice produced by snow from water vapour evaporated from the ice free GIN Seas.

Spike Wrote in message:r
On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote: On 15 Sep 2020 10:52, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote: Does CO2 absorb in the infrared? If so, how much? Which infra-red? There's a whole spectrum of it out there..... From one scientist to another, answer the question. There's only 1 infra red spectrum. That's what I said.... How much does CO2 absorb in the infra red. Do I need to ask again?With three narrow absorption bands across 1-50 micron spectrum, it isn'tgoing to be much.-- Spike

You really are full of guff Spikey babes.

Tell me how much then we can start to calculate the effect. I've
done it. I've spent my life studying this. One scientist to
another, do the calculations and we can go from there. Come on.

--
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 10:51:09 PM UTC+1, Nick Gardner wrote:
Spike Wrote in message:r
On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote: On 15 Sep 2020 10:52, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote: Does CO2 absorb in the infrared? If so, how much? Which infra-red? There's a whole spectrum of it out there..... From one scientist to another, answer the question. There's only 1 infra red spectrum. That's what I said.... How much does CO2 absorb in the infra red. Do I need to ask again?With three narrow absorption bands across 1-50 micron spectrum, it isn'tgoing to be much.-- Spike

You really are full of guff Spikey babes.

Tell me how much then we can start to calculate the effect. I've
done it. I've spent my life studying this. One scientist to
another, do the calculations and we can go from there. Come on.
--
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

Good luck Nick! I gave up arguing with these climate deniers several years ago when it became absolutely crystal clear that their views about science are ridiculous. Instead, I just call deniers, 'deniers' and wave them bye bye. They have to deny. It's their purpose and when they accept, which all will (or will, of course, die denying) we won't hear of that, or the years they spent denying the science. They'll just go quiet.

On 17/09/2020 15:55, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 14:54:36 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:

Not making sense here. You are saying the Arctic is warming 3 times
faster than elsewhere because there is no WV forcing in the Arctic (it's
all CO2 forcing).

Then you are saying that once there is WV forcing it will warm even
faster.

I'd have to agree with that analysis of Alastair B. McDonald's claims.

What I am saying is that the greenhouse effect from water vapour is saturated in the tropics. Any increase in CO2 has very little effect there because the temperature has already been maxed out by the water vapour producing clouds. Of course it is more complicaed than that because there are no clouds in parts of the sub tropics e.g. the Sahara Desert, and clouds can be produced by orography not just convection.

Interesting but not relevant to the condition in that Arctic that you
mentioned, i.e. little forcing due to very low humidities there. Plus,
of course, that the sun angle in the Arctic is much different to that of
the tropics, leaving little contribution due to the low levels of
insolation.

In the cryosphere there is, in effect, no water vapour until the ice melts, so the warming is due to CO2. However, once the ice melts the positive feedback from water vapour will kick in and temperatures will soar as they did at the start of the Holocene (end of the Younger Dryas) when the sea ice in the GIN (Greenland, Iceland, and Norwegian ) Seas disappeared. See

https://cdn.britannica.com/s:1500x70...s-addition.jpg

That merely confirms that the temperature and the ice accumulation in
the Arctic hasn't changed for 10,000 years.

Note the ice concentration on that diagram is land ice produced by snow from water vapour evaporated from the ice free GIN Seas.

You need to account for the mechanism ('... once the ice melts...') that
kicks off your proposed raising of RH in the Arctic.

--
Spike

On 17/09/2020 21:51, Nick Gardner wrote:
Spike Wrote in message:r
On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote: On 15 Sep 2020 10:52, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote: Does CO2 absorb in the infrared? If so, how much? Which infra-red? There's a whole spectrum of it out there..... From one scientist to another, answer the question. There's only 1 infra red spectrum. That's what I said.... How much does CO2 absorb in the infra red. Do I need to ask again?With three narrow absorption bands across 1-50 micron spectrum, it isn'tgoing to be much.-- Spike

You really are full of guff Spikey babes.

Could you possibly get a news client that doesn't break quotations?

Tell me how much then we can start to calculate the effect. I've
done it. I've spent my life studying this. One scientist to
another, do the calculations and we can go from there. Come on.

Than you'll know I'm right.

--
Spike

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:51:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
Nick Gardner wrote:

Spike Wrote in message:r
On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote: On 15 Sep 2020 10:52,
Spike wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote: Does CO2
absorb in the infrared? If so, how much? Which infra-red? There's
a whole spectrum of it out there..... From one scientist to
another, answer the question. There's only 1 infra red spectrum.
That's what I said.... How much does CO2 absorb in the infra red.
Do I need to ask again?With three narrow absorption bands across
1-50 micron spectrum, it isn'tgoing to be much.-- Spike

You really are full of guff Spikey babes.

Tell me how much then we can start to calculate the effect. I've
done it. I've spent my life studying this. One scientist to
another, do the calculations and we can go from there. Come on.


Burt's going to give you a terrible pounding - he's an expert.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 01:01:29 +0100
Jim wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:51:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
Nick Gardner wrote:

Spike Wrote in message:r
On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote: On 15 Sep 2020 10:52,
Spike wrote: On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote: Does
CO2 absorb in the infrared? If so, how much? Which infra-red?
There's a whole spectrum of it out there..... From one scientist
to another, answer the question. There's only 1 infra red
spectrum. That's what I said.... How much does CO2 absorb in the
infra red. Do I need to ask again?With three narrow absorption
bands across 1-50 micron spectrum, it isn'tgoing to be much.--
Spike

You really are full of guff Spikey babes.

Tell me how much then we can start to calculate the effect. I've
done it. I've spent my life studying this. One scientist to
another, do the calculations and we can go from there. Come on.


Burt's going to give you a terrible pounding - he's an expert.



Or you could just run away from your own challenge - it's up to you.