Global Quackery: Earth Has Not Warmed For Past 19 Years, New Study Finds

Water vapor also has an infrared absorption spectrum, and quite interestingly, it is very much like that of carbon dioxide.
The overlooked difference is that climate change fanatics IGNORE water vapor, despite its concentration of ~15,000 parts per million
in the atmosphere, versus only ~400 parts per million for carbon dioxide. How many times larger than 400 is 15,000, class?

Common sense footnote: Cloudy nights are much warmer than clear nights because of water vapor's effects, NOT carbon dioxide's.

 

Since cloud feedback is still poorly understood how do the models treat clouds?

 

The bolded part is absolutely NOT true.

Science most definitely includes the affects of water vapor.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

By the way, if science hadn't been studying the climatological affects of water vapor, you couldn't have quoted the figures you used!

Also, the issue here is CHANGE. So, you have to consider the sources and amount of change in water vapor, CO2, etc.

Just looking for large numbers is not good enough. If you want big numbers, look at the temperature of the sun and the temperature of outer space. Clearly, the issue is that we experience a balance between heat arrival and departure, with the issue being that human contribution is changing that balance in a small but very important way.

 

Models schmodels. Carbon dioxide FOLLOWS temperature, it doesn't lead it.
Every model has been twisted, contorted, fabricated, and molded to fit the narrative of *academics* at the trough, as they raked in billions of government grant dollars. BILLIONS! Nobody must interfere with their scam and claim they don't know what they're talking about, or he is blacklisted and denigrated in vicious and hateful terms.

 

Incorrect. Your cult talking points are out of date. See Shakun et al (2012)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Contrary to the fraudulent claims you're pushing, here's how models actually stack up. They've been very good.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

If all the science didn't debunk your cult propaganda, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on fraudulent conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

 

Yes but...warm air holds more water than cold air...right? So as the atmosphere warms more water vapor is contained in the air. Therefore water vapor is a feedback from a warming planet. If the planet were cooler there would be less water vapor. Less water vapor = a cooler planet yes...but a warmer planet = more water vapor. More water vapor because of warming increases the effect of warming. So a warming planet causes an even warmer planet because of water vapor. And increased CO2 causes warming that increases water vapor that causes even more warming.

 

Cloud cover also reduces heating effect of the sun. And once it starts raining the Earth surface cools again - clouds effectively just recirculate Earth generated heat trapped and released. C02 being heavier than air also has an effect at sea level which is why CO2 is more of a problem than water vapour

 

Extremely simplistic remarks. In fact, clouds REFLECT a great deal of ambient sunlight, preventing that sunlight from ever reaching the surface of earth.
But clouds ALSO absorb infrared radiation and then reemit that energy in all directions, most critically upward. So you were wrong in two different ways.

"Has an effect at sea level." Wow, deep. Carbon dioxide has the same effect everywhere. Just like water vapor does. Both absorb infrared electromagnetic radiation, and at very similar absorption spectra. THE DIFFERENCE IS, that water vapor is far more concentrated in the atmosphere than CO2, on which climate change fanatics concentrate exclusively.

Here too you are wrong twice. The "heavier than air CO2" decreases by only 7 parts per million at 33 kilometers. This is insignificant.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v288/n5789/abs/288347a0.html