Unforced Variations: Feb 2025

255 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Feb 2025"

1. Dean Myerson says

   22 Feb 2025 at 1:33 PM

   And when I said that “that we had basically won” in my post above, I think “we had turned a corner,” would be more accurate. Now it seems like it was more of a speed bump for the other side.

   PS – Just read that the government will be shutting down existing EV chargers at government buildings, decommissioning them.

   Reply

2. Piotr says

   22 Feb 2025 at 5:34 PM

   Tomas Kalisz: “Dear Piotr, I stepped into the “water vapour warming or cooling” debate […] because I thought that the original question asked by E. Schaffer [was misleading].

   And to disagree with the question by E. Schaffer you decide to reply …. to my post:
   – which I started with a quote NOT from E. Schaffer but from …. JCM (“JCM: WV contributes 39% to greenhouse effect in S2010“)
   – which I devoted to challenge words of not E. Schaffer, but JCM
   – and which, in fact, I didn’t even mention E. Schaffer at all?

   And then you quoted the words of NOT E. Schaffer, nor JCM, but MINE:
   “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
   trying to discredit them as a product NOT of a falsifiable logic, but some of subjective …. “strong belief ”
   And that’s why have chose my words, not those of E. Schaffer or JCM, as “in fact, misleading” ????

   If you can’t take the responsibility for your own words – how are you going to learn anything from your mistakes?

   TK and because you mentioned me in your post of 14 Feb 11:00 PM

   Huh? My mention of you there had NOTHING to do with WV or “framing of the question”:
   – JCM: “I take it as a mark of respect that you chose to engage with me ”
   – me: “I wouldn’t read too much into it – we regularly engage with other deniers too – T. Kalisz, Mr. KiA, Ken Towe, Keith Woolard, Victor etc – not exactly because we respect them for their intellect and ethical integrity.”
   ===
   See?

   TK I still think that if other state-of-art climate models confirm the results of Lague 2023,

   Since Lague 2023 supports my point, based on Clausius-Clapeyron, that we can expect avg. WV to increase with GMST – then why should root for Lague showing the increase in WV in the warmer world – to be contradicted???

   As I have said – you have no idea what other people are saying and what are the implications of your own sources. And yet despite that and despite of your ignorance of the subject matter – you lecture others of either “misleading” or being oblivious to being “misled”?

   And since haven’t addressed in any meaningful way my core arguments – I’ll just repost them, for the record:

   ===
   No Mr. Kalisz – mine is a falsifiable argument: supported not only by your own sources, but also by Clausius–Clapeyron, the observed increase in WV, and the CERES data:

   […] if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
   – in your own source – Lague (Fig. 6) ,
   – in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
   – in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in _your_ other source

   And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo: “the large effect of WV [on climate] make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”

   And since you brought up the clouds – the same rule that warmer air can hold more WV without condensation of it into the clouds: means that as we are warming atmosphere with human emissions of GHGs – that warming will be AMPLIFIED NOT ONLY by the extra warming from the increased WV conc., but would be FURTHER AMPLIFIED by the warming from the reduced cloudiness: seen both in:
   – your Lague et al. – See Fig 7.
   – and in observations (CERES data)

   Therefore, making the climate even MORE vulnerable to the human actions than it would have been to the increase in [GHGs] alone.
   ====

   Reply