What water vapor feedback?

There’s a [stupid] idea popular among climate scientists that there is an extra warming effect from water vapor due to the fact that CO2 and water vapor have overlapping spectral bands. Is this true? Certainly CO2 and Water Vapor “do” have overlapping “bands”, but as I will show all these “bands” are artificially created from the raw line-by-line spectral data. There is only one official source from which we can get line-by-line spectral data: HITRAN. While there’s no easy way to download the data directly, HITRAN provides a programming interface. First we need the requisite software:

> sudo apt install git python3-setuptools python3-numpy
> git clone https://github.com/hitranonline/hapi
> python3 setup.py

Now we are ready to write a program to fetch the necessary data. Save the following to getdata.py:

from hapi import *
db_begin('data')
fetch('co2',2,1,1,10000)
fetch('h2o',1,1,1,10000)

Now run it:

> python3 getdata.py

The data is now available in a folder called data as two files: data/co2.data & data/h2o.data. Each file is a table of properties for given wavelengths (cm⁻¹) – the line-by-line data. How many lines are there?

> wc -l data/*.data
  170103 data/co2.data
   74478 data/h2o.data
  244581 total

The 2nd column in the table contains all the wavelengths that the substance can absorb in. We will extract the 2nd column from each file.

> awk '{print $2}' data/co2.data > co2.lines
> awk '{print $2}' data/co2.data > h2o.lines

Now we search every CO2 wavelength to match any H2O vapor wavelengths:

> grep -Ff co2.lines h2o.lines

 * or *

> (uniq co2.lines; uniq h2o.lines) | sort -n | uniq -d 

And we find … NOTHING!

Everyone who claims there is an overlap MUST have conjured it up from manipulating the raw data. Charlatans call this ‘modeling’.

It is true that some lines are close to each other. Here is what happens when we start removing decimal digits:

0.XXXXXX0 Matches
0.XXXXX35 Matches
0.XXXX337 Matches
0.XXX3233 Matches
0.XX23012 Matches

The “scientists” must believe that close is good enough, but in reality, there’s a big difference between between a 123.456789 cm⁻¹ photon and a 123.45678 cm⁻¹ photon, and no amount of manipulation can get around this fact.

Since the premise of water vapor feedback is false, so is the conclusion.

-Zoe

12 thoughts on “What water vapor feedback?

  1. The miserable CO2 AGW hoax that atmospheric “traps” and “piles” heat in the sky can’t even get off the ground with real science. For starters, CO2’s main radiation wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can’t even melt an ice cube. Yet the hoaxers claim that -80C heat trapped in the sky causes heat waves, droughts, famines, hurricanes, et al.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-is-the-evidence-that-seems-to-persuade-people-that-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-is-not-causing-global-heating/answer/TL-Winslow

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “The “scientists” must believe that close is good enough, but in reality, there’s a big difference between between a 123.456789 cm⁻¹ photon and a 123.45678 cm⁻¹ photon, and no amount of manipulation can get around this fact.”

    How come 8 digits would be good enough? Why doesn’t it take 12 digits or 15 so that pretty much nothing is absorbed? Why not 7? What are the phenomena called?

    “There’s a [stupid] idea popular among climate scientists that there is an extra warming effect from water vapor due to the fact that CO2 and water vapor have overlapping spectral bands. ”
    What is the source of this claim? As in, a “warmist” souce, not a “skeptic”.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I had to look at the ‘4’ lines of python!
    Thankfully, this was one of your easier pieces of code to unravel!
    I have to admit that when I write code it is littered with comments. Otherwise, one week later I have no idea what the code means,

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I had to clone the git repository to look at the code. Git moans when the code is too long to display.
        The only thing I would say is: Beware of computers bearing floating point numbers!
        Especially 2 FP numbers in division inadvertently translated from 64 to 32 bit, for instance.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. And the overlap causes an intensity (spectral radiance) reduction for both H2O and CO2. They can pretend there’s an overlap due to pressure, but it adds nothing. Nothing.

      Like

      1. “but it adds nothing”
        I agree, it only subtracts, as you say: “causes an intensity (spectral radiance) reduction”.

        So then why would *anyone* say the opposite? And how is it supposed to add? And who says so? And why doesn’t pressure broadening (and perhaps Doppler broadening) count? Has it been disproven in experiments? By whom? How does mainstream science respond? And if there broadening phenomena are not a thing, then (I repeat) how can the atmosphere absorb anything at all?

        Questions over questions. Out of all the posts on this blog, this one is the most baffling to me – by far.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. We can get H2O and CO2 to overlap if we allow pressure broadening, but look what happens:

          The area under the curve is total energy flux. There is no net change.

          Like

        2. 1)
          “There is no net change.”
          Haha, that was new to me. Interesting. You claim the area was the net flux – but isn’t it rather the “ability to absorb”? Let’s call it “ability”. When you have a lot of a gas (CO2), small “ability” is already good enough to absorb everything. Therefore, giving up some of that “ability” to different wavelengths does not come at a cost, only a gain. Obviously I am exaggerating for the sake of being easy to understand.
          [Side note: I love how 400ppm can be called “a lot” – non-linearity rocks :D].

          2)
          If this weird hypothesis you claim the IPCC promotes is [well, tbh, WAS :D] true (that there is an “overlap bonus”) then there not being a net gain in “flux” is not even fatal. When you say “flux is the same” but you get more “overlap bonus”, you get a stronger effect, don’t you?
          And if you are correct with this:
          0.XX 23012 Matches
          the graph shows that you need an extra entry with
          0.X [presumably] 100000+ Matches
          or whatever – if you look at the label for the x axes, one digit is more than good enough, already (all areas in that graph have a large area in the +/- 0.05cm range). That’s a lot of bonuses. ^^

          I’m confused why you liked my answer. I’m not bad-mouthing mainstream science if that is what you are thinking (“why would anyone think that” = “prove that someone actually thinks that AND how do they justify it?”). I’m asking critical questions that are all directed to you. So if you got my comment right, you liked it because my critical questions help you get closer to the truth or show the robustness of your position by answering them, convincingly. But then you only answer one of them, not taking the opportunity. So I take it that you misunderstood my comment as bad-mouthing the mainstream.

          Like

        3. Ah, I should have re-read my own comment. Turns out, your answer covered everything except for the “overlap bonus”. Still waiting for a source for that one and a justification, no matter how stupid.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: