I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK
Okay. I'm going to make up a measurement called CCF (Climate Controlling Factor). It is 10 billion for CO2 and 1 for H2O. Therefore, CO2 controls the climate.
RFeK doesn't exist! I can look up acronyms from my field, electrical engineering, such as AGC or PSRR and get wikipedia articles or other sources describing what they are (Automatic Gain Control and Power Supply Rejection Ratio respectively) and how they relate to the field. When googling "radio frequency energy kinetic potential IPCC" the top hits don't contain "RFeK" or "radio frequency" or anything!
Again it is NOT radio frequency, it is radiative forcing and had you read my response you would have seen that correction and why it came up as radio frequency. I credited you with discovering that false spell check substitution I had not caught.
Oh one more thing, please explain how the. Physics of eK forcing happens to the extent that climate is 16.3°K > than It would be without FHG forcing. Or explain the 16.3°K such that 1/26th of the energy must come from CO2 and Methane, but 25/26ths comes from water? It's an X1+X2+X3 equation where X2 is 1/26th as important as X1 and X3is virtually irrelevant and included in X2. That's the problem you must solve and you must do it so that somehow CO2 is the primary cause of GHG forcing even though it is so nearly irrelevant.
As for the rest of your googling, let me know when you have queried over a thousand sites, papers and peer reviewed journals and figured out the simple math shown. Seriously, I know many scientists that know exactly what I am talking about. Again RFeK is a symbolic representation of a kinetic energy forcing value that the IPCC has assigned to GHG molecules. At NO PLACE 8N IPCC LITERATURE will you find the RFeK acronym assigned to represent that. It is a mathematical symbol. But look up their radiative forcing values. CO2 is 1.94, H2O us 1.O and methane is an irrelevant 1.51. It could be 10 and CH4 would still be irrelevant.
There is zero physics behind your assertion in the first sentence, but I assume it's a TIC comment. Please do your research. When the IPCC set the eK value of water at 1.00 compared to non GHG gases and CO2 at then 2.011. Recently revised after 15 years of study to 1.94, it started saying CO2 is twice as dangerous as H2O. That was 24 years ago, revision down 2 years ago, still somewhat accurate. But that is at the molecular level. Even the recent revision down 2 years ago is their admission their initial concerns at the molecular level were overstated.
Now if you cannot do the research, so be it. Believe whatever the hell you want, but I can tell you the scientists and engineers where I work are convinced CO2 is irrelevant. It might also be that you will have difficulties finding the forcing values of these molecules if google keeps censoring as much as we see in political and other intellectual categories. But I'm OTR and unable to do much more than respond by phone on this tiny message board.
Perhaps you can stipulate this, that if the eK values provided are correct then the math is correct. If you can't do that then I can't help you, believe the bull-shit Marxist political activists are telling you rather than a man that is and works with world class physical scientists and engineers. Our models say you cannot get to any meaningful climate change from a paltry 400 or even 4,000 ppm of CO2. Water is the main driver of GHG eK forcing. Humans have no appreciable impact on atmospheric H2O.
There are dozens of articles on the impact of water vs CO2 but you do not seem to want to find them. I am not going to try and find them an a 4 x6 screen.
We are done.
This is an interesting lack of contextual awareness, you seem to have not even processed my critique. This is reminiscent of when I spoke with Smarterchild on MSN when I was younger - the responses seem related to the prompts but you don't seem to really interpret my messages, merely reply things which, in your case with enough rhetoric and verbiage, seem to be words written by a human but seem to be lacking something.
A brief Turing test: A dog chases cats. A cat chases rats. Do rats chase dogs? If not, what do they? How do humans take advantage of this to catch rats? (not looking for a complicated answer, this is not a trick question, just want to see if you're capable of processing things outside of climate science arguments)
Edit: You edited your comment after I wrote my reply. Interesting, you seem to acknowledge the radio-frequency/radiative-forcing discrepancy but (a) you wrote that with a format which is very unlikely to be spellchecked ((R)adio (F)requency etc.) and (b) trying to search for radiative forcing energy kinetic potential doesn't turn up any hits either. Still very suspicious of you being a bot or troll at this point.
Okay. I'm going to make up a measurement called CCF (Climate Controlling Factor). It is 10 billion for CO2 and 1 for H2O. Therefore, CO2 controls the climate.
RFeK doesn't exist! I can look up acronyms from my field, electrical engineering, such as AGC or PSRR and get wikipedia articles or other sources describing what they are (Automatic Gain Control and Power Supply Rejection Ratio respectively) and how they relate to the field. When googling "radio frequency energy kinetic potential IPCC" the top hits don't contain "RFeK" or "radio frequency" or anything!
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-ts-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf
Nothing! Similar results for NASA and NOAA too. Nothing on google scholar either! You might as well be quoting numbers out of a Harry Potter book!
Again it is NOT radio frequency, it is radiative forcing and had you read my response you would have seen that correction and why it came up as radio frequency. I credited you with discovering that false spell check substitution I had not caught.
Oh one more thing, please explain how the. Physics of eK forcing happens to the extent that climate is 16.3°K > than It would be without FHG forcing. Or explain the 16.3°K such that 1/26th of the energy must come from CO2 and Methane, but 25/26ths comes from water? It's an X1+X2+X3 equation where X2 is 1/26th as important as X1 and X3is virtually irrelevant and included in X2. That's the problem you must solve and you must do it so that somehow CO2 is the primary cause of GHG forcing even though it is so nearly irrelevant.
As for the rest of your googling, let me know when you have queried over a thousand sites, papers and peer reviewed journals and figured out the simple math shown. Seriously, I know many scientists that know exactly what I am talking about. Again RFeK is a symbolic representation of a kinetic energy forcing value that the IPCC has assigned to GHG molecules. At NO PLACE 8N IPCC LITERATURE will you find the RFeK acronym assigned to represent that. It is a mathematical symbol. But look up their radiative forcing values. CO2 is 1.94, H2O us 1.O and methane is an irrelevant 1.51. It could be 10 and CH4 would still be irrelevant.
There is zero physics behind your assertion in the first sentence, but I assume it's a TIC comment. Please do your research. When the IPCC set the eK value of water at 1.00 compared to non GHG gases and CO2 at then 2.011. Recently revised after 15 years of study to 1.94, it started saying CO2 is twice as dangerous as H2O. That was 24 years ago, revision down 2 years ago, still somewhat accurate. But that is at the molecular level. Even the recent revision down 2 years ago is their admission their initial concerns at the molecular level were overstated.
Now if you cannot do the research, so be it. Believe whatever the hell you want, but I can tell you the scientists and engineers where I work are convinced CO2 is irrelevant. It might also be that you will have difficulties finding the forcing values of these molecules if google keeps censoring as much as we see in political and other intellectual categories. But I'm OTR and unable to do much more than respond by phone on this tiny message board.
Perhaps you can stipulate this, that if the eK values provided are correct then the math is correct. If you can't do that then I can't help you, believe the bull-shit Marxist political activists are telling you rather than a man that is and works with world class physical scientists and engineers. Our models say you cannot get to any meaningful climate change from a paltry 400 or even 4,000 ppm of CO2. Water is the main driver of GHG eK forcing. Humans have no appreciable impact on atmospheric H2O.
There are dozens of articles on the impact of water vs CO2 but you do not seem to want to find them. I am not going to try and find them an a 4 x6 screen. We are done.
This is an interesting lack of contextual awareness, you seem to have not even processed my critique. This is reminiscent of when I spoke with Smarterchild on MSN when I was younger - the responses seem related to the prompts but you don't seem to really interpret my messages, merely reply things which, in your case with enough rhetoric and verbiage, seem to be words written by a human but seem to be lacking something.
A brief Turing test: A dog chases cats. A cat chases rats. Do rats chase dogs? If not, what do they? How do humans take advantage of this to catch rats? (not looking for a complicated answer, this is not a trick question, just want to see if you're capable of processing things outside of climate science arguments)
Edit: You edited your comment after I wrote my reply. Interesting, you seem to acknowledge the radio-frequency/radiative-forcing discrepancy but (a) you wrote that with a format which is very unlikely to be spellchecked ((R)adio (F)requency etc.) and (b) trying to search for radiative forcing energy kinetic potential doesn't turn up any hits either. Still very suspicious of you being a bot or troll at this point.