Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I just want you to tell me where it is because I obviously lack the navigating skills on a website to locate it.

It seem you lack the skill to follow links on A2K. Your failure to follow links to documents puts in question your entire argument about what my links do and don't lead to.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It seems you haven't included all my links Fox. But if it makes you feel better. OK, I guess you can't follow any of them.

0 Replies

@parados,

Alas. It appears you can't find the information in your links either since you - again - shrug it off that I'm too dumb to understand. A pity. I thought this was one argument you might actually be able to win. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And then after repeated requests you provided this link which appears to be something different:

Quote:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

That link was in response to your unsupported claim that water vapor was not in the modeling.

1 Reply

@parados,

I didn't say that water vapor was not in the modeling. I said there was no correlation made to water vapor and global warming. I have repeatedly asked you to provide that correlation. Why don't you just admit you can't do it?

And, if you did admit you can't do it, then maybe, just maybe, you would have the intellectual honesty to admit that if it is omitted by the AGW proponents, then an important part of the puzzle is still missing and perhaps it would be smart to fill in the missing piece before we take away people's options, choices, opportunities, and freedoms on a national or global scale to combat global warming.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I did find the info in my links. You didn't because you didn't want to find it.

Water vapor is calculated from temperature and humidity.

Temperature and humidity is found in the links I provided. The info is there, just not in a form simple minds can understand.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I didn't say that water vapor was not in the modeling. I said there was no correlation made to water vapor and global warming. I have repeatedly asked you to provide that correlation.

Hmmm.. So if the models include increases in water vapor and if those increases in water vapor lead cause a feedback effect which increases warming, how do you reach the conclusion there is no correlation between water vapor and global warming?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense Fox. If something is included in the math then it DOES have a mathematical correlation.

1 Reply

@parados,

Are you guys talking about humidity (water vapor)? LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It's the Deniers "They haven't accounted for water vapor" argument.

They don't seem to understand the correlation between humidity and water vapor.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, it is you who is the denier here.

You continue to fail to provide rational evidence that humans are the major causes of the density of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You continue to fail to rationally refute the assertion that solar irradiance on the earth is the major cause of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You continue to fail to provide rational evidence that the CO2 density in the atmosphere is the major cause of water vapor in the atmosphere.

You have yet to even provide rational evidence that humans are the major cause of the density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, you perform a frequent job of slandering, albeit irrationally, those with whom you disagree.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Parados, it is you who is the denier here.

You continue to fail to rational provide evidence that humans are the major causes of the density of water vapor in the atmosphere.

I never said that. I seen no reason to defend your idiotic accusation.

Quote:

You continue to fail to rationally refute the assertion that solar irradiance on the earth is the major cause of water vapor in the atmosphere.

I never said that. I seen no reason to defend your idiotic accusation.

Quote:

You continue to fail to provide rational evidence that the CO2 density in the atmosphere is the major cause of water vapor in the atmosphere.

I never said that. I seen no reason to defend your idiotic accusation.

Quote:

You have yet to even provide rational evidence that humans are the major cause of the density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I never said that. I seen no reason to defend your idiotic accusation.

Quote:

However, you perform a frequent job of slandering, albeit irrationally, those with whom you disagree.

When you make idiotic statements, I see no reason to not call them what they are.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I tried. I really tried. But if we ever needed evidence that the AGW religionists will not debate the actual subject no matter what we do, today provided some pretty strong anecdotal evidence. Smile

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

In fairness to Parados, though the article he posted was in microscopic print that I was unable to enlarge, and I was not able to determine either the source or the author or anything else about it, it did appear to include a graph of water vapor for the past 100 years.

There also appears to be a suggestion that increase of water vapor in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.

Now then, IF the article represents solid science and IF humans are indeed increasing water vapor in the atmosphere and IF that is causing the climate to warm. . . . . (taking breath). . . .then that alone is reason to stop all this CO2 reduction immediately and look to increased water vapor as the culprit that is dooming the planet. What kind of sense does it make to reduce the CO2 when that will do little or nothing to decrease water vapor and, in the case of some 'green' fuels, will actually increase it?

Parados doesn't seem too interested in discussing that though.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

LOL.
So, since you didn't read the article you are all set to declare the opposite of what the article says based on what you think the article should have said.

If the article represents solid science doesn't that mean you should follow what the article says Fox?

Quote:

In summary, model fingerprints of the response of atmospheric
moisture to external forcings are identifiable in observations with
high statistical confidence, despite the short length of the SSM/I
record. Single-forcing experiments performed with two different
models (28, 29) suggest that the large increase in Wo is primarily
due to human-caused increases in GHGs (Fig. 5)

That article states that water vapor has increased because of human caused green house gases. The primary one being CO2.

I am quite interested in discussing the article Fox. You however don't seem to be inclined to discuss what the article ACTUALLY states. Rather you seem to be more interested in making things up about the article.

2 Replies

@parados,

What the article supports is the theory that CO2 causes warming which in turn increases H2O in the atmosphere which may in turn causes more warming.

Reducing the CO2 under this theory will decrease the temperature which will in turn help reduce H20 since a cooler atmosphere can hold less water vapor.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

In fairness to Parados, though the article he posted was in microscopic print that I was unable to enlarge

Which version of Acrobat reader are you using Fox?

The ability to zoom was in Reader since at least 5.0 in 2001 and has been in every version since then.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I tried. I really tried. But if we ever needed evidence that the AGW religionists will not debate the actual subject no matter what we do, today provided some pretty strong anecdotal evidence.

I think the evidence is that rather than reading the science, you just pretend to know what should be in it so you can base your argument on what you believe rather than the actual science.

The simple fact is that temperature and humidity give you water vapor.
The data for temperature and humidity is the same as water vapor. You just have to do the math. Because the data hasn't been put in a simple chart for you doesn't mean the data doesn't exist.

Not doing the math is NOT the same thing as not having any evidence or data. It just means you are too lazy to try to understand something so you just declare the data doesn't exist even though you have been given the way to find it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Start here
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

From your link, Parados: And the graph in your link is interesting, but again it doesn't tell us whether water vapor drives temperature or the other way around, or a combination of both. Yet this greenhouse gas called water vapor is a far bigger component of the so-called greenhouse effect than CO2, yet as your link says, there are no fingerprint studies on water vapor content.

And it is important to point out the graph is from partial information, not a worldwide average water vapor content, as far as I can tell from reading the backup information. Keep digging, parados, you might find something out there, but so far the links tend to debunk your argument.

"‘‘Fingerprint’’ studies, which seek to identify the causes of recent
climate change, involve rigorous statistical comparisons of modeled
and observed climate change patterns (1). Such work has been
influential in shaping the ‘‘discernible human influence’’ conclusions
of national and international scientific assessments (2"4).
Most fingerprint studies have focused on temperature changes at
the earth’s surface (5, 6), in the free atmosphere (7, 8), or in the
oceans (9), or have considered variables whose behavior is directly
related to changes in atmospheric temperature (10).
Despite a growing body of empirical evidence documenting
increases in moisture-related variables (11, 12), and climate model
evidence of a number of robust hydrological responses to global
warming (13, 14), there have been no formal fingerprint studies
involving changes in the total amount of atmospheric water vapor,
W. Other aspects of moisture changes have received attention in
recent fingerprint work, with identification of an anthropogenic
signal in observed records of continental river runoff (15), zonal
mean rainfall (16), and surface specific humidity (17).
Warming induced by human-caused changes in well mixed
greenhouse gases (GHGs) should increase W (11, 12). Under the
assumption that relative humidity remains approximately constant,
for which there is considerable empirical support (13, 18, 19), the
increase in W is estimated to be 6.0"7.5% per degree Celsius
warming of the lower troposphere (13, 18). The observed increase
in W over the global ocean, as inferred since late 1987 from
microwave radiometry measurements madewith the satellite-borne
Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), is broadly consistent
with theory (12, 18, 20)."

1 Reply

@parados,

What did I make up? I even gave you credit for finally posting something that might be of some use. If you wanted to discuss the article, all you had to do is post with link the pertinent points you wish to discuss and comment on them. Thowing out a whole website is not really practical in this kind of format--it is usually necesary to narrow down pertinent points and divide it up into manageable chunks. Given your usual refusal to do that in the past, I have a very difficult time believing you wished to do that now.

If I'm wrong then by all means post the pertinent points with link that you want to emphasize and give us your take on it. You would actually be inviting people to have a discussion then. Try it. You might actually like it.

Otherwise just carry on with your usual MO of attempted oneupmanship, put downs, and personal insults.

1 Reply

@okie,

Do you know what "fingerprint" means in that context okie?

You must have missed this part which then lists studies that show that relative humidity remains constant as temperature increases.

Quote:

relative humidity remains approximately constant,
for which there is considerable empirical support

Just a reminder for you okie. Constant relative humidity with higher temperature means an increase in water vapor. It doesn't debunk my argument at all. It merely illustrates further how little scientific knowledge you possess.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know