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

What did I make up?

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.

Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager
(SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988....
Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest
that this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to humancaused
increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or
recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings
provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal
in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.

If I'm wrong then by all means post the pertinent points

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

Given your usual refusal to do that in the past, I have a very difficult time believing you wished to do that now.

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.

So the question remains. How much of climate warming is attributable to the amount of waper vapor humankind is pumping into the air?

That is what I am interested in and I invited you to join in. You, however appeared to be more interested in oneupmanship, 'gotcha', and personal insults. Add dishonest representation of my remarks to that.

Obviously Houston, Texas is more humid than Albuquerque, NM at the same temperature.

Considering the definition of "scientist" used by ican and Inhofe, I would be a scientist.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
246
Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA's National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer and has published numerous peer-reviewed research noted that recent hurricane activity is not linked to man-made factors. According to a February 23, 2007 article in Myrtle Beach Online, Landsea explained that "the 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad." Landsea asserted that it is therefore not true that there is a current trend of more and stronger hurricanes. "It's not a trend, it's a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy," Landsea said. He did say that a warming world would only make hurricanes "5 percent stronger 100 years from now. We can't measure it if it's that small." The article said Landsea blamed Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, for "persuad[ing] some people that global warming is contributing to hurricane frequency and strength." (LINK) Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after becoming charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005 public letter. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy," he continued. "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," Landsea added.

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.

Obviously Houston, Texas is more humid than Albuquerque, NM at the same temperature.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

247
Atmospheric scientist Glen Shaw, a Professor of Physics at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who was skeptical of global cooling fears in 1970s, now calls the current warming scare "massively political." Shaw noted in a April 22, 2007 article in News Miner that "a significantly large fraction of the science being done on global climate change is perhaps not wrong, but not enough, a little naive, repetitive and incorporating only a fraction of the complexity required to base policy on." "And the issue of global warming has become massively political. Special interests abound. Try getting funding while being a skeptic," he added. Shaw also explained how he ran up against the coming ice age scare three decades ago. "In the 1970s as a young scientist at the Geophysical Institute I wrote passionate letters complaining that for the first time in the geologic era man was changing the atmosphere of the planet. I argued that continued dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be associated with a warming of the entire Earth and pled for attention to this matter. The letters were ignored. They were ignored because in the 1970s, Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, and countless books and articles were warning of the dangers of global cooling. Things have changed." Shaw concluded: "There is much more in climate science that we simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and end these spectacular events. We do not know."

248
Geologist Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas and a UN IPCC reviewer, debunked the notion that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change. "Overall, the earth's climate has been cooling for 60 million years, but that is only an average -- temperature goes up and down constantly," Gerhard said in a January article in a National Policy Analysis publication. "Depending on the period in earth's history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points," Gerhard stated. Gerhard also noted that CO2 only represents about ¼ of one percent of the total greenhouse gas effect, "hardly a device to drive the massive energy system of earth's climate." (LINK) Gerhard also wrote on August 17, 2006: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history." Gerhard concluded that "the current climate changes were entirely explainable by geologic history." Gerhard has published more than 150 papers and authored the 2001 book "Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change."

Europe basked in unusually warm weather in medieval times, but why has been open to debate. Now the natural climate mechanism that caused the mild spell seems to have been pinpointed.

The finding is significant today because, according to Valerie Trouet at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research in Birmensdorf, the mechanism that caused the warm spell in Europe " and meant wine could be produced in England as it is now " cannot explain current warming. It means the medieval warm period was mainly a regional phenomenon caused by altered heat distribution rather than a global phenomenon.

The finding scuppers one of the favourite arguments of climate-change deniers. If Europe had temperature increases before we started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases, their argument goes, then maybe the current global warming isn't caused by humans, either.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

249
Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, questioned how much scientists really know about the climate. "CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself," Spencer wrote in a February 26, 2007 article in the New York Post. "The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation," Spencer, currently a principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama, wrote. "In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a ‘preferred' average temperature, damping out swings beyond one degree or so. I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere ‘decides' how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be," he concluded. Spencer has published more than two dozen scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.