Global warming.

[Belthazor]

"Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere."

But the addition of water vapor seems nearly out of human control ????



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."


99.999% seems pretty conclusive...

[CowboyX]

But the addition of water vapor seems nearly out of human control ????



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."


99.999% seems pretty conclusive...

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

[Belthazor]

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

From your source:



"Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information"


and again,

"99.999% natural caused", hmmmmm....

[CowboyX]

From your source:



"Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information"

I'm not surprised since it's 10 years old. Is there something there you dispute?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

and again,

"99.999% natural caused", hmmmmm....

How do they describe that process and is it different from my description?

[Belthazor]

I'm not surprised since it's 10 years old. Is there something there you dispute?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------



How do they describe that process and is it different from my description?

It's different because you say it is man caused, and that site explicitly shows that 99.999% is not caused by man.

[CowboyX]

It's different because you say it is man caused, and that site explicitly shows that 99.999% is not caused by man.

Ok, let's try it differently. The small percentage they say is man caused, where does that come from?

Just to be clear, there's no dispute on the science, right, that warmer air holds more water and that warmer oceans evaporate more readily?

[Squatch347]

The report (notice that it isn't a study, this is a political report, not a scientific peer reviewed study) has been lampooned by actual physicists and climate scientists:

From physicist Steve Koonin ("Mr. Koonin was undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term and is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University."):

True, the U.S. has had more heat waves in recent years—but no more than a century ago.

The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report, to be released Friday, does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments.
...
One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.

This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900. This artifice also appeared in the government’s 2014 National Climate Assessment, which emphasized a post-1980 increase in hurricane power without discussing the longer-term record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently stated that it has been unable to detect any human impact on hurricanes.

Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 “Cargo Cult” lecture, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. That’s the difference between science and advocacy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-decep...ate-1509660882



Dr. Pat Michaels (Climatologist):

Here’s the first bit of missing information:



The chart shows predicted and observed tropical (20⁰N-20⁰S) temperatures in the middle of the earth’s active weather zone—technically the mid-troposphere, roughly from 5,000ft to 30,000ft elevation. The predicted values are from the 102 climate model realizations from 32 different base model groups. These models are from the most recent science compendium of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is the most comprehensive set available. Data for the chart were recently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

...

The second bit of missing information is sufficient to invalidate most of the Assessment’s predictions. It’s a bit more complicated than the first one.



The vertical axis is height (as measured by barometric pressure) and the horizontal axis is temperature change, in degrees C per decade. The solid green line is the observed average of our four sets of vertical sounding data from balloons. You can see that the observed warming rate at the surface (given as the “1000 hPa” on the left axis) is a bit above 0.1⁰C/decade, while the predicted value (1979-2016) is smidge below 0.2⁰C. In other words, in this region, which is extremely important to global climate, almost twice as much warming is being predicted compared to what is measured. This is figure S-2 in the recent Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society report on the climate of 2016.

...
So this one, like its predecessors, suffers from a serious and obvious flaws that are simply ignored. As first documented in our 2004 book Meltdown, the first Assessment used models that were worse than a table of random numbers when applied to 20thcentury coterminous U.S. temperatures, and the chief scientist for the report knew it and went ahead anyway!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/...te-assessment/

---------- Post added at 07:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 AM ----------

Just to be clear, there's no dispute on the science, right, that warmer air holds more water and that warmer oceans evaporate more readily?

Nor that that additional water vapor is more likely to form clouds that reflect solar radiation back into space, lowering warming, and is the single largest factor in the IPCC's estimate of climate change, right?

“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

Ramanathan et al., 1989

“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

RealClimate (Michael Mann's Site)

The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of − 21 Wm−2.”

Allan, 2011

The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone

McLean, 2014

“Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance."

Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008

For further reading in case you think this isn't consensus (Non-gated links available upon request):

Wielicki et al., 2002

Kauppinen et al, 2014

Pinker et al., 2005

Wang et al., 2012

Palle´ et al., 2005

Ohmura, 2009

Longman et al., (2014)

Posselt et al. (2014)

Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2016

Kambezidis et al., 2016

Calbó et al., 2016

[CowboyX]

Nor that that additional water vapor is more likely to form clouds that reflect solar radiation back into space, lowering warming, and is the single largest factor in the IPCC's estimate of climate change, right?

That would seem to negate Belthazor's argument. Would you agree Belthazor?

[Belthazor]

That would seem to negate Belthazor's argument. Would you agree Belthazor?

I don't see a conflict with his overall post with my position...

(After all, Squatch already posted the same source, prior to me using it, as support for his position. To me, he and I seem in agreement....)

[CowboyX]

I don't see a conflict with his overall post with my position...

(After all, Squatch already posted the same source, prior to me using it, as support for his position. To me, he and I seem in agreement....)

Your position doesn't explain the warming which leads to the increased water vapor.

---------- Post added at 06:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

Nor that that additional water vapor is more likely to form clouds that reflect solar radiation back into space, lowering warming, and is the single largest factor in the IPCC's estimate of climate change, right?

“The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

Ramanathan et al., 1989

“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”

RealClimate (Michael Mann's Site)

Is that what they are saying? That there is cooling? Seems to me that they are saying that what heat does enter the system is trapped by increased water vapor...the greenhouse effect...especially in the oceans:

"Cloud LW
absorption and emission are, in a sense, similar to the radiative
effects of atmospheric gases. The combined effect of LW absorption
and emission-that is, the greenhouse effect-is a reduction in the
LW radiation emitted to space. The greenhouse effect of clouds may
be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2
concentration of the atmosphere (2)." Ramanathan source.

[Squatch347]

Your position doesn't explain the warming which leads to the increased water vapor.

There are two issues with your characterization with Belthazor's position (Belthazor, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

1) He absolutely explained the observed historical warming. From post 103, citing your link: ""99.999% natural caused", hmmmmm...." IE the vast, vast majority of the warming is caused by natural variability. This is inline with the IPCC's most recent understanding of the Climate Sensitivity Forcing Metric.

2) But I think more importantly, I would point out that you are looking the wrong direction from a scientific point of view. What matters for theoretical validation is confirmation of predicted results. The albido effect is the primary driver in the lowered warming predictions from the first to most recent IPCC reports (well over 50% decrease in predicted warming). And yet, we haven't even hit those marks. It is hard to say you have an understanding of a system if you can't predict its results with statistical significance.

Is that what they are saying? That there is cooling?

Let's be careful when discussing one of the inputs of cloud formation with the net impact of cloud formation.

A very close analogy is the sun shades people put in their windshield. For heat coming in from the side windows, the sun shade acts as a greenhouse and keeps that heat from escaping through the windshield. But it also blocks out heat coming in from the windshield. The net overall effect is to reduce the heating of your interior, right?

Clouds have a similar role.

[T]he global shortwave cloud forcing [-44.5 watts per square meter (W/m2)] due to the enhancement of planetary albedo, exceeded in magnitude the longwave cloud forcing (31.3 W/m2) resulting from the greenhouse effect of clouds. Thus, clouds had a net cooling effect on the earth.

Same paper as you quoted, emphasis mine.

LW radiation is trapped by clouds and provides a greenhouse effect, but that effect is dwarfed by the SW radiation blocked by clouds and returned to space.

[CowboyX]

There are two issues with your characterization with Belthazor's position (Belthazor, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

1) He absolutely explained the observed historical warming. From post 103, citing your link: ""99.999% natural caused", hmmmmm...." IE the vast, vast majority of the warming is caused by natural variability. This is inline with the IPCC's most recent understanding of the Climate Sensitivity Forcing Metric.

My link?

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

IE the vast, vast majority of the warming is caused by natural variability. This is inline with the IPCC's most recent understanding of the Climate Sensitivity Forcing Metric.

Of the warming, not the percentage of the water vapor.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Daily Mail retracts global warming article, but did anyone notice?


"...the significance of Dr Bates' concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates' claims. World leaders had not been 'duped', as the headline said, and there was no 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper was based on 'misleading, unverified data', as the article had claimed....

The graph which accompanied the article had provided a visual illustration of the newspaper's contention regarding the difference between the 'flawed' NOAA data and other, 'verified', data. The newspaper's failure to plot the lines correctly represented a breach of Clause 1 (i), and there had been a further failure to correct the significantly misleading impression created as a result."

[Belthazor]

[/COLOR]Daily Mail retracts global warming article, but did anyone notice?

Didn't notice/care about the retraction cause who uses the Daily Mail as a scientific source?

[CowboyX]

Didn't notice/care about the retraction cause who uses the Daily Mail as a scientific source?

You should read the rest of the thread.

[Squatch347]

Of the warming, not the percentage of the water vapor.

I would assume that was what he meant in that response. It is certainly a closer estimate to what the IPCC issued in its last assessment. Warming is, after all, the metric that matters here, right?

You should read the rest of the thread.

Speaking of, did you have any other thoughts on the papers cited?

[sear]

I #20

That's fine.

You remind me of the suicidal person that leapt from the top of the Empire State Building, and as he was plummeting to his messy splat of a demise was heard through the 3rd story window to say: "No problem so far!"

That anthropogenic climate change hasn't terminated the human race yet is no cause to disregard the matter further.

Hank Winkler says Global Warming is nothing to worry about, because eskimos look great in bikinis.

Dandy.

But he's a comedian. And the survival of the human race is no laughing matter.

[Ibelsd]

Didn't notice/care about the retraction cause who uses the Daily Mail as a scientific source?

Or conversely, the headline could have said if published earlier;
Daily Mail publishes global warming article, but did anyone notice?

[ladykrimson]

I can see overpopulation as a contributing factor to climate change. To expect 7.6 billion people to inhabit a planet without affecting the environment is naive. I think, as with all major events, that there are many contributing factors.

After reading six pages of responses, it's hard to remember all the points made, but I will respond to this:

@Liberty You are correct. Our water is not disappearing...3% of the water on Earth is fresh water. It is being used faster than it can be replenished, which could be a problem for humanity. I'm certain that was the implication when someone put that we consume water.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-...f-water-2015-6

It is possible that all water will disappear from the Earth in about 1 billion years because the sun is steadily increasing in luminosity, FYI.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...evolution.html

@OP Solar output is not decreased. It has stabilized at a higher-than-historic level.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activ...-confirms.html

[Belthazor]

I can see overpopulation as a contributing factor to climate change. To expect 7.6 billion people to inhabit a planet without affecting the environment is naive. I think, as with all major events, that there are many contributing factors.

After reading six pages of responses, it's hard to remember all the points made, but I will respond to this:

@Liberty You are correct. Our water is not disappearing...3% of the water on Earth is fresh water. It is being used faster than it can be replenished, which could be a problem for humanity. I'm certain that was the implication when someone put that we consume water.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-...f-water-2015-6

It is possible that all water will disappear from the Earth in about 1 billion years because the sun is steadily increasing in luminosity, FYI.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...evolution.html

@OP Solar output is not decreased. It has stabilized at a higher-than-historic level.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activ...-confirms.html

Did you know that New York hasn't always been an island? The east coast has been many, many miles farther east to see the Atlantic Ocean. As glaciers advance and retreat, the ocean raises and lowers.

Man does all kinds of things that are not planet/people friendly, but the ability to change the climate is a challenge indeed.

Perhaps we are there, but every dire climate model so far has proved incorrect and had to be adjusted to a lesser affect.

Technology could solve most of these problems (save a place for animals that people displace to live. Guess that is why a lot of future fiction see human's living miles up in the sky. Just technology holding us back from that too I guess).

For instance,
if the oceans are rising and fresh water is in dwindling supply, the obvious choice seems take the salt out of salt water. Two problems solved (though the left over salt could be an issue). This could be done with minimal fossil fuel for the most part. What we lack is the technology to accomplish the things we need or the willingness to apply it.
(ie, countries would rather fight over a border than join together and build a desalination plant).

[ladykrimson]

Did you know that New York hasn't always been an island? The east coast has been many, many miles farther east to see the Atlantic Ocean. As glaciers advance and retreat, the ocean raises and lowers.

Man does all kinds of things that are not planet/people friendly, but the ability to change the climate is a challenge indeed.

Perhaps we are there, but every dire climate model so far has proved incorrect and had to be adjusted to a lesser affect.

Technology could solve most of these problems (save a place for animals that people displace to live. Guess that is why a lot of future fiction see human's living miles up in the sky. Just technology holding us back from that too I guess).

For instance,
if the oceans are rising and fresh water is in dwindling supply, the obvious choice seems take the salt out of salt water. Two problems solved (though the left over salt could be an issue). This could be done with minimal fossil fuel for the most part. What we lack is the technology to accomplish the things we need or the willingness to apply it.
(ie, countries would rather fight over a border than join together and build a desalination plant).

As of 2015, there were over 18,000 desalinization plants active in the world, so we are already using the technology. Unfortunately, desalinization is not very cost effective, and can be harmful to the environment. Much of the "new" technology works well enough, but it costs so much that it becomes a new problem.

Yes, I knew that about New York. It's fascinating, isn't it? To look at a place and know that it was drastically different at one time?

Climate models can only be accurate to a point. Firstly, we as a species, haven't been monitoring Earth's climate long enough to make accurate determinations. Secondly, our climate is so complex, and there are elements at work that we just don't know or understand. Thirdly, much of the data is subject to interpretation, even scientifically. We think we know so much about the climate, but we really know so little. Currently, climate change is not the debate because it is evident that the climate IS changing. The debate is whether or not our carelessness has contributed to it. Are we the sole reason that the climate is changing? Probably not...but there should be no doubt that humans have contributed to it.

Here's another issue. We always wait until after something is a problem. We can see that something is already different, and that it is possible that we are contributing. That really should be enough to start taking precautions. We should treat everything on this planet like it is a finite resource, stop pumping garbage into our atmosphere, create modest stockpiles for emergencies, and treat nature with respect. We need to stop being so arrogant.