Global Warming

Apparently not: Page not found

quote:

---

However,close analysis of the central graphs
in all of these articles reveals questionable
handling of the underlying physical data.
In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement
of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures
during the global warming of the recent decennia
had been a major factor in the article’s strong
impact. But this agreement was actually an
artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding,
to a heavily smoothed (“filtered”) curve, four
additional points covering the period of global
warming,which were only partially filtered or
not filtered at all.

---

The PDF provides a more accurate and longer-term graph comparing temperature to solar cycle; even the untrained eye can see that there's no relationship at all.

CO2 isn't the only thing that can raise climate temperatures. Obviously, CO2 can only be responsible for warming that occured after the CO2 was present.

Water vapor is feedback, not forcing (as the climate scientists say), and the models that treat it that way are very accurate and make tested predictions. The water doesn't hang around in the atmosphere long enough to be a significant climate forcing.So I don't think Essenhigh is correct, and neither does the mainstream of climate science. Of course, anybody can write a letter to the editor and say whatever they want, and the climate scientists at RealClimate: Frontpage have different rates of carbon absorbtion than Essenhigh refers to. RealClimateRealClimate: Frontpage

I'm sorry, I posted the wrong URL. The article I meant to reference is here: RealClimate: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?That should address your questions.

Hypothetical: You measure the global climate over time. You also measure the atmospheric levels of Chemical X. You find that they both increased over the same period of time.If the global climate temperatures rose because Chemical X increased in concentration, Chemical X is a climate forcing agent.If Chemical X rose because global climate temperatures increased, Chemical X is a climate feedback agent.

It's dependant on temperature, though. Hot air holds more water, cold air holds less, and the humidity corrects itself very quickly, much faster than the warming trend.So additional water would precipitate from the atmosphere long before it could contribute to global warming. It's a feedback, not a forcing. No, I'm saying that changes in the water vapor content of the atmosphere are not believed to be responsible for global warming. Rather, global warming is responsible for changes in the water vapor content, and Essenhigh's thesis appears to be contradicted by the evidence.

Really? It's completely intuitive to me that the water precipitates too quickly to be responsible for any climate forcing. The climate doesn't warm fast enough from the additional water to hold the additional water; it's gone before it can warm the climate.If the atmosphere is already warm enough to hold the additional vapor, then we're back to what I was saying - the water vapor isn't forcing warming, it's feedback from warming. That doesn't seem very relevant. The question is, how does the amount of CO2 created by man compare to the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere naturally?According to climate scientists, the manmade production of CO2 exceeds the capacity for it to be removed naturally by something like 4 billion tons per year.It's like this. Suppose that you're a guy in a boat, bailing it out with a pail as water slops over the side during a storm. As it happens, you can bail just slightly more water than the storm blows in.But the hull springs a leak. But you're still ok. Sure, the storm is blowing in a lot more water than the leak, but you can still bail out exactly as much water as the storm plus the leak. So you're still in good shape.But the hull springs another leak. And again, the amount of the leak isn't very much compared to what the storm is blowing in over the gunwales, but it doesn't matter now - compared to how much water you can bail, the boat has a net gain of water, and you're going to sink unless you plug the leaks.

This article debunks the opinion piece's misinformation: RealClimate: WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

quote:

---

However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren't), that the human contribution to recent changes has been 'cut by a third' (no it hasn't), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn't - the clue is in the name).

​

Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.

---

Following some of the links rebuts the material you posted:

quote:

---

Even less sanely: "Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast." The temperature bit just relies on cherry-picking a start point of 1998 and is just silly. The sea level assertion is incomprehensible: current SLR is 3 mm/yr from satellite; the mid-range value for 2100 from the TAR was 0.4m which is 4 mm/yr. But since the graph is convex the "prediction" was clearly for about 3 mm/yr which was spot on.

---

I find the claim that the oceans are cooling incomprehensible, compared to the data:Maybe global warming deniers simply have a problem reading graphs?

I think you're missing the point; that the nearly-microscopic decline in ocean temps in one or two years (following an el nino) is insignificant next to the overall trend, which is obvious on the graph. It might be, if you live in New York...

I have to say, RB, you're not presenting a very compelling (or even coherent) argument, and you don't appear to have responded to the rebuttal I posted at all. And it doesn't speak well for your argument that you have to pepper it with ad hominem attacks. What evidence do you have that we're coming off an ice age that ended in 1980? So how could that possibly be the explanation for a warming trend that began in this century?Honestly, RB, you're not making any sense. You're talking about warming trends with a periodicity of several thousand years, but anthropogenic climate warming has forced anomalously higher temperatures over less than a century. And you can't see at all why that might be something to get concerned about?

In fact, there's such a considerable basis that the IPCC's newest report concludes at least a 90% certainty that humans are primarily responsible for elevated atmospheric carbon levels that force global warming. In fact, studies since the IPCC's TAR have shown that the total contribution to warming from solar radiation was overestimated in that document by a factor of 3 to 4. The sun is definitely not to blame for global warming.Most of your statements are unsourced, so there's no reason to believe that they're true. On the other hand, the IPCC report (as well as professional explanation) can be found here. America is the source of the majority of carbon emissions worldwide, as well as the technological leader in developing low-carbon technologies, so it makes sense that we would, to some degree, be singled out. Mexico is not a significant contributer. While China is projected to become the leader in carbon emissions within this decade, that's largely a function of their larger population. Per capita, they actually have significantly lower emissions than the US.Kyoto singles out polluters who could change their ways if some pressure was brought to bear. It's not an "attack on America". These are made-up facts that bear no relationship to scientific reality. Biblical dogma is not a substitute for evidence. Again, this unsourced statement is contrary to the scientific consensus on the issue. You're entitled to your own opinion on global warming, but not to your own facts.

I'm not quite sure how to respond without drawing accusations from you of doing exactly that, I guess. But to jump off from your point about planetary-scale catastrophe, I don't know what could be done short of a massive program of interplanetary colonization.

Monckton is a known dissembler. None of his data or evidence can be trusted. Your links and arguments are known to be false.You can read more here: RealClimate: Cuckoo ScienceI think a large number of us, RB, are beginning to wonder when you'll begin to respond to the rebuttals presented to you. Continuing to not do so is a violation of the Forum Guidelines you agreed to when you originally registered.Oh, and incidentally - it's actually "Not all those who wander are lost." From:All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. So you've said. Do you have a source for this statement, or not? I'd like you to find this information in either the IPCC's TAR or the AR4. Information from Chris Monckton, a known paid liar, is invalid. The sun can't be younger than the Earth, which is 4 billion years old. Moreover, we know that the sun is older than 13,000 years because it's a main sequence star, and from it's stage in that sequence we know that it's at least 4.57 billion years old. Well, no, it doesn't. The "water canopy" is the invention of creationists; the Bible makes no mention of such a canopy. Moreover, even if it did, the Bible would be wrong; and certainly the Bible was not written by anybody who ever saw such a canopy. Titan doesn't have a water canopy. It's atmosphere is:

quote:

---

98.4% nitrogen ” the only dense nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the solar system aside from our own ” with the remaining 1.6% composed of methane and only trace amounts of other gases such as hydrocarbons (including ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, cyanoacetylene, acetylene, propane), argon, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, hydrogen cyanide and helium.[13]

---

Titan (moon) - WikipediaI don't see "water" listed above. Titan's atmosphere is, in fact, nearly perfectly devoid of water vapor.

No, it's not. It doesn't exist! There's next to zero water in Titan's atmosphere. You don't read so well. The sun's age is based on its position in the main sequence. I didn't say anything about radiometric dating. That's not a water canopy. Water vapor content of the atmosphere is a feedback, not a forcing. It's not responsible for any of the warming. Water vapor precipitates too rapidly to be a greenhouse contributor.Blaming water vapor for global warming is crank science, Charley. It's pesudoscience. It's misinformation, which is why you've been able to present absolutely zero scientific evidence in support of your contentions. It's why you're forced to rely on the statements of professional liars.