Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels

Whatever the cause warm air holds more water than cold air.

 

Yet NASA shows a decrease in water vapor.

 

That ain't what I read. Besides you quote NASA only when it suits your purpose? They also support man made climate change.

 

You mean the only data you accept is the massively adjust surface temperatures.

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nvap/nvap-m_table

 

Of course water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing. Here are just a couple sources. There are lots more.

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nvap/nvap-m_table
Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
Santer et al (2007)
---
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/m^2 per decade since 1988
---

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636
Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
Chung et al (2014)
---
Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate.
---

Hoosier is blindly repeating stories from denier conspiracy blogs, where they cherrypick and torture data to force it to match their predetermined conclusion. The conspiracy blogs tell him what he wants to hear, so he sees no need to look at actual science. But try to go easy on him, as it's been a tough week for right-wing-extremist political cultists.

 

So when I point out Hoosier relies on conspiracy blogs, he responds by ... repeating what he copied from a conspiracy blog.

Given the evidence, nobody but conspiracy blog nutters are crazy enough to say that atmospheric water vapor has declined.

 

The problem is the fact that our soils worldwide hold less moisture due to depletion of organic matter in the soil. After doing some research I believe the saying is true "its the ecology stupid".

 

Not much for data or scientists are you?

http://clivebest.com/blog/?page_id=2

 

The decline is in the water holding capacity of soils due to carbon depletions in the soil. We need to take a lot of the carbon out of our air and put it in our soil. The saying is true...it's the ecology stupid

 

It is true that carbon loss in soil ....loss of humus...reduces the water holding capacity of soil...this means less humidity. Less humidity means drier weather. Repeated drier weather means a drier climate. Carbon is black....carbon rich soil is black. The way to take the carbon from the air and put it in the soil is through photosynthesis. More carbon in soil .means more water retention. More water retention means higher humidity . Higher humidity means wetter weather. Repetitive wetter weather means a wetter climate.

 

And hoosier shows us yet another conspiracy blogger. What a surprise.

Clive there is a retired physicist with no climate science experience. He stinks at statistics, as demonstrated by how he was a big pusher of the "No warming for 17 years!" giant failure of a fallacy.

Do let us know when Clive publishes his results in a peer-reviewed journal, instead of on his conspiracy blog, or as a guest author in another conspiracy blog.

 

Makes sense!

The more chemical fertilizers.... chemical herbicides and pesticides that we dump on the soil.... would be bound to decrease the amount of
humus/ beneficial bacteria...... as well as decomposing plant matter in the soil.

 

Probably said it before... You should watch Gabe Brown's videos on farm regeneration. You may see things you never saw.

 

Forget talking him down. Try to discuss the science he brings to bear?

That sort of argument is not science, it is political.

Specify the error or more errors you claim he makes please?

It is tied in well with the scientists that testified to the Canadian Senate that I posted the video of.

[video=youtube;oMmZF8gB7Gs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMmZF8gB7Gs[/video]

 

I know nothing about soil health and started watching that guy. Again, I know nothing but his presentation seems to make a lot of sense and his soil slides are very revealing and well taken.

 

I prefer the alarmists dig into that topic than to keep blaming me and you for climate problems.

Problems that for the past 18 years are entirely in their heads.

 

Perhaps the added water vapor is why the during past 18 years the earth is not warming.

 

What I am trying to get across is simple. I do believe that climate change has a major cause that is not usually considered and the solution would not cause economic pain but just that opposite. It would be an economic boom. IMO climate change is driven by soil degradation and loss of carbon in the soil worldwide. Soil is the best carbon storage unit available and it only adds value to land. Soil stores and filters water, stores carbon, and concentrates carbon out of the air. Furthermore....livestock is a necessary tool in soil management adding value to the soil and aiding in carbon capture in soil. Bare ground is naked, thirsty, hungry , and running a temperature. Soil is lost and productivity suffers. Soil benefits from an increase in carbon and plants take it out of the air, concentrates it, and improves tilth, water holding capacity, and productivity. It is a win win.

- - - Updated - - -

Its the ecology,stupid.

 

Probably a correct statement that you misinterpreted, being how the lake tends to vanish in late summer.

Mirror lake, April at the top, August at the bottom.

 

That I WHAT?????

Yes, you proved that during part of the year, there is no lake. It vanished. Too damned funny trying to make me look wrong or something like that.

Actually, as I recall the story from so long ago, when Yosemite was first found by white people, then the lake was supposed to be larger and maybe it was a lake year round.

Yosemite is the product of 3 ice ages. To me this is proof Earth moves into and out of ice ages and has no need of man to effect such changes. Same thing with the Great lakes, the product of a melting of glaciers.

There they Great lakes are, not caused by humans yet one heck of a lot of water the same.

This in fact is proof that climate changes. But not proof man changes it.

 

Man definitely changes microclimates. Cities are warmer than the surrounding country and bare soil is hotter during the day and colder at night than undisturbed land.

 

Quite possible, as the area would slowly accumulate silt, shrinking the lake. However, that still has nothing to do with climate changing.

Your logic is "Before man, climate changed naturally, so humans can't change climate".

That's exactly the same logic as saying "Before man, forest fires occurred naturally, so humans can't cause forest fires".

Your logic fails. The fact that climate changed naturally before in no way prevents humans from changing climate.