Hmmm..... What causes the Earth to warm after an Ice Age? Could it be increasing water vapor in the atmosphere as the ice melts and some of the water evaporates? Are we in a runaway greenhouse effect but it is just progressing very slowly? What are the factors that determine the "equilibrium" point? The amount of energy radiated from a body goes up as its temperature goes up. So if WV were "trapping" more heat because CO2 was forcing more WV temporarily into the atmosphere it would raise the temperature of the Earth. That would result in more longwave radiation from the Earth and, as the WV returns to equilibrium, the excess energy would escape into space because there would be less WV to stop it. If that didn't happen then the very runaway greenhouse effect you are speaking of *would* occur. The problem is that I can't find *any* study that actually says CO2 is raising the mean temperature of the earth all by itself. It's always in conjunction with it being a forcing mechanism for increased water vapor - which they always turn around and say is temporary. It drives me crazy!
Has the equilibrium for WV changed? Do we have more water vapor in the atmosphere than we had in the 80's or 90's? Here's what NASA said in 2008: www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html "The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. " This whole area is rife with contradictions. Other places NASA says "excess" WV in the atmosphere only lasts for a short period before it precipitates out. In other places it says increased WV means we will see more clouds but clouds typically *cool* the earth by blocking energy from the sun. When water vapor if formed from liquid water it cools the water, taking heat energy with it into the atmosphere. When that water vapor forms a water drop falling as rain it takes heat from the atmosphere thus cooling it and delivers it to the earth. Who really knows what these processes actually cause to happen? It's not obvious that anyone has measurements sufficient to determine the heat balance. Even the cliche that "water vapor blocks heat from escaping" is only partially true. Anything on earth that is warmer than space will radiate heat energy as black body radiation, trying to reach an equilibrium point. If a water molecule absorbs a photon (i.e. IR radiation from the earth) it *will*, sooner or later, radiate it away. There is a 50% chance it will go into space and only about a 25% that it will radiate it back to earth. The other 25% is radiation to another water vapor molecule in the atmosphere where it will only have a 6% chance of being re-radiated back to earth (.25 x .25, the odds of two independent outcomes occurring). These percentages are based on the most grossest of assumptions, e.g. earth subtends about a 90deg angle to a molecule in the troposphere while space subtends an angle of about 180deg and that the direction of radiation is random. So WV will only block about 25% of the heat radiated by the earth at most. It will actually be less since as the radiated photon returns heat to the earth it will, sooner or later, be re-radiated back toward space again and encounter another 75% chance of not returning back to earth. Couple this with assumptions like CO2 is distributed equally throughout the atmosphere globally, an obvious impossibility, and it is simply no wonder that all the climate models don't agree with themselves let alone the satellite data. It's a prime reason the climate models never showed any global warming holes on the earth. It would seem reasonable that if WV is *not* accumulating in the atmosphere that the dire projections of the climate models simply can't be true. The dire projections require CO2 to cause WV to add a multiplier of somewhere around 4times to 5times what CO2 can provide itself. That can *only* happen if WV *is* accumulating in the atmosphere. You simply cannot take the outputs of the climate models as gospel like the AGW religionists do. There are simply too many unknowns to put any trust in them at all. Think about it. What if the global mean is going up because the earth can't radiate enough heat away at night thus raising nighttime temps? Is *that* a bad thing for the environment? Many food plants would *like* warmer nights in the spring and fall! Do the climate models actually tell you *anything*? Or are they just being used as a scare tactic?
My bet is that they are talking about a local excess of WV. That is, more than the local temperature and pressure will maintain - above the equilibrium for that location. Water vapor is far more effective in blocking heat radiation from earth than it is in blocking solar radiation. I've mentioned this before. I haven't seen anyone claim that cycle is changing the average temperature of earth. It's still a matter of changing the amount of heat that earth's atmosphere holds. The absolute numbers may look small, but it is the difference that matters. Can you cite a statement to that effect from a reputable science source? Now, you are just suggesting that the climatologists from the world over are all wrong. That would require some serious investigation, to say the very least, as it amounts to a world wide conspiracy of truly enormous proportions, executed to near perfection. Night time temps? The issue is the average temperature of the earth and the fact that it is rising. And, yes, that is a very serious problem, and not just for agriculture, though it is certainly a MAJOR problem for agriculture. There may be places where there is benefit (central Canada, for example). But, the national security level problems with agriculture are not going to be solved by such places - for reasons that are well known. "Scare tactic"? This is more of you attempting to pitch a conspiracy theory even though you have NO evidence of such a thing.
How does a LOCAL excess cause a four to five times effect from CO2 forcing on a global basis? All I can point out is what NASA says. The atmosphere can't *hold* heat. Sooner or later any heat in the atmosphere will be re-radiated as black body radiation toward the cooler area known as space. go here: www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/ "If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2" CO2 absorption would go from 2 W/m2 to 4 W/m2. But the total absorption goes to 20 W/m2, a five times increase! Did you think I was just making thinks up? That's nothing more than a cheap shot. *YOU TOO* could find out this kind of data if you were truly interested in being educated on the subject! It's not a conspiracy. It's called "no one knows anything for sure!". When some say WV stays in the atmosphere and some say it doesn't, it's called "no one knows anything for sure!". When newer, more accurate, ocean temp measurements are RAISED up to what older, less accurate temp measurements showed it's called "no one knows anything for sure". When the mean is going up but no one knows if that's because of higher maximum temps, longer growing seasons, or higher average nighttime temps it's called "no one knows anything for sure!". When some say heat is hiding in the deep ocean but NASA says it's not it's called "no one knows anything for sure!". When no one every gives a margin of error for their model outputs or for the actual measured mean it's called "no one knows anything for sure!". (like NASA having to admit there was a 62% chance 2014 was *not* the warmest year on record even when they claimed it was!) When two small universities find large global warming holes in different areas on the globe, holes the climate models never predicted it's called "no one knows anything for sure!". If the MEAN is rising because of longer growing seasons but more moderate high temps (both the State Climatologists in KS and IA say their states are seeing fewer and fewer days over 100) that is a *GOOD* thing. If it's because of a higher mean for nighttime temperatures who knows if that is good or bad? I don't know enough at this point to judge. Only if it is being caused by higher and higher maximum temperatures for more days would it possibly be a bad thing. And that is what all the AGW religionists want everyone to believe. Can *you* find an actual study that says the absolute temperatures across the globe are getting higher for more days every year? I can't. Why would a higher mean for nighttime temperatures be a very serious problem? For tomatoes and peppers, temps below 55degF hurt fruit production and plant growth. Temps higher than 85-90degF hurt fruit production and plant growth. There are a few studies that say rice is hurt by higher nighttime temps but wheat is helped. Again, if all we know is that the mean is going up but we don't actually know why then how does anyone make a prudent judgement? When everyone assumes it's because Earth is going to become a cinder from ever higher temps then that is *NOT* an educated position. ['quote]"Scare tactic"? This is more of you attempting to pitch a conspiracy theory even though you have NO evidence of such a thing.[/QUOTE] *YOU* can't tell me whether the mean is going up because of longer growing season, ever higher maximum temps, or higher nighttime temps. So trying to pitch a position that the mean going up is going to kill millions of people, i.e. national security level problems, *is* a scare tactic.
World wide accumulation of CO2 tends to warm earth. On average, a warmer earth will hold more water vapor. Your back yard may vary due to local factors. Here in the Pacific coast our local weather is affected by the standard weather pattern of air coming off the ocean. So, we have lots of water vapor. It then goes over the Cascade mountain range, so eastern WA and OR are desert or near desert. And, that heat retention keeps earth warmer. If you put on a blanket at night, your heat will still get through the blanket and radiate away, but a larger blanket will keep you warmer. WV is like a blanket. It slows the radiation of heat. It's the " some say this and some say that" that I wanted to know about - NOT the issue of factors of effect. I don't believe science is saying what you think it is saying. The result is that it looks to you like they don't know something that I suspect they do know. Cite where they say WV stays and where they say it doesn't stay. I think you will find that they aren't talking about the same scenario. WV will vary and will tend toward an equilibrium. However, the point of equilibrium IS changing, due to the average temperature of earth rising. It may be good for IA and KS, but that is NOT an indication that the climate change we are seeing is good for the USA - or the world. I'm not that interested in your state specifically. I'm more interested in the national security implications and in the US and world as a whole. We actually do know why the mean is going up. Scientists are not saying that earth is going to become a cinder. But, we are headed for some very serious ramifications. You have it backwards. "Longer growing season" is a possible effect for one area, not a cause. Again, it isn't all about IA. The serious implications for the US are more likely to come from agricultural failure in other regions, from water contention between countries that depend on rivers crossing borders, from coastal problems such as we see with hurricanes being stronger (due to warmer oceans) and with sea rise, such as with NOLA, FL and other areas that are already threatened. It's also about water in some parts of our own nation.
What do you know about world-wide accumulation of CO2? How much CO2 accumulation is going on inside Africa? South America? Again, the atmosphere holding more moisture is contradictory. "The graph shows a significant percentage decline in upper and middle layer water vapor from 1995 to 2001. The near-surface layer shows a smaller percentage increase, but a larger absolute increase in water vapor than the other layers. The upper and middle layer water vapor decreases are greater in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere." And then you have this from NASA: www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html "“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."" The rest of what you describe is local weather, not global warming. Some *do* say this and some *do* say that. You "suspect"? All I've provided you is contradictory information from so-called "experts" such as NASA. Tell me again what they know that I don't? See above! Based on NASA's NVAP project WV is *NOT* going up in at least the lower two levels of the atmosphere. But NASA then also says atmospheric humidity is going up! Now you are back to talking about REGIONAL warming and not global warming. Exactly what I've been preaching for a long time! What data do *you* have showing that climate change isn't good for most of the globe? The Sahara Desert is shrinking allowing more agriculture in the reclaimed desert. How is this not a global impact of climate change? How is this not a national security implication? Please note that the global warming hole in the US covers far more than one or two states! Again, *WHY* is the mean going up? You never get around to answering this. Why? You state that we know why it is going up but you never actually provide anything about what the "why" *is*! Is the mean going up because of more days of moderate temps, because of higher and higher maximum temps, or because of higher nighttime temps? How can you judge impacts of an increasing mean if you don't know why the mean is going up? Scientists are *not* saying earth is going to be a cinder? Really? Can you provide a single study or even an article where scientists say the earth is *not* going to become a cinder? No, it is a possible effect for *every* global warming hole that is still seeing the mean temperature going up! Remember, increased humidity in the atmosphere creates clouds, lots of clouds. Clouds can both cool and warm the earth. The balance of the cooling and the warming is *still* not very well understood. Add in the cooling impacts of transpiration from increased green area on the earth, which the climate models do not integrate very well, and you have lots of unknowns regarding why the mean is going up! You haven't actually done any research on "global warming holes" have you? Why am I not surprised? Willful ignorance *is* a prime characteristic of AGW religionists. 1. agricultural failure is *always* accompanied by the assumption that global warming is caused by increased maximum temperatures. An assumption that has not been proven to be true on a global basis. 2. Drought impacts on a global basis are *down*, not up. So why the contention on rivers crossing borders? 3. Who says hurricanes are going to be stronger? Neither Harvey or Irma was "stronger" when they hit the US. Much of the evidence today shows hurricanes will be weaker because of vertical shear winds caused by warmer waters! 4. Places like NOLA have suffered from land subsidence for decades. So has FL. Go look it up. The sea rise has just been added on top and is not even the strongest contributor to problems in many areas. Water? go here: http://iri.columbia.edu/~blyon/REFERENCES/P28.pdf "An overall increasing trend in global soil moisture, driven by increasing precipitation, underlies the whole analysis, which is reflected most obviously over the western hemisphere and especially in North America. Regional variation is nevertheless apparent and significant drying over West Africa, as driven by decreasing Sahel precipitation, stands out. Elsewhere, Europe appears to have not experienced significant changes in soil moisture, a trait shared by Southeast and southern Asia. Trends in drought characteristics are predominantly decreasing, but statistically significant changes are limited in areal extent, of the order of 1.0%–7.0% globally, depending on the drought threshold and variable and being generally less than 10% of continental areas" The claim that droughts are getting worse all over the globe is just one more piece of AGW religious dogma that simply doesn't track with reality. Remember, it is the climate models that predict increased droughts - and when coupled with the assumption that the global mean temperature is going up because of ever increasing maximum temperatures you get all kinds of dire predictions. Just as the climate models don't track with satellite data on temperature they don't track with actual soil moisture data. Is it any wonder that people question the climate models more and more?
That article shows what is going on quite clearly. So far, I don't see any of your posts accepting that analysis. So you say. And, THAT is what I asked you to cite. But, the above cite would see to clear that up. [QUOTE The Sahara Desert is shrinking allowing more agriculture in the reclaimed desert. How is this not a global impact of climate change? How is this not a national security implication? Please note that the global warming hole in the US covers far more than one or two states! Scientists are *not* saying earth is going to be a cinder? Really? Can you provide a single study or even an article where scientists say the earth is *not* going to become a cinder? [...] In fact, I don't see much focus on what earth's temperature could finally become after having reached some new equilibrium at some distant time from now. I don't see many having confidence in models when extrapolated more than 100 years, for example. No, it is a possible effect for *every* global warming hole that is still seeing the mean temperature going up! Remember, increased humidity in the atmosphere creates clouds, lots of clouds. Clouds can both cool and warm the earth. The balance of the cooling and the warming is *still* not very well understood. Add in the cooling impacts of transpiration from increased green area on the earth, which the climate models do not integrate very well, and you have lots of unknowns regarding why the mean is going up! [/QUOTE] That's not what your cited NASA article on water vapor says. Also, your NASA article on water vapor does not say we're going to be a "cinder". From your own cite, only in the next paragraph from your quote (!!??) "Despite the overall wetting trend there is a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions, especially in high northern latitudes. This is shown to be caused, in part, by concurrent increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, projected continuation of temperature increases during the twenty-first century indicate the potential for enhanced drought occurrence." The problem with water is that disruption in any area can be a major issue - including a national security issue in regions where there is already little margin in agricultural production, poor government, etc.
I gave you a graph from NASA data showing WV going down in the atmosphere and then provided you a quote from NASA saying WV is going up in the atmosphere! And *YOU* don't think that is contradictory? Then why all the studies showing that crop yields will go down because of higher temperatures? So you don't think clouds can cool the earth? go here: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php *ANOTHER* contradictory statement by NASA! "Closely related to the water vapor feedback is the cloud feedback. Clouds cause cooling by reflecting solar energy, but they also cause warming by absorbing infrared energy (like greenhouse gases) from the surface when they are over areas that are warmer than they are. In our current climate, clouds have a cooling effect overall, but that could change in a warmer environment. If clouds become brighter, or the geographical extent of bright clouds expands, they will tend to cool Earth’s surface. Clouds can become brighter if more moisture converges in a particular region or if more fine particles (aerosols) enter the air. If fewer bright clouds form, it will contribute to warming from the cloud feedback." Contradictions in what we are being told about the climate and the atmosphere are *everywhere*! WV is going up/down in the atmosphere. Clouds can warm/cool the earth. And all I get from you is rote recitation of AGW Bible dogma! Then why are there so many studies saying we are all going to starve because the crops are going to burn up? The operative words which you missed (as usual) are PROJECTED and POTENTIAL. Even in this they have to say it isn't happening today but we expect it to happen tomorrow! Just like with global warming! "We are in a hiatus today but in 5/10/20/50 years it will resume!" When we can't even come to a conclusion as to WV in the atmosphere or whether we are seeing more droughts or fewer droughts let alone a lack of admitting to global warming holes developing round the globe how are we to believe *anything* from the climatologists? I still depend on this paper: http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf "But in fact, there are only two key organs that we need to dissect. The first translates increases in the CO2e concentration to increases in temperature, a mechanism that is referred to as climate sensitivity. The second translates higher temperatures to reductions in GDP and consumption, i.e., the damage function." "Here is the problem: the physical mechanisms that determine climate sensitivity involve crucial feedback loops, and the parameter values that determine the strength (and even the sign) of those feedback loops are largely unknown, and for the forseeable future may even be unknowable. This is not a shortcoming of climate science; on the contrary, climate scientists have made enormous progress in understanding the physical mechanisms involved in climate change. But part of that progress is a clearer realization that there are limits (at least currently) to our ability to pin down the strength of the key feedback loops." "Thus the actual climate sensitivity is given by λ = λ0/( 1 − f) where f (0 ≤ f ≤ 1) is the total feedback factor (which in a more complete and complex model would incorporate several feedback effects)." " In fact, in an accompanying article in the journal Science, Allen and Frame (2007) argued that climate sensitivity is in the realm of the “unknowable.”" ------------------------------------------------ The problem is that we don't even know if "f" follows a normal distribution or not. Uncertainty about f is greatly magnified when it comes to uncertainty about λ. (the standard deviation of λ would be proportional to σf /(1 − ¯f) **2) When it comes to the damage function it is even worse. There is absolutely no economic theory to use. We don't even know if the function is positive or negative! ------------------------------------------------ As the article says: "The bottom line here is that the damage functions used in most IAMs are completely made up, with no theoretical or empirical foundation" Even this article makes the assumption that the global mean is going up because of more extreme maximum temperatures but as I have pointed out that is *not* a valid assumption based on what we *know*. It is nothing more than AGW Bible dogma. It certainly doesn't apply to the global warming holes that have been identified. Stop quoting AGW Bible dogma and give me a NASA/NOAA study that does *not* use just the temperature mean differentials and uses absolute temperatures instead. Show me the data that shows that maximum temperatures around the globe are increasing and not just the mean of of the differentials!
The NASA page clearly states that the article is out of date and not being updated. The data were qualified to be of specific altitudes and date ranges. Changes at specific altitudes don't necessarily characterize the system as a whole. So you don't think clouds can cool the earth? go here: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php *ANOTHER* contradictory statement by NASA! "Closely related to the water vapor feedback is the cloud feedback. Clouds cause cooling by reflecting solar energy, but they also cause warming by absorbing infrared energy (like greenhouse gases) from the surface when they are over areas that are warmer than they are. In our current climate, clouds have a cooling effect overall, but that could change in a warmer environment. If clouds become brighter, or the geographical extent of bright clouds expands, they will tend to cool Earth’s surface. Clouds can become brighter if more moisture converges in a particular region or if more fine particles (aerosols) enter the air. If fewer bright clouds form, it will contribute to warming from the cloud feedback." Contradictions in what we are being told about the climate and the atmosphere are *everywhere*! WV is going up/down in the atmosphere. Clouds can warm/cool the earth. And all I get from you is rote recitation of AGW Bible dogma! [/QUOTE] OK - NOW you are citing enough info to figure out why you think there is a contradiction. Thanks! NASA is distinguishing between water vapor and clouds. You can't apply one to the other and suggest NASA isn't consistent. You have to note what NASA is actually saying. They are pointing out that clouds and water vapor don't behave identically with respect to warming earth. I've never seen anyone suggest that. Right! You found a microeconomist who thinks climatologists are full of crap!
Did you think that was the *only* study showing that? The contradictions are legion! But clouds and WV are *directly* related! The more WV there is in the atmosphere the more clouds you get! Then you've done even less research on teh subject than I thought. You *are* just quoting AGW Bible verse! go here: phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html "All these methods "suggest that increasing temperatures are likely to have a negative effect on the global yields of wheat, rice and maize," said the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal." The classic AGW religionist tactic - the argumentative fallacy known as Poisoning the Well. You can't attack a single thing in the message so you attack the messenger hoping to somehow discredit the message! If you had actually bothered to read the paper you would find that he did *NOT* say climatologists are full of crap, quite the opposite. What he *said* was that the unknowns today are larger than the knowns! Exactly what I've been saying! When you have so many contradictions, most of which you are totally unaware of, and have so many diffierent climate models that don't even agree with themselves let alone with actual satellite and balloon data it becomes obvious to a critical thinker that we don't even know what we don't know! I can only point out again that we are just now finding out that CO2 is *not* spread consistently around the globe and neither is WV. But we don't even have good models for how these two important components for global warming act individually around the globe let alone in conjunction with each other. Without that knowledge calling *anything* global, be it warming or climate change, *is* nothing more than scare tactics. You know, I truly get tired of having to educate you on all of this. It is freely available on the internet. Use of google or a similar search tool will make it *all* available to you. You just have to be willing to stop looking for things that offer you nothing but confirmation bias for your preconceived notions.
You posted only one and it turned out to be you not understanding that doc. Then you've done even less research on teh subject than I thought. You *are* just quoting AGW Bible verse! and? He stated that climatologists are full of crap. For example, he said they know nothing about feedback. And, I'm suggesting that when you look for an expert to quote you find one who is an expert in the field in question. You haven't cited any contradictions yet. You tried one, but it turned out to be you misreading the site. Oh, please. There are actual videos available showing how CO2 moves around the globe. It's quite fascinating, as you can clearly see the major industrial and population centers on earth. You can see why the northern hemisphere is not the same as the southern hemisphere. Etc. Take a look: If you watch through the spring and summer you can see the effect of photosynthesis. The fact that CO2 doesn't spread everywhere equally has not been in contention. So far, you haven't made any points for yourself. In fact, you still haven't figured out water vapor or clouds. But, you have found a good site from NASA on that subject! I have to give you credit for that.
Malarky! I understood the article *completely*. The proof is that you simply cannot refute anything I said. All you have is a declaratory statement saying I didn't. The usual kind of argumentative fallacy I've come to expect from you! And *YOU* stated there weren't any such studies assuming higher temperatures being the cause of an increased mean. My reference proves all you are doing is quoting AGW Bible dogma! Again, that is *NOT* what he said! "This is not a shortcoming of climate science; on the contrary, climate scientists have made enormous progress in understanding the physical mechanisms involved in climate change. But part of that progress is a clearer realization that there are limits (at least currently) to our ability to pin down the strength of the key feedback loops." Before you start denigrating someone perhaps you should do a little more investigation. Pindyck has a BS in Elec Engineering and Physics and a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, all from MIT. Thermodynamics is a *required* course of study for EE's since heat impacts are a inherent factor in engineering anything associated with electronics. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. Something you apparently have *NO* understanding of. More willful ignorance on your part. No, I read it perfectly. Did *YOU* look at the video? Where does it show maximum density of CO2? OVER NORTH AMERICA WHERE GLOBAL WARMING HOLES HAVE RECENTLY BEEN FOUND!!! If CO2 is the cause of global warming then why is the maximum warming in the southern hemisphere where the CO2 concentration is shown to be the lowest? And you say I've identified no contradictions!!!! But that is *NOT* what the climate models are based on! Of course I haven't. It's impossible to break through the willful ignorance of a religious believer. I see. So *YOU* think higher WV causes fewer clouds, eh? Typical willful ignorance of an AGW religionist! As I said, all of the research I quote is available on the internet. But *YOU* have to use *it* instead of the AGW Bilble!
I showed what you didn't understand. I did not claim that. He's an economist, not a climatologist. His professional contributions are reviewed by economists. The animation does not depict how heat is distributed. Yes, you have identified no contradictions. As I have said, I agree with what was stated about WV in the NASA site you posted, I post NASA, NOAA and similar science. I don't have a clue what the heck it is that you call an AGW bible. Please post a reference.
In actuality you didn't *show* anything. You just made a declarative statement that I didn't understand. No actual refutation. *I* said: "Then why are there so many studies saying we are all going to starve because the crops are going to burn up?" *YOU* said: "I've never seen anyone suggest that." And then I gave you a very recent study where this very assumption was made! What you have said is recorded in the thread! Did you think I was unable to go back and copy it? I gave you his academic pedigree. And like usual, you choose to remain willfully ignorant about it. His main training was as an Electrical Engineer, including both his BS and MS degrees. My guess is that you don't have even the faintest of clues concerning academic degrees. One of my "crew" that graduated as EE's applied to medical school and was accepted! His are of expertise was not biology or human anatomy, though he had taken some courses in each as an undergraduate. His PhD today is as an MD, not an EE. But he knows as much physics and thermodynamics as any EE! No, you will admit to no contradictions! That is not the same as my having not shown them! The hallmark of an AGW religionist! If CO2 is what causes the increased heat then how does in cause increased heat where it doesn't exist?????? How can an area where it *does* exist be a global warming hole if it is CO2 that causes the increased heat? And you can see no contradiction in this? From the American Chemical Society: "Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research." go here; http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219 "Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." go here: http://principia-scientific.org/gre...er-vapor-increase-or-decrease-the-lapse-rate/ "In each of these cases the mean annual temperature in the more humid climate was cooler than the mean annual temperature in the drier climate—an impossibility if the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis were true. Again, the fact that water vapor has a cooling effect on ground level air temperatures is not hidden knowledge but instead has been observed by multiple scientists." --------------------------------------------- And you *STILL* can't admit that contradictions concerning WV exist *everywhere* in the literature! Unfreakingbelievable! No, you don't. If you did you would be posting the very same contradictory information I have posted. You post nothing but AGW Bible dogma. Use google and look up the term AGW dogma. I am *NOT* your research assistant. We've been down this path before. It is *YOUR* responsibility to educate yourself, it is *not* my responsibility. The main articles of faith of the AGW Bible are: 1. global warming is a man-caused event, primarily caused by man producing CO2. 2. global warming can be stopped by man abandoning any progress made over the past 200 years. 3. Global warming will turn the earth into a cinder You can tell you are an AGW Bible believer by the fact that you believe CO2 causes warming of the earth and the atmosphere while blissfully ignoring the fact that atmospheric CO2 is highest where a major global warming hole exists! Let me quote you an excerpt about the reliability of computer simulations and specifically climate model simulations. It is from a long article by Arthur Petersen that I know you won't bother to read: "In view of the policy context of climate simulation a crucial question is, what are the spatial and temporal scales needed to accurately simulate global climate change at a 100-year time-scale? The current answer is that we must recognise our ignorance about this issue. We do not know the degree to which feedbacks [see note 6] within the climate system are influenced by the climate system’s non-linearities and the future patterns of variability (Rind 1999). In other words, we do not know whether or not a model of the climate system can be constructed across a broad range of temporal scales as a hierarchy of dynamically uncoupled models, ordered by characteristic time-scales (cf. Werner 1999)." The very fact that the computer model outputs continue to diverge from the actual temperature data collected by satellites and weather balloons over the past twenty years is *proof* of what Petersen says. And yet organizations like NASA continue to do things like correct more accurate ocean temps UP to match older, less accurate readings instead of the other way around. Why? Could it be because the higher ocean temperatures allow a continued claim that warmer oceans are causing sea levels to rise? That if the record were to be actually corrected to be more accurate that it would undercut all the studies based on sea water expanding because of higher temperatures? What would that do to all the funding of global warming studies? You can remain willfully ignorant if you want. However, more and more people everyday are becoming suspicious of all the contradictions we are being fed concerning global warming.
I pointed to the document you posted as the answer. That's not what you just accused me of saying. That's just not good enough. The thing is, his field is economics. His work gets reviewed for what he says about economics. Climatologists get reviewed for what they say about climatology. Science depends on review. Without the several steps of review and verification science doesn't work. You haven't shown a contradiction. The article you posted shows where you got confused about clouds and water vapor. There are mechanisms that cause heat to be moved. There is a jet stream. (Look at the video I posted). There are weather patterns that can be the size of many states where air moves counter clockwise around low pressure areas (in the Northern latitudes). There are ocean currents such as the Atlantic current that brings heat north from regions closer to the equator. Etc. That is not a reviewed study. The methodology used has little to do with science in any way. There are lots of people pretending to be scientists. One has to learn to detect the difference. No, I post from sites that are known to be reputable science organizations that have their work repeatedly reviewed by experts in the field. In fact, I don't believe I've posted anything by NASA climatology articles on this thread. I'm not even SLIGHTLY interested in that. 1. yes, science says human activity is the primary driver of warming at present, and that CO2 production is the major method. Other gasses have stronger effects on temperature, but CO2 volume makes it the largest issue. 2. NO. First of all, now you are talking solutions. Solutions are NOT the same issue as the analysis of what is happening. Second of all, you're being ridiculous. Stop it. 3. NO. Scientists say nothing about cinders. That is on YOU. Stop it! More blatant misdirection, nonscience and mischaracterization - clearly not worth addressing.
Hmmm. My dad taught EE at two different major universities. As a kid I remember playing around with programming an analog computer one lab had, helping to set up and test lab equipment, etc. Engineering isn't the same as science. I got more excited about engineering, but other than EE. It's good that you have friends.
His *field* is what he studied! It simply doesn't matter what he got his PhD in! Long ago I started in on an MBA. Never finished but that does *NOT* mean I was not a fully trained EE with courses in things like statics and dynamics, thermodynamics, and strength of materials, probability and statistics, etc. When someone discussing economics that has a background in electrical engineering and physics USES that background in electrical engineering and physics to underlie his discussion of economics it does *NOT* mean they know nothing of concerning the thermodynamics and physics associated with climatology and can't apply that knowledge to analyses of the economics associated with the climatology. Again, you are trying to discredit the message by attacking the messenger. That *is* the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well. Go look it up. It is *NOT*, in any manner, a refutation of the message!
Of COURSE I showed the contradiction. I even supplied references and quotes *showing* the contradiction! And *YOU* can't even admit that WV and clouds are directly related! Just what how do weather patterns refute that there are all kinds of contradictions by climate scientists concerning the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere! You are now reduced to just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick!
*WHICH* of the three articles are not peer reviewed? Did you even bother to go look at them? Really? And *YOU* can tell from a URL who is and who isn't a scientist? go here: celebrating200years.noaa.gov/historymakers/solomon/welcome.html Susan Solomon is the lead author on the Science article I referenced. She is an award winning lead scientist at NOAA! Her PhD is in Chemistry. You are *still* trying to discredit the messages by attacking the messengers! And you are doing so by denigrating the credentials of the messengers - messengers who you don't have even the slightest bit of knowledge about! PATHETIC!
The problem is that you post *NOTHING*. All you do is employ the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well![/QUOTE]
1. Except as I pointed out to you with references that many climatologists believe WV has four to five times the impact on warming as CO2! Both directly from the WV itself and from its impact as clouds! 2. The solution is *NOT* necessary if global warming is not turning the earth into a cinder! If it *is* increasing growing seasons then it is a GOOD thing. And you have offered up NOTHING to show what is causing the mean to go up! You can't answer even the most simple questions concerning math and the mean! 3. And yet I've given you studies where scientists assume catastrophic failure of crops due to ever higher temperatures! Many of the AGW religionists believe the earth is turning into Venus, a cinder cooking beneath an atmospheric blanket! You *still* can't refute *anything*! Not one single actual refutation of anything in the quote! PATHETIC! This is the argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. Wave your hands magically above the keyboard, say some magic words like "misdirection"/nonscience/mischaracterization, and assume you have somehow refuted everything asserted by the messenger. Again - PATHETIC! Yet this is where the AGW religionists like you *ALWAYS* wind up retreating to. Argumentative fallacies.[/QUOTE]
We had no digital computers in my computer lab! Any programs we wrote had to be keyed in on punch cards and submitted to the High Priests running the mainframe computer! SO WHAT? Of course engineering is not science. But the difference is not what is studied, it is how what is learned is applied! William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor, WAS AN ENGINEER trained at MIT. Yet his invention was a crowning achievement of SCIENCE, not engineering.
No, the difference is not in him, it's in how he is reviewed. His statements are not tested by that standard processes used by science. There is no review by a collection of climatologists, testing of his ideas by others who are qualified. You're guy said something, but there is no way to see what science has to say about that. So, YOU are saying what he says is consistent with science. But, that is YOU claiming to be an expert. Climatologists DO face that. Economists face testing by economists (though that is pretty severely limited, as economics doesn't use scientific method).
