Sorry, I've *always* argued that the water vapor doesn't return to equilibrium. It is the AGW religionists that say otherwise! go here: www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm "So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived." go here: www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air "Water vapour is a very effective absorber of heat energy in the air, but it does not accumulate in the atmosphere in the same way as the other greenhouse gases. This is down to it having a very short atmospheric lifetime, of the order of hours to days, because it is rapidly removed as rain and snow." If you will remember the earlier thread we were involved in about global warming you should remember my schooling you on feedback loops and higher relative humidity in a warmer atmosphere. You and Lesh kept trying to tell me that relative humidity could not remain high because it would precipitate out. I kept trying to tell you that if that happened then the trapped heat would also escape into space since the higher level of water vapor would no longer trap it! Are you now admitting that I was correct?
If you actually read my post you will note that I said climatologists know that heat leaves earth. How you turned that into what you did is a mystery. The balance can be changed - by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example. CO2 also has a direct effect, as it is nearly transparent to solar radiation, but not transparent to heat. Water vapor traps more heat when it is in the atmosphere. If water vapor concentration reduces, then slightly more heat will begin to escape. This isn't a sudden thing. Heat radiates over time. Heat will radiate more slowly when there is more water vapor and less slowly when there is less water vapor. How about cutting the "AGW religionist" thing. It makes more sense to talk about climatology than to try to guess what other people are thinking.
I gave you the cooling day data from Ecuador in the middle of South America. It shows a declining number of cooling days. Yet this doesn't show in NASA's map. This has *always* been my contention that the data NASA uses is *not* reliable. They never show any margins of error for their measurements. Like when they said in 2015 that 2014 was the warmest year ever - but finally had to admit that it was a 38% chance of that and a 62% chance that it wasn't! Like I said. I don't trust NASA's data. It's why I've gone looking for *other* data, *empirical* data collected by other sources. It's why I looked at cooling days in Ecuador. That data is *widely* available. If you want the citations I can give them to you. Of course it is representative. You even admitted it above! Studies are just now being done as to why the holes exist. There is nothing to indicate they will go away in the future. The problem is that the climate models simply don't have the resolution needed to recognize what is going on! How much sea rise is due to subsidence and how much to actual expanding sea volume. Recent studies have shown that significant land subsidence can occur where deep wells along the coasts dry out the strata below ground. You *do* understand that sea level rise is not constant, right? Not even along the shores of the US. The AGW religionists keep saying that we will see *more* rain from global warming. That is not bad for agriculture, it is *GOOD*. And more rain means more clouds which, in turn, means less atmospheric heating and more cooling from evaporation of ground water. Most of the Middle East and Northern Africa are SEMI-ARID deserts. One of biggest problems in these areas is not global warming, it is population growth beyond what the land can support! As well as the rest of the High Plains, Central Plains, and Southern Plains.
If clouds keep heat in at night, what the hell do you figure they do in the daytime? Keep it out by attenuating insolation, that's what - which means you can't credibly claim to know whether the feedback is positive or negative unless you can show that clouds keep in more heat at night than they keep out during the day. Which I'm pretty sure you can't.
Water vapor and CO2 are relatively transparent to solar radiation, but not nearly as transparent to heat radiation. So, they allow the sun to heat earth while slowing heat from leaving earth. The "feedback" is that more heat means the atmosphere will include more water vapor, which makes it even harder for heat to leave earth
?? I'm not interested in numbers where you don't even bother to give the source. Cooling days are used for doing stuff like energy requirements assessment. How do I know what methods they are using or whether they are accounting for the entire national footprint? What I cited shows that your regions are NOT representative. And, as for resolution, you have used a tiny number of data points in this entire thread - which is monumentally TERRIBLE resolution. Yes, there can be affects along specific shorelines that make the situation worse or better. For example, NOLA is an example of an unfortunate confluence of factors. So, you're guess was in error. More clouds means more warming. If you think evaporation will make a notable heat difference, cite it. And?
Clouds happen when there is water vapor around. When cooled, some amount of the water vapor condenses to tiny droplets suspended in air. The net effect is not simple so: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
Yeah, brilliant. Now that you've mastered the grade school physics of the matter, tell me how the hell you can say the feedback from a CO2 increase is positive when you can't say the feedback from clouds isn't negative.
"Slightly more heat will escape"? CO2 by itself is a minor contributor to trapping heat. It is only significant when it is considered to raise water vapor levels which contribute 3 to 4 times as much "trapping of heat". If the water vapor disappears then what holds the trapped heat in? CO2 can't do it by itself! *ALL* of the heat trapped by the water vapor will soon disappear into space. "less slowly"? You mean it will radiate faster when there is less water vapor? *Exactly* the same thing I am saying? Again, when the water vapor disappears then how does it continue to "trap" heat? AGW *IS* a religion. It has its own dogma and articles of faith. Articles of faith such as "water vapor continues to trap heat even when it disappears from the atmosphere!" Since "AGW religionists" perfectly describes what we see today from those pushing the AGW agenda today I'll continue to use the term, thank you. Except most of the so-called "climatology" put forth on this forum is directly from the AGW Bible. No thinking required.
I will simply point this out. Where I am today, there is a heavy cloud deck. Our normal temp high for this time of year is around 88F. Today, if we are lucky, we will get to around 71F, and might not... With lows at or around the average for this time of year, meaning in the mid to low 60s, even with the cloud deck, the negative feedback for the day will have created significant cooling over what an "average day" would have. What started out as a year with above average temps is rapidly dissolving, and looking more and more like a year that will be below average tempts for our region. It will be like summer never actually had a chance this year.
The page won't load. Which is probably just as well, since your performance up to now suggests it's likely irrelevant anyway.
Why is it *MY* responsibility to educate you about widely known public knowledge? If you don't know how to find this information then why are you even here discussing the issue from knowledge base that is sadly lacking? You provided a single graph showing a single year! Take a look at this graph for comparing February temperature in NYC vs the global mean: The trend since 1998 is that NYC is trending down. The only exceptions appear to be 2002 and 2012. This is exactly opposite of the global mean which is going UP! My regions are perfectly representative. Or look at these graphs. The Aug 2016-July 2017 map shows large areas where the temperature anomaly is 0 (zero) or negative! The global mean temperature is actually on the downswing since mid-2015! Based on the monthly mean after mid-2016 the global mean is actually going to fall even further. We are actually headed to pre-2013 levels for the mean! *NONE* of this is in accordance with what we continue to hear from the climatologists pushing AGW - they continue to say that Earth is going to become a cinder by the end of the century. Resolution has nothing to do with the number of data points. The number of data points for each location is more than sufficient to describe what is going on at those locations. Resolution has to do with the granularity the climate models use in determining global conditions. The large granularity is why the global warming holes are just now being identified. It is becoming more and more obvious that global warming is far more a regional process than was recognized before. A global mean isn't representative everywhere. It truly *is* that simple. How many climate models do you suppose look at anything besides temperature? What "guess"? Be specific! Less water vapor in the atmosphere because of precipitation means FEWER clouds which, in turn, means more COOLING! When a liquid changes to a gas, heat is removed from the liquid thus cooling it. A basic thermodynamic reality. go here: water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.html " air must be cooled at a constant pressure for it to become fully saturated with water), such as on the outside of a glass of ice water. In fact, the process of evaporation removes heat from the environment, which is why water evaporating from your skin cools you." go here: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914161729.htm "New research from Carnegie's Global Ecology department concludes that evaporated water helps cool Earth as a whole, not just the local area of evaporation, demonstrating that evaporation of water from trees and lakes could have a cooling effect on the entire atmosphere. These findings, published Sept. 14 in Environmental Research Letters, have major implications for land-use decision making." Why is it that I have to keep educating you on the most basic knowledge concerning the environment? Stop just parroting the AGW Bible and do some actual research on the internet. You will be amazed at what you will find out! Attributing the problems in the ME and NA to global warming shows a fundamental lack of knowledge concerning geography, demography, and the local climate in these areas.
I'm just moving away from words like "disappears" in your various posts - which make it sound like there is suddenly nothing to stop heat from leaving. I'm sure you will agree that water vapor isn't an on/off switch. It moderates the rate, along with other factors that also moderate the rate. But, we aren't discussing "AGW religionists" - I hope. So far, you haven't mentioned any names, for example. Everything I've said comes from highly reputed scientific organizations. We COULD talk about absolutists on the various sides, but I'm not so sure that's productive, so I hope we don't. Well, I certainly disagree with that. There is no such "Bible" and those who recognize our changing climate have been posting information from serious science sites.
It is only rational to discount data that includes no source for that data. If you want to cite something, you need to include a link or similar reference that allows finding out who did what and how they did it. Yes - to make a point for which one year was enough. Again, no links. Plus, your chart doesn't show what you claim. Again, you give no source. And, again you are using time periods that are too short to indicate how climate is changing. Thus your conclusions here are totally invalid. False. They do NOT say that. Of course it makes a difference how many datapoints are taken. We're talking about the planet. And, you're hand picking a few data points without showing any interest in statistical sampling. There are models for a good range of factors involving solar output, various levels in the atmosphere for various gasses as well as temperature, surface factors, and gasses and temperatures at various ocean depths. There are models for heat conveyance mechanisms, storms, sea rise, ice of various types. You are just massively wrong on this. Precipitation does not involve heat leaving earth. https://www.aaas.org/news/climate-change-hits-conflict-zones-harder-syria-case-study http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/...ht-caused-by-climate-change.html?mcubz=1&_r=0 https://library.ecc-platform.org/conflicts/syrian-civil-war-role-climate-change
Face it, you simply don't know enough about the issues to discuss them intelligently. The claim of the climatologists is that water vapor *always* returns to a consistent equilibrium value and that it does so over a short period of time. That means it cannot "moderate" anything. The increase in the global temperature anomaly mean is claimed to be caused by water vapor trapping the heat through the process of CO2 forcing the relative humidity to be higher - higher on a temporary basis. Such a claim is idiotic on the face of it! Trapped heat won't stay trapped unless the water vapor (i.e. the relative humidity) in the atmosphere stays high. As the relative humidity drops the "excess" heat will bleed away through the lower level of water vapor! It would be like changing the R-value of the insulation in your walls from R-8 to R-16 and then back to R-8. Any heat you trapped while you had the R-16 insulation would soon bleed away through the R-8 insulation! *YOU* are an AGW religionist. You are here preaching AGW dogma from the AGW Bible. Nothing you say makes any sense from a thermodynamic analysis. You started off by saying that the Earth is not a closed system and now you've moved all the way to the position that trapped heat stays trapped by some mysterious process. It's the same garbage religious dogma I *always* get on here. "The Earth is warming because of man - just because it is!" And the organizations you believe to be reputable have a vested interest in the whole "global warming" scare because it generates research funds for them. Why didn't these "reputable scientific organizations" ever recognize the existence of global warming holes? Why did they have to be discovered by a small university in Iowa and confirmed by another small university in Missouri? Why didn't they recognize the existence of the almost two decade long warming hiatus until it was forced on them by critics? Why don't their models today show the hiatus but continue to show an ever increasing mean temperature? Why did NOAA and NASA try to fool people about 2014 being the hottest year on record when there was almost twice the probability that it was *not* the hottest year on record? Why did NASA/NOAA fudge the ocean temps to *raise* the more accurate temperatures up to the less accurate older temperatures instead of vice versa? Why do the reputable scientific organizations offer a reason as to why the climate models continue to diverge from the satellite and weather balloon data? Why do the reputable scientific organizations continue to say water vapor only lasts in the atmosphere a short period of time when that totally undercuts their claim that it is water vapor causing the trapping of heat? Is that because if they admit there is a higher level of water vapor in the atmosphere long term that it means more clouds which actually *cool* the earth and they can't stand to have that be a consideration! I could go on. But it would be useless. All I can add is that over the past five years I have been collecting my own data and trying to learn about global warming the inconsistencies I have found are legion. Anyone that doesn't recognize this is just being a religious follower of the AGW cult. It isn't a matter of being an absolutist to point out all the inconsistencies that exist with the climatologists and their studies today. It *is* being an absolutist to denigrate critics as being "deniers". That is nothing more than the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well by attacking the messenger in the hopes of discrediting the criticism instead of actually refuting it. *YOU* have been here quoting AGW Bible religious dogma. From the very start of the thread. Again, what you recognize as serious science sites I don't recognize in the same way - I recognize them as having serious conflicts of interest. When I hear crap from these "serious science sites" about heat "hiding in the deep oceans" with no explanation of how it got there or hear about "the hiatus never actually happened" or that "temporary water vapor in the atmosphere can trap heat forever" it simply ruins their credibility for me. There is simply too much independent data out there that is contradictory. The only person I've seen on here that makes any sense is lanoman. He's not afraid to be a heretic either.
You can't type "cooling days" into a google page? You'll get the very same sources *I* did. You can't type "global warming holes" into a google page? You'll get the very same sources *I* did. I am *NOT* your research slave. It's up to you to do your own research and refute the data I have presented! Type in "Nebraska cooling days" into google. The second entry is the state level compilation. The tables are all there and it is easy to copy them into a spreadsheet and create a graph which makes it easier to see the trends! There are all kinds of web sites where you can get all kinds of data for various locations on "cooling days". For much of the data I offer you can "right click" on the graphs, choose the "Inspect" option and actually look up the link to where the graph came from! Again, it's up to *YOU* to educate yourself, it's not up to me. All the data I present is factual, I don't make up anything. I have spent a lot of time researching the issues. To which I pointed out one year isn't sufficient to show what you assert. The link is endemic in the graph itself! I simply cannot believe the number of people that don't know how to look up links by right clicking, doing an "Inspect" option, and then looking at the link! AGAIN, RIGHT CLICK ON THE GRAPH AND INSPECT THE SOURCE TO FIND THE LINK! Current trends are just as important as long term trends. You are using the same deflection we've heard for almost 20 years now! Wait 5/10/20 years and the hiatus will go away! Of course they do! They do so with everything they publish. Think about it. What is the first thing that enters your mind when you see a graph covered in RED! Most people think FIRE, BURNING, EMBERS AND CINDERS! If these graphs were done totally in shades of gray, from white to dark charcoal, they simply wouldn't engender the same feelings of pending doom and a sense of urgency to *do something*! Yet they would convey the very same information! People just wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that the mean is going up because of the Earth turning into an oven with ever higher temperatures burning up everything! Statistical sampling for an entire state for over 40 years is plenty of data points to see what is happening there. Take a look at the Nebraska graph again! You are trying to rationalize away what is right in front of you! And if those models don't match reality then of what use are they? Until 1998 the satellite data and the climate models matched very well. The satellite data was well within the bounds of the various climate model outputs. Since 1998 the outputs of the various climate models have diverged further and further from the satellite data! Here is what the Remote Satellite Systems group has to say about this discrepancy: "Why does this discrepancy exist and what does it mean? One possible explanation is an error in the fundamental physics used by the climate models. In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences. There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world." Three of the four reasons for the discrepancy involve the climate models being incorrect! I never said that it did! I said that evaporation of water, either from the surface of the water or from the surface of the land, COOLS the medium from which it is evaporating. Your lack of knowledge concerning thermodynamics is showing again! How do you think a car air conditioner works? It works by evaporating liquid freon into a gas which sucks heat from the surrounding environment in order to create the gas. https://www.aaas.org/news/climate-change-hits-conflict-zones-harder-syria-case-study Did you actually READ the article? "“No one is arguing that the Syrian civil war is a climate change or water-caused conflict. The conflict in Syria has political, religious, and ethnic roots that go back thousands of years,” Gleick said. “The argument is about influencing factors that contributed to the conflict in Syria.” The author of the study states that the drought has increased evaporation of water from the land but never addresses what happens to this increased water vapor after evaporation! Where does it go? Other climatologists continue to insist that global warming increases the amount of precipitation because of increased water vapor in the atmosphere! It is this kind of inconsistency that drives the critics of the global warming climate models *crazy*! Again, did you actually READ this study before linking to it? "Farmers depend strongly on year-to-year rainfall, as two thirds of the cultivated land in Syria is rain fed, but the remainder relies upon irrigation and groundwater (11). For those farms without access to irrigation canals linked to river tributaries, pumped groundwater supplies over half (60%) of all water used for irrigation purposes, and this groundwater has become increasingly limited as extraction has been greatly overexploited " "Overuse of groundwater has been blamed for the recent drying of the Khabur River in Syria’s northeast" "The reduced supply of groundwater dramatically increased Syria’s vulnerability to drought." The study is making what is known as a non sequitur argument. "The drought is the worst ever because of the lack of groundwater due to climate change." But the lack of groundwater isn't because of the drought! The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise! A classic non sequitur. And this article is in direct contradiction to the other studies which claim the drought was *not* the cause of the civil war. If you can't see all of the contradictions in your references then you just plain aren't looking. It's called willful ignorance coupled with confirmation bias. You believe implicitly in the titles of the articles because they reinforce your pre-conceived notions - the very definition of confirmation bias!
No, you're just making up crazy stories again. Nobody says that. Your link said nothing like it. It's just a story you made up. You have to make everything up, because you're so totally incapable of addressing what anyone actually says. Anyone with a brain understands how that's a totally different thing from the equilibrium level being different. Again, this is basic stuff, and you fail at it utterly. Given your degree of incompetence, you have no business being in a discussion with the grownups. No, I don't remember that. Nobody remembers such a bizarro-reality, except you, being you're the only one residing there. Notice how even the other deniers don't want to jump on your stupid-wagon? Normally, deniers always defend each other's crazy claims, no matter how crazy the other denier is. Yet they won't defend you. That's how inept you are.
If water doesn't return to an equilibrium then why haven't we already had a runaway greenhouse effect Venus style?
Because the variance was measured, and it didn't change. I showed you the paper. Since the variance didn't change, more new record highs than record lows means the mean is rising, and the extreme highs are getting more extreme. You were totally wrong, and the evidence show it. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. It certainly is. Instead of looking at the direct measurement of temperature, as an honest person would, you fuzzified it with "cooling days". The direct data contradicted you, so you went for some fuzzy data to evade that unpleasant fact. Only pseudoscience cultists do that. When you lie about what I say like that, why should I continue speaking with you? Answer: I won't. Nobody will. At the start of your post, you screamed variance must be changing. Now here, you're flipflopping and pretending you said variance wasn't changing. You can't even stay consistent within one post. Nobody can understand what you're babbling about now, and nobody really cares. You're raving like a cultist who understands that his cult is dying. Everyone has a "tell". When you start rage-weeping that someone is a troll, that's your "tell" that you understand how badly you've been spanked by the data. So, notch-carving time for me. My cultist-smacking stick has a lot of notches.
"Return to an equilibrium"? Maybe it's easier to think of it as an average. In any region there will be variations in how much vapor there is, based on local conditions, etc. For example, surface level humidity that we feel may go up and down, hovering around some yearly average. The point is that on a warming planet, the average across the planet is being slowly moved. Unfortunately, moving that average means it is easier for the planet to warm some more. Fortunately, it isn't moving so fast that it can't be slowed. However, it is gradually getting harder to do so.
Yeah, I get that. I was trying to point out that water vapor is locked into a stable equilibrium with the temperature and any perturbation of WV concentration always causes it to return to the original equilibrium level. Yes, WV will amplify the temperature, but only until a new equilibrium is achieved and only in response to something else forcing the temperature higher. If it didn't work this way then any perturbation of WV no matter how minor (perhaps by a single higher than normal evaporation day) would cascade into a runaway greenhouse effect. That's one way we know that WV can't be a forcing mechanism for temperature because if it were than after 1+ billion years of rolling the perturbation dice on Earth we still haven't become Venus. What's different now is that CO2 is increasing. And that is a forcing mechanism for temperature.
If water vapor does return to equilibrium then it doesn't block as much heat - thus returning the system to its long term equilibrium. Again, it's like a house going from R-8 to R-16 and back to R-8. Any heat buildup you got from going to R-16 will leak away as soon as you go back to R-8! Sorry, your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics is showing again! Of course you don't remember that. It's called willful ignorance. ROFL! They don't *have* to jump on my bandwagon! They know what I am saying is true. They also know you will remain willfully ignorant.
It is more complicated than that. WV isn't the only factor. And, the warming caused by WV doesn't overwhelm those other factors. There are a number of feedback loops. You can not look at one and suggest it can not be true, because otherwise earth would be far hotter or far colder (depending on the one factor being examined). Also, equilibrium isn't some single magical point that earth remembers. It just means there is a balance in place. It doesn't mean the point of equilibrium can not change.
