Global temperatures COOLER now than when Gore won Nobel Prize in 2007

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

New perspective, thank you.

This climate change business is very complicated. We have yet to even understand the title let alone the theory.

Your OP is false:

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2016 YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
1 2016 0.94 1.69
2 2015 0.90 1.62
3 2014 0.74 1.33
4 2010 0.70 1.26
5 2013 0.67 1.21
6 2005 0.66 1.19
7 2009 0.64 1.15
8 1998 0.63 1.13
9 2012 0.62 1.12
10 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
10 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
10 (tie) 2007 0.61 1

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Keep in mind that humans vaporize trillions of tons of water into the atmosphere every year. Based on a 10 day water cycle, that is equivalent to at least 10 times human CO2 contribution.

Yeah, water vapour is a major GHG. The major GHG.

However, this also means the wavelengths through which water vapour provides radiative forcing are especially saturated.

CO2 acts at particular wavelengths that water vapour doesn't. The 4-5um range being most relevant (also others).

As seasonal mentions, it is complicated. Indeed, we have a whole area of science dedicated to understanding this complex area - climate science.

a reply to: jrod

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

ln the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

science.house.gov...

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Keep in mind that humans vaporize trillions of tons of water into the atmosphere every year. Based on a 10 day water cycle, that is equivalent to at least 10 times human CO2 contribution.

Yeah, water vapour is a major GHG. The major GHG.

However, this also means the wavelengths through which water vapour provides radiative forcing are especially saturated.

CO2 acts at particular wavelengths that water vapour doesn't. The 4-5um range being most relevant (also others).

As seasonal mentions, it is complicated. Indeed, we have a whole area of science dedicated to understanding this complex area - climate science.

H2O bands are twice as wide, hence double the specific heat coefficient. But there's no such thing as saturated. Otherwise CO2 would also be saturated.

See Venus for an extreme example of unlimited saturation.

A simple experiment, point an IR meter straight up (1 atmosphere thickness). Then compare to the reading at 45 degrees (roughly 2 atmosphere thicknesses). You'll see how little forcing comes from doubling H2O, CO2 and other gasses.

We already leveled off for irrigation forcing since the late 90's. Doubling CO2 again will have a negligible effect. This is not disputed. The fear is from a runaway feedback effect of more water vapor - higher temperature - more water vapor - etc. etc.

This feedback effect is impossible, as it would have already happened on numerous occasions.

a reply to: seasonal
Fact check says FALSE!

What I posted was released recently,(2017), what you posted dates back to 2015 and is has no scientific basis.

The Repubikan party is full of fossil fuel shills, including Trump. They have gutted the EPA, censored talk of climate change especially AGW. This is bigger than worrying about CO2 levels. Clean water and clean air are much more vital in the short term.

Top Republicans on the House science committee claim a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist “confirmed” that his NOAA colleagues “manipulated” climate data for a 2015 study. But that scientist denies that he accused NOAA of manipulating data.

Let's fact check what you posted:

No Data Manipulation at NOAA



You are throwing a red herring.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Wator vapor can act as a heat engine. A cyclone or hurricane can be over simplified and described as a heat engine.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
H2O bands are twice as wide, hence double the specific heat coefficient. But there's no such thing as saturated. Otherwise CO2 would also be saturated.

What? Why would CO2 be saturated? Water vapour is up to 4-5% of the earth's atmosphere. CO2 is 0.04%

Heat coefficient is about heat transfer related to convection.

See Venus for an extreme example of unlimited saturation.

Yeah, it's very very hot. That's due to the enormous CO2-induced GHG effect.

A simple experiment, point an IR meter straight up (1 atmosphere thickness). Then compare to the reading at 45 degrees (roughly 2 atmosphere thicknesses). You'll see how little forcing comes from doubling H2O, CO2 and other gasses.

lol

We already leveled off for irrigation forcing since the late 90's. Doubling CO2 again will have a negligible effect. This is not disputed. The fear is from a runaway feedback effect of more water vapor - higher temperature - more water vapor - etc. etc.

yes it is, lol. Even climate 'sceptics' (like Christy & Spencer) don't argue for a negligible effect of CO2. They argue for lower forcing, but not negligible.

I'm sure people will be crying "omg fake data!" while their houses are being flooded under water, weather is tearing apart the world, species are lost forever, and 10s and then hundreds of thousands of people are dying due to extreme weather conditions. Because heck.. wouldn't want to dare stop the pumping of massive amounts of pollution into the sky from factories, from coal, from cars. We wouldn't want to inconvenience ourselves after all.

Even when the mass majority of climate scientists are now saying humans at least have some stake in climate change, people would rather just ignore it. What if not -really- 97%? Who cares. Even if 70%.. even if 60% of climate scientists felt humans were contributing, it is massive issue that needs immediate attention. That people will continue to ignore, until it's impossible to ignore any longer. And at that point, it will probably be too late.

But.. no. The fact that temperatures spiked and continue to spike at the start of the industrial revolution, until now.. people will blow off to "it's just the normal warming the planet goes through every few hundred thousand years." Because people are stupid.. or purposely ignorant. Not sure which.

Folks. Think about that water idea some of you are pushing.

You are quite right that water vapor is a stronger GHG than CO2 - that is an interesting factoid - but it is totally irrelevant to whatever it is you are trying to push.

Why do I say it is irrelevant? Because the atmosphere can only hold so much water before it starts coming back out of the atmosphere. In scientific terms it is called precipitation, we normally call it rain or snow or something like that. Now you can add more water to the atmosphere by heating it up (warm air holds more water than cold air). But notice that the reverse is not true: you cannot heat it up by adding more water. Furthermore, since the atmospheric H2O already fully blocks off the wavelengths it blocks off, adding more water doesn't increase the green house effect for those wavelengths.

On the other hand, the atmosphere has no such mechanism to control the amount of CO2; we don't have 'dry ice storms' on planet Earth. The only way the Earth "has come up" with to get rid of excess CO2 is to sequester it in living things and have them bury it in the ground. Its taken the planet 3.5 billion years to make this paradise planet in this way.

If you really want to talk about some green house gas that is worse that CO2, you would be better off talking about methane. There are folks who suggest we are raising too many cattle and that they are producing far too much methane. But if you want to talk methane, you need to talk about the Siberian Tundra that is starting to thaw out. That is a tipping point folks.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

H2O bands are twice as wide, hence double the specific heat coefficient. But there's no such thing as saturated.

There certainly is for H20.

There is a sure way to detect when a 'piece of atmosphere' becomes saturated with H2O : it tends to rain.

Temperature and pressure determine the saturation point, so different 'pieces of atmosphere' will rain with different amounts of H2O in solution, but when it hits saturation point, rain will soon follow.

I'm sure you have seen clouds before. Clouds are 'pieces of atmosphere' which are at or very close to saturation point.

anyone else find it simultaneously kinda hilarious and terrifying that this thread broke down for a whole couple of pages there because OP doesn't get the difference between laws and theories and wanted to go on a little evolution denial tangent, but we're expected to take this whole unpalatable mess straightfaced because some dude may have made some money off a documentary

originally posted by: melatonin

Yeah, water vapour is a major GHG. The major GHG.

However, this also means the wavelengths through which water vapour provides radiative forcing are especially saturated.

CO2 is only responsible for an expected 1.2C warming when it has doubled. We are only 40% of the way there.

The major portion of AGW comes from theorized increased water vapor. So, how can you say the water IR band is saturated when scientists expect it to greatly contribute to AWG?

Unless it is raining all the time, there is room for more water vapor. Either the climate models show increased water vapor causes temperature increases, or the models are stuck at 1.2C.

And if a slight increase in temperature can cause dangerous water vapor increases, then human contributions at a much higher level should be causing much bigger problem.

Personally, I agree that the climate models are overly exaggerated, and increased water vapor will only cause clouds to form faster and block solar radiation. Therefore we have nothing to fear from a negligible CO2 warming.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
CO2 is only responsible for an expected 1.2C warming when it has doubled. We are only 40% of the way there.

No, the estimate is 2-4'C with an average of ~3'C.

Water vapour is in significantly greater concentrations, it is also the strongest GHG. As the GHG effect is logarithmic it reduces as it increases in the atmosphere. Due to its absorption spectrum it leaves 'holes' where radiation can escape.

CO2 gradually fills these holes by absorbing in many of those areas (4-5um and 12-15um). While it is in lower concentrations and is a weaker GHG, it still has a significant effect by increasing opacity of the radiative 'windows' through which radiation escapes the atmosphere.

Water vapour will provide feedback. So it is not fully saturated, true. That threshold is unlikely to ever be reached on the earth due to a number of reasons. The atmosphere can only hold a certain level of H2O at a stable temp - as temp increases the water vapour based GH effect will increase (feedback).

But even with a fully saturated water vapour based GH effect and therefore no feedback, CO2 would still increase atmospheric opacity due to its particular spectral characteristics. This is the point you're missing. If CO2 absorbed in the same regions as WV, we wouldn't have a major problem as WV already handles those wavelengths of IR radiation.

Physics.

a reply to: melatonin

I realize water covers like 30 IR bands and CO2 covers like two and they are different wavelengths. I never implied anything against that.

1.2C is the estimate for CO2 doubling.

2-4C is from CO2 + increased water vapor. A slight warming is not required for the air to hold this water, although it technically would increase the total slightly.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov... ature_Part2_ver6.pdf

www.forbes.com... yer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/2/#7996c229767d

But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.

Why would I care what a business magazine has to say?

You shouldn't either.

Review abstract

Nature Geoscience 1, 735 - 743 (2008)
Published online: 26 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo337

Subject Category: Climate science
The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes

Reto Knutti1 & Gabriele C. Hegerl2

Abstract

The Earth's climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface warming to, for example, 2 °C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations needs to be set. Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values. The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range. However, in the process, fascinating new insights into the climate system and into policy aspects regarding mitigation have been gained. The well-constrained lower limit of climate sensitivity and the transient rate of warming already provide useful information for policy makers. But the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify.

So a review of relevant literature in 2008 showed 2-4.5'C average 3'C.

As it notes, the area of contention in climate science is not at the 2'C limit - that's well-established. The uncertainty is at the top limit - the 4.5'C end. That is not something to celebrate.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

I realize water covers like 30 IR bands and CO2 covers like two and they are different wavelengths. I never implied anything against that.

1.2C is the estimate for CO2 doubling.

Cool. So if water vapour were fully saturated then it would be down somewhere at 1.2'C.

As you noted it isn't, therefore we have feedback...

The very kindest assessment is we have a minimum of 2'C.

The harshest assessment is we have around 4-4.5'C and maybe even higher (seen studies up at 6'C!)

Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based on warnings of future events — the same future events that have not happened.

Yes!

People!

Gore made hundreds of millions of dollars off of telling morons the planet was out ta git 'em.

Even used that money to buy APPLE which makes their crap with slave labor in one of the worlds largest polluters CHINA!

Then used some of the money for his tv channel he then turn around and sold off to that evil fossil fuel opec nation .

Ova 'der in da middle east.

True story.

a reply to: neo96

Truth bomb deployed and target neutralized.