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

originally posted by: melatonin

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!)

What I am saying is that temperature increases have only tracked the CO2 portion of warming. We are up 0.8C which is not concerning. The scary feedback effects of increased water vapor have not materialized.

In fact, we have already created climate scientists worst case scenario of massive water vapor increases through irrigation. And stilll no 2-6'C increase.

Here is from NASA. See step three for CO2 forcing, step 4 for water vapor feedback.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

What I am saying is that temperature increases have only tracked the CO2 portion of warming. We are up 0.8C which is not concerning. The scary feedback effects of increased water vapor have not materialized.

In fact, we have already created climate scientists worst case scenario of massive water vapor increases through irrigation. And stilll no 2-6'C increase.

No, the last comment is wrong. Irrigation would impact local humidity. The earth's temp limits global response. Excess precipitates.

We wouldn't expect the 2-4.5'C (or higher) response yet.

That requires a doubling of CO2 concentration. We started at a relative baseline of 280ppm, which was present for the prior 10,000 years. A doubling would be at 560ppm.

It also is temperature increase at equilibrium. We don't expect it to happen immediately - as the climate system takes time to respond. But we lock ourselves into this range (2-4.5'C) when we hit the doubling.

Give it time :/

The diagram you presented just clarifies what is already outlined. CO2 causes warming, water vapour acts as feedback.

We burn fossil fuels, we cause warming. The question is by exactly how much (at least 2'C, probably 3'C, maybe 4.5'C, small chance of even more...), how quickly (who knows).

Seems we came a long way. Enjoy...

a reply to: melatonin

The water cycle takes 10 days to complete. 60% of land is irrigated, that should cover a significant portion of the Earth.

At any given time, 10x more irrigation vapor is in the atmosphere than CO2. The greenhouse potential of water is 15x stronger than CO2.

So you are looking at a greenhouse effect 150x CO2 but only covering say half of Earth. So, maybe the effect is only 75x CO2.

If we have warmed 0.8C due to increased CO2 without any feedback effects, and we pump trillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere with no effect, at what point do you look back at the climate models and say this isn't working?

Maybe using the feedback equations of electronics didn't translate to water vapor very well?

originally posted by: seasonal
Al Gore's dire clams about an ever increasing temp is not turning out to be true. In fact it is cooler now than when he got his Nobel for being so smart in 2007.

Whilst I doubt Gore knows as much about climate change as I do about open heart surgery, its quite obvious Bastardi - who makes his money by denying global warming and selling "forecasts" to the gullible - knows far less! And is a blatant liar!

2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010, and 2009 have all been warmer than 2007

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

The water cycle takes 10 days to complete. 60% of land is irrigated, that should cover a significant portion of the Earth.

No, doesn't work that way. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapour. Irrigation effects are local.

If we have warmed 0.8C due to increased CO2 without any feedback effects, and we pump trillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere with no effect, at what point do you look back at the climate models and say this isn't working?

Maybe using the feedback equations of electronics didn't translate to water vapor very well?

Hansen's model from 1988 is still tracking temperature pretty well.

The model is 30 years old. It was based on three scenarios of radiative forcing - scenario C is closest to the observed and is tracking temperature pretty damn well.

We have even better models now, of course.

a reply to: seasonal

Google Peru glaciers and realize that some people don't know how to science and face the truth-there is global warming but honestly there will be fluctuations due to volcanic eruptions.

How does a glacier melt when the world is cooling? I'm no Oxford scholar but I'm pretty sure that means things are heating up. Mean aggregate temperatures have risen all across the globe, and I apologize in advance for this rant as it is not directed at you, there are knuckle heads who claim it's a conspiracy for scientists to get more funding...umm hello it's called an effing salary! are cavities a conspiracy to get dentists a higher wage?

Once again, some people don't know how to science. Volcanic eruptions can cause cooling because of the minerals and dust blocks the suns rays from penetrating the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and there is a lesser chance of Sol's rays escaping from the atmosphere.

However gun related crimes is no greater than it was a decade ago but it still makes some to go on a crusade. Truth be told I'm more worried about climate change then gun control as guns won't force the relocation of hundreds of millions of men, women, and children.

Quite a hoax @TOPIC since we just passed an never seen before streak of falling avg heat records.. talking days about global climate does not work.

a reply to: melatonin

If you say the atmosphere cannot accept anymore water vapor, then you disagree with the basic premise of AGW.

Have you ever seen a factory pumping out a massive steam cloud? There's no local rain, that vapor goes up into the sky and is distributed into the water cycle.

atomic bombs per second

Link to the source claim of warming oceans absorbing multiple atomic bombs of heat energy per second, and if you see the ocean warming graph you see there is no kind of pause

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

If you say the atmosphere cannot accept anymore water vapor, then you disagree with the basic premise of AGW.

Have you ever seen a factory pumping out a massive steam cloud? There's no local rain, that vapor goes up into the sky and is distributed into the water cycle.

No - I'm saying that at constant temperature the atmosphere as a whole is only able to hold a certain level of water vapour. Precipitation removes it. A cooling tower pumps it high into atmosphere - of course it rains out elsewhere, lol.

The clausius-clapeyron equation covers this. Essentially relative humidity is constant.

As global temps increase then we will see increases in water vapour. Irrigation will underpin local effects and increased precipitation. In fact, why would it necessarily lead to warming? OK, we may have the emitted water vapour acting locally as GHG - minimal in the grand global scheme. But then we also have phase transitions which would lead to local cooling (evaporation and precipitation).

CO2 doesn't precipitate. It is generally taken up by oceans (acidification) and eventually long-term by rock weathering (very slow).

What does the science say? Lets ignore the effect of localised land moisture effects for simplicity and check ocean...

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content

B. D. Santer a , b , C. Mears c , F. J. Wentz c , K. E. Taylor a , P. J. Gleckler a , T. M. L. Wigley d , T. P. Barnett e , J. S. Boyle a , W. Brüggemann f , N. P. Gillett g , S. A. Klein a , G. A. Meehl d , T. Nozawa h , D. W. Pierce e , P. A. Stott i , W. M. Washington d , and M. F. Wehner j

Abstract

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/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

That is the feedback effect in action.

Unless you want to attribute oceanic moisture effects to land irrigation and cooling towers...

a reply to: seasonal

Coolest summer I have sen for YEARS, where we live! As in, WAY cooler, by 10=20 degrees. Gore is a liar, and a phony.

a reply to: melatonin

Why wouldn't irrigation vapor spread out around the world?

All other evaporation does.

At 60 mph, an average cloud can travel from California to Europe in 10 days before raining.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: seasonal

Coolest summer I have sen for YEARS, where we live! As in, WAY cooler, by 10=20 degrees. Gore is a liar, and a phony.

Dude you know nothing about AGW, climate change, man made glowball warming, or science in general.

It's common knowledge that when you experience cooler local temperatures it has nothing whatsoever to do with global climate change, but when you experience warmer local temperatures it's absolute undeniable proof that the world is going to burn itself to ashes.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

Why wouldn't irrigation vapor spread out around the world?

All other evaporation does.

At 60 mph, an average cloud can travel from California to Europe in 10 days before raining.

lol, yeah, that's exactly how the water cycle and weather works D:

You just ignored most of the answer to push more inanity. If we are talking irrigation, why would it predominately lead to a GHG effect? Why not cooling via evaporation?

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: melatonin

The water cycle takes 10 days to complete. 60% of land is irrigated, that should cover a significant portion of the Earth.

Only about 11% of the Earths land surface (or about 3% of total surface area) is under agriculture of some type - and, obviously, not all of that is irrigated ....

www.fao.org...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: seasonal

Coolest summer I have sen for YEARS, where we live! As in, WAY cooler, by 10=20 degrees. Gore is a liar, and a phony.

I have to challenge your assertion here. 10-20 degrees below normal? I really have a hard time believing that, why isn't it all over the news and blowing up the internet?

I assume you don't live in Greenland, which is apparently experiencing an unusually cool summer, and the US west is in the midst of a record hot summer, so please let us know where you live so we can look up the weather records. (I don't want your address, just the town or metropolitan area is fine).

Misdirection. The real issue is the negative impact mankind is having on the environment. Global warming is but a part of this, what will be the single greatest period of extinction the Earth has suffered. Not to worry though; no mater what we do, the tardigrade will thrive. And they are so cute.

a reply to: melatonin

If we are talking irrigation, why would it predominately lead to a GHG effect? Why not cooling via evaporation?

You would need to compare the amount of initial cooling to GHG heating over the ten day average water cycle for a typical water molecule.

AGW theory says that increased humidity will cause additional warming. AGW humidity obeys the same water cycle, including evaporation. Irrigation is estimated to add 5% to global average humidity, so we should be able to see the same effects without waiting for AGW.

I'm not sure why you keep saying the atmosphere cannot accept any more water vapor, 100% humidity is associated with constant rain. Maybe you are thinking of something else, please post a reference next time.

Under the scenario of increased CO2 causing warming, causing increased humidity, one would expect an even increase of water vapor globally that would aggregate into the existing weather patterns.

Instead, we see increased humidity correlated closely to land masses, and contributing to the regional weather patterns. It seems that irrigation is a stronger explanation than general warming.

originally posted by: tabularosa
Misdirection. The real issue is the negative impact mankind is having on the environment. Global warming is but a part of this, what will be the single greatest period of extinction the Earth has suffered. Not to worry though; no mater what we do, the tardigrade will thrive. And they are so cute.

That's somewhat true but also not only defeatist but plainly ignoring the fact that on the opposite side will be people who are trying to twist whatever they choose to call it next because you know full well they'll do it and if not then you haven't been around long enough.

NASA disagrees. Take a look at their graph.