Global warming theory fails again
It is a tenet of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory that our carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of recent global warming.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tuscon Citizen.
#1 Aug 24, 2012
Lies. distortions, and misrepresentations. Don't bother to read the piece.
Here's for the zillionth time, another way of representing the increase in global temperatures due to increasing man-made CO2 emissions:
Then, look at:
for major influences on climate. The global climate change is discussed at:
#2 Aug 24, 2012
Yes, saying that AGW deniers figure out things before climate scientists always eliminates an article as having any credence.
#3 Aug 24, 2012
The thread title sucks.
Brown's paper abstract contradicts with the denier blog. The warming of temperatures has coincided with increases in dewpoints.
#4 Aug 25, 2012
"It is a tenet of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory (CAGW) that our carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of recent global warming."
"Although carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, CAGW theory holds that it is enough to start the warming process which, in turn, evaporates water, and water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas."
The point is that carbon dioxide is a GHG that does not change easily so that a change in the CO2 levels will change the 'thermostat' setting. Water vapor does help (about 1.5 times the warming of the 'permanent GHG'(note:'the warming of the permanent GHG is often referred to as 'forcing' because it 'forces a change') but it is REACTIVE to the forcing and does not in itself make any forcing. This water vapor feedback is commonly the primary factor in the 'climate response'.
"CAGW proponents ignore the fact that more water vapor in the air produces clouds which block the sun (more on that below)"
No. There has been signficant study on cloud formation and the facts are that 1C warmer temperatures increases the ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY (water vapor in the air) by about 6% but has no significant change to the RELATIVE HUMIDITY which is generally driven by the availability of water to evaporate (and the rate of evaporation is determined by relative humidity ratios, not absolute humidity). The coming together of moist air with cooler dryer air condenses the water vapor (as clouds) but does not seem to change the average levels of cloud formation.
And certainly there has been debate on this issue since it is the one factor that COULD constitute a 'negative feedback' on AGW. That said, the EVIDENCE shows that there is no such feedback. Evidence from both past history (paleoclimatology) which shows that CO2 levels and planetary temperatures DO have a solid connection as hypothesized, and from studies of modern climate (i.e. the rebuttal of the 'Infrared Iris' hypothesis).
#5 Aug 25, 2012
"A new paper, Trends in U.S. surface humidity, 1930 – 2010, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, finds just the opposite:“Average long-term trends (1930 – 2010) indicate that temperature has warmed, but little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity.” In other words, the mechanism for CAGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect is not happening according to observational data."
This is misleading (I believe). The flaw is that it is REGIONAL and thus incorporates REGIONAL changes to air flows and climate conditions.
This reference shows that global warming has the expected effect on humidity (relative and absolute) globally.
But if the NA continent is experiencing a 'mega-drought' at the same time that humidity levels are otherwise decreasing, it could easily lead to the false impression that humidity levels are unaffected by AGW since the COMBINATION of the two changes cancel out in that specific limited region.
As usual, the denialist arguments are based on misleading or misreading, not on the facts.
#6 Aug 26, 2012
.. 25-year observational analysis of daily data shows important contributions to extreme events over large regions of North America, including a pronounced signal over northern and inland areas, with an average span of influence extending to several hundred kilometers. Over large areas of the Northeast, there are stations where more than two-thirds of all extreme events are linked to hurricane-related activity. Large-scale vertical velocity, maximum wind speed, and tropical/extratropical character are shown to be important factors in the strength and range of influence. Analysis of dynamical factors, including buoyancy, moisture availability, and lifting, show the largest changes in lifting, with rising motion typical of the deep tropics occurring over inland and northern latitudes.
Add your comments below
|Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08)||Jun 30||Jake||652|
|john goulet bio (Jul '10)||Jun 10||CCM||7|
|Mike Davis | WBNS-10TV, Central Ohio's News Leader (Oct '09)||Jun 3||Marlene Busby||5|
|A strong El Nino may quell debate about a warmi...||Jun '15||IBdaMann||6|
|The flip side of years of no hurricanes: Good l...||May '15||Your Ex||1|
|Weather hailed on social media||May '15||is it HAARP||1|
|Super storm lashes Australian east coast for th...||Apr '15||blog||1|
Find what you want!
Search Meteorology Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC