What Do We Think About Climate Change

more piece meal data indicative of cherry picking G, or were you planing of bringing all these incredibly small pieces of the total data available into some far flung hypothesis
oh wait
your not hear to actually develop any ideas or present a coherent counter theory based on all available data
your hear to spread doubt about the working theory that 97% of climate scientists agree with

sorry my bad

now
is looking at one study that "may" show less water vapor rather than considering an average of "all" studies concerning the issue really sound science? Or would it be more accurate to consider all the available data.

specially considering the difficulties that have been experienced with erroneous data from the learning curve of taking these kinds of measurements
or did you actually read my previous

oh wait again
isn't that called Cherry Picking

hmmmmmmm
please go on

 

Humlum has saved me the plotting of relative humidity all the way up from surface to 300 mb.
Rough tendency line is mine.

Figure:
Relative atmospheric humidity (%) from surface to 300 mb (about 9 km altitude) since January 1948. The thin blue line shows monthly values. The thick blue line shows the running 37 month average (about 3 years). The relative humidity have been decreasing slightly over the time period considered. Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Last month shown: July 2010. Last diagram update: 24 August 2010.

 

why dont I repost that tid bit so the readers can see exactly what I mean

looks like your at it again G

did anyone else notice the range of error line you could drive a truck through in that last
very enlightening

look I'd love to stay and play more "find the flaw" but some of us actually have a life and I'm late for a barbecue
besides
your really not fooling anyone G
there is absolutely no cohesive argument to be found in the data you present and the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift is still the best working theory we have
its also making excellent predictions as has been shown in numerous posts previous
you dont even have a hypothesis let alone a working theory so whats your point
put up or shut up

oh well
I'll look forward to our game when I return

cheers
B

 

Now the mean temperatures (HadCRUT3) for both the 1983 - 2008 period (to match the ISCCP record) and 1948-2010 (to match NOAA record)

 

Cloud amount 1983 - 2008 as per ISCCP

 

So you admit human effect on CO2 is insignificant.

If you want to eliminate people, start with the ones who want to eliminate people first so the rest of us can be left in peace.

 

I 'admitted' no such thing. I simply pointed out that eliminating human contributions wouldn't lead to a deficiency of CO2. Obviously, if we weren't here it would remain at normal levels.

That has nothing to do with whether we're capable of raising the amount of CO2 enough to have an effect on the environment. I don't think you're stupid enough to really believe it does. You're deliberately tossing up bogus arguments, for your amusement and/or our confusion.

 

we can begin with the republican party

 

Last, but not least, the Mauna Loa CO2 record (beginning 1958)

 

Before going any further, this interesting statement from Gavin, in one of the late own posts (#10115) by our scatterbrained Weasel

"The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively. The remainders and uncertainties are associated with the overlaps which could be attributed in various ways that I’m not going to bother with here. Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect.
.................
The factor of ~2 greater importance for water vapour compared to CO2..." (Note: IPCC used a figure of 2.2)

(bolded is mine)


Originally Posted by Boston:
Post 1714:
"water vapor is not a more efficient greenhouse gas than co2
 any day any way you slice it..."


Im just a scientist

credentials:
http://www.maxtanks.com
http://www.denverwoodandmill.com

 

Humans are part of nature, being from here. Therefore CO2 is at normal, although varying, levels.

 

yes we are and if we continue the way we're going nature will balance the books and not in our favor

 

Mauna Loa won't count. It is in a Democrat state. They never do anything wrong to hear them talk. They'd blame Pele on republicans if they could.

 

Would you be talking about the Hawaii that's had a Republican governor since 2002??

 

there is 2 Hawaii's?