What Do We Think About Climate Change

I was talking about the one that elects the Democrat congresspeople(3of 4).
They seem to be awakening now. Good for them.

 

Diagram showing monthly variations in global cloud cover for high, middle and low clouds since July 1983. The uppermost panel shows the variation of the total amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. During the period of observations, the amount of low clouds (net cooling effect on global temperature) has been decreasing from about 29 percent in 1986 to about 25 percent in 2007. A secondary low and peak were recorded in 1990 and 1994, respectively. The amount of middle clouds (no clear net effect on global temperature) has been slowly increasing from about 20 percent in 1984 to about 22 percent in 2007. The amount of high clouds (net warming effect on global temperature) decreased slightly until around 1999, and has since then again increased somewhat. The time labels indicate day/month/year. Data source: The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The ISCCP datasets are obtained from passive measurements of IR radiation reflected and emitted by the clouds. Please note that the step-like change in atmospheric water content 1998-1999 may be related to changes in the analysis procedure used for producing the data set, according to information from ISCCP. The cloud cover data, however, should not be affected by this. Last data: June 2008. Last figure update: 14 June 2009.




Credit: Climate4you

 

Conclusion (for today)

So, talking roughly and avoiding the shorter terms variations, we have seen how atmospheric water vapor and low clouds, which account for -let's say- 85% of the greenhouse effect if we accept Gavin statement, tend to decrease while temperatures increase.

As this 85% effect is more than FIVE times the 15% one induced by CO2 alone (rough median of the 9-26 scope, following again Gavin's reasoning), it is evident something does not work at all in the AGW theory, which implies a water vapor feedback to the weak CO2 forcing to boost the increase of temperature.

Now going to sleep. Be good all of you.


P.S. I almost forgot: Any of you can check by himself my NOAA plots here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/

 

so , dumping the co2 that nature accumulated in safe deposits over millions of years in less than 2 hundred years has no affect?

 

Nope. No effect at all.

 

really?

 

Yep. Really.

 

I don't believe you

 

Ask your duck. She knows the truth.

Quack.

 

people of feather lie

and she's a goose

 

Honk!

 

the complete lack of comprehension is astounding guillermo

water vapor is a feed back not a forcing agent
therefor CO2 being the predominant greenhouse gas is driving water vapor
once again your complete lack of comprehension is simply laughable as is your inability to properly represent Gavins comments concerning the issue
you might want to actually learn the basics rather than continue to humiliate yourself with these obvious errors in your postings

the overall effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas all things considered is aprox 10~30% of the total depending on the variations in overlaps and other reactions

your inability to comprehend this as well as your continued posting of random data amounts to a tantrum of some kind in the face of rational debate

do you or dont you have a comprehensive qualitative hypothesis or theory countering the present accepted theory or are you simply prevaricating with data you clearly do not understand well enough to incorporate into an actual theory of your own

oh and I have confirmed my alumni status with one of our more level headed readers its just that I have no intention of revealing any personal information to you, our resident paid oil and gas shill. Besides its way to much fun to watch you freak out over your own errors.

speaking of which

maybe you missed for a third time the qualifications regarding the difficulties regarding accurate humidity readings over the larger time frame.

from chapter 3 IPCC WG1 pg 238

and from section 3.4.2 (p. 271, 272):

or the simple reality of the detailed summery of several qualitative analysis of water vapor content and role in climate science

 

I also notice you seldom have the courage to actually post an entire article, or would that detract from your taking some few points out of context.

 

In a nut shell
all the mindless blithering of the deniers camp is but a leaf in the wind compared to the tall ship called ( a working theory ) that is steering a steady course on a calm sea of science

the random incoherent data points blindly thrown into the conversation simply dont amount to anything even remotely worthy of debate

lacking any real hypothesis utilizing the majority of the available data and resulting in a coherent rational counter theory one can only say
all it really is
is another game of "find the flaw" among the misrepresented data points and misunderstood statements of another angry denier who is clearly frustrated over being found out at every turn

simple reality is
the truth will out Guillermo
the truth will out

entertaining to some degree but all in all
boring what with so often the same flaws being so obvious and easily outed

which in this case was already established a few pages ago and our local denier simply chose to repeat his earlier misrepresentations

atmospheric water vapor has long ago been shown to be on the increase and some few cherry picked bits of data simply are not adequate to fool the readers

nice try though
lots of superfluous data repeated numerous times in an effort to flood the readers with improperly presented half truths and thinly veal'd attempts to challenge a well established working theory

typical tactics
typical vitriol
typically exposed
once again for all to see

thanks for playing "find the flaw" Guillermo
can we at least try and make this next round a bit more challenging

tell you what
why dont you take your time and really think this next one through
my bet is I can "Find the Flaw" in less than an hour from the time of my reading your next
what do you say
care to try again

love
B

PS
I notice you were unable to define the difference between relative humidity and specific humidity
nor were you able to describe why one might remain stable while the other might rise with a change in temp
or a change in pressure for that mater

you might stick to things you actually know about ( beer, bars, dancing girls, cross dressing ) rather than go on about things which you clearly know nothing about
like climate science

just sayin

cheers

 

Have a nice day.