Global Warming Debate

[Banshi]

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

95%

[erps]

Thanks for that link Banshi,

Other information I've read indicate water vapor (clouds) are the major contributor to warming/cooling and a scientist out of northern Europe recently wrote that the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere have a significant impact on cloud cover.

Having said all that, if I were a global warming alarmist, I would argue that the small contributions made by human activity have triggered larger influences with water vapor. I'm going to read your link more thoroughly later tonight to see if they address that at all.

[denby]

Being in the north I pray for cloudy nights, it acts like a blanket and we don't get as cold over night.

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by Banshi

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Thanks for the link, pretty-eye opening.

I did some followup research and found Water vapour: feedback or forcing?. To briefly summarize:

1. Water vapor accounts for the largest portion of the greenhouse effect (approx. 60% - 70% of total warming), and more if you include clouds (80% - 90%).

2. Atmospheric humidity adapts quickly to changes in air temperature, tending to remain at a constant relative humidity. In other words, if humans boil lots of water one day, it would be really humid, but after a few days the humidity would return to normal. On the other hand, if humans burn lots of oil, the CO2 produced will remain in the atmosphere for years.

3. Therefore, changes in water vapor caused by external events ("forcings") don't play a long-term role in changes in the greenhouse effect. Rather, as other forcings force the temperature to increase, the atmosphere responds by remaining at a constant relative humidity. In other words, water vapor plays a feedback role in the greenhouse effect.

4. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for years, so its effect, accumulated over time, is more important than water vapor's effect; CO2 is a forcing.

My only problem with this is that the author is ignoring the effect part of "feedback effect". If warmer temperatures trigger increases in absolute humidity, and increases in absolute humidity trigger warmer temperatures (both of which the author admits), then doesn't this create a cycle in which temperatures will continually increase?

[camaraderie]

....and even if you believe the CO2 alarmists Adam...the FORCING nature of CO2 claimed diminishes the more it increase...i.e more forcing influence from 200>>>300 ppm than from 400>>>500 ppm. But yes...temps should be getting warmer as ppm increase if the theory is correct. Big problem: nearly 10 years with no warming while CO2 continues to increase. NOW they are claiming that they never said the increases would be constant. How convenient.

[camaraderie]

Regular readers of this thread will know how critical I have been with the NASA/GISS surface temp readings AND with the continuous manipulation of that data. Just ran across the following graph...actually it is TWO graphs...one from GISS in 1999 and one in 2008 showing the changes in average surface temperatures and the upward "tilt" of the average "proving" global warming. Of course the second graph has a few more years at the end of it tacked on...but look what has happened to the AVERAGE temps on the rest of the graph...they've changed! "Adjustments" have been made. How convenient that the adjustments enhance the tilt!! Old temps lowered and new ones raised!

[SailKing1]

Interesting graph Cam, even with out the "ajustments" at the swing in temps over the time frame measured.

It would be interesting to see a graph of temps that shows the change from month to month. I remember growing up that it used to get colder earlier (Sept./Oct.) in the year and warmer sooner (Mar./apr.) compared to current years. It seems the temp change has shifted to later in the year. You tend to notice that as a kid living on the beach.

Then compare to your posted graph. I believe climate change is a natural swing. But for those of you that would like to buy some carbon offsets let me know.

[AdamLein]

Cam, the jury is still out for me as to whether warming is occurring. As you are pointing out, I've seen a variety of evidence pointing both directions. My personal, anecdotal experience says that it is indeed increasing, but even if that's true, I recognize that there are huge swings in the annual mean temperature.

What I'd be interested in seeing is just how huge those swings are, relative to the overall increase over the past hundred years. If there's a two-degree swing every couple of years, then a two-degree increase over a hundred years is not interesting either. In statistical terms, given the assumption that there is no warming going on, what's the probability of observing temperatures as extreme as we're seeing? My guess is: pretty high.

Does anybody have a link to numerical temperature data over the past hundred years or so?

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by AdamLein

Does anybody have a link to numerical temperature data over the past hundred years or so?

I don't have that at my finger tips but will say the past 100 years data by itself is worthless.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

Gentlemen,

The CO2 analysis's performed over the past 6 years have been able to discern the types of CO2. In other words, CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a different signature when put under a particular microscope (located in Colorado) as compared to naturally occurring CO2. In other words, as of 6 years ago, the scientific community can now quantify is concentration and mass, the mass of CO2 deposited as result of anthropogenic activity.

I'm still waiting on this guy's details on that super-de-duper Colorado microscope. You don't think he'd just drop the old anthropogenic word on us and then leave, figuring we'd never know it's meaning? Or perhaps he thought he'd made a conclusive and irrefutable argument, one that brooks no dissent?

Maybe it was my signature that put him off. (g)