Global warming causes ship to be stranded
- Thread starter Kevdon22
- Start date
Water vapor's role in global warming isn't something the scientific community hasn't been aware of and this pretty much explains the role "water vapor" plays in global warming.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/enviro...arming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-play
I've thought all models considered to some degree
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130930161525.htm
That said, I think the whole modeling thing has a long way to go in terms of being an accurate prediction
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130930161525.htm
That said, I think the whole modeling thing has a long way to go in terms of being an accurate prediction
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- RO Number
- 30972
- Messages
- 2,127
Until recently, most models never addressed water vapor. Primarily because it contradicts the effect that CO2 has on the overall climate.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...te-why-carbon-dioxide-is-a-very-minor-player/
Bottom line is that the earth has been going through climate changes for millions of years. Both warming and cooling trends. Periods of extreme heat and ice ages. From tropical Greenland to a frozen over Mexico. By all accounts, the last 150 years have actually been stable compared to the last million years or even 20 million. Climatologists (those that make a living by having some doom and gloom to talk about), would have you believe that we are on a path to self destruction.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...te-why-carbon-dioxide-is-a-very-minor-player/
Bottom line is that the earth has been going through climate changes for millions of years. Both warming and cooling trends. Periods of extreme heat and ice ages. From tropical Greenland to a frozen over Mexico. By all accounts, the last 150 years have actually been stable compared to the last million years or even 20 million. Climatologists (those that make a living by having some doom and gloom to talk about), would have you believe that we are on a path to self destruction.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- RO Number
- 385
- Messages
- 2,884
Rtribble, your cite says this. That Co2 is now .04 percent up from .028. It also says that because of that the earth has warmed .7 C. Then it says that water vapor is 10 times more prevalent. .4 percent (low but we will go with it) Then it says half of the warming is due to Co2 (despite being 10 times LESS) AND in the face of these known physical properties of the two gasses.
Water:Latent Heat of Fusion kj/kg = 334. Latent Heat of Vaporization kj/kg = 2260
Co2: Latent Heat of Fusion kj/kg = 184. Latent Heat of Vaporization kj/kg = 574.
The it says without water vapor the world would be 30 degrees C colder. Now you cannot match those two scalar opposites (.7 vs 30) based upon the known physical properties of the gasses.
Now you may not have a low tolerance for BS, but I do. Your article is BS IF you consider the known properties of the gasses they are considering.
Equally so, please rtribble and MarcelR tell me what became of these other doomsday scenarios that were so urgent they were addressed by the UN.
Rachel Carson DDT: Yep it was so bad, we had to stop using it to control mosquitoes. Now what has happened? More birds are dying of West Nile than were ever harmed by DDT. The 500 million homo sapiens that died of malaria since its ban is statistically insignificant of course. By the way, we here in North America eliminated malaria just in the nick of time before banning it, you African and your economies have to suck it up. (who are the real racists?)
Paul Ehrlich "The Population Bomb". Yes, we had to address that too, except the world supplied more food than Ehrlich could ever had imagined. Ooops, wrong again.
Sorry MarcelR and Rtribble, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a third time? Not going to happen. You however keep falling for the same BS. Which makes you what? Useful innocents in planned chaos.
As I've said before, believe what you want. I don't pretend to know all the reasoning that the scientific community uses to derive at their conclusions over global warming but do tend to believe them as a whole and as a whole the scientific community is saying that the current global warming is to a great extent man made.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-global-warming-a-myth/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-global-warming-a-myth/
The reason that the computer models have failed miserably to predict the earth's temperature is that they don't model the water vapor accurately. As such the models all incorporate a significant positive feedback factor that magnifies the theoretical impact of CO2 causing temperature increases. This fudge factor is called feedback or sensitivity without which CO2 would theoretically only modestly increase temperatures. Keep in mind that the effect of increasing CO2 is only a theory which remains to be proven. The current 15+ YEAR lull in warming increases doubt about that theory and the feedback.
The feedback factor is probably one of the most debated factor in the global warming community. Many scientists have issued peer reviewed papers which show that the feedback is negative not positive, which reduces the theoretical impact of CO2. Dr. Spencer is one of the foremost scientists issuing papers, see below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
This issue is discussed in the latest UN IPCC draft which recently significantly lowered the predicted temperature
increase; i.e. the sensitivity to increased CO2 was reduced.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/
"The graphs reproduced in Christopher Monckton’s WUWT essay show that the final WG1 report has dropped the 2016-35 range to 0.3-0.7°C, while the models projected this at 0.4-1.0°C. At mid-points, then, the discount applied at Stockholm was approximately 33%."
The feedback or sensitivity remains the least agreed to factor in the climate community.
The old computer models have been shown to be useless when compared to actual temperature data.
The management portion of the UN report is a political document and is inconsistent with the scientific sections.
The feedback factor is probably one of the most debated factor in the global warming community. Many scientists have issued peer reviewed papers which show that the feedback is negative not positive, which reduces the theoretical impact of CO2. Dr. Spencer is one of the foremost scientists issuing papers, see below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
This issue is discussed in the latest UN IPCC draft which recently significantly lowered the predicted temperature
increase; i.e. the sensitivity to increased CO2 was reduced.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/
"The graphs reproduced in Christopher Monckton’s WUWT essay show that the final WG1 report has dropped the 2016-35 range to 0.3-0.7°C, while the models projected this at 0.4-1.0°C. At mid-points, then, the discount applied at Stockholm was approximately 33%."
The feedback or sensitivity remains the least agreed to factor in the climate community.
The old computer models have been shown to be useless when compared to actual temperature data.
The management portion of the UN report is a political document and is inconsistent with the scientific sections.
Another reference on feedback
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/spencer-on-water-vapor-feedback/
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- RO Number
- 385
- Messages
- 2,884
Does it not strike you odd that when the greenies demanded catalytic converters on automobiles, we were told cars would be reduced to producing just two gasses and that would be sooooo wonderful. What were those gasses. Ohhhh...they just happened to be Co2 and water vapor. What a coincidence! Its amazing!
rtribble, I want to sell you something really, really expensive, because you are so easily hooked, and not just once, but over, and over again.
rTribble: you are getting clost to understanding
It is indeed all faith not proven fact. Those scientists are divining the entrains of 70 years or so of recent data that they do have and claiming that it is somehow different from millions of years of data that they don't have.
Next they make the leap to claim that since their new data correlates with human activity that must be the cause.
It is indeed all faith not proven fact. Those scientists are divining the entrains of 70 years or so of recent data that they do have and claiming that it is somehow different from millions of years of data that they don't have.
Next they make the leap to claim that since their new data correlates with human activity that must be the cause.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- RO Number
- 385
- Messages
- 2,884
It is indeed faith and do you not find it amusing that MarcelR's musing on people of faith because some don't believe in evolution, while demanding that we change our lives, so that the earth's climate not evolve based upon the faith that man is causing the change. These enviro types worship at a deadly altar they don't even realize exists and worse, they don't even know humanity's well being is on the sacrifice list. (See DDT and Population Bomb for previous sacrifices)
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- RO Number
- 30972
- Messages
- 2,127
Does anyone remember when Pittsburgh and Detroit had jobs and an actual economy?
While you preach to us that man is destroying the earth Tom, I have to ask. Do you drive a car? Heat your home? Cool it in the summer? Own anything other than a row boat? Use a cell phone, television, DVD player, cable TV. Purchase anything with plastic in it? Hope not. Unless you are living off the grid like grisley adams back in the woods some where you are all talk and no game with the humans are the destroyer of the earth bit.
And just so you know, 99.9% of the climatologists do not agree that man is destroying the planet. I am sure that you read that in your Oweblamer file somewhere but it is, like most everything else from the liberal media, nothing more than a lie. In fact, I would be willing to put a shiny silver dollar down that says not even 1/2 of them can agree on any aspect of climate change, period. Maybe you could line up some names of all those "oil scientists" on the payroll. I would love to read some of their research papers.
But if it gives you a warm fuzzy (or any other liberal propagandist here) to try and control what other countries do or do not with regards to pollution, climate change, or any other of the "Problems with Man", feel free to donate all of "YOUR OWN" money to that cause and move to that country you wish to make stop polluting the oceans or cutting down the rain forest. Then report back to us how that worked out for you.
Until then, keep your hands out of my pockets in order to make yourself feel good.
Like I said back on page one, if you show them data that says over the last 20 million years nothing is much different than what has happened the previous 20 million they will argue the last 150 years. If you use their own data against them for the last 150 years they will argue you have to look at the 20 million years. All the while they will take more and more money from you to make the argument either way. Really no better than a TV evangelist.
While you preach to us that man is destroying the earth Tom, I have to ask. Do you drive a car? Heat your home? Cool it in the summer? Own anything other than a row boat? Use a cell phone, television, DVD player, cable TV. Purchase anything with plastic in it? Hope not. Unless you are living off the grid like grisley adams back in the woods some where you are all talk and no game with the humans are the destroyer of the earth bit.
And just so you know, 99.9% of the climatologists do not agree that man is destroying the planet. I am sure that you read that in your Oweblamer file somewhere but it is, like most everything else from the liberal media, nothing more than a lie. In fact, I would be willing to put a shiny silver dollar down that says not even 1/2 of them can agree on any aspect of climate change, period. Maybe you could line up some names of all those "oil scientists" on the payroll. I would love to read some of their research papers.
But if it gives you a warm fuzzy (or any other liberal propagandist here) to try and control what other countries do or do not with regards to pollution, climate change, or any other of the "Problems with Man", feel free to donate all of "YOUR OWN" money to that cause and move to that country you wish to make stop polluting the oceans or cutting down the rain forest. Then report back to us how that worked out for you.
Until then, keep your hands out of my pockets in order to make yourself feel good.
Like I said back on page one, if you show them data that says over the last 20 million years nothing is much different than what has happened the previous 20 million they will argue the last 150 years. If you use their own data against them for the last 150 years they will argue you have to look at the 20 million years. All the while they will take more and more money from you to make the argument either way. Really no better than a TV evangelist.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- RO Number
- 30972
- Messages
- 2,127
Nice Tom (gonzoF1). Delete your post after someone calls you out for the BS you spewed.
I suggest that those who still blindly believe in catastrophic manmade global warming take a look at this graph which shows how past IPCC reports have significantly exaggerated global warming. The latest IPCC AR 5 (scientific) report has significantly lowered predictions based on actual data. They are puzzled that warming has halted for circa 15 years and struggle to explain. Why does the Administration claim that warming is accelerating?
Keep in mind that this is based UN IPPC AR5 data, ignored in the USA today and other MSM propaganda.
The IPCC is slowly walking down their past exaggerations, while clinging to slight warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image022.jpg
Keep in mind that this is based UN IPPC AR5 data, ignored in the USA today and other MSM propaganda.
The IPCC is slowly walking down their past exaggerations, while clinging to slight warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image022.jpg
Meanwhile while the UN IPCC (scientific report)is tempering it's claims, the administration's scientific adviser has stepped up and doubled down, claiming that the recent brutal cold weather in the USA is due to global warming (ignoring the fact that it has halted for circa 15 years). No wonder the President is confused on the facts? Remember Holder's past predictions decades ago include global cooling, and need for forced sterilization, and other failed predictions.
Check this out!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...ex-climate-change-blame-business/#more-100802
Check this out!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...ex-climate-change-blame-business/#more-100802