New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative

Oops. There is a feedback the AGW cult was looking forward too.


Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, "All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?"




http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-mad...

What  want to know is why isn't this front page news.

And shown on prime time TV.

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:


Muso there has been NO warming since 1998 when we had the El Nino, temperatures after 1998 have not surpassed the 1998 value.

Unequivocal warming??????????......where???????...in their compuetr models...LOL

No themes or variations.....just facts!

Quote:


Now are you playing with words here????

The IPCC computer simulated models say that as more manmade CO2 gathers at the equator so then this produces more and more water vapor to cause their ficticious runaway greenhouse effect.

But ofcourse emprical data cannot find their hot spot, their accumulated manmade CO2 or any build up of water vapor.

Quote:


Thats why we're not going to see any warming for the next couple of decades.

Which means that we have been taxed on the air we breath for nothing, cause the IPCC is dead wrong.

Ofcourse in the mean time they would have created a $2 trillion dollar market.

Now they will probably say that even though the IPCC have got it wrong the world's econmy rests on the trading of carbon credits therefore we have to keep it.

Hang those greenies..............

muso wrote on Jul 25^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:



What's a short period?

What's a suitably long period?

Who determines these periods?

Is it subjective?

Please explain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:43am:


The main short term periodicity is related to solar cycles, which have a period of approximately 11 years. (plus of course the Southern Oscillation index)  It's pretty obvious that if you focus on a 10 year period, or even a 15 year period, you're going to see these short term trends relating to these cycles.

What does that tell you in terms of long term trends? Obviously it's not very useful. It makes more sense to look at the overall changes over a much longer period.  Typically the standard averaging period is 30 years. Climate by definition is concerned with long term trends.   

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:10am:

No.  My tabloid source actually referred to published science:

The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-700 m layer increased by 16.7x1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18ºC. The world ocean accounts for approximately 90% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml

His tabloid source was a silly opinion piece.

Do you understand the difference?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:50am:


I do, do you know how many 10's of thousands of years it will take for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to affect surface temperatures and induce any statistically significant anythingness??

There is absolutely no sane reason to be concerned. Time to put the boffins back in their boxes till they can come up with a cure for cancer or something that will actually bring benefit to mankind.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 11:11am:



An arbitrary number.  Nothing more.

To consider 30 years "long term", in this context, is incredibly naive.

The arrogance of humans is astounding at times.

Our concept of "long term" is based on our own human experiences. Incredibly narrow-minded and naive.

Future generations will look back at the AGW cult and laugh at them the same way we laugh at flat-earthers now.

Such is life.

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:52am:


Yes - I do know exactly  how many 10's of thousands of years it will take for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to induce any statistically significant anythingness.

And you were not so pig-ignorant and read my previous post - you may have been able to work out the answer too.

It will take exactly ZERO 10's of thousands of years  for ocean heat increase (naturally occurring or otherwise) to induce any statistically significant anythingness.

This is because very significant effects of the ocean warming are already being observed.

As I quoted in my last post:
The thermosteric component of sea level trend is 0.54 mm yr-1 for the 0-2000 m layer and 0.41 mm yr-1 for the 0-700 m layer of the world ocean for 1955-2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml


Sea level rise.
Do you understand what that means?
It is happening now.
Not tens of thousands of years in the future.
Now.
It is caused by the thermal expansion of warming oceans.
Oceans warming due to the increased thermal energy being re-emited back to earth as a result of the increase in the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.


Yet you and that other retard posting on here want to believe some idiot in the Daily Mail who thinks there has been "no warming since 1998"

Morons.

Rider wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 10:52am:


Sea level rise is no cause for concern?

I suspect that hundreds of millions of people around the world being impacted by larger storm surge events and a decline in groundwater quality would disagree with you.

Actually - there would be absolutely no sane reason for anyone to agree with you - idiot.

Hhhh..mmmmmm

Now lets see from 1940 to 1975 we had global cooling (tempratures fell for 35 years straight).......and these very same clowns were scaring us all about an ice age.

From 1975 to 1998 we had global warming and these clowns managed to pass a tax on the air we breath.

From 1998 till now temperatures have once again been dropping, and according to scientists who are not on the AGW gravy train temperatures will drop for thext few decades.

What are these clowns going to think of next??

Maybe antropogenic global cooling (AGC), still to do with manmade CO2, as more accumulates it contributes to cooling not warming??????

All it takes is a computer simulated model.........

BUT hold on a minute according to IPCC scientist Mojib Latif author of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Good old Mojib is predicting cooling for the next 30 or so years?????!!!!!!!!!

But still attributes this cooling to the AGW religion which has changed its spots from global cooling to global warming to climate change to now green energy.

He needs a good kick in the back side, its one or the other, you cannot sit on the fence in this debate.

You gotta hand it to them though they have been successful in taxing us all on the air we breath.

No warming since 2003? An even shorter interval and totally flying in the face of the data.

You know, I reckon we haven't had any warming since last Summer either.  Maybe that's significant. Damn those greenies. 

At least we now know that you get most of this from Joanne Nova's blog. (psst - she's a molecular biologist. She doesn't have any climatology credentials and several times, she has demonstrated her ignorance of basic climate science almost as effectively as you have. )

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

From 1998 till now the planet has been warming.

Only retards deny it.

What have you got Champ?

Show us some evidence that the planet has not been warming since 1998?


Do you have anything beyond an opinion piece in the Daily Mail by David Rose?

Anything at all?

Please show us.

Idiot.

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:


OK, I looked up the Joanne Nova Blog post.  The obvious question is why do they (Joanne and Super Dave Evans, the self styled rocket scientist) discard the data from 0-700 metres. The data that is plotted represents 700 metres to 2000 metres.  If they had read the paper that they cited in its entirety they would have found the missing data.

Considering that most heat would be present in the first 700 metres, this amounts to a very elaborate version of what is known as Murphy's correlation factor:

Quote:


That's meant to be humorous, but in the case of Joanne Nova's article it's just very sad that some people fall for it. For more Murphy's Law related humour, see:

http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/cheap/cheap3_murphy.htm

Actually Joanne Nova follows some very unusual conspiracy theories.  Doesn't she belief that the AGW "hypothesis" was invented so that Obama could create a worldwide economic crash in the space of an afternoon so that he could declare a military dictatorship in the US?

You should see what else she believes in. Very entertaining.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:


Do you dismiss the empirical data of 3000 buoys all over our oceans against a hypothesis from a computer simulated model?

Theory vs Real data??????

Simulated computer models vs actual measured data in the real world.

If your theory cannot be proven by real world data its just a theory!!!!

No matter how convincing the theory maybe.

And we all know about computers right, sh!t in sh!t out??

BTW Jo was an alarmist in her former life, but she saw the light and now knows the truth.

Her blog is one of the best if you want the TRUTH.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:


I dont think Jo disregards it at all (0-700metres) the problem is its not there.

And the buoys go down to 2000 metres.

Quote:



Hhhh....mmmmmmm

Cant battle the data (truth) then go for a character assasination, very warmist of you muso.

I thought you were a scientist???

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:


Well insults are the stock in trade for alarmist clap trap.

Oh, and I'm not scared of a few mm of ocean rises, and there is no basis for attributing any naturally occurring event (every natural event seen today has been seen before, there is no increase proven in occurrence nor severity - you turn your panic control back to normal..ok??)

Have you noticed the discord between rising co2 and temperatures......another oops moment - you do realise your primary tenet is now proven to be broken? you need to take your hypothesis back to the shop and I do hope us tax payers get a refund.

Oceans rise, oceans fall, no biggy so get over it and get on with your life and stop trying desperately to create a fear based political solution to a non problem. Climate blah blah blah is so yesterday.

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:53am:


There is no need to resort to insults.

Quote:


First of all, you can panic all you like, but I don't think I've said anything about panicking.  There has been a statistically proven increase in severity. I'll give you the link to the paper if you want, but as it's against your agenda, I suppose you'll dismiss it in some way or other. 

There have been storms in the past, and it makes sense that if you increase the energy of the system by reducing radiated Long Wave Infrared emissions to space, storms will continue to be more frequent and more severe in the future. Put it this way, how many 1 in 100 year flood events do you need to show that things have changed?  There is a sound statistical basis for this.

Quote:


What exactly is the primary tenet that you're referring to? I don't have anything to do with government policies. All I'm concerned about is those who bastardise basic atmospheric physics to support their cause of "Do nothing"

Quote:


Ocean rises and falls are caused. They don't just happen and we understand the causes pretty well.  During the last Ice Age it was due to the Milankovitch cycles. Obviously this is not the cause today. We know this because we can and do measure the orbital parameters of the Earth pretty accurately. How do you think they can get satellites and space probes to go where we want them to go without a detailed knowledge of orbital parameters? The causes of past cooling and warming are different to those of today.   

I'm not interested in political solutions or wealth distribution. I'm certainly not left of centre and it's not a partisan issue by any means.

Atmospheric Physics just happens to be one of my subjects, and I've had over 20 years experience in Environmental Management for large corporations.   

There are other ways of maintaining the current economic system without resorting to burning coal and oil. It should be obvious to anyone with solar panels on their roof (for example) that we can maintain or improve our standard of living and reduce impact on the environment at the same time. Nobody is asking you to wear tie died clothes and sing Kumbaya or go back to living in straw huts.  Renewable energy is a totally practical proposition.

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:



http://www.climate.org/topics/extreme-weather/

Quote:


Also see:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/48/19601
Quote:


and,
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219.abstract?sid=b7f0cbc6-d5af-4b76-9326-19...

Read very carefully. It's based on past evidence as well as predictions based on ocean surface temperature trends.  This latest study (Jul 8 2013) is the latest in a growing body of evidence that cyclones are becoming more intense as global warming heats the oceans.

Another link to a paper showing increased storm frequency was posted here last year.  I'll try to find that one too. 

Can't find it. Anyway, have a read here too:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151651.htm

muso wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:


Hey Muso

Come on dude get real FFS, where have they discarded 85% of the data???

The data is freely available.

Climateorg???...............is that brother or sister to Skeptical science???

Hey muso just a thought champ, since 1998 one thrid of all manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere yet the temperatures are dropping!!!!!!

How can you explain that one?

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


The buoys would have detected this heat, Jo didn't manipulate it she is just pointing it out.

Quote:


Sorry champ like i said its not there in the empirical data.

Quote:


If you can show where they have manipulated the data please do so.

Quote:


Yes and its purely due to AGW, nothing else matters but that right.......WRONG.

Quote:


Skeptical science is anything but a climate institute, its a blog run by Mr. Cook who has very close ties to Al Gore hence my naming of these disciples as Algorians.

Quote:


I said that since 1998 more than 1/3 of ALL antropogenic CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere, yet temperatures are falling.

Where is the unequivocal warming....where every year the temperature surpasses the previous year?

Quote:


Please read it again.

Ajax wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 9:53am:


I wasn't talking about Skeptical Science. That was on another thread.  I was talking about the Climate Institute.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/

The Climate Institute is an independent research organisation.
Quote:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:46am:

Yes Greggery.  "Gravity is a theory too".

What do you find ridiculous about that?

Can you explain?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:



Of course not...because that would mean that they are fraudulently accepting money....

amusingly...have you noticed that the 'required' interval gets longer and longer, as time goes on???...

Rider wrote on Jul 29^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

Oceans rise, oceans fall - yes.  But over recent decades they have only risen:


Which is exactly what you would expect since the oceans are warming.  It is called thermal expansion.

The oceans are warming because the entire planet is warming due to the increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources.

Denying this is silly.  Despite what columnists in the Daily Mail may tell you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 6^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:


Yes Greggery.  It is good to be sceptical.

Could you tell us what particularly raises your scepticism about the widely held scientific opinion that
the oceans are warming because the entire planet is warming due to the increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses from anthropogenic sources?

Are you sceptical that the oceans are warming?  Do you doubt that the oceans are warming?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that the planet is warming?  Do you doubt that the planet is warming?   Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that there is increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses?  Do you doubt that there is increased heat energy being redirected to the earth's surface due to the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

Are you sceptical that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is revived mainly from anthropogenic sources?  Do you doubt that the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses is revived mainly from anthropogenic sources?  Do you have any facts to support this notion? Could you tell us?

We would love to hear Greggery.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:


No matter how you wrap bullsh!t its always going to be just that when opened.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:


Crikies champ are you on the AGW gravy train????

There has been no warming since 1998, meanining temperature have not passed the 1998 value.

Even the IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen have aknowledged this.

So just face the facts.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:


You alarmists really make me laugh, cause you do yourself a great disservice to the reader by acting like a monkeys fighting for the last bannana.

Once again here it is for your understanding.

Do you know that Rajendra Pachauri is the head of the IPCC????????

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 9:09am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:


Have you measured it yourself..............?????!!!!!

OR

Are the computer simulated models saying so...??????

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Better than outright lies.

Please show us where the  "IPCC head, the met office and even the father of global warming Hansen" have aknowledged that there has been " no warming since 1998"

Please show us.

And:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998?

Can you explain?

And if you can't - would you please apologise for lying to the forum

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:


In a computer simulated model, oceans may even dry up!!!!

Where is the evidence......???????

Remember the 3000 buoys around the world...??????

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:


There has been no warming dude.

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Life is sinusoidal: hence the use of moving averages!

Ajax has never heard of complex systems: which is obviously why he is pretending not to understand the physical reality of phase change.

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

So - we have established that you lied when you wrote that the IPCC Head said there has been no global warming since 1998.

Your link showed Pachauri  saying the exact opposite

Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

We have established that you lied when you wrote that Hansen said there has been no global warming since 1998.

Your link referred to a paper showing Hansen saying the exact opposite:

We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature

You are still yet to explain to us:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if there has been no warming since the year 1998?
Why has sea level continued to rise if there has been no warming since the year 1998?

All you have show us are some graphs showing a very high average global surface temperature in 1998 (according to one data set - others show 2005 or 2010 to be the warmest year), and every year subsequent to that being warmer than the long term average - more compelling evidence that the planet is clearly and unabiguously warming.

Don't you think it is about time you apologised for telling lies to the forum and stopped mindlessly repeating the silly opinion of a Daily Mail columnist?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Actually - he did.

Pachauri said a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”


There is a long term warming trend.
Yes - it is acknowledged that average surface temperature, while being the warmest ever recorded - has not increased in the last few years - but there is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:


There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

There you go  - telling lies again.

He did not confirm "there had been no warming"
He said the exact opposite.

You really need to learn how to comprehend what you read.

He said:
a stall in average global surface temperature would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”[/i]

Just because one part of the earth has not shown a large increase in temperature is the past few years does not mean the earth is not warming.

There is more to global warming than just the surface temperature.

The oceans continue to warm
the arctic ice cap continues to decline
Sea level continues to rise
Global glacial mass balance continues to decline.

There is an increasing amount of heat in the system
THe earth continues to warm

What don't you understand about this?

What a whole lot of waffle i'm not even going to respond.

Let the readers make up their own minds.

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


The graph is self explanatory



Maybe you understand IPCC graphs better,



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-cl...

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Could you show us the reference to that graph in any IPCC publication please?

Or are you lying again?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:


What is that a graph of?
Why are there no titles?
No units?
No description?
No reference?

Although -  assuming that the y-axis is temperature anomaly and every single point on the graph is positive - then that would imply very clear and unambiguous warming.

Do you know what "temperature anomaly" means"


Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:


You are still yet to explain to us:
Why have the oceans continued to warm if the earth is "cooling"
Why has global glacial mass balance continued to decrease if the earth is "cooling"
Why has the arctic ice cap continued to melt if the earth is "cooling"
Why has sea level continued to rise if the earth is "cooling"


And - assuming your graph is showing temperature anomaly somewhere - how can the earth be cooling if every single one of the past 14 years has a positive temperature anomaly over some long term average?

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Please feel free to point out any lie I may have told, and show your evidence to demonstrate it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 6:35am:


I could be on that one.....i honestly dont know...?

Quote:


True i dont whether it is or not, i assumed it was.

Quote:
 

This is where you come unstuck, the head of the IPCC said there had been no warming for the last 15 years, he aknowledged it.

So if there has been no warming what else could it be, does heat STALL well not in my books.

Quote:


Didn't lie, we have already had 15 years of no warming half way there.

Quote:


What does the recent apparent stand still mean in your books?

Does heat stand still......????

Quote:


I'm not telling lies champ, like all the global warming religion zealots as soon as you feel the pressure you stop talking about the science and go for the character attack.

Bring it on dude....???????

Quote:


The truth is today we have some of the coldest temperatures we have ever had on Earth, we also have one of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere that we have ever had.

The oceans are not heating as 3000 buoys all over the world keep telling every 2 weeks or so when they surface from a dive of about 2000 metres and give us the temperature of the ocean.

CO2 has never driven climate change here on Earth, look to our history for that when we had 7000ppm actually life flourished when we has 20 times the CO2 we have today.

Weather baloons and satelitte data have failed to find the computer simulated model's hot spot in the tropopause its just not there.

This fact alone in the old days when scientists worked for the love of science and not the love of money wouid have been enough to have the hypothesis of AGW discarded into the rubbish bin.

We all know that 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapour, all other green house gases make up the remaining %5.

Problem for bankers with that is they cant tax you on water can they...????.......or can they...?????

Do you want a water vapour tax too.....???

The bankers will create a $2 trillion dollar market tradign carbon credits, when this happens cleaning up manmade CO2 emissions will go on the back burner.

My suppa your suppa and any other investments will find their way into this market.

And once again there will be booms and busts in accordance with there strategies.

That is the truth.

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.

Quote:


Quote: