[BartSimpson]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-warming

Seems like it's water that we need to ban now. So we need to implement cap and trade on the rainy countries to stop the menace of water vapor.

[N_Fiddledog]

They say in the article this does not affect the CO2 forced global warming argument, but is that correct?

I'm not sure it is. Not if you want to postulate a catastrophe from increased CO2.

CO2 forced catastrophe requires the acceptance of positive feedbacks as predominant in the climate system.

Positive feedbacks are like those cartoons where the cat makes a snowball at the top of the hill, and as the snow rolls downwards it grows, and gets faster, until finally it's so large, and so fast it's crashing down houses at the bottom. When I was kid I tried that idea of rolling a snowball down a hill to crash down houses at the bottom. Didn't work for me. I know now that's because negative feedbacks predominate in the real world.

So the way I understood it, one of the positive feedbacks of CO2 forced warming was supposed to be warming forced more moisture from the earth which was driven up into the stratosphere. That Stratospheric moisture was supposed to cause more greenhouse effect, and make things even warmer still.

So if that bit of the proposed positive feedback mechanism is not happening we can breath a little less easier, right? It is now a little less likely the seas will boil. Al Gore's million dollar beach house is still safe. That's the way I see it.

To me it seems like at least once a month some new discovery casts doubt on the sci fi hypothesis of predominant positive feedbacks.

It might even be once a week now. Last week there was this one...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134721.htm

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming

Seems like it's water that we need to ban now. So we need to implement cap and trade on the rainy countries to stop the menace of water vapor.

Why. If global warming is a problem, then this is helping, no? Same with solar dimming.

[N_Fiddledog]

You may find this one interesting, Bart.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... -camp.aspx

The writer draws some conclusions from the background buzz around that study which wouldn't be obvious to the average guy from just reading about the study itself.

Quote:

"NASA scientist Eric Fetzer say that the new study created models much more accurate to past events than those previously used by climate change advocates, and proves that "water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

I thought the previous models were used by scientists. But no, according to Eric Fetzer, those models were used by 'climate change advocates'.

Basically he thinks the actual scientists are starting to try to distance themselves from the advocates masquerading under the veil of supposed science.

He also thinks the science which skeptic scientists have been passing back and forth to each other for years is now starting to trickle into the mainstream from rank and file scientists who were previously too timid, too frightened of the global warming political beast to say what they knew. He appears to suggest the Geni of actual science is now tentatively sticking a toe out of the bottle.

[Proculation]

BartSimpson wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming

Seems like it's water that we need to ban now. So we need to implement cap and trade on the rainy countries to stop the menace of water vapor.

I'm a skeptic on AGW but it's well known that it is the water vapor that keeps our atmosphere warm...

[N_Fiddledog]

Proculation wrote:

I'm a skeptic on AGW but it's well known that it is the water vapor that keeps our atmosphere warm...

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Water vapor does make up 95% of greenhouse gases.

But no according to this guy...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... se-gas.htm

who Derby X informs me is the final word on anything concerning the subject, when CO2 (which makes up about 4% of greenhouse gases) increases, it heats water more, causing more evaporation. More greenhouse gas, more heat. Supposedly this continues to some sort of tipping point, or something. I've seen warmists jump to some weird conclusion that because of this hypothesis the 4% of greenhouse gas which CO2 represents, now somehow magically jumps to being 30% of the greenhouse gas effect.

This is why this new study matters. CO2 is rising. It's supposed to cause more heat. More heat, more evaporation, meaning more water, and from that more heat still, but that's not what happened. They say water started disappearing from way up high instead. This phenomena started about 2001, which curiously enough is about the same time global temperatures started to cool in spite of the fact CO2 was steadily rising.

[sandorski]

Water Vapour can certainly cause Warming, but Cloud Cover does the opposite as it Reflects Light back into Space before it can Warm the Earth. It really depends on whether the Water Vapour is Cloud or not and/or how much Cloud Cover results because of it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Like this, right?

Quote:

The LW feedbacks are mainly due to water vapor and high clouds, while the SW feedbacks are mainly due to low clouds.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/02/wha ... ouds-andy/

Meaning, I believe, low level clouds reflect shortwave radiation from the sun back towards space. Water vapor, and high clouds emit long wave radiation down. This last bit is what they call the greenhouse effect, is it not?

So that's why water vapor, and high clouds matter, I think. That's why people are scratching their heads. CO2 rose. Heat was supposed to happen, and evaporation was supposed to offer more high level moisture, then create even more heat. It didn't happen. High level moisture decreased instead, and the planet cooled.

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

You may find this one interesting, Bart.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... -camp.aspx

The writer draws some conclusions from the background buzz around that study which wouldn't be obvious to the average guy from just reading about the study itself.

Quote:

"NASA scientist Eric Fetzer say that the new study created models much more accurate to past events than those previously used by climate change advocates, and proves that "water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

I thought the previous models were used by scientists. But no, according to Eric Fetzer, those models were used by 'climate change advocates'.

Basically he thinks the actual scientists are starting to try to distance themselves from the advocates masquerading under the veil of supposed science.

He also thinks the science which skeptic scientists have been passing back and forth to each other for years is now starting to trickle into the mainstream from rank and file scientists who were previously too timid, too frightened of the global warming political beast to say what they knew. He appears to suggest the Geni of actual science is now tentatively sticking a toe out of the bottle.

It is interesting. Seems the actual scientists are distancing themselves from the religious followers of the Prophets Hansen and Gore.