Global Air Temps

A few things at a time here...

Sea level rise has been very minor compared to the predictions. There was clearly a warming period from 1976-1998; ice melted, and sea-level went up a few centimeters. For a decade or more after the warming-trend ended, reservoirs of stored heat in the oceans continued to manifest in the polar regions, continuing to melt ice and warm the climate there. This has now ceased, as evidenced by increases in polar ice and colder temperatures.

Species are always on the move, and some of the time it has to do with climate. The climate did cause some species to move north as a result of the 1976-1998 warming spell, and some have moved south again since they were counted. Other species have changed their ranges due to non-climate reasons.

Crops are finely tuned to the climate. A Farmer can't survive unless he selects the right crops to suit the number of heat units available during the growing season. A lot of corn was successfully grown in Alberta in 1998. Since then it has rapidly declined due to shorter growing seasons.

It's not just a matter of understanding the evidence; it's a matter of how it's being weighed. Two of the biggest mistakes being made are to count changes as significant, which are within the margin of error, and to count the starting and ending points selectively to create a "trend" where none exists.

 

Poor analogy, I am not saying water vapor no longer exists after nine days.
What I am saying is that due to the short "life" of water in the atmosphere, it is not a driver of temperature change.

If you add 50% more humidity to the atmosphere, it will very quickly fall out of the atmosphere as precipitation.
As it does, it cools the atmosphere, so any temporary increase in local temperatures is corrected.

WXman I'm sure, can provide more details about how this works since this is his area of expertise.

 

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

It's a claim. I welcome any challenges to prove it wrong.

 

That is the consensus hypothesis,although never confirmed and empirical evidence shows that water vapor is actually negative feedback.
Climate science has the science nice person backwards.
WV is constantly being removed from the atmosphere and replenished .Its amount is variable and balloon an satellites show that WV has diminished in the stratosphere.
Water Vapor diminishing maybe the reaction to any increase in CO2 levels.
Water Vapor could be climate systems regulator of heat in the atmosphere.
There is a peer reviewed NASA study by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi which uses empirical WV measurements to make that conclusion.

NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor | Watts Up With That?

 

I appreciate the information. Do you have a reference? I have been looking for that type of statement and haven't had any more detail than the research I posted.

 

If it doesnt have anything to do with CO2 then whats your point.We all agree its warmed until 1998.

 

The sea ice meme is just delusional.Antarctic at near historical record highs.
Arctic sea ice levels approaching average levels .

 

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

I disagree. The decline in stratospheric water vapor was very sudden around 2000 and then continued its upward trend.
If anything, this indicated the stratospheric water vapor is a warming factor, but a minor one at that.
A more detailed description along with citations can be found at What is the role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming?

 

"Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect "
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

You are quoting a site written by known liars.Im still waiting for Dana Nutsacksilly to reply to a thread here last year, when they blatantly lied about Richard C Alleys ice core data and they created a fake graph.
Skeptical Science website is full of LIES | PriusChat

 

Greg and I were trying to avoid name calling.
If you have an issue with the conclusions feel free to reference data backing up your position.
The paper they reference is here if you wish to go straight to the source. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

 

According to? Guess I really don't care for anything before 1992:

Even unintelligent life could 'get a clue.'

Have you ever heard of Mr. Google?

Source: Corn crash: Ontario farmers hit by plummeting prices - The Globe and Mail

Are you sure you know anything about agriculture in Canada?

I don't care as the sea level is rising.

Bob Wilson

 

That is an excellent article, thank you. Mojo, if you are open to it, I'd suggest reading it, it is an excellent summary.

It describes the partial overlap very well, in a general, easy to understand way.
It also does a better job of explaining why most researchers aren't to concerned about water vapor and the man made part of global warming.

 

You've earned an ignore.

 

I'm fairly calm about the earlier record. We all fully recognize the problems of shore-based, sea level metrics just as terrestrial temperature metrics have needed adjustment. Sea level adjustments need to handle glacial relief uplift as well as subsidence, these are difficult but not impossible problems to the historical, global sea level inventory . . . or recent storm surges. Just we live in the satellite era and these new metrics provide unprecedented and rapid data.

Bob Wilson

 

Thank you, a great introduction to another satellite by our European friends:

Fortunately, floating sea ice has no effect on sea level. It is the land based, ice melt that raises sea levels.

Source: CryoSat finds sharp increase in Antarctica’s ice losses / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA

So where did that water go?


~62 mm - 2013 January
~48 mm - 2010 January
--------
~15 mm - 3 years, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013
~1.35 mm - 3 years Antarctic ice sheet loss, ~9% alone

Bob Wilson