please explain this

mojo asked for any evidence of other-than upright WUWT behaviour @74. Perhaps this is a worthwhile effort, but I am in the wrong place, and without enough free time to 'audit' any affinity websites. The primary literature keeps me pretty busy

Perhaps it merits an own thread? A couple of people appear to have enough free time

Wotts Up With That Blog | Trying to keep the discussion civil
VVatts Up With That ?

But there are areas of Asia where they cannot be always accessed. Same is true for 'wordpress' and 'blogspot' in general.

From my perspective WUWT's 'greatest hits' are
Climategate – proved it’s all a scam but maybe not
Surface stations – proved anomalous heating but maybe not
Liked BEST/ then didn’t
Salby’s source of CO2
A free ride for Monckton, see anything

My perspective is that Anthony Watts is Heartland's most effective employee and earns every penny of his salary. I do not hope that the site stops 'churning', but it is not at the top of the list in terms of sites that point us to important, current research. For me, this is the best value of affinity websites, across the entire spectrum. Neutral sciencedaily and eurekalert don't catch everything.

Climate-relevant publications pop up in hundreds of journals. It is not easy to stay on top of them. I consider my efforts to be inadequate in re, except concerning the terrestrial carbon cycle.

Let the new WUWT thread describe its successes and fearlessly present any oopsies that may have occurred. I think it should stand as an inspiring example of what one fella without a college degree can accomplish.

 

Squiggles @76, perhaps it would be wiser not to ask, but I wonder about their phase relationships with CO2 squiggles.

 

It's sumpin' you don't want to happen:

Meltwater pulse 1A - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have said this before, but all such intervals of rapid sea level rise occurred when there was much more grounded ice than today. Not clear that we can attain such high rates now. Yes I understand that Antarctica is a big thing, but it cannot all quickly become unhinged.

 

Sure, start with reading your source: Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are multiple greenhouse gasses. Which one do you not understand and need explained?

If still unsure, we'll start with this: Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Folks have actually looked at the spectral emissions from the earth to observe greenhouse gas absorbtion:

Source: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
Attachments: Figures and Tables : Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Nature

The only one not in this spectrum is water but we can discuss that too if you need it.

Bob Wilson

 

Did you read your source?

I am still interested in sea level. We know part comes from land ice melt and another comes from warming the oceans. The split is what I am curious about.

Bob Wilson

 

Water vapor is abundant in the earth's atmosphere, and even better than trapping energy than CO2,. So to answer an ill-posed question, water vapor rules.

To pose a better question, we would think about how water vapor can become more or less. Driven higher by heat, it responds and is an amplifier. Not a forcer. All than is fine for me (not so for f_j), but water vapor cannot just go up and up because rain.

As I have said before, still awaiting a climate model that tells us how high atmospheric water vapor (as an amplifier) can go. If it does not make rain it will make clouds, with their own effects on atmospheric energy balance.

 

. . . as a function of CO{2]?

Bob Wilson

 

Well, um, no.As a function of all forcing factors, CO2(e), volcanic and solar.

Said before, motivated by mojo here, I try to read climate models. Still looking for one that tells me future water vapor. Help me here, brains of PruisChat!

 

When I was looking at the Berkeley Earth vs climate model summary a year or so ago, I remember a Chinese model had the best regional match but not the best global temperature match. I remember the Chinese model had a goal of rain and monsoon prediction. I would probably look at the "FGOALS-g2" and derivatives first.

GOOD LUCK!
Bob Wilson

 

You dont understand how models work tochatihu.
ALL the IPCC climate models have been wrong for the past 20 years.
Maybe "denier Lindzen "" model is an exception as its the only model to be correct.
Dude you have to understand how water vapor controls climate first.
When you have achieved that knowledge then you can attempt to model that knowledge.
Tohachitu your problem is you accept any model even if it is not based on knowledge.
Thats why climate science and you are so ignorant.
Why would anyone believe a model which is programed by those without understanding?
Yet you ask for a water vapor model before there is any water vapor understanding in science?

You are asking for a model of ignorance?

 

mojo I know you wanted it to be the case previously that water vapor was going down. I showed you the evidence that it is increasing (slowly and with a small signal to noise ratio).

We both know that water vapor absorbs infrared even better than CO2, plus there is a lot more of it. But water vapor does not increase unless T does so first. Clasuis Clapyeron. It is a follower, not a leader.

Don't be afraid of physics. Embrace it.

Don't know quite what "accept any model" means, but it is not something I do.

 

Source: Global Warming : Feature Articles

Water Vapor

The largest feedback is water vapor. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. In fact, because of its abundance in the atmosphere, water vapor causes about two-thirds of greenhouse warming, a key factor in keeping temperatures in the habitable range on Earth. But as temperatures warm, more water vapor evaporates from the surface into the atmosphere, where it can cause temperatures to climb further.

The question that scientists ask is, how much water vapor will be in the atmosphere in a warming world? The atmosphere currently has an average equilibrium or balance between water vapor concentration and temperature. As temperatures warm, the atmosphere becomes capable of containing more water vapor, and so water vapor concentrations go up to regain equilibrium. Will that trend hold as temperatures continue to warm?

The amount of water vapor that enters the atmosphere ultimately determines how much additional warming will occur due to the water vapor feedback. The atmosphere responds quickly to the water vapor feedback. So far, most of the atmosphere has maintained a near constant balance between temperature and water vapor concentration as temperatures have gone up in recent decades. If this trend continues, and many models say that it will, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by carbon dioxide alone.​

So one of the better examples of observing water vapor across the planet:
Source: Water Vapor : Global Maps
Source: Water Vapor (1 month - Aqua/MODIS) | NASA

Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow. This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet.

Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’'s surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.

These maps show the average amount of water vapor in a column of atmosphere in a given month. The units are given in centimeters, which is the equivalent amount of water that could be produced if all the water vapor in the column were to condense. The lowest amounts of water vapor (0 centimeters) appear in yellow, and the highest amounts (6 centimeters) appear in dark blue. Areas of missing data appear in shades of gray. The maps are based on data collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

The most noticeable pattern in the time series is the influence of seasonal temperature changes and incoming sunlight on water vapor. In the tropics, a band of extremely humid air wobbles north and south of the equator as the seasons change. This band of humidity is part of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, where the easterly trade winds from each hemisphere converge and produce near-daily thunderstorms and clouds. Farther from the equator, water vapor concentrations are high in the hemisphere experiencing summer and low in the one experiencing winter.

Another pattern that shows up in the time series is that water vapor amounts over land areas decrease more in winter months than adjacent ocean areas do. This is largely because air temperatures over land drop more in the winter than temperatures over the ocean. Water vapor condenses more rapidly in colder air.​

The point is there is no single "metric of water vapor" as it is a regional effect. So the following is another example:

This is fallacy includes both "Cherry picking" and "Impossible Expectations" demanding some obscure part of data must be explained. But this local, regional water vapor effect can be observed.

There appears to be an increase in rain-fall amount with storms. So a Texas drought is ended by tropical storm Bob earlier this year as it then swung through the mid-west and eastwards to trigger severe flooding. California can have a drought and still have floods from local rain storms. The rain intensity increases because the warmer air carries more water that becomes a gully washer that then drains into the sea. It does not replace the missing snow pack.

Bob Wilson

 

Source: Water Vapor (1 month - Aqua/MODIS) | NASA

Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow. This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet.

Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’'s surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.
. . . [/quote]

This is also called the "false expert" since no reference to these strange statements are made.

Water vapor like CO{2} has regional and even hemispherical effects. So we can actually see what is going on where it is happening. This was nearly impossible before the age of modern satellites. As time marches forward, our species gains better and better understanding of what is going on. No one has yet to explain all of the effects that we see except by the increase in CO{2}. Soon we'll puncture the 'solar' myth, again.

Bob Wilson​

 

So when looking at facts and data, it important to cite the source so we can see the context. For example:
Source: Water Vapor (1 month - Aqua/MODIS) | NASA

Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises on warm updrafts into the atmosphere. It condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow. This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet.

Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth’'s surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth’s surface.
. . . ​

I do this, citing my sources, to avoid quoting out of context. It can also lead to new insights, a kindness and respect for my readers.

Now this fallacy is called "misrepresentation" because there are only labels on the chart, no URL to the source text giving the background and ancillary data. For all we know, it could have come from some advocacy site that created the chart out of whole cloth. Not you but another frequent poster sited a chart from:
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.​

He cited the "old plot" and made an inaccurate claim. I don't mind misrepresentations as they are so easy to hunt down and always ends badly for the author. Also, four years in the Marine Corps (and 39 years of marriage,) you can say mean things about me. But I draw a Southern line with mean things said about my friends and "Ignore User" has improved the other poster's IQ by at least 20 points. But going back to the importance of citing sources.

Does anyone believe I use Cartoon Physics like my avatar to do this:

Source: Efficient driving for a 1,000 mile tank | PriusChat

Or perhaps:

Source: Put the drink down | PriusChat

Bob Wilson

 

well-posed@94 I suppose the observed decreasing temperature of the stratosphere is related to humidity declines there.