Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

It's not mentioned much as it's 99.999 natural caused and is not a AGW greenhouse gas.

So why does the IPCC state that H2O is the strongest GHG?

[Lake-Effect]

Let's start with the proposition that "water vapour is causing global warming".

Most of us who made it through high-school physics and chemistry (or even just visited the tropics once or twice) understand that as air temperature rises, water evaporation increases, and warmer air can hold more water vapour.

So, if the proposition that "water vapour is causing global warming" was true... warmer air would cause more evaporation, which would put more water vapour in the air, which would cause more warming, which would cause more evaporation... if the proposition was true, then the earth's water would have evaporated and then finally boiled off long ago. So that proposition must be false.

Water can be found on earth in all 3 states. (and amen for that; it's necessary for our sort of life). Water changes states readily, from solid to liquid to gas, (even solid straight to gas) and back, absorbing and transferring heat (kinetic energy), and the constant circulation and transitioning of water vapour to rain or snow, then flowing somewhere then evaporating again is of course a major part of our weather.

The point being that water doesn't just sit there in the atmosphere, it's constantly circulating and changing states, its concentrations set by some pretty simple physical laws. It's not spontaneously building up.

Water vapour is one mechanism for retaining (and transferring) atmospheric heat, not a cause of that heat build-up.

By contrast, it's (normally) alot harder to change the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Except if your most active species have an insatiable appetite for exhuming and burning captured carbon. We've increased the amount of CO2 in the air by 40% over the pre-industrial-age level, and that sh!t, unlike water vapour, isn't likely to simply rain out next week.

CO2 build-up is a significant factor in the warming trend we're currently experiencing; water vapour is simply along for the ride.

[senormechanico]

When the world ends, the cockroaches will still be here along with you guys still arguing over which one is at fault.
And I'll bet the end of the world WON'T be from globull warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

When the world ends, the cockroaches will still be here along with you guys still arguing over which one is at fault.
And I'll bet the end of the world WON'T be from globull warming.

If the world ends, even the cockroaches will be gone.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If the world ends, even the cockroaches will be gone.

Finally, at least one good outcome!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[downunder]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

When the world ends, the cockroaches will still be here along with you guys still arguing over which one is at fault.
And I'll bet the end of the world WON'T be from globull warming.

Globull warming. Sums it up well.

[Reefmagnet]

Here you go, alarmists, I'll do some cut and paste for you guys.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...d-in-real-time

The numbers are in. To the tune of 0.2 watts give or take per square metre per decade.

I can't remember the actual value of sunlight, but it is 300 watts plus from memory (it's been covered in this thread previously).

Anyway, radiative forcing (not to be confused with warming) is increasing at the the runaway train rate of around one fifteenth of one percent per decade.

To critically tear apart this article, two immediately obvious faux pas are obvious. The first is the "trick" that the 0.2 value is not compared to some referenced overall value, which is always a bit of a red flag in these kind of things. The other is the mention that co2 decreases in spring. Umm, hello this is GLOBAL warming and we actually have two spring seasons. Could it be that results are locally skewed? Well it is, but the regional aspect is well disguised within the article. Consolation prize goes to the classic data cherry picking as per

According to Feldman, the team has also "controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area".

Of course it's not possible to actually read this paper to find out more without money needing to change hands; Surprise, surprise.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here you go, alarmists, I'll do some cut and paste for you guys.

Carbon dioxide's contribution to greenhouse effect monitored in real time - physicsworld.com

The numbers are in. To the tune of 0.2 watts give or take per square metre per decade.

I can't remember the actual value of sunlight, but it is 300 watts plus from memory (it's been covered in this thread previously).

Anyway, radiative forcing (not to be confused with warming) is increasing at the the runaway train rate of around one fifteenth of one percent per decade.

To critically tear apart this article, two immediately obvious faux pas are obvious. The first is the "trick" that the 0.2 value is not compared to some referenced overall value, which is always a bit of a red flag in these kind of things. The other is the mention that co2 decreases in spring. Umm, hello this is GLOBAL warming and we actually have two spring seasons. Could it be that results are locally skewed? Well it is, but the regional aspect is well disguised within the article. Consolation prize goes to the classic data cherry picking as per

Of course it's not possible to actually read this paper to find out more without money needing to change hands; Surprise, surprise. Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I'm starting to get the idea Reefmagnet that your deliberately misreading, rather than misunderstanding some of the links you post. ( actually, I've always thought this )

There are no 'faux pas', in the article as you claim. Certainly no obvious ones. 'Referenced overall value'? That doesn't make sense.

Locally skewed? na, your deliberately misleading me thinks. Far from having an 'open mind' and Oklahoma and Alaska have just one spring per year Reefmagnet, not two

(are we closer to the 100 pages now )

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The other is the mention that co2 decreases in spring. Umm, hello this is GLOBAL warming and we actually have two spring seasons.

There was a mention that greenhouse heating is less in spring. So a direct observation of year round greenhouse heating.

Their study also includes the first direct observation of the large annual dip in greenhouse heating that occurs in spring,

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

There was a mention that greenhouse heating is less in spring. So a direct observation of year round greenhouse heating.

Yep, no spring in the southern hemisphere.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm starting to get the idea Reefmagnet that your deliberately misreading, rather than misunderstanding some of the links you post. ( actually, I've always thought this )

There are no 'faux pas', in the article as you claim. Certainly no obvious ones. 'Referenced overall value'? That doesn't make sense.

Locally skewed? na, your deliberately misleading me thinks. Far from having an 'open mind' and Oklahoma and Alaska have just one spring per year Reefmagnet, not two

(are we closer to the 100 pages now )

We're at 145 pages if you use the tablet app ;

If it's regional it's nonsense. Remember the medieval warm period and little ice age discussion of pages yor in this thread?

They were nonsense enough to be excluded from the hockey stick.

But I digress, feel free to discuss the 0.2 w/m2 decadal increase and argue that. That's the core of the article, although numbers by themselves mean little without datum points.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[LakeSuperior]

Here is a scatter plot of NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa/Keeling CO2, from 1959 through March, 2015.

What this shows is zero correlation between the last 16 year increase in CO2 and global temperature measured by NASA.

A Statistical Definition of the ‘Hiatus in Global Warming’ using NASA GISS and MLO data | Watts Up With That?

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I would mention "that" petition. But it is:
fraudulent
funded by the oil industry
run by kooks
full of dead people
etc etc.

The reason "deniers" are unorganized and formed into little groups of bloggers and websites is because they are outcast from the pro-AGW clan. Just research Judith Curry (thanks Jackdale ) and a couple of other prominent deniers. You see, when you become a denier, you become an outcast and branded a pariah and unless extremely fortunate, get cut off from access to public research funding. Your opponents will no longer listen to your opinions or research but will instead scream "the science is settled", "97% consensus" and a whole heap of other crap whilst sticking fingers in their ears.

And don't forget. The US President recently quoted the 97% consensus line. Propaganda emitted from a well oiled and organised machine is an extremely difficult opponent to counter. We know this from history.

Hey Reef Magnet. I see a month later the shrill warmists like Jackdale are still rabbiting on, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste.... Meanwhile my climate modelling has accurately predicted the weather is 10C warmer than a month ago. My Ne forecast is the weather will be 10C cooler when we get to October.
Also in the last month my boat has been made ready for a summer of sailing.
We must thank Jackdale et al for confirming the nonsense of the warmists. Shhhhh. I'm on track to seel Jackdale a big bridge in Sydney Harbour. I'll throw in a big tunnel for the same price.
Happy summer of sailing guys.

[tp12]

So copying and pasting research is a bad thing? Mmmmmkay ... I like how some of you have tried to do that ... yet do the same thing. Some good lols over here

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Here is a scatter plot of NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa/Keeling CO2, from 1959 through March, 2015.

What this shows is zero correlation between the last 16 year increase in CO2 and global temperature measured by NASA.

A Statistical Definition of the ‘Hiatus in Global Warming’ using NASA GISS and MLO data | Watts Up With That?

Uh ooh.

You quoted Anthony Watts who's 25 years as a "TV meteorologist" gives him no credit at all regardless of the source of the original data so that data is inadmissible.

Prepare to be flamed to boot, heathen ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app