Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 38,637 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 29 January 2010 - 11:00 AM

www.dailymail.co.uk said:

Climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.

American researchers have discovered that the amount of water high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.

Although the findings do not challenge the theory of man-made global warming, they help explain why temperatures can rise and fall so dramatically from decade to decade.

The study, published in the journal Science, says a 10 per cent drop in humidity 10 miles above the Earth's surface explains why global temperatures have been stable since the start of the century, despite the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And a rise in water vapour in the 1980s and 90s may also explain why temperatures shot up so quickly in the previous two decades, they say.

Posted Image Read more...


Posted Image

#2    Admiral Danger

Admiral Danger

    Thats what she said

  • Member
  • 5,176 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Beautiful land of Wales

Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:35 PM

i'd like to see what mattshark has to say about this :rolleyes:

thats a very interesting story about the shark and how it tried to eat you, but it still doesnt answer my question.  where the hell is my sandwitch!?

#3    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 29 January 2010 - 06:31 PM

View PostDr Alien, on 29 January 2010 - 04:35 PM, said:

i'd like to see what mattshark has to say about this :rolleyes:
This is pretty well known already. It is not new stuff. :P
It is just not relevant to present change as there has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#4    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 29 January 2010 - 07:08 PM

I have brought up this on another discussion with mattshark about this. it appers that the EPA tried to hid this information some time ago source


#5    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 29 January 2010 - 08:01 PM

View PostCaesar, on 29 January 2010 - 07:08 PM, said:

I have brought up this on another discussion with mattshark about this. it appers that the EPA tried to hid this information some time ago source
I think that is kind of meaningless in all sense's though as it is known and listed on other sources such as NASA. I don't think anyone has denied water vapour as a greenhouse gas, just that it is not driving current change according to available evidence.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#6    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 29 January 2010 - 09:41 PM

View PostMattshark, on 29 January 2010 - 08:01 PM, said:

I think that is kind of meaningless in all sense's though as it is known and listed on other sources such as NASA. I don't think anyone has denied water vapour as a greenhouse gas, just that it is not driving current change according to available evidence.
Then why did they try and stop an unbiased source about water vapors and how it effects our climate.


#7    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 29 January 2010 - 10:19 PM

View PostCaesar, on 29 January 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Then why did they try and stop an unbiased source about water vapors and how it effects our climate.

The dismissal of Carlin's work may have been rude and foolish (although, Carlin was not the department that looks at climate at all so I find the comments "anonymous" strange since he is neither a scientist, nor working in science and he certainly is not unbaised), but that is about it, but Carlin was never reprimanded or muzzled and according to the New York Times, Carlin himself says his work was poor scholarship and rushed, ever considered that it just wasn't very good.

Edited by Mattshark, 29 January 2010 - 10:20 PM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#8    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 29 January 2010 - 11:24 PM

View PostMattshark, on 29 January 2010 - 10:19 PM, said:

The dismissal of Carlin's work may have been rude and foolish (although, Carlin was not the department that looks at climate at all so I find the comments "anonymous" strange since he is neither a scientist, nor working in science and he certainly is not unbaised), but that is about it, but Carlin was never reprimanded or muzzled and according to the New York Times, Carlin himself says his work was poor scholarship and rushed, ever considered that it just wasn't very good.
You don't have to be a scientists to see how the EPA hid this information from the public.


#9    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 January 2010 - 12:03 AM

View PostCaesar, on 29 January 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:

You don't have to be a scientists to see how the EPA hid this information from the public.
Well considering the author himself says it is not good enough, there is not much of a case to argue that it was hidden.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#10    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 30 January 2010 - 12:05 AM

Quote

Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers — most notably NOAA and NASA — conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered, by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. An in-depth report, co-authored by myself and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), compiles some of the initial alarming findings with case studies included from scientists around the world.

We don’t dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.

However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.

There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.

A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed.

The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors, such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting.

There are also uncertainties in ocean temperatures. This is no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface.

These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggests that global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends, or rankings, or to validate model forecasts. Consequently, such surface data should be ignored for political decision-making.

Prior to the release of this paper, KUSI’s John Coleman — founder of The Weather Channel — aired a one hour prime-time special: Global Warming: The Other Side. The special was so successfully received that KUSI will be doing another special in February.

NOAA has already responded to the preliminary paper supporting John Coleman’s special through the Yale Climate Forum:

The accuracy of the surface temperature record can be independently validated against satellite records. Over the period from 1979 to present where satellite lower-tropospheric temperature data is available, satellite and surface temperatures track quite well.

Actually Klotzbach et al. (2009) found that when the satellites were first launched, their temperature readings were in relatively good agreement with the surface station data. There has been increasing divergence over time (exceeding 0.4C now), but the divergence does not arise from satellite errors. Further, they found that the divergence between surface and lower-tropospheric measurements, which has probably continued, is consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
Full article

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#11    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 January 2010 - 02:01 AM

View PostIamsSon, on 30 January 2010 - 12:05 AM, said:

One: Pajamasmedia is a political media mouthpiece for oil sponsored presure group.
Two: Much to Mr Watts Annoyance, the data from his surface stations fit the current trend.
Three: SPPI are worthless as a source for science.
Four: I plotted UAH's sat data and found it STILL shows a rise up till 2007.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#12    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,508 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 30 January 2010 - 02:05 AM

UM is an appropriate forum for hot air......


#13    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 30 January 2010 - 02:07 AM

View PostMattshark, on 30 January 2010 - 02:01 AM, said:

One: Pajamasmedia is a political media mouthpiece for oil sponsored presure group.
Two: Much to Mr Watts Annoyance, the data from his surface stations fit the current trend.
Three: SPPI are worthless as a source for science.
Four: I plotted UAH's sat data and found it STILL shows a rise up till 2007.

I'm pretty sure you've admitted you're not a climate scientist, so by the standards that you measure others, you are not a reliable source.

Edited by IamsSon, 30 January 2010 - 02:22 AM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#14    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 30 January 2010 - 02:55 AM

View PostIamsSon, on 30 January 2010 - 02:07 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure you've admitted you're not a climate scientist, so by the standards that you measure others, you are not a reliable source.
Yes but I post papers to back up what I say rather than articles from a political pressure group, it is more than a small difference in evidence standard.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#15    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 30 January 2010 - 03:10 AM

View PostMattshark, on 30 January 2010 - 02:55 AM, said:

Yes but I post papers to back up what I say rather than articles from a political pressure group, it is more than a small difference in evidence standard.

But you're not a climate scientist, therefore, you can't really know what you're talking about.  I mean that's your criteria for dismissing the AGW skeptics.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users