Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content…”When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture,” said Benjamin Santer, from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can’t explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it’s due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.”
Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager, atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this ‘atmospheric moistening’ is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
“This is the first identification of a human fingerprint on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere,” Santer said.
I’ll leave to you to guess which finger it is.
Aside from my smartass remark, work your way through the questions discussed at the end of the article. Of particular note is “atmospheric moisture content is one of the large-scale environmental conditions that influences the genesis and development of hurricanes” – a dialectical change witnessed just the other week with Hurricane Humberto.
#126
Gore is too stupid to look in detail at the time lag in the warming/CO2 graph.
Reid A. Bryson PhD in Meteorology wasn’t fooled.
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
……………………
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
That’s just wonderful.
But it means little, since among the climatologists who disagree with him – and vastly outnumber him – there is no shortage of individuals with equally impressive credentials. Credentials ain’t what it’s about. It’s about the science – and many more scientists every bit as competent as he find his conclusions lacking.
You might not realize this, but in just about every scientific controversy, there’re always renowned, highly accomplished, highly credentialled individuals who, despite all that, are on the wrong side.
I don’t give a shit if he won the Nobel – the consensus is against him. And the very rare occurence of the lone maverick scientist who “knows he’s right” standing up to and triumphing over the consensus notwithstanding, the consensus – the agreed-upon judgment of the majority of the experts in a field – is what turns out to be correct nearly every time. Like this time…
You mean, your mind is made up don’t confuse the issue with facts. The fact is the graph presented by Gore shows exactly the same relationship of CO2 lagging behind temperature and more importantly ocean temperature rise. It just didn’t serve his purpose to point it out.
BTW, It is also a fact that the poles on Mars began melting at the same time as Earth’s poles. If you’re to stupid to understand the common element here is increased effective solar output, the quit wasting our time.
If you have an alternative explanation I’d love to hear it, but so far not one of your beloved 2500 IPCC “scientists” have dared to provide one. Good luck!
You mean, your mind is made up don’t confuse the issue with facts. The fact is the graph presented by Gore shows exactly the same relationship of CO2 lagging behind temperature and more importantly ocean temperature rise. It just didn’t serve his purpose to point it out.
BTW, It is also a fact that the poles on Mars began melting at the same time as Earth’s poles. If you’re to stupid to understand the common element here is increased effective solar output, the quit wasting our time.
If you have an alternative explanation I’d love to hear it, but so far not one of your beloved 2500 IPCC “scientists” have dared to provide one without serious contradiction of the document signed on their behalf.
These three the clauses were included in the document the 2500 scientist agreed to sign. The IPCC promoting the KYOTO accord could not stand the contradiction and had them deleted……
The “modification” of the IPCC report has resulted in the deletion of the following three clauses (among others):
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
We call attention to the fact that these three clauses were in the final draft of Chapter 8 and had been agreed to by all four lead authors, 31 contributors, and an unspecified number of reviewers. In other words, the deleted clauses represented their considered scientific opinion. We believe that the removal of these clauses is unwarranted, seriously impairs the credibility of the IPCC, and raises the additional question: By what authority did the State Department prevail upon an internationally constituted scientific body to make such changes?
It’s inspiring to watch you defending the polluters in their efforts to keep those billions rolling in by not adopting profit-reducing measures to prevent a possible global catastrophe. However, I have sad news for you. As much as they smile upon your efforts on their behalf – they’re not going to cut you in on the loot. Sorry.
They may be greedy, amoral and criminally socially irresponsible, but they’re not cRaZy… 😉
#128 “- the consensus is against him. And the very rare occurrence of the lone maverick scientist who “knows he’s right” standing up to and triumphing over the consensus notwithstanding, the consensus – the agreed-upon judgement of the majority of the experts in a field – is what turns out to be correct nearly every time.”
Funny how ‘speaking out against the consensus’ is what drives scientific advancement.
Who dared to speak out against the consensus? Darwin was the lone voice speaking out against the consensus, so was Newton, so was Copernicus…
As said Global Warming became policy – get aboard the consensus or get run over. Consensus or Collusion?
Anyway Global warming is not really the issue the cycle of glaciation / warming – ice ages is.
Cheers
#132
Please read again. The IPCC report is a corrupted document.
IPCC Report deletions:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
#134 B Cook
Look its policy – OK?!
Cheers
PS: That was sarcasm…
As I already said, T_H – the guy who successfully challenges consensus makes for a great story – but he is also exceedingly rare. And as scientific knowledge continues to accumulate at an ever-increasiing rate, and spreads quickly and completely throughout the scientific community, as time goes by, there’ll be fewer and fewer dissenters as the consensus grows ever more accurate.
If consensus were not correct in nearly every case, then it would be necessary to replace it with something more reliable. But the astonishing, ever accelerating growth of scientific progress is all the proof needed that the consensus is the shortest and most reliabl route to scientific truth, not relying on ‘lone wolves’ and underdogs, no matter how psychologically appealing they may be. 😉
You might notice that the assertions of Darwin, Copernicus, et al., may have been rejected at first, but that the community of scientists DID come around to support them in every one of THEIR cases, just as in the vast majority of cases, the dissenters came to join in the consensus.
Hmmm? 😉
#133, TIHZ
I would add that men like Darwin, Copernicus, and Harvey were not the first in their fields. They get the credit largely because they presented overwhelming evidence where there had previously been mostly superstition and religious dogma. Others raised the questions, then the possibilities. These men put their names on the answers.
Today we demand evidence to form our knowledge. Science must adjust to new evidence. As we learn more we get closer to the truth. Someday, maybe, man will know everything. Until then, we may only try to learn and understand a little more each day.
#136/7 Lauren / Fusion
I see your points – I also see the points raised by others. I recall I said I am 50/50 on this global warming issue and I said I worry about when anything gets politicised and becomes policy.
The bigger issue to me and others is that global warming is only a part of a much bigger picture of cycles of glaciation and warming (Ice Ages) which have been documented as occuring but the mechanism behind it is still conjecture. 40,000 / 100,000 year cycles
One might say with global warming climate research are we studying the elephant or just its tail, trunk, legs and so on.
Ice ages are common knowledge – but no one seems to wonder how is it possible for 97% of Canada and most of the Northern States of America could have an ice sheet up to 2 MILES THICK ony 13,000 years ago and it all melted away possibly in just a few decades.
No one thinks about this? This is normal?
During this period in time the Sahara desert had a lush temperate climate. Parts of Antarctica was temperate, as well northern Siberia which now is all ice and tundra was temperate – Mammoths found frozen in the permafrost with food still in its mouth – grass and buttercups as well as frozen fruit trees, ferns etc.
Then the global climate turned around on a dime in such as small period of time and here we are discussing our CO2 emissions and how we are screwing up the climate.
Can you see why I am not drinking the cool aid? In recent history the global climate had a complete reversal on a scale unimaginable today and humanity had nothing to do with it. Doesn’t that raise any questions?
When you read about the Ice Ages global warming in my opinion becomes trivialised.
Cheers
T_H – despite what the professional spinmeisters have poisoned your mind with, scientists remain scientists, which is to say, they don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
And the pro liars have also promoted a false black/white, with us/against us dichotomy, which is one of the fundamental tricks in the propagandist’s toolbox.
It’s not about ‘GW is exclusively anthropogenic’ versus ‘GW is entirely the result of natural processes.’
Even if we ARE (against incredibly remote odds) poised at the beginning of a natural hot spell – in NO WAY does that mean that we are not ADDING TO IT – which would STILL BE A BAD THING…
IOW – a new cycle is starting now? OK. Sure. Great. So how, exactly, does that make humanity’s contribution benign? Hmmm?
We’ll never know because the IPCC mandate did not include natural phenomenon, which could be 1% or 99% of the cause of global warming.
1% or 99% anthropogenic – it makes no difference.
The less we contribute to the process, the better off we’ll be. And that – not fucking unnecessarily with the balance of natural systems we don’t yet know enough about – is infinitely more important than ensuring that a tiny, obscenely wealthy sliver of humanity gets to keep making more money that they’ll never need.
6 billion people should not have to deal with a more-hostile climate in order that a couple hundred thousand who already own most of everything get to amass ever more of what are, to them, nothing more than markers in their decadent game of “let’s see who can grab the most.”
(to the tune of ‘Jesus Loves Me’):
Earth’s not warming, yes I know
Exxon Mobil tells me so
🙂
It does make a difference, because it would show us KYOTO is a fraudulent fix, designed to transfer money to the third world for absolutely no reduction in greenhouse gasses.
Yeah,i do agree,atmospheric moisture tied to human activities,we shud use led lights and be environmental friendly,i have started using them,got from here,…,.