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.
#17 – Lowfreq,
Not without a tremendous cost and use (and destruction) of land space. The level of technology isn’t there. Nuclear power is the only thing close to supplying enough juice right now AND has low emissions.
Clearly, in your mind, the construction of wind turbines, solar panels, and underwater turbines is far greater than the amount of land destroyed by building a nuclear plant and mining for uranium (a nasty business), or mountaintop removal, or oil pipelines and oil spills and drilling rigs.
Nuclear power is far better than fossil fuels. I’ll agree with you there. However, as for it being available now, it takes about 10 years for a plant to come online. It also takes about $2GB (gigabucks) provided by the government, paid for by taxpayers, and then given to the power company for free. No wonder the power companies love them.
Let’s not forget about the waste they produce, the security necessary to protect both the plant and the waste from terrorism, the fact that no one wants the waste carted through their backyard, the fact that we have no place to store the waste, etc.
‘Electric cars work.’ What do you mean ‘work’?
I mean that the EV-1 was a good car that went 200 miles on a charge. I mean that Tesla Motors has a car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds and goes 250 miles on a charge with a 3 hour recharge time. Cars like this are good enough for a large percentage of the population. Tesla is also working on a sedan. Toyota made a RAV4 too. I mean the cars work. That we don’t have them can be explained more fully by watching the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
Is everyone forgetting that the primary byproducts of combustion of fossil fuels is carbon dioxide and water, the water being in the form of vapor?
With all the billions of tons of coal, oil and natural gas being burned worldwide, nobody should be surprised by this.
#12 has it right in that the water vapor is more likely a cause of global warming rather than an effect.
#19 – Angus,
I’ve got no beef with your comment. I believe the planet cannot support anywhere near our current numbers. But, that’s just my opinion. You might also check out The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement for similar views.
I do think though that the planet could sustain some number of humans. I don’t think we need to be the blight on the planet that we currently are.
>>Besides, I think you’re trying to deny future
>>generations a better climate that the current
>>one: http://tinyurl.com/2ofv2k
Hot Ball, you keep pimping that one quote by Michael Griffin, while failing to mention his follow-up apology/ retraction:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin said ”
If you think that the consequences of civilization-induced global warming are going to be good…..well, what can I say. You’re the same fellow who said that living in the suburbs and commuting 1.5 hours round trip to work is a “good thing”.
Res ipsa loquitur.
my jaded slant on all this:
the only reason global warming has become “fashionable”
is because eco and non-eco corp bigwigs have figured
out how profit off of the whole carbon credit scam. i seriously doubt anything we do will have a major effect on the chain of events humans have already set in motion.
on top of that, as others have stated.. they’re using a tiny snapshot of weather/time to base all this on. -data that’s easily manipulated to give whatever the current desired outcome is.
the big fossil fuel fan boys will continue try to keep alternate, cleaner energies as inefficient and expensive looking as long as possible. -they have too much invested in the current platform and support industries to allow a change.
nuclear power grids could EASILY solve half our “greenhouse gas fears”, but the fossil boys make sure everyone is scared to death of it..
extremely efficient hydrogen production from water has been demonstrated for years. However this report looks to make sure that has another nail firmly planted in its coffin. what with all the moisture by-product of burning hydrogen, how could we possibly think about it as an alternative energy source without another 25-50 years of “study” -hohum..
i’d also bet a days pay that this report is also designed to allow us sheeple (USA) to more readily accept using the HARRP array in alaska (http://haarp.alaska.edu/) to experiment with modifying the weather in an effort to stop the horrid emissions load humans put on the planet.. (heavens ta mergatroid!)
while solar power is probably the best alot of our power grid issues, it has far too small of a “support” industry to make it attractive to the current people running the energy industry. heck, farmers can set up an array that can power all their needs plus give them excess power to sell back to the grid.
-surely we cant have energy that the common man can harness and even help supply the local grid with. -that takes far too much control of the grid in away from the big wigs. it’d probably take some sort of catastrophe to have this method of energy production become mainstream. -or at least as long as it takes big corporate energy to pay off the government to bog the whole process down with unneeded and wasteful regulations that gives them the lions share of control and profits..
remember, fossil fuels also help keep the shipping/trucking industries alive and fat with profits and subsidies… they bring alot of money to the political coffers as well… i’d bet another days pay that any new “greenhouse friendly” energies will, at least initially, still require the full support of the shipping industry.
lastly…global warming concerns, at least whatever the mainstream media pushes on us here in america, have absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet. –the only concern is how much profit can be made from this newly manufactured crisis and for how long.
other countries, especially germany, seem to be a bit more enlightened (and *possibly* less politically motivated) when it comes to cleaning up their act, but unfortunately, here in america, mad profits are the only thing driving our greenhouse concerns.
-anyway… thats my jaded 2¢ opinion for now..
-s
#21 – JimR,
1) they only have 19 years of data
True. And, this is discussed honestly and openly in the article. The reasons for their confidence in matching this 19 years are also expressed.
2) they have a biased objective to support their claims of human cause
Who does? You state below that you have not read the actual source. So, do you mean the reporter who did their best to paraphrase it so that we-the-idiots might have a chance of understanding it?
3) the bias shows in the article (i haven’t read the actual report)
Other than admitting to not having read the report, how does this differ from 2? You really should read the full report before making such statements. It might lend some credibility to your viewpoint, as would citing an example of a statement or two that you find biased in the original report.
4) If independent reviews weren’t damned with such religious fervor, more scientists would be willing to put the effort into doing actual experimental science to prove or disprove the THEORY presented, rather than rely on computer generated modeling… which can at best ONLY regurgitate a simulation of a possibility, from human selected input data, current human knowledge, and human biases.
It may have escaped your notice, but climate science is highly complex. They take the raw data and feed it into computers that are capable of processing more data than the human brain. However, there is real data there. Again, you really should read the full report.
#33 – iGW,
I trust him more than I trust Hansen who’s admitted to exaggerating (lieing) [sic] to get people’s attention.
Right. Hansen’s just a scientist. Why trust him over a political appointee appointed by a man with an agenda as well as profits from the oil industry?
Mind citing a source for that admission? When you say things like this without a citation, it sounds as if you just made that up on the spot. It also opens you up to a potential libel suit if Hansen cares and can track you down from your email address.
PS…
-lol.. i just saw that the report was in part, done by livermore labs.. so in my jaded view of the world, this article definitely has long term ulterior motives that will reveal themselves in time..
makes me even more thoughtful about the idea that getting additional funding pushed at the HARRP array for use in weather control and modification (or similar) is going to stuffed in some pork barrel bill down the line..
anything livermore puts out has a long term agenda..and no i have nothing to back that up with atm other than pure instinct.
-s
#35 – Yes, a warming trend is in progress. Man might be contributing but the actual amount is debatable. There is no proof the warming trend is “bad”. As I’ve said before, I don’t buy Scott’s scenario of a billion folks staggering around looking for someone to eat.
A 1.5 hour commute one way is preferable to living in a city.
Here’s and interesting piece ( http://tinyurl.com/2r2ubm ) also containing an amazing quote from Dr. Stephen Schneider: “On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” I’m assuming this is the original Scientific American article: http://tinyurl.com/2ubwxj. I’m not paying 8 bucks to download it because I don’t care that much.
The real point is that there may be political consensus, but there really is’nt “scientific” consensus and that information is slowly leaking out, thankfully.
(Oh, but wait, all of the hundreds of hits I got were paid for by the oil industry.)
#16 – GigG
“Doesn’t anyone have a problem with using data from only a 20 year period when we are talking about a x-million year old ecosystem?”
Damn! Y’know, you’re right. Let’s factor in all the data collected by satellite for, say, the last 10,000 years. That make you happy?
I’m quite sure that climate researchers – unlike you – are such idiots that that factor never even occurred to them…
#29 – MM
“>>Global warming is policy now
Yeah, kinda like that nasty theory of evolution. Damned scientists; they take all the fun out of everything.”
Even among the allegedly “enlightened”, there’re still large numbers for whom science is wonderous – until it starts interfering with political / religious / social sacred-cow ideologies. Or cuts into profits.
>>A 1.5 hour commute one way is preferable to living in a city.
Tee hee! I guess yer one a them thar suburban hillbillies what’s afraid of living in the Big City, huh? Your loss, our gain.
Maybe if Mommie ever unties your apron strings, you’ll realize that there’s more to life than Olive Gardons and strip malls.
Greed and laziness are the only reasons people argue against the idea that we humans have scaled up our polluting capacity to an order of magnitude that we actually are affecting global weather patterns.
If there’s a chance that you could help save the planet for your kid’s generation and you don’t take, what does that say about you?
>>If there’s a chance that you could help save the planet for
>>your kid’s generation and you don’t take, what does that say
>>about you?
I think it says yer iGlobalWarmer, whose Mommie won’t let him have sex, so he doesn’t HAVE any kids. He’d rather spend 3 hours a day in his car, listening to bodice-ripper novels on audio books, dreaming about his fettucini alfredo at the Olive Garden when he gets home.
#45 – Been there and done that. There’s things like the Thee a tur and the opp err ah.
Works for me. You won’t be seeing me there and when I’m camping by a mountain stream I won’t be seeing you. It’s all good.
#47 – You’ve convinced me about atmospheric moisture – not only are we all dying from global warming but I see you’re getting all wet. 😉
#41 – iGW,
Link 1: Did you write that article? It’s just like you. Says Hansen admitted exaggerating, but cites nothing.
Link 2: Yup the data was corrected and 1934 was the warmest. This has no effect on anything related to climate science, it being a single data point. Hansen admitted to making a mistake on a data point. How is that an admission of an exaggeration?
Link 3: The correction of a single data point does absolutely nothing to any graph of the averages. I downloaded the data myself. What is most notable about 1934 was how much farther from its 5 year average it was than 2008. So, 2008 was part of a trend. 1934 was an anomaly. Graph it yourself. The data is available for download. Pay special attention to the graph of the 5 year averages that smooth out the anomalies.
Link 4: From Heartland Institute, whose Board of Directors includes Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors Corporation. Interesting choice for an unbiased view. However, even they do not make the claim that Hansen admitted to exaggerating.
Please check your facts more carefully in the future.
#42 – iGW,
The real point is that there may be political consensus, but there really is’nt [sic] “scientific” consensus and that information is slowly leaking out, thankfully.
Actually, that’s completely back-asswards. There is not a full scientific consensus of absolutely every scientist in the world, or even every climate scientist. However, there may be more doctors willing to testify about an insufficient link between smoking and cancer than there are climate scientists disputing anthropogenic climate science. I’m still looking for the source of that quote, so won’t assert its truth. However, I will say that the dispute exists in the public domain far more than in the scientific community.
When you do your searches, what are you searching for? And, are you using Google Scholar?
Lastly, even if the balance were only 50-50, which is far from the truth by a huge factor, would you cross a street if you were told that there was a 50-50 chance that you’d get hit by a speeding bus?
If not, why would you literally bet the survival of the species on those odds?
#45 – MM (& iGW),
Maybe if Mommie ever unties your apron strings, you’ll realize that there’s more to life than Olive Gardons and strip malls.
Mustard, do you really think they have Olive Gardens an hour and a half from what passes for a city in iGW’s neck of the woods? I think he’s probably an hour from the nearest McD’s, the best restaurant around.
#50 – Lauren,
I agree with your statements on global warming. But what the hell is this one about?
The Marxist PC ultraliberal assholes who are poisoning American culture
There’s no such thing. The people creating American culture for their own benefit are the large corporations making money off the product placements in movies and all the rest of the crap. The group you mention in that quote is a myth. What were you smoking? If you can believe that some professors in Harvard are having a major effect on pop culture, you might want to watch it. You may be believing in a deity next.
Scott, you DO know that we’re basically a few nutcases away from going from http://www.vhemt.org/index.htm(Voluntary Human Extinction Project) to an Involuntary Human Extinction Project? Think Hitler with a few nice mutant ebola strains. Start walking down that path, and someone else will start running.
That kind of thinking does nothing if the first world has no kids and the third world keeps growing uncontrollably. Just like if I go from a HOnda Accord to a Honda Pius (intentional spelling) and my neighbor goes from a GMC pickup to a Hummer. It’s zero sum gain.
The problem is that people do not really comprehend the sheer scale involved
Our species has been spewing exponentially increasing amounts of CO2 and many other gasses and particulates into the atmosphere from every city, in every country, the world over for well over a century without pause.
That is an undeniable fact.
When you consider the scale, the idea that it would not eventually impact the global climate seems naive.
#50,#54,
Damn Lauren!! Now I have this image of a bunch of middle-aged pipe-smoking bearded male Harvard professors with tweed sport jackets with leather elbows walking around in baggy pants with their boxers showing and middle-aged women with long hair loose blouses and thongs with tight Capri jeans halfway down their thighs. How will I ever get that out of my skull??!!?
#56 – Angus,
Actually, I don’t know that. I think we’re much more likely to go extinct due to the likes of iGW here than from a deliberate cause. As for the zero sum, that’s the type of argument people are using to say that the U.S. can’t stop global warming ’cause it’s all caused by China now.
That type of logic is completely flawed for a number of reasons. First and foremost, your neighbor is probably not downgrading to a Humper because you upgraded to a Prius. So, it’s not zero sum. We each need to do what we can.
As for the China argument, the funniest part is how many people miss that China is causing all those carbon emissions from their factories … where they make stuff … and container ships that they use to ship it … to us! So, if we could phase out our consumerist mentalities, we could reduce both our and China’s GHG emissions.
Here in the U.S., as the highest producers of GHGs per capita, each of us does have a lot of power to change our habits and hopefully reduce the worst effects on the environment.
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
People who are “out for themselves” and willing to out pragmatism ahead of idealism – they go into law, advertising & marketing, and careers with companies which pay well for sociopathic devotion to profit over humanity – Big Tobacco, HMOs, and of course petrochemical giants.
The very goal of scientific research is. unlike that of those other sort of concerns I mentioned, the determination of what is correct, factual and true. The only examples of researchers who are willing to bend science to fit a predecided ideology are the PCers who have infested and poisoned various disciplines where their ultraleftist beliefs don’t match up with the science. Their solution is to distort and sabotage the science, rather than accept the truth, which means accepting that they are wrong – something an ideologue simply can’t do…
Honest, unbiased research in the areas of sexual, racial, physical, social and cultural differences between various human groups – and between the members of those groups – is getting hard to find and harder to do, because it conflicts with the multiculti PC brainwashing these “scientists” were subjected to throughout their educations. No different than the evolution-rejectors, who ignore provable scientific fact in favor of the religious brainwashing they received in their youths. That’s what I’m talking about when I say ideologues rarely become scientists, and when they do, they rarely do good science.
M. Scott – You’re making a large misassumption there, boyo. I said nothing about pop culture, which is only one component of culture. Marxists, such as those Harvard is famous for, are alive and well, pushing their various faux –egalitarian antiwhite, antimale, antiWestern, antiheterosexual and other far-left PC causes.
Don’t be a fool and fall into the trap they have set, of letting you confound the messenger with the message, by smearing all of their opponents by association with the ultraright extremists who are their most vocal and visible critics. That, of course, is a classic Marxist propaganda tactic, as is working to silence those who confront them, rather than engaging in debate. The parallels of religious extremists’ methods and goals used in trying to reshape society to their liking to those of the neoMarxists are very interesting to observe. What PCers and religious fundies have in common, and which proves them equally full of shit, is how they slyly claim to be the victims, and how they believe that free expression should only extend to them, since the indibitable and unquestionable righteousness of their cause is a given…
Gee. That was so nice, I said it thrice! 🙂
#60-62 – Lauren,
The very goal of scientific research is. unlike that of those other sort of concerns I mentioned, the determination of what is correct, factual and true. The only examples of researchers who are willing to bend science to fit a predecided ideology are the PCers who have infested and poisoned various disciplines where their ultraleftist beliefs don’t match up with the science.
Clearly you’ve heard of neither the tobacco companies nor Exxon/Mobil.
M. Scott – You’re making a large misassumption there, boyo. I said nothing about pop culture, which is only one component of culture. Marxists, such as those Harvard is famous for, are alive and well, pushing their various faux -egalitarian antiwhite, antimale, antiWestern, antiheterosexual and other far-left PC causes.
Please don’t pass whatever it is you’re smoking. I think it causes really bad trips. This little idea of yours is literally so ludicrous I have no idea what to even say about it.