Why Warming Has Halted:

[The PIT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

Before warmist start jumping up and down remember that water vapour is amongst one of the largest green house gasses.

last time I heard the Guardian was a bad guy but here is the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

Shows we have a lot to still learn and the only way to learn is to be open about data and how the results were obtained.

[La Bise]

The new research, led by Susan Solomon, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who co-chaired the 2007 IPCC report on the science of global warming, is published today in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.

Respected scientists at a respected institutions publishing in a respected science paper=no problems at all for the "warmists". You'll notice there is not backtrack on climate change basic science so the usual cranks can carry on I guess...

The title of the thread is grossly misleading by the way, no mention of at all of "warming has halted"...

[Iceberg]

Might I suggest asking one of the mods to change to the title of the thread Pit as this is certaintly not what the scientists said in your article.

"A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add."

WE are talking about a slow down in the temperature rise, not a halt at all !

Apart from that comment that is alot of good in the article, water vapour is poorly understood, but this seems to say categorically that it's a positive feedback, which in what the models and IPCC have been saying for decades.

[Solar Cycles]

Might I suggest asking one of the mods to change to the title of the thread Pit as this is certaintly not what the scientists said in your article.

"A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add."

WE are talking about a slow down in the temperature rise, not a halt at all !

Apart from that comment that is alot of good in the article, water vapour is poorly understood, but this seems to say categorically that it's a positive feedback, which in what the models and IPCC have been saying for decades.

Could also be responsible for the warming we endured Iceberg, like you said water vapour is poorly understood, that and countless other feedbacks both positive and negative, are all poorly understood by scientist!

[The PIT]

Respected scientists at a respected institutions publishing in a respected science paper=no problems at all for the "warmists". You'll notice there is not backtrack on climate change basic science so the usual cranks can carry on I guess...

The title of the thread is grossly misleading by the way, no mention of at all of "warming has halted"...

Okay they said slowed down however it's pretty well accepted and even in the leaked emails that global temperatures have stopped rising and this couldn't be accounted for. Now this is one part of the puzzle.

[Iceberg]

No it's not well accepted that warming has stopped, sorry. Show me a graph (that doesn't start at the height of the El nino in the late 90's) upto current temps that shows that warming has stopped and I will never post in here again.

[Methuselah]

It's also not clear as to how water vapour can increase without the air being warmed first?? Unless all that stuff about water vapour holding-capacity being some sort of 'dry bulb' temperature-dependent equilibrium thing is wrong??

But, that would make Air-Con tech wrong, also??

[Solar Cycles]

No it's not well accepted that warming has stopped, sorry. Show me a graph (that doesn't start at the height of the El nino in the late 90's) upto current temps that shows that warming has stopped and I will never post in here again.

I think stalled is a better description Iceberg? The problem showing graphs though, is you can cherry pick any time scale to prove a point!

[Iceberg]

I think stalled is a better description Iceberg? The problem showing graphs though, is you can cherry pick any time scale to prove a point!

I agree SC, I could put up 100 graphs but people would disagree, which is why I always ask somebody else to !.

The only condition is that it is not cherry picked to the point of uselessness i.e starting in 98 and finishing in 07.

[Solar Cycles]

I agree SC, I could put up 100 graphs but people would disagree, which is why I always ask somebody else to !.

The only condition is that it is not cherry picked to the point of uselessness i.e starting in 98 and finishing in 07.

I agree Iceberg, hope no one manages to post one, would miss you posting on here!

[laserguy]

It's also not clear as to how water vapour can increase without the air being warmed first??

CO2 isn't the only by-product of fossil fuel combustion - look at the huge clouds of water vapour from exhausts on a cold morning - water that 'existed' moments earlier as atmospheric oxygen and the hydrogen component of hexane. When the penny drops that CO2 has not,does not,can not and will not cause warming,the cry will be to drive less because of all those nasty water emissions...... which will either end up in permanent form as clouds,thus blocking out the sun and ushering in the next ice-age,or fall back to Earth as rain,causing massive sea-level rise which will drown everyone etc . Either way,the car,van,bus,train,motorbike,tractor,plane,train etc are all evil and must be destroyed forever more. Cool,so long as I can get me cycle fixed for one last blow-out!

[The PIT]

It's also not clear as to how water vapour can increase without the air being warmed first?? Unless all that stuff about water vapour holding-capacity being some sort of 'dry bulb' temperature-dependent equilibrium thing is wrong??

But, that would make Air-Con tech wrong, also?? :lol:

So how does it decrease I was wondering that myself.

As for graphs amazing you can't find em when you want too. Some here http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/

[Methuselah]

CO2 isn't the only by-product of fossil fuel combustion - look at the huge clouds of water vapour from exhausts on a cold morning - water that 'existed' moments earlier as atmospheric oxygen and the hydrogen component of hexane. When the penny drops that CO2 has not,does not,can not and will not cause warming,the cry will be to drive less because of all those nasty water emissions...... which will either end up in permanent form as clouds,thus blocking out the sun and ushering in the next ice-age,or fall back to Earth as rain,causing massive sea-level rise which will drown everyone etc . Either way,the car,van,bus,train,motorbike,tractor,plane,train etc are all evil and must be destroyed forever more. Cool,so long as I can get me cycle fixed for one last blow-out!

No Barrie, you can't see water vapour, water vapour is invisible; what you see is condensate. And, the reason you see condensate is because the air on a cold morning cannot hold any extra water...What's more, the latent heat-release of the condensation process heats-up the surrounding air???

I take it you mean C₆H₁₂+¹⁸/₂O₂ ---> 6CO₂ + 6H₂O - for hexane?

[laserguy]

No Barrie, you can't see water vapour, water vapour is invisible; what you see is condensate. And, the reason you see condensate is because the air on a cold morning cannot hold any extra water...What's more, the latent heat-release of the condensation process heats-up the surrounding air???

I take it you mean C₆H₁₂+¹⁸/₂O₂ ---> 6CO₂ + 6H₂O - for hexane?

Pete you're splitting hairs!! Yes water vapour is invisible (peer closely at the spout of a boiling kettle and you'll observe 'nothing' twixt the spout and the visible steam) - the invisible bit is water vapour and the steam is said water made visible as it cools upon hitting it's relatively cold surroundings ,but it's still there in either case! And before the mating of air and hexane in an engine,that water did not exist. I'm off to rebuild my carburettors ! IIRC,yes that's the right equation!

[Thundery wintry showers]

When the penny drops that CO2 has not,does not,can not and will not cause warming

Repeating an assertion on numerous occasions, without providing any evidence to back it up with (other than ad hominems on particular individuals/groups who support AGW) doesn't make the assertion any more convincing than when it was made the first time.

[Essan]

When the penny drops that CO2 has not,does not,can not and will not cause warming

Then we come up with a totaly new explanation for global temps over the past 4,500,000,000 years ....

Meanwhile, current climate change may well be affected by changes in atmospheric composition .... but it's damned well sure to be caused by other things as well.

[7andY]

It's also not clear as to how water vapour can increase without the air being warmed first?? Unless all that stuff about water vapour holding-capacity being some sort of 'dry bulb' temperature-dependent equilibrium thing is wrong??

But, that would make Air-Con tech wrong, also??

...perhaps it refers to an increase in water vapour in air that is below the saturation point. You can add water vapour to air until this point is reached - or are we saying that the atmosphere is permanently saturated :lol:

7&Y

[Methuselah]

...perhaps it refers to an increase in water vapour in air that is below the saturation point. You can add water vapour to air until this point is reached - or are we saying that the atmosphere is permanently saturated

7&Y

Fair point??? :)

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/4

Here's a clue to why some folk say warming 'stopped/reversed' and others say 'slowed'............

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/4

Here's a clue to why some folk say warming 'stopped/reversed' and others say 'slowed'............

But it's OK G-W, AGW is a myth, oil and coal will last forever, and no-one ever need worry about taking responsibility for their own mess because the earth has an infinite ability to deal with our effluvium.......

In the meantime we can blithly continue our ever increasing consumption, after all, economic growth depends on it.........

Our ability to 'discover' more and more reasons to deny our manifest culpability would make an ostrich blush

[Solar Cycles]

http://www.rollingst...e_world_burns/4

Here's a clue to why some folk say warming 'stopped/reversed' and others say 'slowed'............

Interesting article. but deception seems to be working both ways GW. I'm all for viable alternatives to fossil fuels, but it seems that the only viable alternative is Nuclear!

[Kained]

Our ability to 'discover' more and more reasons to deny our manifest culpability would make an ostrich blush

This kind of comment borders on belief rather than informed scientific opinion.

[Methuselah]

But it's OK G-W, AGW is a myth, oil and coal will last forever, and no-one ever need worry about taking responsibility for their own mess because the earth has an infinite ability to deal with our effluvium.......

In the meantime we can blithly continue our ever increasing consumption, after all, economic growth depends on it.........

Our ability to 'discover' more and more reasons to deny our manifest culpability would make an ostrich blush

Aye, PTFD. That does seem be the case...

Interesting article. but deception seems to be working both ways GW. I'm all for viable alternatives to fossil fuels, but it seems that the only viable alternative is Nuclear!

And, that is also true...

This kind of comment borders on belief rather than informed scientific opinion.

Yes. But were does such 'belief' come from? IMO, it comes from reading some of the crass Right-Wing drivel that masquerades as science, on certain oft-cited blogs...

That said, 'warmist' claims that everything (from hurricanes to blizzards to uncorroborated claims of imminent Himalayan glacier disappearance) can be put-down to AGW are equally bizzare, IMO...

Unfortunately, Joe Public often cannot see behind the grinning faces of political ideologues???

[The PIT]

Or has it???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/02/january-2010-warmest-on-record.shtml

[Iceberg]

Or has it indeed, interesting time for the sat data to record the warmest Jan on record....

Or maybe it's all made up since the UK has had a cold winter.