Again… from the most affected region of the planet by warming; the northern hemisphere’s polar region. If temperatures there were warmer than the present for 8,500 of the last 10,000 years, temperatures everywhere else wouldn’t be colder than the present for 8,500 of the past 10,000 years.
Incorrect. Water vapor, cloud formation and precipitation. The same physics they rely upon in their model. It’s an extremely complex and controversial topic. But the fact remains, the planet cooling for 50 million years with much higher levels of CO2 proves their models are wrong. Increased water vapor is net negative. Due primarily to cloud formation and precipitation. Data doesn’t lie.
And cooling from precipitation.
That’s only because the bias in the climate science is so strong they have failed to study the earth’s climate data and instead are relying upon flawed models which can’t history match the past. They are only getting away with it because of the current interglacial period which is 2C below typical interglacial peak temperatures. They have mistaken a quite normal climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW. All it’s going to take for them to look at the data and come to these conclusions is a cooling trend which according to the geologic record will eventually occur. Just look at the ice core data. It doesn’t lie. So when that happens they will be like rats abandoning a sinking ship and the true physics will be discovered. Again… 50 million years of cooling at much higher CO2 concentrations don’t lie.
The detection and attribution of tropospheric water vapour changes can be traced back to Santer et al. (2007), who used estimates of atmospheric water vapour from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and from CMIP3 historical climate simulations. They provided evidence of human-induced moistening of the troposphere, and found that the simulated human fingerprint pattern was detectable at the 5% level by 2002 in water vapour satellite data (from 1988 to 2006). The observed changes matched the historical simulations forced by greenhouse gas changes and other anthropogenic forcings, and not those due to natural variability alone. Then, Santer et al. (2009) repeated this study with CMIP5 models, and found that the detection and attribution conclusions were not sensitive to model quality. These results demonstrate that the human fingerprint is governed by robust and basic physical processes, such as the water vapour feedback. Finally, Chung et al. (2014) extended this line of research by focusing on the global-mean water vapour content in the upper troposphere. Using satellite-based observations and sets of CMIP5 climate simulations run under various climateforcing options, they showed that the observed moistening trend of the upper troposphere over the 1979–2005 period could not be explained by internal variability alone, but is attributable to a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcings. This increase in water vapour is accompanied by a reduction in mid-tropospheric relative humidity and clouds in the subtropics and mid-latitude in both models and observations related to changes in the Hadley cell (Section 3.3.3.1.1; Lau and Kim, 2015).
The conclusion in the lastes assessment report, both by models and observations, is that warming temperatures are reducing cloud cover in the subtropics and mid-latitudes. You were arguing that increased water vapour would increase cloud cover. Albedo is dropping, not increasing.
Did they explain in that report how the planet cooled with 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?
That’s mumbo jumbo bullshit. You are talking out your ass. I do understand the logarithmic nature of CO2 and the bullshit made up climate sensitivity. It does not go backwards and orbital forcing does not cool the planet for 50 million years. Orbital forcing is cyclical.
I was told last year we would have a La Nina which is what we have so maybe you should get your news from the WPo to save you embarrassment.
www.prageru.com
It doesn't go backwards? You've got a WHOLE lot of mathematicians who disagree.
