1. So what if it's logarithmic? Again, what is the limit of log(x) as x goes to infinity? Here's a clue: it's also infinity. That also ignores any other feedbacks that may be expected to occur. Just because something has a logarithmic rather than a linear or quadratic or exponential or whatever dependence is no reason to dismiss it.
2. and 3. It's amazing that denier just love data if they think it supports their claims, but think it's "manipulated" if it doesn't. First, the idea of a tropical hot spot is not associated with anthropogenic global warming per se, but with global warming of any type. So, if you believe it has warmed then you're already conceding that point--you don't need any "hot spots" to prove it.
Second, you accept data much too blindly. You say "...water vapor is not increasing" and I'll tell you that you really do not know whether it is or it isn't. How is it measured? What do you think of Sippican versus Vaisala (or some other brand) of hygristors? What about millimeter wave radars? How about sounders?
Have you--even just once in your life--looked at a radiosonde sounding and knew what it was telling you? If I say "dew point depression" do you know what that means? If you haven't really looked at these things, then when you say "water vapor is not increasing" you're just parroting what you read on some blog, and you have no perspective on whether it's right or wrong.
Here's another question for you: how MUCH should it be increasing? That's an interesting question that you could probably get a feel for if you knew the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. So here's a question, let's say you increase temperature 0.1 degree Celsius, what would that mean as far as the equilibrium vapor pressure? Then, somehow take that change and translate it to a change in the precipitable water (integrated water vapor), say from the surface to 300 hPa.
But wait, what value of precipitable water is "normal"? You have to have some baseline if you're going to tell whether it's increasing or not. But here's what it really boils down to: take the change in precipitable water over some time period (10 years, 50 years) and figure out how much change you would expect due to warming. Now, go back and look at ALL those instruments that have been used over that time period to measure the humidity, and look at the vertical spacing of the measurements (since it's the integrated value that matters, smaller spacing should mean a better approximation) and figure out how much error should come from the integration, and from the instrument error and propagate all those errors through and see how it compares to the change you have measured.
The radiosondes (unfortunately) were never intended for looking at climate change. They were made to be cheap and accurate enough to tell what the freezing level is and whether or not there will be a severe thunderstorm. Frankly, many times they do not even achieve that goal. They're also very useful for initializing the numerical weather prediction modela.
Using their data unquestioningly to determine whether there is or isn't a tropical hot spot or whether water vapor is going up or down is foolish.
Your belief that there is no tropical hot spot is in error and is dependent on what data source you use. It would also occur under any type of warming and is attributed to the lapse rate of water vapour. Water vapour IS increasing. And CO2's logarithmic-like effects when discussing energy retention does not mean that an increase will not cause any warming. Nor does the fact that most of CO2s retention capabilities occur within the first 100 ppm. I have shown you this before yet you continue to state it as if it's important. I see you have gone back to your old ways. here's a question for you. Why do you seem incapable of learning this sort of stuff? Is it by choice?
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missi...
Edit: There are very small amounts of water vapour in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is not the troposphere. Do you understand this? Different layers of the atmosphere will react differently to various surface forcings. Stating that the stratosphere is loosing water vapour therefor the troposphere is doing the same is just ignorant.
In any model there will be a combination of fundamental physics and assumptions. If the assumptions are incorrect, the model may not be accurate. This is true of any type of mathematical modelling.
The assumptions the IPCC use seem to depend on the postulate that global warming in the 20th century is not accounted for by natural mechanisms and instead caused by human activity. Once that is assumed to be true, the effect of various mechanisms, can be estimated, like how strong is the enhanced greenhouse effect from increasing CO2. These estimates are much greater than what can be estimated using the fundamental physics, so 'feedback factors' are introduced.
This is why it is so important for the IPCC to keep insisting that they are very certain that 20th century warming was caused by human activity. (How many alarmists have repeated the phrase "the earth is warming when we should be in a cooling phase" ad naseum). Without this assumption, the evidence points to CO2 having a minor effect on climate.
Since you accept that CO2 is logarithmic, why do you keep posting that "CO2 is mostly saturated" and therefore has little influence?
A logarithmic function will continue to have the same relative effect for each doubling of the variable.
You are really consistently being a denier - as in denying the science and the math - in this regard, rather than a skeptic.
First – All of you need to learn that graphs are not evidence. Graphs are simplistic pictures of evidence. There is a difference.
And before anyone tries to invoke the Hockey Stick – the Hockey Stick was not evidence. The evidence was presented in the text of the MBH paper – that being: descriptions, explanations, and justification of the data, methods, and analyses used and conclusions reached. The fact that so many Deniers have obsessed on the graph is a direct reflection of how little they understand science, the scientific process, and the scientific profession.
>>as climate models are the backbone of AGW theory<<
Completely untrue; the backbone of AGW Theory is thousands of independent empirical studies and well-understood and widely-accepted principles in physics and chemistry. That is how AGW was identified and that is why it is accepted. Climate models are experiments based on empirical observations of climate and climate-related variables, and current scientific knowledge. Models are not run to find support for (prove) AGW; they are run to better understand the climate system and to try to anticipate the consequences of what is happening in the real world.
>>seeing that NOAA is pro AGW<<
NOAA is committed to science. You are committed to the rejection of science. Deniers all think that the end justifies the means – including the deliberate refusal to objectively examine evidence, the intentional falsification of scientific findings, and personal slanderous attacks against individuals and groups you know nothing about over things that you know nothing about.
========
edit ---
>>To prove a theory you have to experiment<<
Science does not prove or disprove Theories or anything else. If you want a formal concept of proof, you need to look at pure mathematics/logic. No amount of experiements can ever prove a scientific theory.
The validity of scientific theories does not depend on grade-school ideas/models of experiments. Experiments involve the (empirical) testing of hypotheses.
Deniers redefine science, theory, experiment, etc. so that they claim that their non-scientific beliefs and faux research are science/scientific. It is the same thing as children changing the rules of a game they do not know how to play. It may still be a game, but it is not the same game - it is not the real game.
If you want to play the real game - you have to learn the real rules. If you want to be a skilled player of the game, it requires years of study and practice - more in order to "master" it - and even more in order to really know what you are doing.
There are no short cuts. I've known one person who learned calculus on their own in grade school. It took the rest of us a lot longer.
You have already made the mistake of labeling yourself as a skeptic. A skeptic will not dismiss the evidence that would belay their skepticism. This is what someone in denial of the evidence presented before them would do.
Tropical hotspot- http://www.skepticalscience.com/troposph...
Water vapor not increasing - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/59...
"how it all works?" - the Laws of Physics, Thermodynamics, and Chemistry.
You could find these answers for yourself, if you so desired to do so. But that would defeat your purpose here, would it not?
There is no upper tropospheric "Hot Spot"!
That's why AGW advocates and the IP CC have to rely on Climate Models!
Logarithmic my butt! It (CO2) is suppose to have a direct effect, but it doesn't. Industrial revolution causes Global Warming? We are re-using what the Planet already used before and it "will be" detrimental?
It's part of the carbon cycle and will never have a "direct effect" on temperatures simply due to its extreme input into our atmosphere already! It has everything to do with temperature, but the variations depend on several other inputs that climate science doesn't understand yet.
"Natural Climate Variability" in the atmosphere over time (which they will never be able to measure) is the only thing that they can rely on at the moment. Science may try to make laws, but they will never (... and I mean NEVER) be able to understand how and why the Planet Earth has only one moon! (tic)
Chem Flunky likened it to a poison (arsenic) in our atmosphere. That lady needs to find an alien to date.
Kano This may throw some light on the subject http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.htm...
"Due to the partial covalency of water's hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions [1691] capable of interacting with local electric [1692] and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation [1602]." What do you mean there's no hot spots http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3 this shows hot spots and expansion and goes on 24/7 in at least 3 locations .
"....a continuing rise of CO2 will cause infinitely continuing warming, at infinitely insignificant amounts"
-right.. that worked really well on Venus.
I cannot believe the nonsense that comes out of deniers
As skeptics we are continuing bombarded with the laws of physics, thermodynamics and science proving us wrong.
So please can someone explain, that giving CO2 is logarithmic, there is no tropical hotspot, and water vapor is not increasing, how it all works? and why it is not happening now.
