Ah yes, water vapor, the elephant in the room. It's by far the most influential greenhouse gas, yet climate scientists really don't know what it will do. I've seen papers both ways- positive and negative feedback.
And the true believer community is attacking you on the basis of credibility, not facts presents. I'd count that as a win.
Science doesn't know everything. If it did, it could stop. Therefore, what you will find in every area of science are bits that don't quite match observations, bits that need to be refined, and bits that turn out to be wrong. So the short answer to your question (assuming the graph is correct, of course) would be - more work needs to be done on understanding that aspect.
However, the fact that we don't know everything doesn't imply we don't know anything, as some of the answerers seem to believe. Taking one graph on water vapor does not allow you to discount *everything* climatologists are telling us. It doesn't disprove AGW. Even if you really really want it to.
There's a strange parallel between some of the comments here and the 'God of the gaps' mentality that applies in Creationism. In that case, people look for some aspect of evolution theory that isn't particularly well defined, or some issue that can't be explained, then use that uncertainty (which, as I said, is always the case in science) as 'evidence' that evolution is wrong. That's a stretch. As is equating some flaws and gaps in our understanding of climate as 'evidence' that scientists are wrong about AGW.
Another stand alone graph with no source info Water vapor increases as the atmosphere and ocean temps increase. Howerver water vapor is only viable for a couple of days.
CO2 and other human induced greenhouse gases fuel warming Water vapor is a positive feedback within that system
Wage Slave nailed it. These warmers are so mindlessly engrained in their rhetoric, that they have forgotten that they are the ones that hold the burden of proof. They are asking for the spending of trillions of dollars, they hold the burden. They are making the strong claim of certain doom, they hold the burden of proof. The entirety of the "positive feedback" is dependent upon water vapor being in the air in a greater concentration AND that water vapor causing additional warming and serving as a positive feedback.
This mean that when you bring up water vapor, they should be able to show an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Their tactics are pathetic and show how far behind they really are.
They are simply saying that they don't like your source. They are not demonstrating that your source is erroneous, let alone meeting the small portion of their burden of proof of showing more atmospheric H2O.
Their bumbling attempts would be entertaining, were it not for the fact that they so easily fool the gullible.
Gringo,
I am skeptical of his graph. But you hold the burden of proof. Show your analysis suggesting more H2O in the atmosphere.
Gary F,
Did you just say that if your models fail, you have to come up with new models and test them??? You can't, ... look for missing heat and declare victory???
See Gary, I knew there was a scientist hiding within you. Now if you can actually apply your scientific reasoning to your precious AGW models, see if your uncertainty about the validity of those models does not increase.
Gary F,
So you are not a true scientist. You accept models as long as they match the past without the testing of future predictions. Good to hear. I started to have a glimmer of hope for you, but thanks for crushing it.
>>It came from this article http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2oKmKw2
And…that graph comes from a WUWT comment by Bill Illis, which is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/04/so...
And…his link takes you here:
http://s19.postimg.org/rnjc1nxjn/WV_IPCC...
And…that leaves you back exactly where you started…with the same unreferenced graph.
The comment in the graph, “but the ‘hindcast’ is already way off” makes no sense because “ALREADY way off” implies that in the future it could be more-or-less “way off”…but hindcasts do not change once a model is built. You have to build a new model to get a different ‘hindcast’….so, What’s Up With That Bullshlt?
======
Raisin Caine --
>>Did you just say that if your models fail, you have to come up with new models and test them??? You can't, ... look for missing heat and declare victory??? <<
Don't be silly. A hindcast can be either a proxy reconstruction or part of model validation. Here is it represents model validation - graphically represented by actual/reconstructed lines - and is a fixed result defined by the regression analysis for the period of overlap.
It does not change - ever - for the current model. However, as the length of record increases and/or additional data become available, it is possible to build a different model based on the new data - which will result in a different regression equation (i.e., model) with different parameters.
I did not think it necessary to explain it - because I thought it was obvious. Clearly, I was mistaken in making that assumption.
Maybe because it takes some global warming to increase atmospheric water vapor. Considering that the globe has not been warming That might be a clue.
How come you're not skeptic about an un-sourced, unverifiable graph?
Edit @ Kano:
<
So it's from a site euphemistically called 'Friends of Science' which in turn sources it to "a blog comment by Bill Illis" on WUWT.
The first question any real skeptic would raise is: who the F... is Bill Illis? The original source does not provide any further info so a real skeptic would ignore the graph and try to locate a more credible, verifiable source.
'Skeptic Kano' apparently isn't that skeptic.
Edit @ Raisin Caine:
<>
Sorry, but the one providing the graph first and foremost has the burden of proof to show its validity. So far, Kano has not done that. He links to a FoS site which sources it to a Bill Illis comment on WUWT who in turn sources it back again to the FoS site.
I for one am not going to enter any graph based discussion as long as that graph is not verifiable. The reason for that is that it would not be the first time that a 'fake skeptic' has been caught creatively photoshopping a graph to make it appear the data shows something which in reality it doesn't. I for one am not going to waste my time on an unsourced graph which any 'creative photoshopper' could have made in less than 10 minutes.
http://s27.postimg.org/eexakr5wz/ENSO_PCWV_48_Feb14.png
