• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Observed humidity trends in dry regions contradict climate models

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
39,982
Reaction score
23,617
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative



So the water vapor feedback that is supposed to be the primary driver of the more catastrophic predictions for global warming isn't happening.

This would go a long way to explaining why actual warming trends have been diverging from the models even while CO2 concentrations have matched the more catastrophic models.

It just underscores how little is actually known about the global climate and how much of the global warming models are based on unsubstantiated guesswork.
 
You can shuck and jive all you want, but climate change is real and its effects are felt all over the world.
 
From your source:

One of the most pressing issues facing society and ecosystems as the planet warms isthe impact of a changing hydroclimate and its associated effects on drought, wild fire, and heat extremes. This is particularly true in arid and semi-arid regions where water resources are limited, and wildfire and heat extremes are already a significant threat. The US Southwest is a particularly clear example, having been dominated by drought for the last 20 y with recent extreme conditions that led to unprecedented water shortages in the Colorado River (1) and extreme wildfire seasons (2) that have almost certainly been exacerbated by greenhouse gas–driven warming and aridification (1, 3, 4). Burned forest area in the Southwest is highly correlated with vapor pressure deficit, the difference between saturation and actual vapor pressure (2, 5, 6), so drought impacts can stem from changes in precipitation, temperature, and atmospheric humidity. What kind of future hydroclimate extremes should the Southwest, and regions like it, be preparing for? Climate models, which simulate the complex interacting processes that govern the hydroclimate, are an important tool for answering this question. A challenge is that many of the relevant processes or quantities such as evapotranspiration, root zone soil moisture, and plant physiological changes have not been observed on the global scale or on the multi-decadal timescales over which the planet has been changing, to evaluate our models. We do, however, have a reasonably complete network of station-based near-surface atmospheric humidity measurements as well as reanalysis-based estimates of atmospheric water vapor (7–9). In some sense, near-surface water vapor should act as an integrator of how processes that are of relevance to the hydroclimate are evolving, so a discrepancy in atmospheric water vapor trends between models and observations would be indicative of something being wrong in our model representation of processes that are of relevance to the hydroclimate, assuming atmospheric water vapor observations can be trusted.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well sure it's been changing for 25,000 years possibly longer. But the models were wrong
Click to expand...
I see you didn't read your source. Try to read just these few lines...

One of the most pressing issues facing society and ecosystems as the planet warms isthe impact of a changing hydroclimate and its associated effects on drought, wild fire, and heat extremes. This is particularly true in arid and semi-arid regions where water resources are limited, and wildfire and heat extremes are already a significant threat. The US Southwest is a particularly clear example, having been dominated by drought for the last 20 y with recent extreme conditions that led to unprecedented water shortages in the Colorado River (1) and extreme wildfire seasons (2) that have almost certainly been exacerbated by greenhouse gas–driven warming and aridification (1, 3, 4).
 
Loulit01 said:
I see you didn't read your source.
Click to expand...
I didn't read my source? What source what are you talking about?
Loulit01 said:
Try to read just these few lines...

One of the most pressing issues facing society and ecosystems as the planet warms isthe impact of a changing hydroclimate and its associated effects on drought, wild fire, and heat extremes.
Click to expand...
This is the dumbest s*** I've ever heard. These idiots are trying to blame droughts on climate change despite the fact that they've happened to all through human history.

Why not blade cancer and racism and hang nails on climate change
Again there is a big droughts through all the recorded history this isn't a change it's normal
 
Rogue Valley said:
jm wouldn't acknowledge climate change under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

That is a stupid lie, Rogue Valley. My position for DECADES is that the planet is warming, and to point out how dramatically the climate models diverge from reality. Nothing short of full buy in to catastrophism is heresy to you, apparently.

This story explains WHY the climate models are not matching reality because much of the model feedback loop is based on assumptions of evaporation rates on the ocean as temperature rise, and that evaporation isn't happening.
 
Last edited:
If you don't believe that even though the globe has been warming in fluctuations but all the sudden would have stopped inexplicably in 1972 and maintained the perfect temperature and the only way to fix this imminent catastrophe is authoritarian government, well you're just a science denier.

 

Yes, I'm aware, but that is a different issue than global warming. And the nature of the Southwest drought on the 20 year time scale is dominated by NATURAL ENSO cycles.

Also the study doesn't even link global warming to the decline in atmospheric moisture. The fact is that currently the assumptions in the models are the opposite of what we actually see, so you can't then say that the opposite of expectations is from the same cause.

So basically...

CAGW True Believer (2 minutes ago): OMG!! CO2 warming will lead to accelerated ocean evaporation, and water vapor is 10 times stronger a climate forcing than CO2... run away warming!!!

Scientific Study: Actually we've found that over the last 4 decades the rate of water evaporation is 10 times less than is predicted in the climate models.

CAGW True Believer (Right now): OMG!!! CO2 warming is leading to 10 times less ocean EVAPORATION!!

 
Last edited:
The biggest error in the climate models, is that they begin with the assumption that a doubling
of the CO2 level will cause Earth's longwave energy imbalance to increase.
The idea is that the added greenhouse gases would capture the longwave energy radiated from Earth, and reduce
the Outgoing Longwave radiation(OLR)
The problem is that since year 2000, when satellites first were put up to measure this, the OLR has been increasing,
as the greenhouse gas levels rose.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000
The claimed accuracy of climate models is based on the much lower sensitivity of TCR as opposed to ECS,
but even that is likely a correlation artifact.
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
We should not expect anything accurate out of the climate models if the most fundamental assumption
is wrong!
 
I’m sure this won’t be another case where you didn’t bother to fully read your source and get egg on you face again.
 
Mother Nature just does not like to behave like they want her to.
 
Loulit01 said:
You can shuck and jive all you want, but climate change is real and its effects are felt all over the world.
Click to expand...
Most of the flooding we see that is greater than the past is because we cap off land, then divert what the land would normally absorb into storm sewers. Rivers have a higher volume of water flow than they would otherwise. Cities downstream have a greater chance of having too much water, and we see more flooding.

This lack of water absorption also reduces the water that later evaporated moisture from the land and vegetation. We see warmer temperatures averages because we lose too much evaporation cooling.

Land use changes also hold heat in, and change the balance of absorption and emissivity. It is documented on papers that city temperatures can as much as 10 C (18 F) degrees warmer that the natural setting without us building these cities.

These heat islands from development will skew nearby meteorological stations, and we cannot properly adjust this skew out. We could be cooling globally, but think we age warming.
 
The problem here is there are I believe four types of drought. Our high and low rainfalls have not really changed over our several decades of measuring them. What we have, is more demand for water, using what we have faster, so when we do have a drought... We do not have enough water for all the people wanting it.

If you look at the historical highs and lows of precipitation, for over 100 years, you will see it is business as usual.
 
That was written by either a pundit, or a duffus.

Nothing said about the water shortages being tied to by human consumption increases.
 
jmotivator said:
Yes, I'm aware, but that is a different issue than global warming. And the nature of the Southwest drought on the 20 year time scale is dominated by NATURAL ENSO cycles.
Click to expand...
They have known for over 40 years that they are taking water out of the aquifers faster than it fills. The lower the water table is, the less evaporation cooling there is from it.
This is so silly that they believe such things. Most of any added water precipitates out in short order, back into the oceans. Outside of water sources, the water vapor content does not just magically occur. They way they talk, you would thing the believe in magic.
jmotivator said:
Scientific Study: Actually we've found that over the last 4 decades the rate of water evaporation is 10 times less than is predicted in the climate models.
Click to expand...
Probably because they do not account for the lowering of the water table in their models. just my scientific opinion anyway.
jmotivator said:
CAGW True Believer (Right now): OMG!!! CO2 warming is leading to 10 times less ocean EVAPORATION!!

Click to expand...
CO2 is insignificant to cause ocean evaporation. the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) must increase to do this. the spectra of CO2 is very strongly blocked by the immediate H2O vapor above the water. It is the sun's energy that warms the water.
 
Threegoofs said:
I’m sure this won’t be another case where you didn’t bother to fully read your source and get egg on you face again.
Click to expand...
Do you have any insight regarding the science, or are you here to just make unnecessary noise and harass us?
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Do you have any insight regarding the science, or are you here to just make unnecessary noise and harass us?
Click to expand...
Well, I ws going to point out the source literally says nothing about water vapor being a contributor to warming, or CO2 models and temperature being wrong, and focused primarily on how the findings of the study point to the reasons to models may be inaccurate in terms of precipitation predictions, but it’s clearly over your head.
 

And here we have Threegoofs who knows so little about his own argument that he has no idea that water vapor is the assumed primary amplifier in the CAGW feedback loop.

Current estimates are that water vapor is responsible for half of the global green house effect all on it's own, and the estimate of the evaporation feedback loop is where the current models arrive at their climate predictions of warming well in excess of CO2 warming, since CO2 alone has a logarithmic drop off in GHG effectiveness as concentrations rise where each 1 degree rise requires a CO2 doubling. They arrive at the more linear warming by assuming that CO2 warming leads to more water vapor, which is a much stronger GHG.

Without the increased atmosphere water vapor from CO2 warming, the climate feedback would be much lower... which is actually what the real world observations show.

But keep playing ignorant, it really works great!

Of course, they still don't understand cloud formation, so they can't even model for it and use wild guesses both historically where no data exists and in the future where no data exists... and only fools would assume that such models are of any value.
 
the idea that is still believed, is that the greenhouse gasses make the earth about 33 degrees than it would be without them. The problem is, the atmosphere even if it were 100% transparent to the spectra, helps warm too. We don't really know these numbers. it is all swaged.
 
jmotivator said:
And here we have Threegoofs who knows so little about his own argument that he has no idea that water vapor is the assumed primary amplifier in the CAGW feedback loop.
Click to expand...

No, no… I’m completely familiar.

But that’s not what this article is about. At all.

That’s nice. Notice how your article literally says nothing about that?
jmotivator said:
Without the increased atmosphere water vapor from CO2 warming, the climate feedback would be much lower... which is actually what the real world observations show.

But keep playing ignorant, it really works great!
Click to expand...
if I wrote a parody about someone being clueless about their own article, I do t think I could top this.
Yes, I’m sure you understand cloud formation better than the scientists who actually teach cloud formation.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They have known for over 40 years that they are taking water out of the aquifers faster than it fills.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
The lower the water table is, the less evaporation cooling there is from it.
Click to expand...
Water that evaporates condenses and falls, releasing heat. It's a zero-sum game.


 
Threegoofs said:
No, no… I’m completely familiar.
Click to expand...

So you refuse to accept that water vapor in an AGW model and water vapor in this study is the same water vapor.

Do you not understand that the expectations of atmospheric water vapor that are not being met are the current assumptions built into the AGW climate models?

Threegoofs said:
But that’s not what this article is about. At all.
Click to expand...

The article is about the unexpected evaporation rate of the ocean, and the lower than expected water vapor in the atmosphere. That you can't connect the dots between a story that shows lower than expected atmospheric water vapor and the the fact that 60-70% of the planet GHG effect is water vapor is a you problem.

Threegoofs said:
That’s nice. Notice how your article literally says nothing about that?
Click to expand...

It also doesn't say that water is a universal solvent, ergo, buy your dumb logic, water isn't a solvent.

Threegoofs said:
if I wrote a parody about someone being clueless about their own article, I do t think I could top this.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you do write a parody about someone being clueless.

Threegoofs said:
Yes, I’m sure you understand cloud formation better than the scientists who actually teach cloud formation.
Click to expand...

I understand that the scientists who actually model cloud formation know that we don't really understand cloud formation and, as a derivative, the cloud albedo that can be expected in past and future climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…