Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

AGW does posit secondary hypothesis like these about particular regions. But, it's important to distinguish daily weather from broad changes in regional climates over very long time scales. So yes, the polar regions (and specifically the North Pole) are predicted to gradually warm over decades more so than mid latitude and equatorial regions while some regions may even cool. And like you said, statements about the regional consequences of AGW tend to be very general. AGW does not make statements about daily weather. In fact, it doesn't really make specific statements about monthly or even yearly variations in weather at a particular location either.

This seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what AGW is. A lot of people have a false impression that AGW makes hypothesis that it really doesn't. So when those hypothesis get falsified it's frustrating to them because it seems so obvious that AGW can't be happening and they don't understand why AGW proponents aren't getting it. Vice versa, AGW proponents get frustrated because skeptics are talking about hypothesis that are off in left field and have little if anything to do with the main tenants AGW and they can't understand why skeptics aren't getting it. Or, perhaps they see a legitimate secondary hypothesis of AGW falsified and immediately think AGW theory as whole must be wrong not realizing that AGW literally has hundreds or even thousands of secondary or tertiary hypothesis that can be tested and that AGW does not claim that they all must be proven correct.

 

That is *NOT* what the reference paper says. You are *not* entitled to your own made-up facts!

 

Classic. The inability to separate natural climate change from anthropogenic. The stuff true smug is made of....

 

Now you are back to wanting it both ways. First there isn't additional water vapor in the atmosphere because it rains it out and now there *is* additional water vapor in the atmosphere causing more warming.

GO AWAY TROLL!

 

The AGW religionists will tell you its the wind blowing the water away from shore!

 

And water vapor by itself doesn't trap more heat allowing more water vapor?

You might want to tell NOAA to correct their web site.

 

For folks who profess their "belief" in change, they sure seem unwilling to actually accept that change happens.

 

i posted the facts, you ignored them

again, you're trying to conflate miami with southern florida

it's a logical fallacy, miami isn't the everglages

 

The whole of southern Florida is made up of rocks that will cause subsidence when deep water wells pull the water out of the rocks.

You can deny this till you are blue in the face but it won't change reality. And you like to call others sciene deniers?

 

right now, the primary problem i miami is sea-level rise

 

According to the UofF sea level in FL has tripled the world average, as in just since 1960, FL has measured over 8 CM (rougly <4") of sea state rise. So, we go to the charts, the sea walls, etc, to look for this measurement, and guess what? It just isn't there.

So, how do we measure this? Estimates. Use of models and applying them in theory as opposed to actual observation. Why? Because frankly, there are not a lot of places to measure from. Nor does the coast itself support durational stability. The barrier islands are constantly changing, and really, the only visual record are those of devastation from hurricanes, which frankly aren't examples of sea state rise from ice melt.

So, what are we to think? Hysteria? And if so, why? To drive the cost of flood insurance? To move folks off of the barrier islands? To reduce the overall sea front populations in FL? What is the actual goal?

Oh, and perhaps we could actually take the time to measure the dang water level occasionally.

 

nasa, noaa, satellites and oceanographers say you're wrong

"The rate of sea level rise is faster now than at any time in the past 2,000 years and that rate has doubled in the past two decades."


~ Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and NOAA

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201508_risingseas/

 

Your misunderstanding is not my problem but the name calling you engage in constantly kinda shows everyone the weakness of your "argument" such as it it.

 

Link to it then

 

And your continuing attempt to have it both ways just ruins *your* credibility!

GO AWAY TROLL!

 

I've linked to it at least three different times in this thread alone, just for you.

This is the LAST TIME TROLL.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'."

GO AWAY TROLL!

 

According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, and the climate was much more stable.

The animated gif below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture. There has been no change.

https://www.sandiegohistory.org/timeline/images/80-2860.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/090207-LaJollaCove.jpg


.

 

Exactly...

...but since we have no way of knowing whether it's a net positive or negative feedback, that's not useful information. You get that, right?

The latter only makes sense if education is taken as a synonym for indoctrination. As to the former, if you think intelligent people can't be swayed by superficially unsophisticated browbeating, your understanding of human psychology leaves much to be desired.

 

Guess what? You just repeated what I have been saying but AGAIN misunderstood it. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises ........It "rises" because of the added Greenhouse effect of....wait for it...CO2!

Without the CO2 the temperature doesn't rise (unless you can show added heat from the sun which you can't). That is what "forces" the positive feedback loop

 

The NASA page does not say that WV is the cause of the initial temperature increase though. But, for sake of argument, let's assume it is. Let's assume that WV both causes temperatures to rise by itself and gets locked into a positive feedback. Let's say it behaves exactly like CO2 in that respect. Ask yourself why, if WV really is a cause of temperature rise on its own, has it not caused a runaway warming affect in the past before humans started pumping CO2 in the atmosphere? Maybe that's a clue that should cause you to think for minute if you're interpreting things correctly. But, let's keep going with the assumption that WV is the cause of the warming. By that assumption you have to start wondering if AGW is going to be worse than we are predicting because that means both CO2 and WV are catalyzing warming and not just the CO2 like we currently believe. If you're a skeptic about AGW then you probably don't want WV to be a catalyzer.

 

When one looks at the raw data one sees that the mean temperature rise has more to do with higher lowest temperatures than higher highs.

I know all you conservatives think that only conservatives are farmers, but apparently many of us liberals know conciderably more about agriculture than most conservatives. After all, a liberal did invent the moldboard. Agricultural plants, actually all plants depend on the weather. Apples won't grow on apple trees if it doesn't get cold enough in the winter and oranges won't grow on orange trees if it gets too cold in the winter.

There is this thing called the frost free date. It is statistically the last day it freezes each year. Many agricultural plants will die if planted prior to the last freeze of the year. Likewise, the end of the growing season coincides with the first full freeze in the fall.

Thus, if growing seasons are increasing in length, it is because the frost free date is coming earlier and the first full freeze is coming later. Both due to the higher low temperatures caused by increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is the result of burning fossil fuels.

 

Stated as fact yet only hypothesis. The next 10 to 15 years will tell us all what we need to know, whether the alarmists are right or whether the solar scientists are right.

 

Ever been to New Mexico or Arizona? Their very warm air does' have a lot of moisture in it, whereas the much cooler air in Northwest and Northeast has considerably higher humidity.

Anyhow, back in the seventies or so, once it was well evident that temperatures were on the rise, many scientists at first thought the rising temperatures would cause an increase in water evaporation that would cool the earth by cloud cover and the cooling effects of rain. Being as global warming has more to do with freezing less, the cooling effect of water vapor has not materialized.

In fact, anyone who lives in the Pacific Nothwest is well aware that we have these mild winters precisely because the constant cloud cover keeps us warm in the winter like a big fluffy blanket.

 

This is just a great example of a little knowledge poorly squandered on a political agenda. One hopes that no reel teeth were lost in this rush to recite the catechism.....

 

Like I said, many liberals know considerably more about agriculture than yer average conservative.