Failed Fundamental CAGW Principle

[Heissonear]

The below is in the history books of scientific measurements and findings. There has been no matching increase in water vapor with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The disconnect is factual.

The failed principle underlying CAGW is in the representative illustration below. Such fundamental principle has not happening over the past three decades of NOAA measured data.

There has been no increase in vaporizing the ocean surface by back-radiation by CO2. Zip.

At the equator approximately half the Earth's surface is water, as illustrated in the below.

The fundamental principle of increased back-radiation has not happened.

How we know: the large amount of watery Earths surface combined with no increase in atmospheric water vapor nullifies the fundamental principle of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming principle.

The database of atmospheric water vapor measurements is located within the NOAA.gov website. Readily available to the public to obtain and chart, including amount of water vapor at different altitudes (and pressures).

What has been presented and taught as factual has become errant-science. The atmosphere above the massive Pacific ocean has shown no increase in water vapor since NOAA measurements began.

Are we looking for reality through scientific observation- or do we show bias and are no longer excepting scientific evidence to guide us in what we know as true?

 

[Toolinks]

I'm afraid I don't understand this post. Could you provide a reference that shows this?

First off: Santer et al. in 2007 found that total atmospheric moisture content over the oceans has increased by about 0.41kg/m^3 per decade since 1988. So I don't know where you get the idea that atmospheric moisture isn't increasing. (Santer et al., 2007, Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content, PNAS, v104, p39).

Here's why I'm confused: we KNOW excess CO2 can increase temperatures and that excess CO2 is difficult to drop in concentration, but H2O (also a KNOWN greenhouse gas) can EASILY re-establish lower levels in the atmosphere through the hydrologic cycle.

We also know that increased temperatures cause increase vaporization of water, so it is very hard to understand how an increasing global temperature wouldn't increase moisture levels, but more curiously why would a geochemist claim it isn't?

 

[Hieronymus]

CAGW is fear inappropriate content i.m.h.o.

 

[Toolinks]

CAGW is fear inappropriate content i.m.h.o.

There is an element of that, I will agree. As the Wilco song says: "everybody generation thinks it's the end of the world."

But in this case the situation may be pretty dire. Certainly on an economic basis. We could easily see the destruction of our way of life, the collapse of the western societies.

The most problematic part is that we have a small vocal group of professional doubt mongers speaking a language that a larger number of low-information people will pick up and run with. The science is pretty solid that we are doing some unprecedented things to our planet and indeed there WILL be a price to pay.

 

[Heissonear]

Some may not be willing to face major CAGW principles that by measurement data are proven wrong.

This thread points out one of those major principles.

Such is in public textbooks. Such was a hypothesis and claim presented as factual.

 

[Toolinks]

Some may not be willing to face major CAGW principles that by measurement data are proven wrong.

This thread points out one of those major principles.

View attachment 218709

Such is in public textbooks. Such was a hypothesis and claim presented as factual.

Heissonear: are you a bot? Why don't you actually discuss the science? I provided a response to your claims and asked for a bit of clarification.

You don't need to be scared of discussing this with me. It is likely I'm more well educated in these areas than you (having an advanced degree or two in the sciences), but I'm not a climatologist. I can still actually discuss this with you. I would like to understand where you are getting your information. Perhaps we can learn from each other.

Don't be scared to engage in a discussion.

 

[Heissonear]

Heissonear: are you a bot? Why don't you actually discuss the science? I provided a response to your claims and asked for a bit of clarification.

You don't need to be scared of discussing this with me. It is likely I'm more well educated in these areas than you (having an advanced degree or two in the sciences), but I'm not a climatologist. I can still actually discuss this with you. I would like to understand where you are getting your information. Perhaps we can learn from each other.

Don't be scared to engage in a discussion.

No need to talk about a poster or other diversion path.

There is emperical data to attest the Positive Feedback of Water Vapor is false.

Many Errant Scientists have talked about Catatrophic runaway atmospheric temperatures or runaway Global Warming based on this Fundamental Principle.

What has been promoted as real has been shown to be falseby decades of measurements.

There are major ramifications because of the failed principle underlying Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Speak up so others can hear you are unbias and address the problem, not the presenter.

It is your choice we will discern which it will be. Failed CAGW Science or chit-chat.

 

[Heissonear]

Don't be scared to engage in a discussion.

So far we see a diversion path - rather than the major tenet of CAGW found to be error by decades of data.

 

[Toolinks]

So far we see a diversion path - rather than the major tenet of CAGW found to be error by decades of data.

Where is there diversion? I honestly don't understand your point (primarily because you don't seem able to support it with an actual reference we can read. I'd be willing to read stuff, I am very well educated in the sciences, probably moreso than you, so I would welcome a chance to better understand your point.)

 

[Goonie]

Where is there diversion? I honestly don't understand your point (primarily because you don't seem able to support it with an actual reference we can read. I'd be willing to read stuff, I am very well educated in the sciences, probably moreso than you, so I would welcome a chance to better understand your point.)

Erm Heissonear, has consistently refused to recognise mainstream science for the years I’ve read him. In his world Co2 and pollution are positive goods, and climate scientists are liars and frauds irrespective of any and all evidence presented.

Welcome to Christian Forums.

 

[Heissonear]

Where is there diversion? I honestly don't understand your point (primarily because you don't seem able to support it with an actual reference we can read. I'd be willing to read stuff, I am very well educated in the sciences, probably moreso than you, so I would welcome a chance to better understand your point.)

Strike two on detour of what original topic presents.

 

[Heissonear]

As OP presents, the following is the topic. And how such Fundamental Principle is false, as per examination and graphing of NOAA and NASA water vapor databases.

You know, the data available to the public that nullifies "runaway Global Warming" and other errant promotions by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (prophetic) scientists.

 

[Heissonear]

Erm Heissonear, has consistently refused to recognise mainstream science for the years I’ve read him. In his world Co2 and pollution are positive goods, and climate scientists are liars and frauds irrespective of any and all evidence presented.

Welcome to Christian Forums.

Not much to do but face the emperical data that shows the following as false.

The above illustration has had its day. Time has allowed data to be collected and analyzed - and such Foundational Tenet to CAGW is false. It was never science based.

 

[Toolinks]

Strike two on detour of what original topic presents.

So it is considered a diversion when I ask you for references that actually support the points you are trying to make?

By DEFINITION I cannot be diverting your topic...I am addressing it and asking direct questions about your topic.

 

[Skreeper]

Heissonear: are you a bot? Why don't you actually discuss the science? I provided a response to your claims and asked for a bit of clarification.

You don't need to be scared of discussing this with me. It is likely I'm more well educated in these areas than you (having an advanced degree or two in the sciences), but I'm not a climatologist. I can still actually discuss this with you. I would like to understand where you are getting your information. Perhaps we can learn from each other.

Don't be scared to engage in a discussion.

I see you haven't met Heissonear before. Have fun with that.

 

[Larniavc]

Where is there diversion? I honestly don't understand your point (primarily because you don't seem able to support it with an actual reference we can read. I'd be willing to read stuff, I am very well educated in the sciences, probably moreso than you, so I would welcome a chance to better understand your point.)

I don’t think you understand Heissonear used bolded text.

THAT’S how accurate he is.

 

[Heissonear]

So it is considered a diversion when I ask you for references that actually support the points you are trying to make?

Reread the OP. Add to that NASA NVAP database.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you provide your scientific reasoning for preferring NVAP over other datasets?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Blimey, why don't those work?