Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

Water vapour is the MAIN greenhouse gas. Without it we would freeze. So which "greenhouse gas" are you referring? CO2?
Makes up a fraction of the total amount of GHG in the atmosphere.
Also warmth and evaporation are not tied together either proportionally or inversely. Areas of warmth have dry and moist air masses. 2 close regions, both warm, can have vastly different evaporation rates. Given 2 different days with identical temperatures one can have significantly more evaporation than the other due to the saturation of the air mass by water vapour.
Warmth is not the driving factor.

Water vapour and CO2 are in a positive feed back loop.....

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/clim ... e-co2.html

[Jlabute]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

Cloud cover has increased over the last number of decades. Co2 and water vapour in a feedback loop is hilarious. Of course, I was previously speaking about cloud patterns allowing coral to make a huge comeback. More cloud on average is a smaller contributor than local patterns of cloud.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/phy ... 100-years/

[foenix]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

Cloud cover has increased over the last number of decades. Co2 and water vapour in a feedback loop is hilarious. Of course, I was previously speaking about cloud patterns allowing coral to make a huge comeback. More cloud on average is a smaller contributor than local patterns of cloud.

Not at all, satellite measurements have all sorts of inherent problems such as cloud covers, different satellites using different detectors, the difference in ages of satellite used, decaying orbit, different algorithm, etc etc. That's why there are wildly varying results and data in different research papers using satellite measurements. But once all these flaws are somewhat accounted for, the consensus is that the average global rainfall has been increasing every year.

The positive feedback of CO2 and water vapour might seem hilarious to you but that's not the conclusion of the various studies on that subject, including the link I provide.

Evapotranspiration – the transfer of water from the ground into the air through a combination of evaporation and transpiration – increased globally by 10% between 2003 and 2019, according to new research.

The authors find a “statistically significant” increase in evapotranspiration of 2.3mm per year over 2003-19 – corresponding to an increase of around 10% above the long-term average. According to the study, these findings “are consistent with the hypothesis that global evapotranspiration should increase in a warming climate.”

By comparison, precipitation increased by 3% and discharge decreased by 6% over the same period, relative to their long-term averages, the study says.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-d ... ater-cycle



If the increase in cloud cover is leading to more coral world wide then why are there studies that shows other wise......

The Planet Has Lost Half of Its Coral Reefs Since 1950

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180978701/

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2221004747

[foenix]

Global precipitation measured by satellite is basically stable. You’re trying to tell me, there are fewer clouds but more precipitation because of CO2? lol.

...but aren't you saying the opposite? .....more clouds and less precipitation?

What the new models are saying because of increasing global warming because of increasing CO2, there will be less cloud cover.
That doesn't mean in the past to the present, the average rainfall globally haven't been increasing......but that still doesn't explain, if the increase in cloud cover over Australia is responsible for the coral re-growth there.....how come the world's coral cover has decreased dramatically as the previous links are showing?

[Glacier]

With the exception of the US and Australia the number of weather stations have been absolutely gutted around the world over the past 30 years, especially in Canada where massive cutbacks in 1995 and again 2001 cut the number stations recording precipitation by more than 50%. As a result, Canada no longer tracks precipitation trends on a national level.

In addition, weather services have been contracted out to NAV Canada, and they have little interest in keeping reliable weather records, variables like cloud cover are also going downhill fast.

I'm open to the idea that precipitation is going up or that it's going down because of climate change, but going through the data to confirm or deny any assertion is becoming increasingly hard to do because of the degradation of data in recent decades.

From the data I have analyzed, the 1970s was the peak wet period since records began in the 1800s. Since the 1990s precipitation has been going down slightly, but it's still too short a time period to draw any concrete conclusions about how this relates to climate change for obvious reasons.

[foenix]

With the exception of the US and Australia the number of weather stations have been absolutely gutted around the world over the past 30 years, especially in Canada where massive cutbacks in 1995 and again 2001 cut the number stations recording precipitation by more than 50%. As a result, Canada no longer tracks precipitation trends on a national level.

In addition, weather services have been contracted out to NAV Canada, and they have little interest in keeping reliable weather records, variables like cloud cover are also going downhill fast.

I'm open to the idea that precipitation is going up or that it's going down because of climate change, but going through the data to confirm or deny any assertion is becoming increasingly hard to do because of the degradation of data in recent decades.

From the data I have analyzed, the 1970s was the peak wet period since records began in the 1800s. Since the 1990s precipitation has been going down slightly, but it's still too short a time period to draw any concrete conclusions about how this relates to climate change for obvious reasons.

I have to mostly agree with you but......

If we're just talking about the US....then it's pretty apparent the precipitation is going up....

....and here's Australia......

There is evidence that some rainfall extremes are becoming more intense.

Although the range of natural variability in heavy rainfall is very large, there is evidence from observed weather station records that a higher proportion of total annual rainfall in recent decades has come from heavy rain days.

As the climate warms, heavy rainfall is expected to become more intense, based on the physical relationship between temperature and the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere. For heavy rain days, total rainfall is expected to increase by around 7 per cent per degree of warming. For short-duration, hourly, extreme rainfall events, observations in Australia generally show a larger than 7 per cent increase. Short-duration rain extremes are often associated with flash flooding.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/enviro ... ng-climate

[JagXKR]

I love how you pick and choose the image that promotes your opinion and disregard the one that does not agree.
Classic.
Here is Australia as well. From your link.

Shows decreased or relatively unchanging precipitation.
Picking just the one area of increased moisture is misleading and very much the MO of the eco crowd.
Shameful.

[foenix]

I love how you pick and choose the image that promotes your opinion and disregard the one that does not agree.
Classic.
Here is Australia as well. From your link.

raag_r1_V2-no map.png
Shows decreased or relatively unchanging precipitation.
Picking just the one area of increased moisture is misleading and very much the MO of the eco crowd.
Shameful.

If I wanted that then the link wouldn't have been included but I'm glad you read that the southeast Australia has been experiencing less rainfall and droughts. Did you read about why?......

The drying in recent decades across southern Australia is the most sustained large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. The drying trend has been most evident in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the country. The drying trend is particularly strong between May to July over southwest Western Australia, with rainfall since 1970 around 20 per cent less than the average from 1900 to 1969. Since 1999, this reduction has increased to around 26 per cent. For the southeast of the continent, April to October rainfall for the period 1999 to 2018 has decreased by around 11 per cent when compared to the 1900 to 1998 period. This period encompasses the Millennium Drought, which saw low annual rainfall totals across the region from 1997 to 2010.

This decrease, at an agriculturally and hydrologically important time of the year, is linked with a trend towards higher mean sea level pressure in the region and a shift in large-scale weather patterns—more highs and fewer lows. This increase in mean sea level pressure across southern latitudes is a known response to global warming. There has been a reduction in the number of cold fronts impacting the southwest, and a decrease in the incidence and intensity of weather systems known as cut-off lows in the southeast regions of Australia. Cut-off lows bring the majority of rainfall and the most intense rainfalls in some regions of eastern Victoria and Tasmania.

[JagXKR]

I did and I reject that the cause is man made global warming.
No proof whatsoever in the changing climate that man is a cause or even the major cause.
More eco terrorist lies trying to prescribe man as the big baddy.
Climate changes, it must change.
Without the ever changing climate, life would never have evolved.
But hey, keep promoting the agenda of the eco terrorists.
They love having their lies spread as truths.

[foenix]

Eyes wide shut.

[Jlabute]

Eyes wide shut.

Your bias towards satellites shows whose eyes are wide shut. Satellites are used for a great many measurements from rainfall to gas concentrations, to indirect temperature measurements, sea level, solar radiation measurements and more… the same technology put in weather balloons. These are the only devices not biased by thermometer issues and have global coverage sea and land. You put your faith in goofy sources. Either way, recent studies are trending towards cloud cover controlling temperatures, affecting coral growth, etc. not CO2.

Global warming is good for everyone seeing warm periods are much more rare. You want it to get colder? It wont in your life time but it will happen. You wont see any catastrophic or existential events today unless some meteorite hits us.

https://eos.org/articles/ancient-fish-t ... al-warming

[foenix]

Eyes wide shut.

Your bias towards satellites shows whose eyes are wide shut. Satellites are used for a great many measurements from rainfall to gas concentrations, to indirect temperature measurements, sea level, solar radiation measurements and more… the same technology put in weather balloons. These are the only devices not biased by thermometer issues and have global coverage sea and land. You put your faith in goofy sources. Either way, recent studies are trending towards cloud cover controlling temperatures, affecting coral growth, etc. not CO2.

Global warming is good for everyone seeing warm periods are much more rare. You want it to get colder? It wont in your life time but it will happen. You wont see any catastrophic or existential events today unless some meteorite hits us.

https://eos.org/articles/ancient-fish-t ... al-warming

I never said satellite data wasn't any good.....all said was that there were many inherent problems with them, including some studies that were posted when those data was taken at face value and without recognition of those inherent weaknesses for the satellie data.

Nope recent climate studies are showing that higher global temperature due to ever increasing CO2 level will strip away the cloud cover and cause more heating. That's pretty apparent as coral growth is shrinking world wide so by your reasoning that must mean there is less global cloud formation. If you belive coral growth is increasing world wide, please share that information.

......and of course, that link is about what might have happened 55 MILLION years ago........now that's pure guess work.

These results are notably different from what current fisheries models predict as Earth currently faces another period of rapid warming. These alternate predictions could arise from a difference in timescales...........

Still, Sibert urges caution when comparing fish outcomes during the PETM and what might happen this century—and beyond. “The rate of warming…can have dramatic and differential impacts on marine ecosystems,” she noted........

Sibert’s research team plans to expand the study with additional sediment records from different environments beyond tropical regions to better understand whether their results represent a global phenomenon during the PETM. They will also continue to refine their research by further accounting for variation in sedimentation rates and density to increase their confidence in the results.

[JagXKR]

Former eco terrorist seeing the light.

[Jlabute]

I never said satellite data wasn't any good.....all said was that there were many inherent problems with them, including some studies that were posted when those data was taken at face value and without recognition of those inherent weaknesses for the satellie data.

Nope recent climate studies are showing that higher global temperature due to ever increasing CO2 level will strip away the cloud cover and cause more heating. That's pretty apparent as coral growth is shrinking world wide so by your reasoning that must mean there is less global cloud formation. If you belive coral growth is increasing world wide, please share that information.

......and of course, that link is about what might have happened 55 MILLION years ago........now that's pure guess work.

Every measurement system has weaknesses when considered for global purposes. We know most if not all weaknesses. It is why we have versions of temperature datasets such as UAH6, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5 etc. Earth has been cooling since 2015 in a mini hiatus.

Also, just because coral bleaches doesn’t mean a population isnt in good health. As we discovered with the great barrier reef which is currently at an undisputed and measured record high, periods of bleaching are followed by periods of adaptation and growth. Goes to show current understanding of coral health is not understood by science and is distorted by media and agendas.

Total cloud cover is not being stripped away. It only varies by a few percent since satellites started measuring it and has been increasing since 2000. Most of this is controlled by solar activity, cosmic rays which seed cloud formation.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/24/cora ... ng-debate/

https://www.netzerowatch.com/peter-ridd ... alarmists/

https://www.c3headlines.com/2014/10/new ... gases.html

[foenix]

I never said satellite data wasn't any good.....all said was that there were many inherent problems with them, including some studies that were posted when those data was taken at face value and without recognition of those inherent weaknesses for the satellie data.

Nope recent climate studies are showing that higher global temperature due to ever increasing CO2 level will strip away the cloud cover and cause more heating. That's pretty apparent as coral growth is shrinking world wide so by your reasoning that must mean there is less global cloud formation. If you belive coral growth is increasing world wide, please share that information.

......and of course, that link is about what might have happened 55 MILLION years ago........now that's pure guess work.

Every measurement system has weaknesses when considered for global purposes. We know most if not all weaknesses. It is why we have versions of temperature datasets such as UAH6, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5 etc. Earth has been cooling since 2015 in a mini hiatus.

Also, just because coral bleaches doesn’t mean a population isnt in good health. As we discovered with the great barrier reef which is currently at an undisputed and measured record high, periods of bleaching are followed by periods of adaptation and growth. Goes to show current understanding of coral health is not understood by science and is distorted by media and agendas.

Total cloud cover is not being stripped away. It only varies by a few percent since satellites started measuring it and has been increasing since 2000. Most of this is controlled by solar activity, cosmic rays which seed cloud formation.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/24/cora ... ng-debate/

https://www.netzerowatch.com/peter-ridd ... alarmists/

https://www.c3headlines.com/2014/10/new ... gases.html

That's kinda funny because I'm sure the NOAA uses those same satellites, as well as other more accurate techniques and we are talking global surface temperatures, correct? If so, this is what they are saying........

- Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.

- 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data, and land areas were record warm.

- Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

- Despite a late-year La Niña event that cooled a wide swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2020 came just 0.04˚ Fahrenheit (0.02˚Celsius) shy of tying 2016 for warmest year on record.  

- The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average every 13.5 years; from 1981–2019, a new record was set every 3 years.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... emperature

We already discussed Peter Rudd's flawed conclusion of the regrowth of the GBR. Sames as Judith Curry's lame attempt as she can't seem to get past the 1998 El Niño event. That was 23 years ago, what is she saying about what's happening now?

14% of world’s coral lost in less than a decade, study shows

About 14% of the world’s coral has been lost in less than a decade, a study of the health of coral reefs has found.

In the largest analysis of coral reef health ever undertaken, scientists found that between 2009 and 2018 the world lost about 11,700 sq km of coral – the equivalent of more than all the living coral in Australia.

Meanwhile, the report, released by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network on Tuesday, found that reef algae, which grows when coral is under stress, soared by 20% between 2010 and 2019.

The report features data collected by more than 300 scientists from 73 countries across 40 years, including 2m individual observations.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... eef-health