Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle.
This intensification is believed to eventually result in dangerous (3°C and up) global warming.
Observational evidence has thus far falsified these IPCC-endorsed claims.
Image Source: IPCC WG1
According to climate models, water vapor and precipitation trends were supposed to have been enhanced as a consequence of rising anthropogenic [man-made] CO2 emissions.
And yet after compiling decades of observational and evidence, it has been determined there has been no detectable global-scale human influence on the Earth’s hydrological cycle.
Image Source(s): Miralles et al., 2013 and Vonder Harr et al., 2012
There have been many new scientific papers published that document the observed lack of any detectable global trends in the Earth’s hydrological cycle during the last century, or since anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising dramatically.
Without water vapor-induced temperature amplification, the model-based consequence of doubling CO2 concentrations to 560 ppm (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm value) is a warming of just over 1°C. This temperature change is neither dangerous or even concerning.
Simply put, the lack of supporting evidence for an anthropogenic intensification of the hydrological cycle effectively decimates a cornerstone of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Read rest at No Tricks Zone
The alarming headlines are imaginary, worst case conditions occurring after a mythical tipping point of no return.
I would prefer that Earth had some heat in reserve. Better to fend off the next geological or astronomical calamity that blocks out the sun.
I have been closely following the global warming/climate change fraud almost since the beginning. Their initial calculations of the assumed warming of carbon dioxide showed it wasn’t enough to worry about, as this article points out. In order to pursue their political agenda, they then assumed upper atmosphere water vapor amplification. That particular theory had the amplification increase the CO2 impact by a factor of three, and would cause upper atmosphere warming above the tropics. This was a mistake because it was something that could be measured. When hundreds of measurements from instruments in weather balloon showed the warming above the tropics wasn’t happening, the global warming activists moved on to other theories. Obviously water vapor amplification is still needed to get the politically desired results.
In true science when data doesn’t support a theory it is either modified or scrapped. The fact that activists simply moved on to other theories proved that this movement is purely political.
But David, the permafrost is gonna melt and release all the carbon dioxide it has been smothering for eons. Dinosaurs are gonna come back and eat us all up.
ALL
The hysteria concerning
global warming / climate change
has its foundation in
Manipulated data and
Junk simulation models
and then
Using the predictions of the junk models
as proof of the underlying fallacy
In total ignorance of
The Scientific Method and
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Circular Reasoning at best
Outright Criminal Fraud at worst.
… and even with the ‘massaged’ dataset, after running the model / algorithm, they can’t come up with what the evidence states. Let’s just apply the scientific method:
Hypothesis: There are scientists involved with the IPCC Report
Experiment: Do they use the scientific method to prove their results?
Answer: No
Conclusion: NO scientific method equals no scientists involved
If you want to learn about the actual science involved in the climate debate search for Murry Salby and put your smart cap on as you’ll need it.
Noting that that the same liberal rag TIME was going on about New Ice Age back in the 1970’s as much as they were ranting about Global Warming and their front cover for their liberal rag TIME just one leftists rag they also print TIME for KIDS which also prints lies
“Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle.”
When I did some searching I found that it is claimed that increasing temperature will increase evaporation rates and the amount of moisture that can be held in the atmosphere. These are uncontentious facts. Have you found evidence that water does not evaporate faster with increasing temperature? Have you found evidence that cold air can hold more moisture than warm air? I think not. That increasing CO2 levels will increase temperature is a fact that was established decades ago. Given these facts it is hard for me to understand how increasing CO2 will not have the consequence of increasing evaporation rates etc. Your article does nothing to explain any of this. You just take some short quotes from some documents and think you have blown away “a main tenet of climate change.” Do you have any idea just how stupid you are? You people are poster children for the Dunning Kruger effect. You are too stupid to know that you are stupid. If you really have something to say that is worth listening to, then please do the work that real scientists do. Write a paper and submit it to a relevant journal for peer review. Oh, well I guess you cannot to that because there is some conspiracy that will silence you. Probably the same conspiracy that keeps us thinking that the earth is not an oblate spheroid but flat as a pancake.
Warmer temperatures results in greater evaporation. That isn’t the issue. The issue is does this result in enough water vapor in the upper atmosphere to cause an amplification effect. All we have to do is look at the predictions of climate models compared to real world data. These models are predicting three times the warming. If there is water vapor amplification, then it is not enough to matter.
A very significant fact is when one warmest theory was proven wrong, the alarmist moved on to others. This shows that this movement is pure politics.
You mentioned work done by real scientists. I have read some articles by authors you might include in this category. One dealt with a large number of birds had become extinct since 1970. This was blamed on climate change. There was no effort to provide any explanation on how the small temperature increase had done this, and they ignored the fact in this same time period the human population had doubled.
You might consider the authors of the paper on ocean acidification as real scientists. The picked 1988 as their base line, a year that had one of the highest pH (least acid) level in many years. This guaranteed that following years would have values more toward the acid side. They had history before 1988 that showed their theory was wrong, so they replaced with computer simulation.
To assume more atmospheric water vapor would result in higher air temperature seems dubious, given that clouds block insolation as well as radiative loss.
There are Scientists and there are Alarmists. If an alarmist wingman actually wants to learn about real climate science they’d be smart to read / listen / study Murry Salby (just use the answer box) who has done all the homework that the IPCC group would NEVER do as they are simply a political organization.