In case you missed this study. Peer reviewed study from a NASA scientist. I posted about water vapor being reduced in the atmosphere in another thread. That empirical evidence of a 1% reduction in atmospheric water vapor by itself disproves the CAGW theory . Even if dont believe the studies theory at all. The empirical evidence if accurate is all thats needed. "In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium." Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth's Climate - Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com
You might have it backwards. Wouldn't it be for the amazing Dr. Miskloczi to disprove the 20 years and of hard data and thousands of peer reviewed research results by the worlds leading climatologists vs. them digging through archives looking for Dr. Miskolczi's 25 year old work in an unrelated field?
Miskolczi's paper is here http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/Clear.pdf It has been discussed here Miskolczi and here It appears your Web browser is not configured to display PDF files. No worries, just click here to download the PDF file.
That's nice. The 20 years of solid science by the best scientists in the world confirming the increased planetary warming by CO2 from industrialization and ecological damage is here: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The science is why we buy hybrids and EVs.
The paper you cite shows a graph of only ocean water vapor measurements. Dont we need a study of global data ? Meaning one that includes the land area.
Didn't site a "paper". I did provide a link to 20 years of solid scientific study by worlds best climatologists. You can find 20 years of global data studies here: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change They are doing new ones as we speak, constantly updating the science.
@5 yes, more coverage, more time, more methods compared. This is just what I suggest. To repeat myself, as this is a topic you find highly relevant to atmospheric energy balance, I was hoping that you could help us find the publications.
climate4you GreenhouseGasses View graphs at link. The references you point to cherry pick periods where water vapor over ONLY oceans as rising. These graphs of NOAA data clearly show a lowering of GLOBAL water vapor for the past 60 years. You can try to whittle away at Miskloczi's theory all you want. But if water vapor has not risen in the atmosphere,AGW theory is false. Not only has it not risen,its lowered . (which in accordance to your own theory means greenhouse Effect will lessen) There can be no additional positive feedback from lessening water vapor . There can be no greater intensity to storms from lower water vapor. How the hell do Trenberth and Hansen get off saying the atmosphere holds 4% to 8% more water vapor due to AGW?
Hi Mojo, if you have read in detail all the papers I linked related to water vapor, my hat is off to you sir. For I did not. Nor did I select them to prove a point, nor to 'hide the decline'. I just use google scholar and select titles that look like they speak to the matter. Did I include the Held and Soden 2000 review? It would seem to speak to your "How the hell?" question. Freely downloadable from several sources. put the title in quotes “Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming” For an easy search. Climate4you website did not open for me. I know you don't intentionally choose your sources to be 'China-inaccessible' but if we could just stick to the lit and not affinity websites, I'd have a much easier time keeping up.
