chubbs

Members
  • Content Count

    3,195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chubbs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    New London, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here is a chart from the paper I linked above. Three separate satellite measurements in close agreement - 40 years of data. Note brightness temperature is a measure of relative humidity.
  2. Reposting chart from 2019 AMS climate report. There is REAL data. Two separate and independent satellite measurements: infared (HIRS) and microwave. Also, relinking the paper which showed that satellite upper troposphere humidity data is in good agreement. The data is there if you really want to partake. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496
  3. You are the one invoking models, because you can't explain why it is warming. The temperature increase matches man-made forcing to a T. Ocean currents. cloud cover, convection etc. could not have had a large impact, they just move energy around in the system.
  4. The chart below was made from forcing estimates and observed temperatures. No climate model. https://www.globalwarmingindex.org/
  5. That mamade forcing swamps natural since 1950 doesn't rely on climate models. Here are the 1950-->2015 forcing estimates (W/m2): Manmade: 1.90 Natural: -0.09 (mainly solar) Total 1.81 https://github.com/Priestley-Centre/ssp_erf
  6. The evidence is overwhelming. Scientists predicted water vapor feedback before models existed. All models with non-linear dynamics have it, and now it is measured by satellites and present in re-analysis. What more do you want?
  7. You are twisting yourself up into a pretzel. Water vapor feedback is almost like gravity. Well supported by theory and observations. The satellite obs show moistening in the upper troposphere, if anything upper troposphere moistening is faster than predicted by climate models due to moisture increases in the dry subtropics. Per paper below ERA5 is better than other re-analysis products at matching satellite upper troposphere moisture obs. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024496
  8. Here is 200mb data from the ERA5 re-analysis: 200mb heights have increased - the atmosphere is expanding as it warms 200mb temperatures at the higher heights have increased 200mb humidity is constant So yes upper troposphere water vapor is increasing as expected
  9. Saw this chart on twitter (PW is petawatts which is estimated by taking forcing per meter squared times surface area of earth). There is a very close relationship between forcing changes and global temperature. Now that data has been updated, can see that the hiatus and subsequent temperature spike are mainly due to short-term forcing changes. Not much room for natural variation.
  10. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Comments: 1) rising temperature due to forcing has swamped ENSO effects, 2) Doesn't matter why warming occurred, warming temperatures have lead to increased moisture in the upper layers of the troposphere. The distribution is just as expected with biggest increase in areas with strong convection.
  11. Per the discussion 20 pages ago. NCEP is an older re-analysis product. Newer products like ERA5 have corrected errors and show increasing upper troposphere moisture. What is the point of providing you with additional information? The data and theory is all very consistent. Temperature is rising, moisture is rising, just as expected. Would take a large non-linearity for moisture to not increase as temperature increases. Note that this would cascade into precipitation and clouds.
  12. HM had a series of tweets on tropical moisture and Atlantic hurricanes. For the area he looked at moisture increased at all levels of the atmosphere. Why wouldn't it? Temperature controls atmospheric moisture and temperature is increasing at all levels of the troposphere.
  13. Just repeating your talking points. Scientists have looked at this for a long time. They use models, a wide range of observations, and other quantitative procedures, not hand waving or talking points from junk science blogs. Climate science predictions have been spot on for decades. CO2 and other non-condensible GHG control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Very simple physics, backed up by reams of data.