Friday, February 24, 2012

Tipping point?

The problem with the global warming scientists and their models are that they never real predict what has or will happen. Another interesting paper disproving the so call tipping point of the hoaxers. A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate] Conclusion: The IPCC alarmist global warming tipping point does not exist over the long term - instead, over periods less than a decade, the climate will likely return to an equilibrium position due to built-in negative feedbacks.


Zorpheous said...

You misreading the report, the specific humidity is increasing, relative humidity is meaningless. You can increase water vapour saturation and still have a relative humidity decrease.

Anonymous said...

What the hell does an endocrinologist know about global warming?

Seriously could you even explain the dominate interactions in the atmosphere? Do you even know what that last sentence means?

Or perhaps you are an unrecognised physics savant? If so you have some serious competition with Lubo Motl.

Thucydides said...

Dr Roy, like any reasonably curious and intelligent person, can examine evidence and come to their own conclusions. I have and done so, and my education is in the field of economics (which allows me to understand how to crunch numbers, as a minimum).

Frankly so many threads of evidence from so many disciplines (archeology, tree rings, astronomy, historiography, raw data from weather station [not the "adjusted" data AGW alarmists want us to use without telling us how it was "adjusted"] and so on) contradict AGW that anyone who continues to press the issue should be considered a candidate for medical treatment.

I Support Lord Black