2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RKMBrown]

Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.

Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Okay, you meant cubic. How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?

Which part of carbon cycle confused you? What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?

Please explain what you meant by the carbon cycle being overwhelmed. I am familiar with the carbon cycle. I am unaware of anyone suggesting that it has been or will be "overwhelmed" and so I have no idea to what you refer.

And then, please explain what displacement of greenhouse gases you're talking about.

You stated and I quote, "the Earth has reached a tipping point..." You also stated "it is no longer possible to save ourselves." You stated, "we've put this off far too long."

Then you claim to understand the carbon cycle.... but you ignore it completely. You claim to understand displacement of greenhouse gases, but then ask me to explain it to you.

When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases. Why? Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time. The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2. IOW co2 displaces h20. Which green house gas retains more heat, co2 or h2o? Gravity causes atmospheric pressure. But we don't live in a sealed glass beaker do we? CO2 is a NEGLIGIBLE portion of the CONTENT of our atmosphere. It is hardly big bad ugly you global warmers are making it out to be.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere. FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

You stated and I quote, "the Earth has reached a tipping point..." You also stated "it is no longer possible to save ourselves." You stated, "we've put this off far too long."

Then you claim to understand the carbon cycle.... but you ignore it completely. You claim to understand displacement of greenhouse gases, but then ask me to explain it to you.

When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases. Why? Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time. The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2. IOW co2 displaces h20. Which green house gas retains more heat, co2 or h2o? Gravity causes atmospheric pressure. But we don't live in a sealed glass beaker do we? CO2 is a NEGLIGIBLE portion of the CONTENT of our atmosphere. It is hardly big bad ugly you global warmers are making it out to be.

That's your explanation?

 

[RKMBrown]

That's your explanation?

That's your question?

 

[Crick]

If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere. FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.

I'm not sure where to start. You have a number of serious misconceptions here.

1) The unit "parts per million" is not used to notate density.

2) Greenhouse warming is not a density dependent process. Rather, the amount of IR absorbed by greenhouse gases is dependent on the number of greenhouse molecules in the path and the length of that path.

3) The cooling of the stratosphere and the mesosphere is perfectly in line with our understanding of the greenhouse effect. It also happens to refute the idea that any of the warming which has taken place in the last 30-40 years could be due to increases in solar output as that would NOT have produced the observed high altitude cooling.

4) When you use the term "displace" it indicates that something is being forced to go somewhere else. The creation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric oxygen and fossil hydrocarbons is not physically pushing anything out of the Earth's atmosphere.

5) You still have not explained what you mean when you speak of the carbon cycle being overwhelmed. Please explain.

 

[Crick]

That's your explanation?

That's your question?

Well, I ask that because you seem to think the world's scientists dropped out of school in the third grade.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's your explanation?

That's your question?

Well, I ask that because you seem to think the world's scientists dropped out of school in the third grade.

Now you claim to be and / or speak for the "world's scientists?

 

[RKMBrown]

If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere. FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.

I'm not sure where to start. You have a number of serious misconceptions here.

1) The unit "parts per million" is not used to notate density.

2) Greenhouse warming is not a density dependent process. Rather, the amount of IR absorbed by greenhouse gases is dependent on the number of greenhouse molecules in the path and the length of that path.

3) The cooling of the stratosphere and the mesosphere is perfectly in line with our understanding of the greenhouse effect. It also happens to refute the idea that any of the warming which has taken place in the last 30-40 years could be due to increases in solar output as that would NOT have produced the observed high altitude cooling.

4) When you use the term "displace" it indicates that something is being forced to go somewhere else. The creation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric oxygen and fossil hydrocarbons is not physically pushing anything out of the Earth's atmosphere.

5) You still have not explained what you mean when you speak of the carbon cycle being overwhelmed. Please explain.

Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density?
Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? What do you think causes density? nothingness?

WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.

 

[Crick]

That's your question?

Well, I ask that because you seem to think the world's scientists dropped out of school in the third grade.

Now you claim to be and / or speak for the "world's scientists?

No... I say that because you are accusing the world's scientists who overwhelmingly accept the greenhouse effect as real and AGW as valid of making extremely basic errors and of having done so for over 150 years. I find that rather unlikely. What I find MUCH more likely is that you are suffering from several misconceptions in physics and chemistry.

 

[Crick]

Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density? WTF?

Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? WTF do you think causes density? nothingness?

The two are unrelated. Density is a measure of - and is expressed in units of - mass per unit volume, such as kilograms per cubic meter. Parts per million is actually a "pseudo-unit" used to express dimensionless, fractional quantities. Here is Wikipedia's explanation. See if this helps.

In science and engineering, the parts-per notation is a set of pseudo units to describe small values of miscellaneous dimensionless quantities, e.g. mole fractionor mass fraction. Since these fractions are quantity-per-quantity measures, they are pure numbers with no associated units of measurement. Commonly used are ppm(parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15).

I could take a cubic meter of air with it's 400 ppm of CO2 and put it in a compressor and squeeze it down to a volume of one-tenth of a cubic meter. It's pressure would increase tenfold (to ten atmospheres or 101,325 hPA) and its density would increase tenfold (to 12.25 kg/m^3). But the fraction of that air that was made up of carbon dioxide would be unchanged: it would still be 400 ppm.

WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.

Well, I'm sure that may be the case for some species. I know it is not the case for all and that many species grow faster, taller, whatever, with more CO2. Unfortunately, changes in temperature and rainfall will dramatically overwhelm any such effects on a global scale. Increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has not increased agricultural productivity and will not do so going forward. Feel free to look that up.

 

[RollingThunder]

When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.

Nope, it sure doesn't. That's some insanely ignorant nonsense. Increasing the relative concentration of one trace gas doesn't affect the concentrations of the other gases in the atmosphere. Where do imagine that the other gas molecules go anyway? Magically transported to the moon maybe?

Everything you say just reinforces everybody else's impression that you are an exceptionally ignorant retard.

Why? Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time.

Although true in the abstract, this statement has nothing to do with greenhouse gas concentrations or anything else we've been debating, and amounts to just more exceptionally moronic nonsense from the forum's new resident retard.

The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2. IOW co2 displaces h20.

And still more totally insane bullshit. Your anti-science fantasies about the "displacement of other greenhouse gases" are idiotic nonsense without any connection to the actual behavior of gases in our atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have tangles with Browneyes before. He is another willfully ignorant individual that intends to work very hard to maintain that status.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density? WTF?

Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? WTF do you think causes density? nothingness?

The two are unrelated. Density is a measure of - and is expressed in units of - mass per unit volume, such as kilograms per cubic meter. Parts per million is actually a "pseudo-unit" used to express dimensionless, fractional quantities. Here is Wikipedia's explanation. See if this helps.

In science and engineering, the parts-per notation is a set of pseudo units to describe small values of miscellaneous dimensionless quantities, e.g. mole fractionor mass fraction. Since these fractions are quantity-per-quantity measures, they are pure numbers with no associated units of measurement. Commonly used are ppm(parts-per-million, 10–6), ppb (parts-per-billion, 10–9), ppt (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and ppq (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15).

I could take a cubic meter of air with it's 400 ppm of CO2 and put it in a compressor and squeeze it down to a volume of one-tenth of a cubic meter. It's pressure would increase tenfold (to ten atmospheres or 101,325 hPA) and its density would increase tenfold (to 12.25 kg/m^3). But the fraction of that air that was made up of carbon dioxide would be unchanged: it would still be 400 ppm.

WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.

Well, I'm sure that may be the case for some species. I know it is not the case for all and that many species grow faster, taller, whatever, with more CO2. Unfortunately, changes in temperature and rainfall will dramatically overwhelm any such effects on a global scale. Increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has not increased agricultural productivity and will not do so going forward. Feel free to look that up.

ROFL omg... ROFL now the "expert" says molecules have no mass and are not present in the atmosphere and.... get this... because he can put air under pressure in a beaker he thinks air is not under pressure in our atmosphere. OMG you global warmers are soooo funny. Oh and in case you thought it wasn't gonna get any funnier he thinks he can put an "UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF MOLECULES IN ONE BEAKER." Why does he think this? Simple cause if he can't then his dumb ass theory that molecules don't displace other molecules is... out the door.

 

[RKMBrown]

When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.

Nope, it sure doesn't. That's some insanely ignorant nonsense. Increasing the relative concentration of one trace gas doesn't affect the concentrations of the other gases in the atmosphere. Where do imagine that the other gas molecules go anyway? Magically transported to the moon maybe?

Everything you say just reinforces everybody else's impression that you are an exceptionally ignorant retard.

Why? Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time.

Although true in the abstract, this statement has nothing to do with greenhouse gas concentrations or anything else we've been debating, and amounts to just more exceptionally moronic nonsense from the forum's new resident retard.

The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2. IOW co2 displaces h20.

And still more totally insane bullshit. Your anti-science fantasies about the "displacement of other greenhouse gases" are idiotic nonsense without any connection to the actual behavior of gases in our atmosphere.

Here we go yet another so called "scientist" that does not believe molecules can displace other molecules. This is not hard.. if you pump one greenhouse gas into a volume, say the size of our atmosphere.... they will displace the other molecules... most of which are water vapor. Guess what not all molecules are in the lower atmosphere.... pump enough molecules into a glass with no lid... like our atmosphere and you push molecules into the "upper atmosphere." Oh wait... didn't we already agree co2 in the upper atmosphere has a "cooling effect?"

 

[RKMBrown]

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules. Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements... Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions. Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see old crock and crick are still laying their shit pellets out all over the place.. Yet they can not show the proof (data, methods, calculations) of observed empirical evidence (not a fucking model as they all fail the prediction phase of falsification) of just how 120ppm has affected the earth and its systems.

So again I will post the real world data that disproves their little charade of lies and deception...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The major point is, there was no discernible rise or divergence from natural variation. Thus a 0.0 rise is attributed to CO2 increase in our atmosphere.

That's it... Simple observation places the whole lie in the trash bin..

 

[RollingThunder]

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules. Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements... Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions. Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..

OK. I will indulge your ignorance and confusion.

Global warming amplifier: Rising water vapor in upper troposphere to intensify climate change
ScienceDaily
Date: July 28, 2014
Source: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or human-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises Earth's temperature.

The paper, titled "Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming," was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper's authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.

 

[RKMBrown]

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules. Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements... Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions. Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..

OK. I will indulge your ignorance and confusion.

Global warming amplifier: Rising water vapor in upper troposphere to intensify climate change
ScienceDaily
Date: July 28, 2014
Source: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or human-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises Earth's temperature.

The paper, titled "Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming," was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper's authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.

ROFL... so they claim I'm right that increased co2 resulted in displacement of h20 into the upper atmosphere... but they conclude that greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere will "heat" the atmosphere further... even though the opposite it true.. ROFL.. you just can't make up the lies these folks come up with. Oh and guess what... the global warming models were all wrong... why?

 

[RollingThunder]

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules. Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements... Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions. Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..

OK. I will indulge your ignorance and confusion.

Global warming amplifier: Rising water vapor in upper troposphere to intensify climate change
ScienceDaily
Date: July 28, 2014
Source: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or human-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises Earth's temperature.

The paper, titled "Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming," was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper's authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.

ROFL... so they claim I'm right that increased co2 resulted in displacement of h20 into the upper atmosphere.

Nope, you're ridiculously wrong again. The study I quoted says nothing of the sort. They studied increasing water vapor levels in specifically the upper parts of the troposphere, which is still part of the lower atmosphere, moron, not the upper. The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere.

Aveage water vapor levels have risen about 4% over the the entire depth of the troposphere, right down to the ground. No crackpot "displacement".

.. but they conclude that greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere will "heat" the atmosphere further..

Nope, still wrong. You have zero ability to comprehend what you read. The study says nothing about the upper atmosphere. It is entirely concerned with the increase in water vapor levels in the troposphere - the LOWER atmosphere, you ignorant imbecile.

the global warming models were all wrong... why?

You only imagine the models are wrong...."why?"....because you are apparently a misinformed brainwashed retard, that's why!!!

In the real world....

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
27 March 2013

Climate Models & Accuracy
Professor Scott A. Mandia

Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
Figure 6.2 (ibid) belows shows how climate model temperature predictions compare to reconstructed temperatures. Thick lines represent model predictions with human and natural forcing (All) and thin lines represent model predictions with just natural forcing (Nat). Models do a good job of simulating past climate using just natural forcing but they can only reproduce the modern temperature record by including human emissions of greenhouse gases. The thick and thin lines begin to diverge around 1850 around the time that the Industrial Revolution ramped up. Futhermore, the models predict that the modern climate should be COOLING due to natural forcing which means that the human forcing dominates climate in the recent record.

 

[RKMBrown]

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules. Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements... Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions. Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..

OK. I will indulge your ignorance and confusion.

Global warming amplifier: Rising water vapor in upper troposphere to intensify climate change
ScienceDaily
Date: July 28, 2014
Source: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or human-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises Earth's temperature.

The paper, titled "Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming," was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper's authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.

ROFL... so they claim I'm right that increased co2 resulted in displacement of h20 into the upper atmosphere.

Nope, you're ridiculously wrong again. The study I quoted says nothing of the sort. They studied increasing water vapor levels in specifically the upper parts of the troposphere, which is still part of the lower atmosphere, moron, not the upper. The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere.

Aveage water vapor levels have risen about 4% over the the entire depth of the troposphere, right down to the ground. No crackpot "displacement".

.. but they conclude that greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere will "heat" the atmosphere further..

Nope, still wrong. You have zero ability to comprehend what you read. The study says nothing about the upper atmosphere. It is entirely concerned with the increase in water vapor levels in the troposphere - the LOWER atmosphere, you ignorant imbecile.

the global warming models were all wrong... why?

You only imagine the models are wrong...."why?"....because you are apparently a misinformed brainwashed retard, that's why!!!

In the real world....

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
27 March 2013

Climate Models & Accuracy
Professor Scott A. Mandia

Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
Figure 6.2 (ibid) belows shows how climate model temperature predictions compare to reconstructed temperatures. Thick lines represent model predictions with human and natural forcing (All) and thin lines represent model predictions with just natural forcing (Nat). Models do a good job of simulating past climate using just natural forcing but they can only reproduce the modern temperature record by including human emissions of greenhouse gases. The thick and thin lines begin to diverge around 1850 around the time that the Industrial Revolution ramped up. Futhermore, the models predict that the modern climate should be COOLING due to natural forcing which means that the human forcing dominates climate in the recent record.

You are such a fucking retard. The upper trop ends where the strat begins, dumb ass. I never fucking said "strat." You're a moron. ROFL moron thinks upper is lower. Moron thinks the climate models were on target ROFL... Yeah cause the arctic ice has melted and the oceans have flooded florida.