Evidence supporting AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

The smoking guns keep coming. This one confirms the water vapor feedback.

Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
---
Eui-Seok Chunga,
Brian Sodena,1,
B. J. Sohnb, and
Lei Shic
---

Uh-oh. No big names from the denier hate-list, so they can't instantly handwave it away. They'll have to add those names to their hate-list.

---
Abstract

Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change.
---

Part one, they looked at the outgoing infrared in the water vapor absorption band between 1979 and 2005, and they found lots more water vapor.

Part two, they tried to figure out why, and the only explanation that worked was higher temps had led to more water vapor in the upper troposphere, exactly as the models had predicted.

As we've suspected. H2O > CO2 as a GHG

Thank you for highlighting that

 

[Dot Com]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

 

[jc456]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

Which is when?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

Why did they use the phrase "Climatic Optimum" to describe previous warm periods, if warmer gives us an "uninhabitable planet"? How does that work?

 

[SSDD]

Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.

I guess you believe you are making a point....I do wish you understood that you are not....put that ice cube in a dark cold room where only its radiation can reach your eye and tell me how much your eye absorbs...

When you see visible light, unless you are looking directly into the light source, you are seeing light reflected from the source, not photons (if photons exist) originating from the object itself. The light you see reflecting to you from the ice cube didn't originate from the ice cube...it originated from another source.

still waiting for your refutation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant....

No need...the SB equation describes a one way gross flow of energy from warm to cold in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics...not a two way net flow with the net being towards warm according to an unproven, unobserved, unmeasured, untestable mathematical model..

 

[SSDD]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

Why did they use the phrase "Climatic Optimum" to describe previous warm periods, if warmer gives us an "uninhabitable planet"? How does that work?

In the warmer mind, optimum must mean something bad...just to be sure, I looked it up.

optimum - 1.the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc., as of temperature, light, and moisture for the growth or reproduction of an organism.

2.the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.

Why would warmers not want to live in a climatic optimum?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.

I guess you believe you are making a point....I do wish you understood that you are not....put that ice cube in a dark cold room where only its radiation can reach your eye and tell me how much your eye absorbs...

When you see visible light, unless you are looking directly into the light source, you are seeing light reflected from the source, not photons (if photons exist) originating from the object itself. The light you see reflecting to you from the ice cube didn't originate from the ice cube...it originated from another source.

still waiting for your refutation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant....

No need...the SB equation describes a one way gross flow of energy from warm to cold in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics...not a two way net flow with the net being towards warm according to an unproven, unobserved, unmeasured, untestable mathematical model..

the SB equation describes a one way gross flow of energy from warm to cold

You'll have to show me the footnote that says "one-way" or "depending on the temperature of surrounding objects", because it isn't there.

Or explain this:

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law...

which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

If the energy flow is one way, how does the warmer object know to slow down its radiation, as the cooler object warms? Is that your smart photon theory again?

 

[Old Rocks]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

Why did they use the phrase "Climatic Optimum" to describe previous warm periods, if warmer gives us an "uninhabitable planet"? How does that work?

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

In 1998 Samuel Bowring and colleagues reported that the carbon isotope change at the P-T boundary in South China was probably very short-lived: a "spike" only perhaps 165,000 years long. This suggests a major (catastrophic?) addition of non-organic carbon to the ocean, rather than just a failure in the supply of organic carbon. They suggested three possible scenarios. Two of them are variants of the Siberian Traps scenario above, except that in addition the climatic changes could have set off an overturn of Panthalassa and a carbon dioxide crisis. Their third suggestion is an asteroid impact, but there is not much evidence for that.

Most recently, Greg Retallack and colleagues have found evidence in Australia that suggests a prolonged greenhouse warming set in right at the P-T boundary. Several paleoclimatic indicators suggest the same story, which implies that the role of carbon dioxide was the vital link between any environmental disasters and the extinctions. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have been increased by volcanic eruptions, by oceanic turnover, and it would have been accentuated and prolonged if plants were killed off globally. (World floras and oceanic plankton would have to recover before the carbon dioxide could be drawn down out of the atmosphere.) We may be getting close to the answer here!

So far there is only enough evidence to fix a major impact at one of the mass extinctions in the fossil record, the K*T extinction, and perhaps to suggest another at the F*F boundary. Likewise, there is only enough evidence to connect giant flood basalt eruptions with two mass extinctions, at the P*Tr and the K*T boundary extinctions. It is clear, however, that the largest known impact and the largest known eruption coincide with undoubted mass extinctions. It would be amazing if that was a coincidence. These questions are still open!

 

[Old Rocks]

Rapid changes in the overall temperature of the Earth will lead, and this is happening right now, to an unstable climate. That is bad news for an agriculture upon which over 7 billion people depend. Should the clathrates start to let go in the Arctic, things are going to get very interesting very quickly.

Scientists discover vast methane plumes escaping from Arctic seafloor | Earth | EarthSky

An international team of scientists aboard the icebreaker Oden – currently north of eastern Siberia, in the Arctic Ocean – is working primarily to measure methane emissions from the Arctic seafloor. On July 22, 2014, only a week into their voyage, the team reported “elevated methane levels, about 10 times higher than background seawater.” They say the culprit in this release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, may be a tongue of relatively warm water from the Atlantic Ocean, the last remnants of the Gulf Stream, mixing into the Arctic Ocean. A press release from University of Stockholm described the discovery as:

… vast methane plumes escaping from the seafloor of the Laptev continental slope. These early glimpses of what may be in store for a warming Arctic Ocean could help scientists project the future releases of the strong greenhouse gas methane from the Arctic Ocean.

The scientists refer to the plumes as methane mega flares.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The denier hive mind think that AGW is some parlor game wherin you lose, you simply start the game over. IRL, if we "lose" we have an uninhabitable planet. See how that works deniers?

Why did they use the phrase "Climatic Optimum" to describe previous warm periods, if warmer gives us an "uninhabitable planet"? How does that work?

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

In 1998 Samuel Bowring and colleagues reported that the carbon isotope change at the P-T boundary in South China was probably very short-lived: a "spike" only perhaps 165,000 years long. This suggests a major (catastrophic?) addition of non-organic carbon to the ocean, rather than just a failure in the supply of organic carbon. They suggested three possible scenarios. Two of them are variants of the Siberian Traps scenario above, except that in addition the climatic changes could have set off an overturn of Panthalassa and a carbon dioxide crisis. Their third suggestion is an asteroid impact, but there is not much evidence for that.

Most recently, Greg Retallack and colleagues have found evidence in Australia that suggests a prolonged greenhouse warming set in right at the P-T boundary. Several paleoclimatic indicators suggest the same story, which implies that the role of carbon dioxide was the vital link between any environmental disasters and the extinctions. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have been increased by volcanic eruptions, by oceanic turnover, and it would have been accentuated and prolonged if plants were killed off globally. (World floras and oceanic plankton would have to recover before the carbon dioxide could be drawn down out of the atmosphere.) We may be getting close to the answer here!

So far there is only enough evidence to fix a major impact at one of the mass extinctions in the fossil record, the K*T extinction, and perhaps to suggest another at the F*F boundary. Likewise, there is only enough evidence to connect giant flood basalt eruptions with two mass extinctions, at the P*Tr and the K*T boundary extinctions. It is clear, however, that the largest known impact and the largest known eruption coincide with undoubted mass extinctions. It would be amazing if that was a coincidence. These questions are still open!

Optimum is not spelled "extinction". Try again?

 

[Old Rocks]

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.

It's been warmer than now, fairly recently.

I might have missed the massive extinctions that occurred.
You have a link?

 

[Old Rocks]

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.

It's been warmer than now, fairly recently.

I might have missed the massive extinctions that occurred.
You have a link?

Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

The reconstruction from Moberg et al. (2005) utilizes complementary information from proxy data that preserve both low- and high-frequency climate information. High-resolution data from tree rings reflect annual to multidecadal variability best and are precisely dated to the calendar year. The low resolution proxy records used here, from ice cores, boreholes, cave stalagmites, and lake and ocean sediments, contain information at centennial scales, but are based on less precise dating. A methodology based on wavelet transformation was used to isolate the climate information at the appropriate frequencies for each of the two types of data. The resulting reconstruction combines this information to include climate variability at annual to centennial scale frequencies. The reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies is scaled to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean temperature, in degrees K (equivalent to degrees C). The Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature from instrumental records has been added to this graph (in red) for comparison and is scaled to the same mean period.

The Moberg reconstruction shares the larger degree of multicentennial variability with the borehole reconstructions (see Huang 2005), but the pattern of variability is very similar to that of the high-resolution reconstructions. The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.

It's been warmer than now, fairly recently.

I might have missed the massive extinctions that occurred.
You have a link?

Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

The reconstruction from Moberg et al. (2005) utilizes complementary information from proxy data that preserve both low- and high-frequency climate information. High-resolution data from tree rings reflect annual to multidecadal variability best and are precisely dated to the calendar year. The low resolution proxy records used here, from ice cores, boreholes, cave stalagmites, and lake and ocean sediments, contain information at centennial scales, but are based on less precise dating. A methodology based on wavelet transformation was used to isolate the climate information at the appropriate frequencies for each of the two types of data. The resulting reconstruction combines this information to include climate variability at annual to centennial scale frequencies. The reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual temperature anomalies is scaled to the 1961-1990 instrumental mean temperature, in degrees K (equivalent to degrees C). The Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature from instrumental records has been added to this graph (in red) for comparison and is scaled to the same mean period.

The Moberg reconstruction shares the larger degree of multicentennial variability with the borehole reconstructions (see Huang 2005), but the pattern of variability is very similar to that of the high-resolution reconstructions. The authors suggest that the greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia.

Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?

It hasn't been warmer in the last 20,000 years? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000?
Did we get a massive extinction event then?

 

[Old Rocks]

It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.

It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm.

How many species died out?

How many during the MWP?

and a much warmer world than today.

Maybe they'll see another Climatic Optimum?

 

[Old Rocks]

Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.

You can tell that the increase now is faster than the increase 253 million years ago? Cool!

Show me.

 

[Old Rocks]

End-Permian mass extinction (the Great Dying) | Natural History Museum

Over the course of about 600,000 years huge volumes of viscous basalt lava poured out across Siberia, covering an area roughly 7 times the size of France.

Massive clouds of gases belched out. The sulphur dioxide caused acid rain and global cooling. But this was only short-term. The temperature increased as the eruptions injected carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and yet more escaped from coal deposits exposed in the surrounding area.

As the oceans warmed, frozen methane located in marine sediments may have melted. If so, the release of this potent greenhouse gas could have turned the planet’s temperature up even more.

As well as being devastating for marine and land plants and animals, Late Permian environmental changes created anoxic conditions in the sea. This lack of oxygen caused additional widespread extinctions because it destroyed food chains.

There are many, many articles on the P-T extinction. As more data comes in, it looks increasingly like a very rapid increase in GHGs created a very hot earth with a low oxygen level. Now we are creating the potential for a repeat of this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

End-Permian mass extinction (the Great Dying) | Natural History Museum

Over the course of about 600,000 years huge volumes of viscous basalt lava poured out across Siberia, covering an area roughly 7 times the size of France.

Massive clouds of gases belched out. The sulphur dioxide caused acid rain and global cooling. But this was only short-term. The temperature increased as the eruptions injected carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and yet more escaped from coal deposits exposed in the surrounding area.

As the oceans warmed, frozen methane located in marine sediments may have melted. If so, the release of this potent greenhouse gas could have turned the planet’s temperature up even more.

As well as being devastating for marine and land plants and animals, Late Permian environmental changes created anoxic conditions in the sea. This lack of oxygen caused additional widespread extinctions because it destroyed food chains.

There are many, many articles on the P-T extinction. As more data comes in, it looks increasingly like a very rapid increase in GHGs created a very hot earth with a low oxygen level. Now we are creating the potential for a repeat of this.

Thanks for the link.

Let me know when you find one that proves your claim.

a very hot earth with a low oxygen level. Now we are creating the potential for a repeat of this

We're going to repeat a low oxygen level?