Given the comments of climatologist Susan Solomon in this article from last week in The Guardian, Water vapour caused one-third of warming in the 1990s, who said
…the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. “Not to my mind it doesn’t,” she said. “It shows that we shouldn’t over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.”
she and her cronies won’t be changing their conclusions any time soon.
It is downright amazing that she can say with a straight face – after an 11-year slightly declining plateau in global temps – that “we shouldn’t over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another.”
Why is that amazing? Because during the 11-year period from 1988-1998 (inclusive), she and her cronies were certainly drawing interpretations – and all one way.
Now THAT is a double standard! Wow. Amazing! (Didn’t I tell you?)
This study opens up a whole new can of worms:
- 10 Years ago, they told us the models could predict the future climate, out to 2100, to an accuracy of tenths of a degree (e.g, the warming would be from 1.8C to 5.8C, not 2C to 6 C) – yet the models didn’t have this water vapor factor in it correctly, so how accurate were the models all this time? And if the models were not correct, how good were the forecasts?
- Water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas, but it has a complicating factor: It not only warms the planet, but when the vapor turns into clouds, they reflect sunlight, thus adding a feedback that detracts from warming.
- If the climate was warming in the 1990s, then that should have put more evaporated water into the atmosphere. Somehow, right when the temps got to a really hot level, the atmosphere dried out.
- The model programmers admittedly have never been able to model water vapor well – mostly because they don’t understand the interaction that comes from cloud formation. So, they put in some “best-guess” factors to simulate water vapor. They did not seem to be working on a solution to their non-understanding, though. The science was settled. And “We know where the WMDs are. They’re east, south,. west and north of Tikrit.” Now that they can’t ignore the 11-year downward trend in global temperature (even in the adjusted numbers), which they did not predict (this alone tells them the science is not good science), they have begun to look closer at factors they haven’t covered well enough in the past. At least they were clever enough to look at water vapor right away.
And once again, science got blindsided. The ever-accurate academics played the public well, but in the end, their cobbled-together models (evidently) didn’t have enough settled science in them. This time it was a factor they knew about, at least. But that pretty much tells us that their adjustment factors were not done properly.
But it is important to mention that formulas are not science in and of themselves. Science is one avenue of trying to understand the universe, and more specifically our planet here. Formulas are only one avenue of that attempt, but they are definitely avenues that have to be vetted fully before calling them “science.”
For them to know about the water vapor factor – and as large a factor as can be, really – and to try to sell the world on it when they know they have not vetted the formulae, that is pretty godawful bad. It IS very much like The Emperor’s New Clothes.