/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8566675
>>But what's this?
>A misleading graph which cherrypicks data, ignores humidity on Earth's surface, and improperly combines a homogenized and unhomogenized data set to create a false trend.
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract;jsessionid=C4E12EABE02E813875B036FAD052F227.f04t02

Look at this paper! After the relative humidity measurements didn't support our theory, we tampered the data until we got the desired result!
.
Humdity data fits prediction => Climate Change is TRUE!
Humidity data does not fit prediction => So much the worse for the data. Tamper it until we get the desired result. Then Climate Change is TRUE!
Thanks for the unfalsifiability!

Pic related. Humidity predictions failed.

>>8249161
>>8246840

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

Another flat out lie. The increased upper troposphere water vapor didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>>8221810
>"Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming [...]
>Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere." (IPCC)

Ah yes, the predictions of models. Its almost as if they've taken a life of there own. But let's do something the IPCC hates; look at actual, untampered data. Pic related.

Oh noes!, The upper troposphere humidity DID NOT go up. Now if the IPCC and company actually behaved like scientists, they would admit that the theory is wrong. However, their job is fundamentally political, not scientific so don't hold your breath for an admission of failure any time soon.

>>7749108
>Water vapor is held in an incredibly tight equilibrium.
>It serves as a strong positive feedback, In Our Models
in the real world, not so much.
ftfy

>nb4 increased humidity in lower troposphere.
evaporation from surface heating == heat transfer =/= positive feedback
> but here are my (un)skeptical scienz copypasta references about lower troposphere humidity!
You sure love to demonstrate your copypasta abilities.

>>7679904
And the water vapor feedback is not there.

>nb4 but muh papers!
Those paper are about the lower troposphere which isn't positive feedback, just an evaporative type of heat transfer. The upper troposphere increased water vapor is the real feedback because it would block outgoing infrared. And that didn't happen.

>>7117124
>he has the completely wrong idea about feedback
He does have the completely wrong idea about feedback. There
is supposed to be positive feedback from CO2 increase in the form of more water vapor. But it didn't happen. Pic related.

>>7089685
More data supplantation.

The failed positive water vapor feedback.

>>6842176

Your pathetic resorts to ad hominem are a sad substitute for cogent argument:
>Why would you have to mention "exothermic reaction,"
I said exothermic because the reaction gives off heat, as in HOT SPOT. Sheesh. U sound very insecure.

And yes water vapor has been measured, and no it didn't increase as predicted.

How many failed predictions do you need before you admit yours beliefs are unfalsifiable - a secular religion.

Face it, you have failed in your defense of a secular dogma.

>>6793135

You just cherry-picked the high sensitivity guy; and ignored the low sensitivity guy:

"Rasool and Schneider give a more recent and substantially smaller estimate..."

Like I said, they mentioned a low sensitivity guy and a high-sensitivity guy. But it all comes down to the water-vapor feedback. So lets pretend that the reference you made was an actual prediction. Then water vapor should have a strong increase with CO2 increase. That is the prediction you claim from this paper.

It doesn't, see attached. So your prediction failed.

Now will you admit the Climate Change has been falsified? Of course not, because it is unfalsifiable.

>>6560167

Here is the predicted vs. measured water vapor... The big water vapor feedback didn't happen.

>>6521602

It seems that you're the one having a hard time with reality.

Your models have failed:
>>6518385
and
>>6519792
your data was tampered with:
>>6520032
and summers are NOT getting warmer
>>6520050
>>6520027
The lack of global warming from 1945 to 1975 despite a huge increase in CO2 output shows that CO2 isn't the primary driver of climate
>>6521561
And MOST IMPORTANTLY, the signature of positive feedback from CO2 increase, "the hot spot" as a sign of water vapor increase, isn't there.
>>6521612

Your models predicted significant water vapor increase, but failed. See attached. From
http://s27.postimg.org/eexakr5wz/ENSO_PCWV_48_Feb14.png

Now a scientist would accept that the theory is false and move on. You are not practicing science.