Climate Departure and Cities to be Hit First

reply to post by Nidwin

...It's clear we're the cause of putting the CO2 ecosystem out of balance. That system that was stable for at least 800 000 Years.....

Again it depends on your point of view. We are actually in the age of CO2 starvation. That is why C4 and CAM plants evolved although C3 plants are more energy efficient. Trees and many of our food crops are C3. Many weeds and grasses are C4. Cacti are CAM.

Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
Abstract

The Rancho La Brea tar pit fossil collection includes Juniperus (C3) wood specimens that 14C date between 7.7 and 55 thousand years (kyr) B.P., providing a constrained record of plant response for southern California during the last glacial period.... Here we report on delta13C of Juniperus wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](ci)/atmospheric [CO2](ca) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at ci values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation.... By scaling ancient ci values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.

First cold water sucks up CO2 (Henry's Law) and chemical processes that produce limestone sequester the CO2. Plants also suck up CO2 and this CO2 can be sequestered as Peat ===> Coal

ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

A layman's translation Green World Trust

More recent: New Paper With Stunning Admission By Climate Alarmist Scientists: Actual CO2 Emissions Are Unknown; Please Send Money! (has link to paper plus explanation)

PLANTS

WHEAT in a Field

The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.

CO2 depletion

Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm... I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) ... photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm... (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion...

The 'science' is not what you think.

FIRST the politics

The ice-core man

...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research. [WTF!!! IMMORAL to do research???-CV]

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.... [So much for impartial science research -CV]

What the Politicians wanted to hide:

...Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw....

...the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."...

This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."

"According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski states. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

"Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million....
[./exnews]

And so the reputation of an exceptionally brilliant scientist is trashed by nameless bureaucrats.

reply to post by crimvelvet

At www.climateaudit.org..., Steve McIntyre reports an analysis he undertook to test the "sensitivity" of the "Regional Curve Standardised" tree-ring chronology (Briffa, 2000; Briffa at al., 2008) to the selection of measurement data intended to provide evidence of long-term changes of tree growth, and, ultimately inferred temperature variation through two millennia in the Yamal region of northern Russia. It would be a mistake to conclude that McIntyre's sensitivity analysis provides evidence to refute our current interpretation of relatively high tree growth and summer warmth in the 20th century in this region. A reworked chronology, based on additional data, including those used in McIntyre's analysis, is similar to our previously published chronologies. Our earlier work thus provides a defensible and reasonable indication of tree growth changes during the 20th century and in the context of long-term changes reconstructed over the last two millennia in the vicinity of the larch tree line in southern Yamal. McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it.

Subsequently, a slightly different version of the RCS Yamal chronology was produced using the same data set but processed using an improved implementation of the RCS technique (Briffa et al. 2008). However, the difference between the 2000 and 2008 versions of the chronology is small.

The data set used in the above-cited work was assembled and supplied by our colleagues Ra# Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov (Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ekaterinburg, Russia) who also published a version of this chronology (Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002) based on a different processing method (corridor standardisation).

The AD portion of the data set, common to these three analyses consisted of measurements from 235 sub-fossil larch samples collected at numerous sites (see map) adjacent to the Porzayakha, Yadayakhodyyakha, Tanlovayakha and Khadytayakha rivers (Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002) and samples from 17 living trees growing at 5 sites in the vicinity of the sub-fossil trees.

McIntyre's analysis involved removing the measurement data for 12 trees (from 3 of these sites POR, YAD and JAH), data that make up the most recent part of our chronology, and replacing them with measurements from 18 trees growing at a different single site (KHAD), slightly to the south of the locations of the removed trees and originating from a different source. This alternative "modern" set was not considered or used by Hantemirov and Shiyatov or in the previous analyses (Briffa, 2000; Briffa at al., 2008)

Source

Per usual, not the conspiracy deniers make it out to be. Here's Briffa et al's 2013 paper. Check it out for yourself.

reply to post by Kali74

Per usual, not the conspiracy deniers make it out to be. Here's Briffa et al's 2013 paper. Check it out for yourself.

Directly from that paper:

...Assessing the value of tree-ring data for climate reconstruction is predicated on an understanding of the methods of tree-ring chronology production and the extent to which these methods affect the estimation of uncertainty. At issue is the representation of the tree-ring evidence itself, but also the implementation of specific regression or scaling techniques used to transform the tree-ring data into estimates of climate variability. Fundamental to this review is an exploration of the degree to which the different tree-ring variables and sub-sets of these data provide consistent, and hence mutually corroborative, evidence of inferred temperature changes....

It is implicit in dendroclimatology that parallel tree-ring data series extracted from adjacent trees exhibit common variations in time that represent the local tree-growth response to changing environmental influences..... ["environmental influences" can also include rain a more limiting factor once growth temp is reached - CV]

The simple RCS approach relies on the assumption that a common, single RCS function is appropriate to detrend all measured series. This assumption may not be valid, even for trees within a restricted area. Part of the observed reduction of ring width with increasing tree age is due to the change in stem diameter, which is actually dependent on growth rate rather than ring age, e.g. the reduction of measured ring-width in each year due to diameter change will be larger in fast-growing trees than in slow-growing trees. There is usually some random variation in the growth rates of trees at a site even under constant climate conditions....

The collection of tree-core samples ...provided by the European Union funded... continues with support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. These efforts produced a continuous 4000-year long larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.) chronology whose year-to-year variability was shown to be associated with changes in June and July temperatures (Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002). The sample data that spanned the Common Era comprised some 265 sub-fossil samples and 17 of the longest-lived living-tree samples drawn from 5 sites in the region...

So what do Hantemirov and Shiyatov,have to say?

A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia

Abstract
Remains of subfossil Siberian larch trees in the Holocene deposits of the Yamal Peninsula (Western Siberia) have been collected in order to develop a continuous, multimillennium tree-ring-width chronology. This work has produced a calendar-age dated 4000-year (2000 bc to ad 1996) series. From these data, summer-temperature variability in this region has been estimated on annual to multidecadal timescales. Radiocarbon dating of selected older material shows that the oldest subfossil wood is 9400 years old and the dates of the sampled material are generally distributed evenly through time. It will, therefore, be possible to develop a tree-ring chronology for more than nine millennia. ....

And we can find the graph of the data HERE ( The NOAA site I was going to link to is down) The Data Source for graph shown: ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Notice this tree-ring chronology shows a DECLINE in temperature from 1936 to 1988 and even shows a decline from 1780 through 1988!!!!

Certainly gives meaning to "Hide the Decline" from the climategate e-mails where Mike Mann spliced thermometer data to tree ring data to hide this fact.

reply to post by crimvelvet

Certainly gives meaning to "Hide the Decline" from the climategate e-mails where Mike Mann spliced thermometer data to tree ring data to hide this fact.

Have you ever read any of the numerous inquiry reports on this issue? Both universities conducted inquiries along with British Parliament and US Congress.

Here's PSU's Inquiry Report

On January 12, 2010, the inquiry committee (Foley, Yekel, Scaroni) and Dr. Brune met with
Dr. Mann to interview him. Dr. Mann was asked to address the four allegations leveled against
him and to provide answers to the fifteen additional questions that the committee had compiled.
In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the questions and follow up
questions. A recording was made of the meeting, and this recording was transcribed. The
committee members asked occasional follow-up questions. Throughout the interview, Dr. Mann
answered each question carefully:

• He explained the content and meaning of the emails about which we inquired;
• He explained that he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data
to serve a given predetermined outcome;
• He explained that he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other
scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
• He explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically
including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of
obstructing science; and
• He explained that he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with
accepted academic practices.

Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the
inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or
has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent
to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the
CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or
falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not
while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by
some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate
the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann
about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable
graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1
was nothing
more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets
together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of
peers in the field.

Nice try but no dice.

cleverhans
Ever notice how it's always some point in the future that we never seem to get to? Alarmist have been spewing this BS for years, but are constantly changing their stories and moving the dates further and further out.

Shhhhhhhh, models are NEVER wrong...

Let's hear what the conspiracy deniers had to say about the divergence problem and the numerous versions of "the trick". The 'stolen emails' are reproduced in full and within context, cause we know how quickly 'taking things out of context' can lead to unsubstantiated allegations.

tricky IPCC

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… [There are] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter."

For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. (Briffa, Sep 22, 1999, 0938031546.txt)

But this is all stuff from the past. Maybe some climatologist really believed the climate was stable over thousands of years. Briffa was right (although he's still in the hockey business) and newer reconstructions more accurately depict past climate conditions.

“The last decade of paleoclimate research has shown that the Holocene is not the stable, climatic event-free period as previously thought: both external and internal (oceanic) forcings have caused major climatic changes.” - Caroline Cléroux

Southern Hemisphere



Northern Hemisphere



abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by talklikeapirat

“The last decade of paleoclimate research has shown that the Holocene is not the stable, climatic event-free period as previously thought: both external and internal (oceanic) forcings have caused major climatic changes.”

Can you tell us which of those external and internal forcings can account for the current warming trend?
Do oceanic patterns match those during previous warmings? Do orbital patterns match those during previous warmings? If not, what external and internal forcings could be causing it?

I mean, those are pretty major things. Has the Gulf Stream shifted northward in the past 100 years? Have there been dramatic changes in salinity to indicate such changes? Has the variability of Earth's orbit changed in the past 100 years? Has there been a significant increase in TSI? This sort of thing is apparent in the past. Is that what is happening now, or could it be like the models show, thats CO2 is driving it?

BTW, from your source:

According to current understanding, the MCA was not a universally warm epoch (see, however, Graham et al. 2011 ), although much of the Arctic was warm during the Medieval times. In contrast, the LIA, which most studies date between 1500 and 1850 AD, was most probably a global phenomenon (Mann et al. 2009 ).

www.martintingley.com...

reply to post by Phage

Can you tell us which of those external and internal forcings can account for the current warming trend?

That is where the research really gets interesting.

Are you aware of the IPCC mandate?

...The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation....
www.ipcc-wg2.gov...

Unfortunately this stifled research into natural causes of climate change. However some progress has been made although a lot of it is speculative because no funds are available for research that does not support human induced climate change.

I will take it that you are aware of Plate Tectonics that FINALLY made it into the mainstream as I hit college.

The change into 'Ice box earth' - Glaciation, is because of the present configuration of the continents. Specifically the closing of the Isthmus of Panama making North and South American continuous and the opening of Drake Passage, a separation of South America from Antarctica. This drastically changed the ocean circulation patterns.

Milutin Milankovitch explain the glaciation cycles - the stadials and the warm interstadials by the cyclical change in the amount of sunshine near the Arctic circle. Recently Dr. Gerard Roe made a minor correction in the theory. It was known in the seventies but forgotten. Dr. Roe realized a trivial mistake had been made repeatedly. A simple mistake done by many people all the time. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is "warm" even though they mean that it's "getting warmer" or vice versa.

In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don't immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing By taking the derivative, the faster, high-frequency, short-period cycles in the ice volume are amplified while the very slow ones (100,000-year cycles) are suppressed. With this correction you get great agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes. In defense of Milankovitch

A second characteristic of Ice box earth is the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations during the glacial phase and the Bond events during the interstadials. The time of these is around 1470 years. D-O oscillations are abrupt warm spikes that reach near interstadials temperatures.
See On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events

The Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations caused air temperatures over Greenland [to] rapidly warming 8 to 15°C within decades. The actual cause of D-O oscillations is unknown. This article purposes two possibilities, The Salt Oscillator Hypothesis and The Wind Field Oscillation Hypothesis.

I have also seen a third purposed possibility. Lunar influences. The moon not only circles the earth causing the tides we are all aware of. There are also the solar/lunar influenced "King tides" that caused Sandy to be so much more destructive. On top of the east-west component of the lunar-earth relationship there is a north-south component.

Each saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node). At some point, eclipses are no longer possible and the series terminates (Sun leaves the beginning of the node). Arbitrary dates were established by compilers of eclipse statistics. These extreme dates are 2000 BCE and 3000 CE. Saros series, of course, went on before and will continue after these dates. Since the first eclipse of 2000 BCE was not the first in its saros, it is necessary to extend the saros series numbers backwards beyond 0 to negative numbers to accommodate eclipses occurring in the years following 2000 BCE. The saros -13 is the first saros to appear in these data. For solar eclipses the statistics for the complete saros series within the era between 2000 BCE and 3000 CE are given in this article's references. It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth's surface from north to south (or vice-versa). These extremes allow from 69 to 87 eclipses in each series (most series have 71 or 72 eclipses). From 39 to 59 (mostly about 43) eclipses in a given series will be central (that is, total, annular, or hybrid annular-total)....

Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations anyone?

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf
Abstract
Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon...

This paper goes on to note

The IRD events identified by Bond et al. (1, 2) show high spectral power density in a broad band centered at about 1,800 years (0.55 ± 0.15 cycles/kyr). The authors do not explain why this period is so much larger than the 1,476-year average pacing of cool events, but the time-distribution of pacing (ref. 1, Fig. 6c; G. Bond, private communication) suggests that a majority of the events were about 2,000 years apart, with occasional additional events occurring about half-way between, evidently too infrequent to cancel out a dominant spectral peak near 1,800 years. Bond et al. (2) in addition found a spectral peak near 5,000 years whose possible cause was also not explained. We now propose an oceanic tidal mechanism that may explain the basis for both of these spectral peaks, consistent with the actual times of IRD events....

Those are the long cycles. Next are some of the shorter cycles.

reply to post by Phage


A continuation of climate cycles.

The next cycle is the 200 year cycle mentioned many times.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere.

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent....

(The link to the actual paper has gone missing from NASA at this time unfortunately)

The 88 year cycle is the Gleissberg solar cycle. Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

The 200 year cycle is the the de Vries Solar cycle. The influence of the de Vries (∼ 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link


Then there are the ~ 60 yr ocean cycles. The PDO, AMO, AO... that have a major effect on the surrounding land temperatures.
They go back to both lunar and solar influences. I am too tired to hunt up those references tonight. I will hit the topic again tomorrow.

reply to post by Kali74

Have you ever read any of the numerous inquiry reports on this issue?

Yes, They are a complete joke. The Banksters and Oil ERRRrrr Energy companies stand to make trillions of dollars of this hoax and they are not about to allow an actually legitimate inquiry happen.

Look at WHO did the inquiries and what connections they have. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

reply to post by crimvelvet

No one has said that solar variation does not affect climate but deniers are fond of saying "Look! Cycles!" as if the fact that cycles exists nullifies the evidence that the current warming trend is the result of human activity. Now, how about some evidence that any of these are in play and can account for the level of warming witnessed in the 20th century.


From your own source:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

Attempts have been made to explain 20th century global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variation associated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, because they require unacceptably great solar forcing and are incompatible with the paleoclimatic records.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

reply to post by Phage


I will deal with alternate science in another post.

From your own source.....

As I already said, you have to bow to the CO2 God to get a paper published. Some of the get out of pal-review bows to CO2 are down right funny because they are such obvious tacked on after thoughts.

From the point of view of the scientific method, the null hypothesis is ALL CHANGE IS NATURAL. It is up to the IPCC scientists to PROVE the null hypothesis wrong and their NEW hypothesis correct. They failed. CO2 continues to rise while the temperature has not risen for seventeen years. And that is despite all the rigging of the temperature records. GISS temp graphs showing 'Adjustments' and analysis of the adjustments link

The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

...ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate....

So NOAA gives a 15 year 'PAUSE' as the falsification criteria.
Dr. Ben Santer said in a 2011 paper: Link

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

Prof. Phil Jones said in the Climategate emails, "Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried." You can also see The interview with Dr. Judith Curry and Prof. Phil Jones

The number of participating scientists has fallen from 2000 to 800 many leaving in outrage because of the twisting of their research. (And because the IPCC ship is sinking)

UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. link [Folow the links to original and to other comments by scientists]

This report from U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also goes on to list specific scientists and their remarks on the IPCC. It is a LONG LIST so I will not include it here.

only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."

"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change." ...

........


Just in case you have put the IPCC scientists on a pedestal and think they are honest with high integrity. (What a laugh)

US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

ABSTRACT
...A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct....

reply to post by crimvelvet

As I already said, you have to bow to the CO2 God to get a paper published.

See below regarding Zorita. He is apparently, and quite actively, publishing.
But I don't suppose the relative scarcity of anti-AGW papers could have anything to do with a relative scarcity of anti-AGW scientists.

From the point of view of the scientific method, the null hypothesis is ALL CHANGE IS NATURAL.

Sounds like you're an advocate of Roy Spencer (Mr."God did it").

That is not a null hypothesis. It is hypothesis, and a grossly simplified one.

The hypothesis is that the combustion of fossil fuels results in increasing CO2 levels, increasing CO2 level increases radiative forcing, increased radiative forcing leads to increasing surface temperature and those increases in temperatures lead to various feedbacks. Therefore, the null hypothesis would be that the combustion of fossil fuels is not increasing CO2 levels, increasing CO2 levels do not increase temperatures, and feedbacks do not occur.

And that is despite all the rigging of the temperature records.

It's easy to look at it that way if you don't understand the basis (and problems) with calculating a global average temperature anomaly. It's easy to look at it that way, jump on short term differences and ignore the overall trend.

So NOAA gives a 15 year 'PAUSE' as the falsification criteria.

It seems to be talking about "ENSO-adjusted" values? Have you seen the ENSO-adjusted values? Do they show a 15 year pause?

Dr. Ben Santer said in a 2011 paper:

Yes, he did say that. And he was talking about things like ENSO and how that "noise" needs to be accounted for when looking at trends. "Noise" like the extreme El Nino of 1998. He was talking about how cherry picking short term "trends" is meaningless. A good example would be the flat "trend" seen in the 1940s-1970s. A "trend" that fades to insignificance over the long term.

The number of participating scientists has fallen from 2000 to 800 many leaving in outrage because of the twisting of their research. (And because the IPCC ship is sinking)

Can you provide a source for those statistics, what is the time span? Dr. Zorita is welcome to his opinion but it seems that he was wrong about his work not being published. He said that in 2009? He's been pretty busy since then.
scholar.google.com...,5

reply to post by Phage

But I don't suppose the relative scarcity of anti-AGW papers could have anything to do with a relative scarcity of anti-AGW scientists.

More like the relatively scarcity of grants and funding and the difficulty of getting the research published. - Publish and perish and all that.

He who controls the funds, controls the research

I already showed how Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski was denied funding and fired so he could not PROVE the Ice core CO2 results were complete crap. FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE More info by Dr Tom V. Segalstad and Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman second follow-up article by Glassman on ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA

The whole point of 'Consensus Science' is completely invalid. Science is dependent on FACTS not opinion. If CAGW was about science and not politics it would be dead in the water by now. Unfortunately CO2 represents power and money to the politicians, bankers and corporations, especially the energy corporations like BP and Shell who FUNDED the Climate Research Unit and fund Dr. Phil Jones!


After all there was ONE Galileo, One Einstein, One Alfred Wegener who died before his theory became accepted science. Wegener's theory, was published in 1920.

Reaction to Wegener's theory was almost uniformly hostile, and often exceptionally harsh and scathing

It was Dr. John Ertle “Jack” Oliver [who] wrote a paper in 1968, “Seismology and the new Global Tectonics,” which made a compelling geophysical case for the then-novel theory of plate tectonics...

A more recent example is Barry Marshall, - ulcer and stomach cancer.

Again "mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.' (An understatement of the vitrol tossed at Barry Marshall.)

There is also the hiring problem: Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus

The fight is not only about CAGW but about scientific fraud in general.
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform: In the fall of 2010, Dr. Ferric C. Fang made an unsettling discovery. Dr. Fang, who is editor in chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, found that one of his authors had doctored several papers.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias....

I am GLAD scientists are being knocked off the pedestal because the FALSE BELIEF in the honesty and integrity of scientists and lab techs is the underlying assumption upon which ISO and HACCP are based. Both turn auditing over to Corporations.

You can read about HACCP (the cause of the doubling of food borne disease in the USA) Here: HACCP'S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns and Here: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA's “Don't Look, Don't Know” Policy

Unfortunately I can't just post a link for ISO.
Dr Deming the father of the modern Quality Revolution said this:

"The problem is at the top; management is the problem."

Dr. Deming emphasized that the top-level management had to change to produce significant differences, in a long-term, continuous manner. As a consultant, Deming would offer advice to top-level managers, if asked repeatedly, in a continuous manner.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, second edition.

ISO is seen by many Quality Professionals “as the primary negative influence.” in “ the direction that the quality movement has taken in recent years.”

See this article: www.systemsthinking.co.uk... for a discussion of the origins of ISO 9000, what is wrong with it, and why. In this article Admiral Hyman Rickover was concerned with bad quality that resulted from bad management. ISO 9000 addresses conformity to standards instead of improvement of management. The Japanese who were trained in QUALITY IMPROVEMENT by Dr. Demming, father of the modern Quality Movement, do not endorse ISO.

Scott Dalgleish was an editor of the American Society for Quality Magazine for five years.

Scott Dalgleish... an ASQ certified quality manager who has worked in the quality profession since the late 1980s, is not happy with the direction that the quality movement has taken in recent years. And he sees the ISO 9000 family of standards as the primary negative influence. www.qualitymag.com...

..”I'm wondering if there might be a silent majority of Quality readers out there on the topic of ISO 9000. The response to my July editorial, "Eliminate ISO 9000?," was the heaviest that we have received..

Many of the responses were quite articulate, and some were humorous and entertaining.. One thing that struck me about the letters I received is that almost all expressed some level of agreement with Dalgleish.... What surprised me is that the July editorial elicited no ardent rebuttals in defense of ISO 9000..”
www.qualitymag.com... [/exnews

reply to post by Phage

No one has said that solar variation does not affect climate but deniers are fond of saying "Look! Cycles!" as if the fact that cycles exists nullifies the evidence that the current warming trend is the result of human activity. Now, how about some evidence that any of these are in play and can account for the level of warming witnessed in the 20th century.

I said I was going to get back to this. However first more about how the IPCC climate models are dead in the water.

The sneaky part is the IPCC always shows the ensemble of models and claims they are 'Projections' not predictions. This is real fancy dancing. Let me explain why.

The different models represent different "Emissions Scenarios", that is different amounts of human CO2 emissions. The models with the least amount of temperature rise are based on humans not emitting much CO2 and they are the only climate models that come close to predicting the current temperatures.

At this point we have to go back to an e-mail with an attachment from Shell VP Ged Davis who was doing work for the IPCC.

Ged DAVIS has a background in economics and engineering from London and Stanford universities. He joined the Royal Dutch/Shell in 1972 and stayed with that company for 30 years. During his time at Shell, he held positions predominantly in scenario planning, strategy and finance, including Head of Planning (Europe), Head of Energy (Group Planning), Head of Group Investor Relations, Head of Scenario Processes and Applications, Head of the Socio-Politics and Technology Team (Group Planning), and lastly as the company’s Vice-President for Global Business Environment and Head of the Scenarios Team. For the last three years, he has been [Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos. During the late 1990s, he served as Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios and as Facilitator and Lead Author of the IPCC’s Emission Scenarios. Currently, he is Co-President of the Global Energy Assessment with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); a Director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited;... iac.maxasp2.diamax.com...

e-mail

from: Anne JOHNSON
to: [long list]
Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:20

Dear Colleagues:

I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis' IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on
storylines and scenarios....

*********************************
For Comment Only
Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

The IS99 scenarios have been constructed to explore future developments in the global environment with special reference to the production of GHGs....

The scenarios developed allow for a broad range of GHG emissions and provide a basis for reflection on policy....

There are clearly an infinite number of possible alternative futures to explore. We have consciously applied the principle of Occam's Razor , seeking the minimum number of scenarios to provide an adequate basis for climate modelling and challenge to policy makers....

So these scenarios from Shell oil VP Ged Davis are the basis for the climate models shown by the IPCC!

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Scenarios - overview

3. Golden Economic Age (A1)

4. Sustainable Development (B1)

5. Divided World (A2)

6. Regional Stewardship (B2)

7. Scenario comparisons

8. Conclusions

The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st century, neither of which we know the answer to:

- Can adequate governance -- institutions and agreements -- be put in place to manage global problems?

- Will society's values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.

The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:

- Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with the emergence of global governance

- Sustainable Development (B1): in which global agreements and institutions, underpinned by a value shift, encourages the integration of ecological and economic goals


- Divided World (A2): difficulty in resolving global issues leads to a world of autarkic regions

- Regional Stewardship (B2): in the face of weak global governance there is a focus on managing regional/local ecological and equity....

Any doubts about whether Shell is one of the driving forces behind Global Governance and Agenda 21?

crimvelvet
reply to post by Kali74

 

Have you ever read any of the numerous inquiry reports on this issue?

Yes, They are a complete joke. The Banksters and Oil ERRRrrr Energy companies stand to make trillions of dollars of this hoax and they are not about to allow an actually legitimate inquiry happen.

Look at WHO did the inquiries and what connections they have. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

While true you didn't hear much crying about cap & trade, the American Fossil Fuel companies stood to make large profits off those and they have. However those same pocket politicians, most notably James Inhofe have kept any major policy relating to climate largely from being even talked about in any committees and on the Senate floor, anytime it comes up he marches in the "experts" from CATO, Heritage, Heartland yadda yadda and has kept significant emissions reductions off the table. These yahoos also help suppress discussion and innovation on alternative energy.

Proving the claims of scientific fraud wasn't necessary, leveling the charges was all that needed to be done... and look how successful it has been. The media was all over the claims and virtually silent on the outcomes. Four-five years later people still scream "climategate" and "hide the decline" while discussing any aspect of climate change.

reply to post by liveandlearn


IPCC Fancy Dancing PartII
(Remember it is up to the IPCC to PROVE CO2 is harmful and not up to skeptics to provide evidence that climate change is natural - the null hypothesis.)

The Climate Models get the high CO2 climate sensitivity ( doubling of CO2 causes 2 t0 3C increase in temp) by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2. This multiplies the actual CO2 climate sensitivity two or threefold depending on the scientist. This is the heart of CAGW because without this multiplication factor there would be no cause for alarm. This is also why current temperatures are much lower than predicted by the climate models.

The models are swapping cause and effect. They ignore Henry's Law. As water becomes hotter it looses CO2. This is shown in the ice core measurements because CO2 rise LAGS temperature rise ~ 800 years.

Here is the 'BIG LIE' straight from NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change, Page Last Updated: November 18, 2008

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change

In other words water is what has a big effect on earth's climate not CO2.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

He has that correct. Only a very small group of skeptics do not agree that water vapor modifies the temperature. Actually it lowers day time temperature and raises night time temperature making the climate more moderate. - (think desert) Evaporated water has an enthalpy ~2500kJ/Kg heat of evaporation. 25% humidity is 0.02kg of water per kg of air so this water contains 0.02*2500=50kJ of enthalpy (latent heat). When water evaporates it absorbs the energy without changing temperature. (Think boiling water kettle.) When water settles on the ground as dew it gives up this energy.

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air.

There is the twisting of cause and effect used to make CO2 increases catastrophic.

arming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Adding in the fear component just in case you need to be hit by a hammer and completely neglecting the fact that the temperature on earth has upper bounds as seen in the geological record. GRAPH If there was a real problem and climate did not have negative feedbacks, the earth would have fried long ago when the CO2 levels and water vapor levels were much higher than they are today. GRAPH

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. "The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Well at least he has that part correct.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere...

What no one bothers to mention is CO2 has INCREASED while the temperature has stayed the same for 17 years and Water vapor has DECREASED GRAPH 1 and GRAPH 2 - OOPS!There went that assumption.

reply to post by crimvelvet

What no one bothers to mention is CO2 has INCREASED while the temperature has stayed the same for 17 years and Water vapor has DECREASED GRAPH 1 and GRAPH 2 - OOPS!There went that assumption.

That happened in 1940-1975 too. Then guess what happened?
Have you read the IPCC report? It might help your understanding, both of what they are actually saying and the science behind it.

You'll notice that water vapor levels at the surface (1000mb) actually did increase a bit. The upper troposphere dried a bit the mid troposphere didn't change much.

Do you know what "specific humidity" represents? Now, think about what it means if the temperature increases (like it did) and the specific humidity stays the same (of even drops a little bit). In order for that to happen it means that the amount of water vapor in the air has to increase. There is a greater mass of water in the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage

No one has said that solar variation does not affect climate but deniers are fond of saying "Look! Cycles!" as if the fact that cycles exists nullifies the evidence that the current warming trend is the result of human activity. Now, how about some evidence that any of these are in play and can account for the level of warming witnessed in the 20th century.

CONTINUED:
Now to more recent times and the various theories and conjectures.

THE SUN:
I mentioned the 88 year and 200 year solar cycles. Here is the University of Colorado Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics graph of solar total Insolation. link This graph shows just the last three solar cycles Link

The 88 year cycle and the 20th Century. Paper from 1987: Influence of solar variability on global sea surface temperatures

Abstract
Recent measurements have shown that the total solar irradiance decreased at a rate of 0.019% per year between 1980 and 1985, and may still be decreasing. Presumably, this reflects a cyclical variation that may or may not be related to the well-known cycles of solar activity. Using data on globally averaged sea surface temperature (SST) over the past 120 yr, I show that the solar irradiance may have varied in phase with the 80–90 yr cycle represented by the envelope of the 11-yr solar-activity cycle. As the last peak of this cycle occurred in 1955–60, the next minimum should be reached about the end of the century, by which time the solar irradiance will be reduced from its peak value by ~1% if the present decay rate of 0.019% per year is typical.

From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
Abstract

Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

Solar Total Insolation (TSI) is looking at ALL the energy from the sun. Recently it has been found that the distribution of energy along the wavelengths changes especially in the wavelengths above visible light. These are the high energy wavelengths, GRAPH, that effect creation and destruction of ozone, and the height of the atmosphere and the amount of solar energy going into the oceans. Colorado Univ Graph and Graph: Solar Radiation Intensity at Various Ocean Depths

Detection of the 11-yr sunspot cycle signal in Earth rotation (Length of Day varies)

Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
ABSTRACT
There is an association between the polar stratospheric temperature in the northern winter and the solar cycle in the winters when the 50-mb equatorial winds are westerly: The lower the sunspot number in such winters, the lower is the temperature. No major mid-winter warmings occurred in these winters when the sunspot number was below about 100.....

SOLAR WIND

NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-yr Low

Solar Magnetic Sector Structure: Relation to Circulation of the Earth's Atmosphere
ABSTRACT
The solar magnetic sector structure appears to be related to the average area of high positive vorticity centers (low-pressure troughs) observed during winter in the Northern Hemisphere at the 300-millibar level. The average area of high vorticity decreases (low-pressure troughs become less intense) during a few days near the times at which sector boundaries are carried past the earth by the solar wind. The amplitude of the effect is about 10 percent.

Interplanetary Magnetic Field Polarity and the Size of Low-Pressure Troughs Near 180°W Longitude
ABSTRACT
When the interplanetary magnetic field is directed away from the sun, the area of wintertime low-pressure (300-millibar) troughs near 180°W longitude is significantly larger than when the field is toward the sun. This relation persists during most of the winters of 1951 to 1973.

Influence of Solar Magnetic Sector Structure on Terrestrial Atmospheric Vorticity
ABSTRACT
The solar magnetic sector structure has a sizable and reproducible influence on tropospheric and lower stratospheric vorticity. The average vorticity during winter in the Northern Hemisphere north of 2ON latitude reaches a minimum approximately one day after the passing of a sector boundary, and then increases during the following two or three days. The effect is found at all heights within the troposphere, but is not prominent in the stratosphere, except at the lower levels.

Solar Wind Control of the Earth's Electric Field
ABSTRACT The sun-weather problem is placed within an electrical framework subject to experimental investigation. An explanation is suggested for how solar variability modulates the earth's electric field. The solar wind velocity is inversely correlated with the electrical potential of the ionosphere, a measure of the overall intensity of the earth's fair-weather atmospheric electric field. In seeking a physical cause of this relationship, galactic cosmic radiation was studied and it was also found to be inversely correlated with solar wind velocity. Thus, the earth's electric field intensity which is maintained by worldwide thunderstorm currents—a meteorological phenomenon—varies in phase with cosmic radiation. Since cosmic radiation is the primary source of atmospheric ionization, these findings support a proposed mechanism in which solar control of ionizing radiation modulates atmospheric electrification and thus possibly cloud physical processes. If the latter occurred, atmospheric energetics would be affected. ... [/exnew]
Charts of Earth's magnetic field vs temperature by Vukcevic

reply to post by Phage

Do you know what "specific humidity" represents? Now, think about what it means if the temperature increases (like it did) and the specific humidity stays the same (of even drops a little bit). In order for that to happen it means that the amount of water vapor in the air has to increase. There is a greater mass of water in the atmosphere.

Except the temperature has not changed in 17 years. According to some data sets it is 22 years. I mentioned this before.