Recently I wrote about the total lack of concern by the scientific community in general and the climate science community in particular at the lack of robustness regarding key aspects of the global warming theory. In particular I was referring to the very unsettled science relating to clouds and water vapor feedback,
It is not just that these vitally important components of the climate system and the global warming theory are admittedly not well understood, they are in fact to date unmeasurable in any meaningful way. As I wrote:
Almost all aspects of climate science show a similar lack of concern for actual proof for the theory of man made global warming but these two issues are beyond just small inconveniences, they are the very foundation of the theory itself. Still the scientific community goes merrily along their way hiding their collective eyes from the fact that there is no proof backing up their mega-billion dollar assertions
The theory is all the proof that is needed. It does not even matter that the two most important elements to that theory can not even be measured. They somehow are able to convince themselves that they can input values representing unmeasurable data into their computer models and come up with a projection of a future world when they are incapable of measuring the one that they actually live in.Today in what he describes as a a very important post, Roger Pielke Sr. directs his readers attention to a post by Marcel Crok which deals with the issue of water vapor and the lack of adequate measurements available to validate its vital place in the whole global warming theory.
A small portion of what he, Marcel Crok, had to say on the subject:
....All we can say at present is that the preliminary NVAP data, according to the Null Hypothesis, cannot disprove a trend in global water vapor either positive or negative.
In addition, there are good reasons based upon both Sampling / Signal Processing Theory and observed natural fluctuations of water vapor ( ENSO’s, Monsoons, volcanic events, etc. ) to believe that there are no sufficient data sets on hand with a long enough period of record from any source to make a conclusive scientific statement about global water vapor trends.Pielke goes on to state; "there are a number of other studies which conclude that the multi-decadal global climate models as reported by the IPCC are incorrectly simulating the water cycle which includes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere." He then identifies a study with excerpts from Sun, De-Zheng, Yongqiang Yu, Tao Zhang, 2009:
“…….extended calculation using coupled runs confirms the earlier inference from the AMIP runs that underestimating the negative feedback from cloud albedo and overestimating the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical Pacific during ENSO is a prevalent problem of climate models.”Not only is it obvious that the scientific community is incorrectly inputting data into their climate models, they do not even have the data to enter. This is simply because they do not have the means to measure it accurately over a sufficient time frame. Which should strike a significant note of concern for anyone, especially scientists, on how you could have a legitimate theory based upon important criteria, the ability which can not now nor ever has been able to be accurately measured to validate the theory itself. ... extraordinary, it truly is a matter of faith. As insane as this is, for some inexplicable reason this critical "little" detail is ignored by virtually the entire scientific community when it comes to the "enhanced greenhouse theory"
As I have pointed out repeatedly the theory for all its supposed complexity rest squarely on one very fragile premise. This supposition being that the increase in global temperatures brought on by increased CO2 is minor, in order to achieve the alarming state projected by the warmist climate science community, a significant positive feedback mechanism must kick in. We shall let the famous Dr. Richard Muller explain:
I hope you caught that quick reference there when he said carbon dioxide "causes temperatures to increase a little bit" then he goes on to explain not only the importance of water vapor but also the uncertainty of clouds. Both of which can not as yet even be adequately measured.
One more quick reference as to the importance of water vapor to the greenhouse theory, this from the IPCC itself AR-4
The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.It was over twenty years ago when the entire global warming theory became a mainstream issue beginning with James Hansen's testimony before congress. Though much has been written and volumes of studies produced, and paid for as the result of the global warming theory, the simple statement above has always been at the core of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory. Despite all of the billions of dollars in studies, advocacy, and policies due to the global warming alarm, when it comes down to it we are left with this inescapable truth "...there are no sufficient data sets on hand with a long enough period of record from any source to make a conclusive scientific statement about global water vapor trends."
This being the case, there is no scientifically verifiable proof of the enhanced greenhouse effect upon which the global warming theory depends and on which billions of dollars have been spent. Again it bears repeating to what depths the scientific community has fallen when;
The theory is all the proof that is needed. It does not even matter that the two most important elements to that theory can not even be measured. They somehow are able to convince themselves that they can input values representing unmeasurable data into their computer models and come up with a projection of a future world when they are incapable of measuring the one that they actually live in.In our new post modern science world, the intellectual theory is all that matters, reality and facts are just an inconvenient truth.
It is my opinion that if the realist community truly wants to defeat this scientific scourge let loose on mankind, they ought to pound home the simplicity of the theory and the simple fact that it does not even meet its own minimum requirements for validity by making a case of the vapors.
But that would be too simple, everyone wants to be an intellectual.