Could it be?

ziggy wrote:“Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events… will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” – Jeff Masters, meteorologist

acp.repoweramerica.org

Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.

In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.

"The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.

The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world's leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.

In an email debate in the Observer, Benny Peiser, head of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted Sir John Houghton, the UK scientist who played a key role in establishing the IPCC, as saying that "unless we announce disasters, no one will listen".

But in a letter to the Observer, Houghton said: "The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it. Although it has spread on the internet like wild fire, .....

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:“Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events… will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” – Jeff Masters, meteorologist

acp.repoweramerica.org

Yada...yada...yada...tell it to the hand, Ziggy--'cause the Keli aint buying it.

ziggy wrote:

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:“Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events… will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” – Jeff Masters, meteorologist

acp.repoweramerica.org

Yada...yada...yada...tell it to the hand, Ziggy--'cause the Keli aint buying it.

That's OK Keli, 'cause I ain't sellin' anything. So do you doubt that warm air over the oceans results in more water vapor in the air than does cold air over the same oceans?

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fTjNAtle

ziggy wrote:So why do you keep dodging the questioon about whether warm air over the oceans results in more water vapor in the air than does cold air over the same oceans?

ziggy wrote:So why do you keep dodging the questioon about whether warm air over the oceans results in more water vapor in the air than does cold air over the same oceans?

ziggy wrote:“Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events… will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.” – Jeff Masters, meteorologist

acp.repoweramerica.org

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:So why do you keep dodging the questioon about whether warm air over the oceans results in more water vapor in the air than does cold air over the same oceans?

If you want to believe in man caused global warming, keep on believing it. The science doesn't support you, but you can believe whatever you want.

You can even shout it from the roof tops and support the politicans who are going to save you from global warming.

If the warm air is evaporating the water then the air temperature and the water temperature are cooling down. It takes 540+ calories of heat to convert one gram of water from the liquid state to the vapor state

When you sweat it cools you down, right.

In Arizona and New Mexico people use "evaporators" to cool or air condition their homes during the hot summer months.

So yes, more evaporation from bodies of water means more water vapor in the air.

But funny thing, unless the air temperature decreases then that water vapor will stay in the air.

It will only condense or coagulate and fall back to earth if the temperature decreases.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:So why do you keep dodging the questioon about whether warm air over the oceans results in more water vapor in the air than does cold air over the same oceans?

If you want to believe in man caused global warming, keep on believing it. The science doesn't support you, but you can believe whatever you want.

But science does support the notion that warm air over water results in more water vapor in the air than cold air does.

You can even shout it from the roof tops and support the politicans who are going to save you from global warming.

Why would I do that? Those politicians don't know any more about it than you and I do.

There you go again with the same tired ol' dodge. As I said, if you want to believe man caused global warming is real, do it, I don't care, however, the science doesn't support it.

ziggy wrote:

There you go again with the same tired ol' dodge. As I said, if you want to believe man caused global warming is real, do it, I don't care, however, the science doesn't support it.

When did I ever say it did?

And if the air is warmer and holds more water vapor, then it doesn't take as low a temperature to condense that water vapor into precipitation as it would for less water vapor in air not quite so warm.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

There you go again with the same tired ol' dodge. As I said, if you want to believe man caused global warming is real, do it, I don't care, however, the science doesn't support it.

When did I ever say it did?

So now you are saying you never accepted man caused global warming?

SamCogar wrote:

And if the air is warmer and holds more water vapor, then it doesn't take as low a temperature to condense that water vapor into precipitation as it would for less water vapor in air not quite so warm.

HORSEPUCKY, your rambling BS in an attempt to CYA is pathetic.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

There you go again with the same tired ol' dodge. As I said, if you want to believe man caused global warming is real, do it, I don't care, however, the science doesn't support it.

When did I ever say it did?

So now you are saying you never accepted man caused global warming?

Yes. I have never accepted man caused global warming. But when I try to discuss the science or lack thereof of it, all you want to do is talk about politics.

Hell, even crotchety ole' SamCogar is willing to discuss the science of it with some sense of reality. So why not Cato, or Keli?

SamCogar wrote:It seems like a few have forgotten the fact that I have been saying for the past 18+- months that this winter "was going to be a bad one" if the Sunspots didn't return.

Looky see for yourself ... http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

How many did you count on yesterday's picture of the Sun?

August 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.

Mars has gotten so big in recent weeks that even a backyard telescope will show details on the planet's surface: dust clouds, volcanic terrains, impact basins. Best of all is the south polar cap. Made of frozen CO2 or "dry ice," it reflects more sunlight than any other part of the planet. The southern hemisphere of Mars is tipped toward Earth and the bright cap is remarkably easy to see.

Editor's note: In this story we talk about the martian polar caps "melting" or "vaporizing." That's not exactly right. A physicist would say more accurately "the polar caps are subliming." In other words, the frozen CO2--better known as "dry ice"--transforms directly from a solid to a gas without going through an intermediate liquid phase.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

TerryRC wrote:

I'll bet they are wishing they had a bad one in Vancouver. Warmest winter on record in the Pacific NW.