Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Data, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Science, Skepticism > Moisture And Precipitations: Not Just Al Gore

Moisture And Precipitations: Not Just Al Gore

Whilst Al Gore’s latest “whopper”

scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States

is being widely and rightly criticized, let me point to a video making similar yet wider claims.

At 8:45 one can hear the following: “with more moisture in the atmosphere due to warming, precipitation events are getting more extreme” (“both in Northern and Tropical areas“)

Could anybody please provide references for “more moisture in the atmosphere” and “precipitation events are getting more extreme“? The video is praised by Romm and SkepticalScience, and I have asked for those references there as well.

Advertisements
  1. 2010/03/04 at 23:35

    cmb –

    . I can go through your request a word at a time

    methinks you’re too quick in throwing around accusations of dishonesty. If you could please calm down a second, and go back to my blog, and look at that video at least once, you’ll discover that when I put more moisture in the atmosphere and precipitation events are getting more extreme in quotes it was because I was quoting verbatim from the video. I even wrote “let me point to a video” and Al Gore aside, my blog was about that video.

    Therefore it should have been apparent and obvious that my questions about “more moisture in the atmosphere” and “precipitation events are getting more extreme” referred to those claims exactly as made in the video.

    In any case, here I am many hours later and still no clue on the basis of those claims. Does warmer air hold more water vapor? Yes, in theory. Did anybody measure that in practice? Who knows. Likewise for those extremes of precipitation “in Northern and Tropical areas” rather than the contiguous USA.

    • cmb
      2010/03/10 at 16:56

      Sorry, I didn’t watch the video, as the questions involved are larger than any single source. My intent was to answer your questions as stated, and I believe I did that. I still don’t understand your statements to the effect that I didn’t – perhaps I misinterpreted them.

      The sources I supplied should be a good start for anyone interested in precipitation vs. temperature.

      A simple google search of precipitation +temperature (the + forces only results with both words, and must be included right before the word temperature) instantly reveals many valid sources for additional fact checking.

  2. cmb
    2010/03/04 at 17:16

    The fact that hot gases hold more water vapor can be observed by simply watching a glass of cold water attract moisture to its sides. With the global atmospheric heating we have also observed the conclusion is obvious.

    Records of increased precipitation also exist:

    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/21/10/pdf/i1520-0442-21-10-2124.pdf

    NCDC’s Climate Extremes Index (CEI): “An increasing trend in the area experiencing much above-normal proportion of heavy daily precipitation is observed from about 1950 to the present.”

    Index graph at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/cei/dk-step4.01-12.gif

    • 2010/03/04 at 17:29

      cmb

      > The fact that

      That fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Romm, Skeptical Science, the original video make much of the fact that we are presented “empirical evidence” of climate change.

      All I am asking then is to find the scientific sources for claims of empirical evidence of additional moisture in the atmosphere, and of more extreme precipitation events in Northern and Tropical areas.

      You might also remember from the GISS’ US temperature error’s debate, it was argued that the USA’s area is too small compared to the whole world. Hence links about “more extreme precipitation” in the USA cannot be used to justify the “Northern and Tropical areas” claim.

      • cmb
        2010/03/04 at 21:42

        The fact you claim is irrelevant was in fact requested specifically by you in your article.

        “Could anybody please provide references for “more moisture in the atmosphere” and “precipitation events are getting more extreme“?, you asked.

        I supplied exactly what you requested, and you dishonestly moved the goalposts after the fact. Why is that?

        Later, only after I supplied answers, you wrote “All I am asking then is to find the scientific sources for claims of empirical evidence of additional moisture in the atmosphere, and of more extreme precipitation events in Northern and Tropical areas.”

        No, that’s not what you were asking for at all. It is, however, exactly what I gave you. I can go through your request a word at a time if that will help.

  3. 2010/03/03 at 18:59

    Dear Maurizio,

    The following is not exactly what you were asking for but you might find it useful:

    Monnin et al 2004, from the conclusion:

    Quote:
    A new chronology for the Taylor Dome ice
    core established through CO2 synchronization reveals
    that the accumulation has changed substantially during
    the Holocene, with a long-term increase that
    shows little relation with the temperature history.
    Many timescales using ice flow models, especially
    those for Antarctic cores, are based partly on the
    assumption that the accumulation rate varies as the
    saturation vapor pressure over ice and is therefore a
    function of local temperature. This assumption is
    clearly not valid at Taylor Dome, and is likely to
    be substantially incorrect at other sites as well,
    notably in locations such as Law Dome and Siple
    Dome, which are at relatively low elevation and near
    coastal regions. At more-inland sites such as Dome
    C, independent validation of the ice core timescales
    suggests that the assumption is reasonable; however,
    it is unlikely to be strictly valid and caution is urged
    in applying it.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: