This is a must read for anyone concerned about the world spending trillions of dollars to slow emissions of a completely beneficial by-product of industrialization – CO2.”

I agree this is a “MUST READ,” but first, readers might wish to read Ken’s great article found at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm.

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

The water vapor story is obviously a major piece of the puzzle and I should come to grips with the issues and the facts surrounding it. Your explanation above seems to suggest that papers claiming increase in water vapor and positive feedback, and facts showing relative humidity declining, could both be right. It seems contradictory on the face of it.

I posted a non-technical review (no equations!) of the Miskolczi theory with discussion of the falling specific humidity titled “The Saturated Greenhouse Effect” on the Friends of Science website here
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=222

Please provide critical comments.
Thanks

I have read your excellent four part critique of the Miskolczi theory at our website Niche Modelling at http://landshape.org/enm/radiative-equilibrium-miskolczi-part-4/

This is a must read for anyone concerned about the world spending trillions of dollars to slow emissions of a completely beneficial by-product of industrialization – CO2.

If CO2 were held constant, an increase of external Sun forcing would cause specific humidity to increase with increasing global temperatures, but there should be little or no change to relative humidity. Increasing the Sun’s forcing would also increase the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect G would increase by 1/2 of the increase in the Sun forcing F, where F in net of albedo, so includes the Svensmark’s theory of the Sun changing the amount of cloud cover via cosmic rays.

When we say there is an almost constant greenhouse effect, we mean it is constant despite increasing CO2 assuming a constant external forcing (Sun and albedo).

In the real atmosphere, the increasing CO2 and increasing Sun’s forcing over most of the 20th century would also cause the specific humidity to increase. At lower elevations specific humidity has increased, but this has little effect on the greenhouse effect as the large amount of water vapor already captures all LWR. At higher elevations specific humidity has decreased. We expect overall the specific humidity to increase due to increasing Sun forcing and decreasing relative humidity especially at higher elevations due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

This expanded scale more clearly shows the declining relative humidity.
Remember that the highest curves, 300 mb and 400 mb are most important, as these are in the predicted hot spot and at the characteristic emission level. Water vapor changes near the surface have little effect on the greenhouse effect because long wave-length photons captured here and emitted would be recaptured again and would not escape to space.

Apart from simple logic that the constant relative humidity assumption used in climate models is ridiculous (as previously discussed), this graph proves it to be false, and that water vapor is a strong negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

http://www.igbp.kva.se/documents/NL_69-6.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

Evaporation rates are down but its probably due (certainly recently) to increased particulate pollution.