New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind

Where’s that positive feedback that is supposed to manifest itself in water vapor, the most potent natural greenhouse gas?

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes:

New Paper “Weather And Climate Analyses Using Improved Global Water Vapor Observations” By Vonder Haar Et Al 2012


image Figure 4 from Vonder Haar et al 2012

As promised by Tom Vonder Haar; see the posts

“Water Vapor Feedback Still Uncertain” By Marcel Crok

Statement By Vonder Haar Et Al 2010 on Using Existing [NASA Water Vapor] NVAP Dataset (1988 – 2001) for Trends

The new dataset covering 20+ years will be available to the public in 2012 or 2013.

The initial results are now ready as reported in the paper

Vonder Haar, T. H., J. Bytheway, and J. M. Forsythe (2012), Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL052094, in press.

Here’s the Abstract:

The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) dataset is a global (land and ocean) water vapor dataset created by merging multiple sources of atmospheric water vapor to form a global data base of total and layered precipitable water vapor. Under the NASA Making Earth Science Data Records for Research Environments (MEaSUREs) program, NVAP is being reprocessed and extended, increasing its 14-year coverage to include 22 years of data. The NVAP-MEaSUREs (NVAP-M) dataset is geared towards varied user needs, and biases in the original dataset caused by algorithm and input changes were removed. This is accomplished by relying on peer reviewed algorithms and producing the data in multiple “streams” to create products geared towards studies of both climate and weather. We briefly discuss the need for reprocessing and extension, steps taken to improve the product, and provide some early science results highlighting the improvements and potential scientific uses of NVAP-M.

Dr. Pielke adds:

The current paper is not the final word on this subject. The end of the paper reads

The results of Figs. 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a forthcoming paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the supplement. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.

However, the figure at the top of this post, if it turns about to be robust, raises fundamental issues with respect to the ability of global climate models to skillfully model the role of humans in altering the climate.

Forrest Mimms III writes via email:

This paper is a bit sketchy and needs filling out. Nevertheless, it’s quite possibly the most significant water vapor paper in a decade.

The key finding of this paper is the time series in Fig. 4(c), which bears a rough resemblance to my time series over nearly the same time.This time series is devastating to the modeler’s assumptions about the positive feedback of water vapor in a world with steadily rising CO2 levels.

The modelers have no explanation for why temperature and PW across the SE USA have actually declined during the last century. The explanation is likely a combination of at least three factors:

1. Global warming is best described as regional warming.

2. ENSO and other natural cycles play a major role.

3. How can we trust the global temperature record when (as shown by you, Watts, et al.) so many stations are improperly situated, especially as urbanization has arrived or surrounded them.

UPDATE:

Here’s the full paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf

Thanks Leif.

92 thoughts on “New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind

  1. This is so good! The AGW crowd can’t keep ignoring the continuing stream of important papers refuting their claims. Nor can the MSM. And this is a big one! Way to go! :)

  2. Seriously? Here we go again. Promoting a peer-reviewed paper from the Geophysical Research Letters journal that, on a first look, appears to raise questions about climate modelling. In other words, a cherry-pick that you think supports your viewpoint. If this site was to be truly concerned about the science, then one would expect to see discussions about all the other articles that are published in that same journal but do not support your position.

    On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). The data is very useful to climate scientists and will no doubt be included in further reports, along with the multitude of other data resources. I will look forward to seeing WUWT publishing a graph of the NVAP dataset once it has been “subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses” (as advocated by the paper author, Tom Vonder Haar) and at the end of the decade when the time series will be greater than 30 years.

  3. Humid areas have lower temperature than dry areas eg rain forest vs middle east. Water can absorb highest quantity of heat thus helps to lower temperature eg extinguishing fire. So how the water vapour is a green house gase? Together with the covection current of hot air, water vapor is helping the earth to deliver heat to the space thus reduce the temperature of the earth, that’s why it becomes cool immediately when it rains.

  4. The models assume 40% extra energy than reality by assuming incorrect boundary conditions. This increases IR warming by ~400%, biasing heat transfer to radiative thus exaggerating the effect of trace CO2 when from fundamental physics there can be no CO2-AGW.

    They offset it by exaggerating cooling, assuming optical depth of low level clouds is twice reality. The variable ‘aerosol indirect effect’ used to fine tune is based on patently wrong physics. The carbon-traders, banks. energy majors and captive politicians fund this deception.

  5. “the figure at the top of this post, if it turns about to be robust, raises fundamental issues with respect to the ability of global climate models to skillfully model the role of humans in altering the climate.”
    How so? Have you compared this figure to TWP in GCM output to show serious discrepancies? Does this figure show that the physics of the model are fundamentally wrong? Or are you just dreaming?

  6. This is a poor paper. It has started to build the foundations for a paper that MAY be more useful for climate research of the future. It is not by any assessment definitive but they had to begin somewhere.

  7. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am

    Seriously? Here we go again. Promoting a peer-reviewed paper from the Geophysical Research Letters journal that, on a first look, appears to raise questions about climate modelling. In other words, a cherry-pick that you think supports your viewpoint.
    ……………….
    On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years).

    Tell that to the Guardian and the BBC who trumpet extreme weather events (in most cases without peer reviewed papers) and who look at this years weather!!!! Go on, I’m sure you can find their cotacts page. :)

  8. The problem for CAGW believers is that radiative forcing from a doubling of (spurious) pre industrial levels of CO2 cannot cause dangerous warming. This is why “strongly positive water vapour feedback” (SPWVF) was invented. The primary purpose of Mann’s “short center the data prior to PCS” hockey stick was not just to eliminate past natural climate variability, but primarily to rewrite past temperatures to lower levels than present corrupted surface station records. If SPWVF did not occur during the hotter MWP, why should we expect it now? What was the climate “science” approach? Dodgy proxy studies and a lame attempt to call the MWP regional and rebrand it as the MCA. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.

  9. Garrett, or is it Mr Rip Van Winkle, you must have slept for a a year or two and missed the discussion here of papers that support the CAGW viewpoint

  10. +1 Garrett says … “Seriously? Here we go again”
    So true … let’s get some consistency here. How about some objective discussion … how about a reasoned presentation of papers that show a broader picture … at least on a 1:1 ratio for perceived anti- / pro- positions of science publications (ignoring the fact that such a view is a fallacy, and even if true the actual publication ratio is N:1 where N >> 1)

    Here’s some 2012 candidates I might suggest:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052116.shtml

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/b37086508tl62011/

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.6623H

  11. Water vapor records are available from every observation station – but are never used as the climate scientists like to incorrectly use temperature as a metric for heat energy which the gullible and scientifically ignorant media get excited about.

    The entire CO2 global warming (sic) hypothesis is based on the claim that CO2 ‘traps heat in the atmosphere’. Yet atmospheric temperature is NOT a measure of heat content. Yet these people not only use temperature they average the temperature showing their complete lack of understanding of physics.

    The enthalpy (heat capacity) of the atmosphere varies considerably with humidity. As I have said before “a misty Louisiana Bayou at 100% humidity after an afternoon storm with the temperature at 78F</b will hold twice as much heat energy as the air in the Arizona desert at close to zero humidity but at 100F. ” . This is important as it takes far less heat energy to raise the temperature at the poles where the air is very dry than it does in the tropics where the air is very humid. Averaging these atmospheric temperatures is generating a meaningless number. It is quite probable that a day starting at a low temperature with mist or radiation fog which then ‘burns off’ to a ‘warm’ afternoon actually has no significant change in atmospheric heat content as the enthalpy in the morning is extremely high with liquid water droplets and in the ‘warm’ afternoon is low with drier air.

    A correct metric for Atmospheric Energy Content would be an integral of the atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram over the 24 hour period. This can be worked out using the existing station records using existing ‘wet bulb’/dew point temperatures to obtain the humidity and thus the enthalpy of the air; then using the temperature to calculate the Kj/Kg. Even better just use ocean heat content as the top few meters of ocean hold as much heat as the entire atmosphere. But the climate scientists know these metrics do not support the cause so they keep every body arguing about minutiae of time of day of temperature measurements, adjustments of temperature measurements etc. to prevent the gullible realizing that atmospheric temperature is not the right metric and that average global atmospheric temperature is meaningless.

  12. If science could put the modelers in a bind, they would have been in a bind 30 years ago, because every scrap of science has been against them from the start. Only lack of money will put them in a bind.

  13. The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?

  14. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am

    … one would expect to see discussions about all the other articles that are published in that same journal but do not support your position.

    Au contraire mon ami! This site regularly pillories junk science and advocacy based on junk science. The most recent is “Hansen’s Death Trains – now with extra scary ‘coal fallout’” a couple down from this story. We just love it when Michael Mann publishes almost anything.
    You can hardly say that we ignore this stuff.

  15. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
    If this site was to be truly concerned about the science, then one would expect to see discussions about all the other articles that are published in that same journal but do not support your position.

    This site regularly posts discussions of papers that do not support its position.

  16. I suspect, just as with the Argo data, some young wannabe will have a revelation and figure out why the data is wrong, justify an adjustment and voila! Global Warming Borscht! And a plush job somewhere.

  17. Garrett: CAGW papers get trumpeted to the high heavens in the MSM, papers that even remotely question any tenant of the church of CAGW, not so much. It is only on fine sites like Mr. Watts’ that we even hear about these papers, so take your “cherry picking” charge and blow it out your ear! We also discuss the pro-CAGW papers. Of course, it is usually to point out the expectation bias, other logical fallacies and statistical gymnastics required to state their conclusions, but the papers are covered. Get over it, the science was never settled. That was a ploy by politicians disguised as scientists to win a public relations battle, it was never about the science.

  18. “On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). ”

    As did the period that purported to show some actual global warming.. (but only in the heavily manipulated land temperature calculations )

    As you say.. a very limited time series. in BOTH cases.

  19. Garret, it only takes one observation to disprove a theory … well, in most sciences anyway; but not Crimatology it appears.

  20. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
    [ ]
    “On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). The data is very useful to climate scientists and will no doubt be included in further reports, along with the multitude of other data resources. I will look forward to seeing WUWT publishing a graph of the NVAP dataset once it has been “subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses” (as advocated by the paper author, Tom Vonder Haar) and at the end of the decade when the time series will be greater than 30 years.”

    Yeah, right!

    So how come a hot spell in the US this summer is apparently proof of cAGW and underlines that we’re all going to fry?

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

  21. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am

    Seriously? Here we go again. Promoting a peer-reviewed paper from the Geophysical Research Letters journal that, on a first look, appears to raise questions about climate modelling. In other words, a cherry-pick that you think supports your viewpoint…..
    ____________________________________________
    However many confirming instances there are for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. Science progresses when a theory is shown to be wrong and a new theory is introduced which better explains the phenomena. ~ Karl Popper

    So how many times do the climate models and CAGW have to be proved wrong before the darn zombie quits coming back from the dead???

    1. Climate Models did not predict the current no warming period. GRAPH “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” ~ Trenberth (Yeah, Yeah it is quoted out of context…)

    2. NO troposphere Hot Spot

    And now this paper.

    Of course the real killers are these graphs #1 and #2

    Why don’t you quit beating this dead horse and find something else to use to scare the masses into accepting slave collars HMMMmmm?

  22. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am

    On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). The data is very useful to climate scientists and will no doubt be included in further reports, along with the multitude of other data resources. I will look forward to seeing WUWT publishing a graph of the NVAP dataset once it has been “subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses” (as advocated by the paper author, Tom Vonder Haar) and at the end of the decade when the time series will be greater than 30 years.

    So, what do you expect us to do? Ignore the data until then? 30 years, if I understand it, is just a convention going back to when climatology was primarily data collection. Personally, I think 60 years is a good interval as it allows us to look beyond the PDO/AMO cycles, and allow for smaller sections to study the PDO/AMO cycles.

    Ben Santer says 17 years is good enough for his work, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

    The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

    Perhaps water vapor is different.

  23. Dev Bahadur Dongol says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Together with the convection current of hot air, water vapor is helping the earth to deliver heat to the space thus reduce the temperature of the earth, that’s why it becomes cool immediately when it rains.

    The first part yes, the second part, not really. The adiabatic expansion within the upward moving air results in cooler temperatures, down to sub-freezing temperatures (hence the existance of hail).

    When rain and ice falls, it does not undergo adiabatic warming, so it cools the atmosphere under it, all the way to the ground. The heat gets left behind and radiates away after the clouds evaporate.

    So it’s really adiabatic cooling and rain formation that makes for a refreshing thunderstorm. And maybe cool air in the air mass behind a cold front, if that’s what triggered the rain….

  24. Robert of Ottawa says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:38 am

    “Garret, it only takes one observation to disprove a theory … well, in most sciences anyway; but not Crimatology it appears.”

    “Crimatology”. Nice!

  25. There seems to be an active but ignored taking of sides on their side regarding weather events. We get bombarded by mainstream reports of this or that weather extreme being touted by some climate expert as evidence of global warming. Then months later we get an article from NOAA and others saying it was all just normal variations in weather patterns unrelated to global warming. Me thinks this back story is heating up.

  26. Ian W says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am

    Water vapor records are available from every observation station – but are never used as the climate ‘scientists‘ like to incorrectly use temperature as a metric for heat energy which the gullible and scientifically ignorant media get excited about….
    ____________________________
    Ian, how about an article for WUWT on this very important point? With graphs maybe?

    You have mentioned it before and I really think the point needs to be emphasized by making it a WUWT article (Lets the rest of us book mark it for future reference too)

  27. The theory over-estimates the water vapour feedback because they do not understand that the biggest weather phenomenon of the planet is the major factor controlling it – the ENSO. In addition, temperatures are not really increasing so there is no water vapour feedback from that.

    Here is the NCEP Reanalysis water vapour levels versus the ENSO going back to 1948 and updated for June 2012. It is pretty flat (perhaps up a tiny bit but could also be called flat). Tropics water vapour level are actually below normal right now.

    The upcoming IPCC AR5 forecast, however, already has water vapour levels up by 6.0% (matches the NCEP data pretty closely up to about 1994 but then it diverges following the predicted water vapour feedback from the predicted higher temperatures according to the Classius-Clayperon relation)). The IPCC forecast is up 6.0% already and is estimated to be up 24.0% by the year 2100.

    Not happening so far.

  28. The graph seems to confirm that we have had no global warming since about 1995.
    I think I see a wiggle from Pinatubo around 1991, when global atmospheric opacity dropped by 10% for a good part of a year.
    I see no lingering effects from Pinatubo that Hansen used as excuse #4,127 for why global temperatures have not increased.
    It would be interesting to overlay monthly global temperatures from UAH or RSS to see if water vapor leads or lags temperature.
    It would be interesting to see if regional water vapor is correlated with regional temperature anomalies.

  29. Sometimes the trolls should be ignored into nonexistence, except for one small nonsense comment.

  30. Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am

    “The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?”

    Because the earth’s land surface is not symmetrically distributed between north and south. A majority of the continents are in the northern hemisphere. Earth is cooler during northern winters than southern winters. That would have some effect on cloud distribution.

  31. For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely. In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side. This can be seen very easily thanks to Google Reader (here’s a screenshot: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2UBUzWj8xshdWtZRkFEWmNlbGs). Considering that journals publish hundreds of AGW related articles every year, one would expect just a few more such articles on WUWT, if it really was all about the science.

    It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml). Their conclusions:
    “statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent
    If your first reaction to such research is that it’s the result of corrupt scientists and an ultra-left liberal agenda, then your arguments are not about the science.

  32. Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am

    The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?
    ==========
    The northern hemisphere is mostly land, and the southern is mostly ocean.

  33. Climatology? Nah, it doesn’t merit an ‘ology’ any more than their fellow-travellers in Astrology. Geology and biology faculties should strip ‘em of their ‘ology’ and demote them to Climatography.

  34. Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
    The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?

    —-
    Presumably because of differences in the annual cycle in the land dominated northern hemisphere and the ocean dominated southern hemisphere.

  35. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
    Seriously? Here we go again
    ===================
    Garrett, I stil keep thinking that a theory debunked once, is debunked once and forever. It’s like a dead horse. You can go on with stuffing hay into its corpse, but he will never stand up again. Bury that poor animal and buy a new one.

  36. “Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
    The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?”

    Because the northern hemisphere has such different land coverage than the southern, we should expect to see annual cycles in almost all global data. The effects of direct sunlight (summer) are different when the sunlight hits land rather than water.

  37. Does anyone remember the Pinatubo paper that calulated water vapor feedback?

    I remeber they accounted for drying due to cloud formation, but I’ve long suspected they neglected the albedo effect.

    The temperature determines the atmosphere’s capacity for water vapor, but wind, pressure, and light determine how much evaporation happens.

    I’d like to look at it again.

  38. Ian W’s post is a keeper.

    I second the recommendation that it be turned into a separate thread.

    Ian W says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am
    Water vapor records are available from every observation station – but are never used as the climate ‘scientists‘ like to incorrectly use temperature as a metric for heat energy which the gullible and scientifically ignorant media get excited about.

    The entire CO2 global warming (sic) hypothesis is based on the claim that CO2 ‘traps heat in the atmosphere’. Yet atmospheric temperature is NOT a measure of heat content. Yet these people not only use temperature they average the temperature showing their complete lack of understanding of physics.

    The enthalpy (heat capacity) of the atmosphere varies considerably with humidity. As I have said before “a misty Louisiana Bayou at 100% humidity after an afternoon storm with the temperature at 78F</b will hold twice as much heat energy as the air in the Arizona desert at close to zero humidity but at 100F. ” . This is important as it takes far less heat energy to raise the temperature at the poles where the air is very dry than it does in the tropics where the air is very humid. Averaging these atmospheric temperatures is generating a meaningless number. It is quite probable that a day starting at a low temperature with mist or radiation fog which then ‘burns off’ to a ‘warm’ afternoon actually has no significant change in atmospheric heat content as the enthalpy in the morning is extremely high with liquid water droplets and in the ‘warm’ afternoon is low with drier air.

    A correct metric for Atmospheric Energy Content would be an integral of the atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram over the 24 hour period. This can be worked out using the existing station records using existing ‘wet bulb’/dew point temperatures to obtain the humidity and thus the enthalpy of the air; then using the temperature to calculate the Kj/Kg. Even better just use ocean heat content as the top few meters of ocean hold as much heat as the entire atmosphere. But the climate ‘scientists‘ know these metrics do not support the cause so they keep every body arguing about minutiae of time of day of temperature measurements, adjustments of temperature measurements etc. to prevent the gullible realizing that atmospheric temperature is not the right metric and that average global atmospheric temperature is meaningless.

  39. Missing from the AGW hypothesis is the actual mechanics of clouds. The average cumulus cloud weights 800 tons and “floats” by two mechanisms, evaporation off of the side and bottom surfaces, which create updrafts holding the 62 pound/cu ft water dropplets in the air. Water dropples have a perfect slip stream shape and a 200 mph terminal velocity. This means high velocity vertical up and down slip streams within the cloud. Read the first hand observations of conditions within a series of cumulus clouds by a solo student pilot in a 1600 pound Cessna in “Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out”. Clouds are not what you, or the Clima-whatevers think. Clouds transport latent and convective heat from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere in a heat exchange that has NO IR signature. K-T meets the real world of energy transfer, and loses.

  40. Part of the thermostat mechaism that is not understood is why there is only as much water vapor in the atmosphere to begin with. The atmosphere could hold a lot more water vapor than it actually does.

  41. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am

    “For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely. In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side. …”

    ==================

    “… over the past half a month …” That sounds like about 2 weeks. Are you new to WUWT or only have a memory capable of “half a month” recollection?

    An army of independents frequent this site and collectively will remember much more than the past “half a month”. Perhaps some of the comments will help get you up to speed on the many topics discussed here. Anyway, welcome to WUWT. Your continued reading at this site may be quite an educational opportunity. The “past half a month” is hardly a beginning.

  42. What we know so far.
    1. The physics of carbon dioxide changed 15 years ago.
    2. The physics of water vapor changed 20 years ago.
    3. The physics of the troposphere exhibits the uncertainty principle on macro scale you can measure the position of the hot spot or the temperature but no both at the same time.
    4. The disappearance of the MWP, which now appears as the current warm period is a manifestation of ‘spooky action at a distance’, in fact the two are the same event and it is only the position in time of the observer that determines the outcome of the measurement.
    5. The Sun only provides light to the Earth; the heat that you perceive is actually magnetically reflected heat from the Earths mantle which is several millions of degrees.
    6. Climate Science is the sole bedrock science from which mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology (in that order) are extrapolated.

  43. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am

    “It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml). Their conclusions:
    “statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent. ”

    “If your first reaction to such research is that it’s the result of corrupt scientists and an ultra-left liberal agenda, then your arguments are not about the science.”
    ——-

    Turns out one of that one of the authors of that paper (Julienne Stroeve) has made many posts here on Arctic Ice Extent and the work she has done.

    Of course being a regular reader of WUWT you already knew that, right?

    Now, who is the one jumping to conclusions?

  44. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am

    For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely. In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side.

    1) The vast majority of the media are global warming adherents.

    2) Pop over to the Guardian or BBC and do a survey of the published pages on climate and let me know how many are sceptical over say a 1 month period. Compare it to WUWT – then get back to me.

    3) If the media treated sceptics in the same fair way you want pro-warm papers to be treated then WUWT might not exist. Remember: the debate is settled.

    Let go of this dead parrot. You will feel great release and sense of freedom.

  45. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am

    “For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely.

    By the way Warmist papers are not rarely featured on WUWT they are REGULARLY featured – if only to spark a debate and sometimes derision. Look up Willis’ posts where he features Warmist papers then proceeds to tear them apart.

  46. Only a single commenter, Ian W., with a smattering of support, seems to “cut through the crud” as it were. I don’t know too much about climatology, etc. but I do have a fair understanding of air conditioning and heat pumps, etc. the Earth being the ultimate model of the latter. One quickly finds in such systems that “actual” temperatures of fluids has little to do with the cooling/heating efficiency of such devices. As correctly stated by Ian W., enthalpy and moisture content of the various fluids (air included) are the dominant factors describing ALL heat pumps/engines and the concept of “average temperature” is simply a red herring. Integrals of enthalpy measurements and RH% are the actual “robust” science parameters we should be examining. Please Ian, publish your ideas and let’s quickly dump this “average temperature” BS! Relegate it to the climastrologists!

  47. If the humidity is decreasing and the average temperature is increasing, might that imply that the heat content of the atmosphere is staying fairly constant? At least the energy increase must be less than the temperature increase. What does that say about the greenhouse gas theory?

  48. Ian W says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am

    ==================

    Ian, seems that several of us here agree with your comment. The concept/principle that you explained is valid and needs the spotlight. Hopefully you have the time and inclination to present it as a leading post/article. I look forward to your “publication” here on WUWT. Common sense goes a long way here.

  49. So, the CFS data ( a reanalysis using multiple data sources, similar to NVAP ) does indicate a positive trend in water vapor, matching the positive trend in surface temperature, for the thirty year period ending in 2009. It would be interesting to compare the two data sets.

    Certainly on the seasonal level, when earth temperature is higher, humidity is higher.
    As noted, this is driven by the asymmetry of the hemispheres. But the AGW response is also supposed to be asymmetric – greater over land than ocean. The dynamics of water vapor are obviously important. And we should recall that total water vapor is not necessarily a good measure of the water vapor forcing. The greatest emission in the water vapor bands doesn’t come from the dry polar regions because there are also very cold. The greatest emissions in the water vapor bands come from the sub-tropics which have high ( though not the highest ) humidity in the lower levels but dry air due to subsidence above the moist lower levels. It is dynamics, not temperature which gives rise to this configuration.

    Further, there is a negative feedback to water vapor in the upper troposphere. Water vapor emits strongly, of course, so when it is present high in the trop,, most of that escapes to space cooling the upper levels. This cooler air can then subside until it is again at dynamic equilibrium. But subsiding air is both warmer and drier than the lower level air which it is compressing downward. That’s why the subsidence inversion raob signature looks like a square funnel shape. So, the presence of water vapor in the upper trop causes the decrease of water vapor in the upper trop. – a negative feedback if evere there was one.

  50. Garrett: “In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side.”

    So you’re advocating that WUWT, if it is to be truly scientific rather than dogmatic, should devote equal time to topics that are contrary to the common skeptical theme here. Fair enough.

    And since you’re not tripping over your own tongue we know that you’re also advocating that scientific journals, scientific funding, and scientists devote equal time to researching skeptical themes also.

  51. eyesonu says:
    July 18, 2012 at 8:06 am

    ” over the past half a month ” That sounds like about 2 weeks. Are you new to WUWT or only have a memory capable of “half a month” recollection?

    Perhaps he looked at my WUWT guide (see right-side nav bar) link to http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html

    That page has the last 14 days of titles and links to past months.

    It is a bit tough to work with since WUWT titles are not bibliographic references.

  52. Faux Science Slayer says:
    July 18, 2012 at 7:41 am

    The average cumulus cloud weights 800 tons and “floats” by two mechanisms, evaporation off of the side and bottom surfaces, which create updrafts holding the 62 pound/cu ft water dropplets in the air. Water dropples [sic?] have a perfect slip stream shape and a 200 mph terminal velocity.

    That can’t be right. A stratus cloud at ground level is just fog, and from direct observation those droplets aren’t falling at anything close to 200 mph. Ever watch a cap cloud on a mountain? Air flows up, begins to condense, flow over the top, gets back down to the saturation level and finishes evaporating. The observers on top of Mt Washington report fog….

    I doubt that hail in a severe Tstrm falls at anything close to that air speed. Rain drops are only in the 10s of mph, IIRC.

    References please….

  53. Reg Nelson says:
    Turns out one of that one of the authors of that paper (Julienne Stroeve) has made many posts here on Arctic Ice Extent and the work she has done. Of course being a regular reader of WUWT you already knew that, right?
    No, I did not know that. I am by no means a fanatical reader of WUWT so I do not see every post and comment. With an average of over 40 posts per week (Google Reader stats) it’s not in many peoples’ abilities to follow all the goings on over here. A quick (but by no means rigorous) search turned up no actual posts by Dr. Stroeve on WUWT. She’s referred to in several, and she has commented on many. I could of course have missed something.

    However, I will hold my hands up to jumping the gun: it turns out that WUWT did in fact publish, back on June 30th, a post on the article on recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic.

    What I don’t get is that there seems to be some confusion here over the distinction between AGW and regular-GW. I sometimes get the impression that some of the blog’s authors (Mr. Watts even?) are fine with the idea that the Earth is getting warmer, but simply disagree that it’s man-made and do not think it will get much worse. Yet higher temps, regardless of whether they are man-made or not, will naturally result in higher atmospheric humidity. I can just about comprehend people’s disbelief that humans are causing GW, I cannot get my head around why so many still think that the Earth is not warming at all.

  54. Garrett says:

    “I sometimes get the impression that some of the blog’s authors (Mr. Watts even?) are fine with the idea that the Earth is getting warmer, but simply disagree that it’s man-made and do not think it will get much worse.”

    First, nobody knows if the natural warming trend from the Little Ice Age [LIA] will continue. However, it is not getting “worse”. The planet has been much warmer in the past, with no harmful effects. Warmer is better.

    And there may well be some minor warming due to rising man-made CO2 emissions [about 3% of the total; the rest are natural emissions]. But any such warming is too small to measure:

    As you can see, the warming trend since the LIA has not accelerated. The inescapable conclusion: rising CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures. Any putative effect from human-emitted CO2 is simply too small to measure.

  55. Ric Werme says: July 18, 2012 at 9:56 am
    Ric, I know from living on the front range of Colorado we get hail that will punch through a house roof and kill children at softball size. One inch hail can make a car look like someone spent hours with a ball peen hammer covering every inch of the metal with dents.
    Playing with the numbers here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html
    I get velocities in the 200-250 mph range. Depends on the density of the ice too.

  56. Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am

    The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?

    Very interesting question! Seems to track NH seasonality — high in summer, low in winter.
    ______
    Ian W.
    Keep a-hammerin’. Enthalpy, indeed! But way too advanced for the AGW tyros to grasp, I fear.

  57. Andrew30 says:
    July 18, 2012 at 8:08 am

    What we know so far.

    You are obviously a seriously disturbed individual.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hilarious! Well done.
    ;)

  58. Faux Science Slayer says:
    July 18, 2012 at 7:41 am

    P off!
    Your explanation is fine, but there are no “dropplets”.
    You must take one
    ‘P’ off (droplets).

    >;-p

  59. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
    -No AGW papers in WUWT: You know this is a disingenuous remark. WUWT readers are probably anywhere the best educated on the whole subject. Top notch posters and commenters well versed in the sciences and mathematics have had a huge impact on the development of the real science over recent years. Only in a handful of blogs, like this one does the science get a thorough review (peer review has been a closed love-in joke among a couple of dozen prominent advocacy scientists and cheerleading journals – the degradation of science and of formerly august journals has been phenomenal. It has made the Nobel Prize into a Crackerjack prize). The free reign that the advocates have had and the indecent amount of cash flow was set to ruin the world economy and the environment (crazy energy alternatives and restrictions that would kill the growth of wealth needed to deal with world problems including the real enivironmental issues) before a few short years ago these few blogs came on the scene. This is a powerhouse site. You and everyone else are welcome. That is why, if there are unsupported views by anyone on either side of the question,, they too are bound to be shredded. Hey, I became a believer that the world has actually warmed in the past century and a half from reading here.

  60. chris y says: “The graph seems to confirm that we have had no global warming since about 1995. I think I see a wiggle from Pinatubo around 1991, when global atmospheric opacity dropped by 10% for a good part of a year.”

    Opacity???

  61. So, water vapour levels are up about 2.0% in the Arctic. They are not up in the Antarctic since 1958 nor on the rest of the planet since 1948.

  62. “””””……Under the NASA Making Earth Science Data Records for Research Environments (MEaSUREs) program, NVAP is being reprocessed and extended, increasing its 14-year coverage to include 22 years of data. The NVAP-MEaSUREs (NVAP-M) dataset is geared towards varied user needs, and biases in the original dataset caused by algorithm and input changes were removed. This is accomplished by relying on peer reviewed algorithms and producing the data in multiple “streams” to create products geared towards studies of both climate and weather. …..”””””

    In other words; we threw away the original real data, and replaced it with a made up set that better fits our conclusions.

    I didn’t see word one in the report about that water vapor intercepting solar radiation incoming, and stopping it from reaching the earth’s deep oceans to be stored. Try getting a positive feedback effect out of that little problem. And by the way; Ozone (O3) and CO2 also both intercept some of the incoming solar radiant energy, and prevent it from reaching the surface.

  63. “Water dropples have a perfect slip stream shape and a 200 mph terminal velocity”
    ___________________________
    Raindrops falling at 200 mph??? Crap….I wouldnt wanna be outside when that happens….

  64. “””””…..Brian H says:

    July 18, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Bob Shapiro says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am

    The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?

    Very interesting question! Seems to track NH seasonality — high in summer, low in winter…….”””””

    Actually, that is just an illusion; it really is tracking the Southern Hemisphere seasonality; High in Winter, and low in Summer.

  65. Water vapor behaves differently at different pressures. Water vapor at or near the ground is a very different thing from water vapor at 30K feet. Other phases of water are further different. Most clouds probably present a negative feedback. I’m even starting to doubt that solid state high clouds are a positive feedback. A remaining area to investigate is precip. Everything we thought we knew about H20 is probably wrong.

  66. The seasonality is a little higher in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Both hemispheres average about 25 mms/m2 or 1 inch/m2 or 25 kg/m2. The Northern Hemisphere varies from 19 mms/m2 in the winter to about 32 mm2/m2 in the summer. The southern varies from 20 to 30.

  67. Wow! You can bet they spent many sleepless nights trying to torture a overall, AGW confirming, positive trend. My spider-senses tell me they were unable to… because the overall trend is negative? Damn spider-senses, are usually wrong.

    Anyway, alarmists should let out a big “sigh of relief”. This certainly indicates we are not going to cook in are own juices… soon. GK

  68. Ian W says:
    July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am
    Even better just use ocean heat content as the top few meters of ocean hold as much heat as the entire atmosphere.

    And here is what the plot of hadsst2 looks like: No warming for 15.5 years and cooling at the rate of 1.0 C/century for the last 10.5 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend

    P.S.. The anomalies for April, May and June are not on WFT but they are available at:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

    With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
    (The slope for 15.5 years would not be affected by the addition of the last three months, but the slope for the last 10.5 years would be very slightly affected.)

  69. The graph presented in the post is the global average Total Precipitable Water vapour timeseries from 1988 to 2009.

    The change of total precipitable water vapour (PW) column tell us little about the water vapour impact on the greenhouse effect or outgoing longwave radiation because changes in the upper atmosphere have a much greater effect than changes near the surface.

    Computer simulations using HARTCODE, a line-by-line radiative code, show that a 20% reduction of water vapour in a layer at 300 to 400 mbar pressure level (about 8 to 9 km altitude) has 30 times the effect on outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) as the same absolute change of water vapour near the surface.

    Specifically, a reduction of 0.14 mm PW in a layer 307 to 423 mbar (equal to 20% reduction) would cause a 0.80 W/m2 increase in OLR, while the same 0.14 mm PW reduction in an atmosphere layer near the surface at 1013 to 848 mbar (equal to 0.964% reduction) would cause a 0.026 W/m2 increase in OLR. A water vapour amount change in the upper layer has 0.80/.026 = 30 times the effect as the same change in the surface layer. The vertical location of the water vapour change is very important to the greenhouse effect. This effect is shown graphically here;

    The NVAP Data and Information is given here;

    http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/nvap/table_nvap.html

    The NVAP readme file shows that the precipitable water vapour information is available in 5 layers:
    L1: 850-1000mb
    L2: 700-850mb
    L3: 500-700mb
    L4: 300-500mb
    L5: 200-300mb
    With warming, the water vapour reduction in the L4 and L5 layers largely offset the increase in the lower layers.
    A graph of water vapour at 400 mbar in the tropics from NOAA versus CO2 is here:

    In the topics, the specific humidity best fit line has declined by 0.11 g/kg, or 13%, from 1960 to 2011.
    Further info at;

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour

  70. Garret, read this: ““The 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.”

    Bummer.

  71. “””””……SteveSadlov says:

    July 18, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Water vapor behaves differently at different pressures. Water vapor at or near the ground is a very different thing from water vapor at 30K feet. Other phases of water are further different. Most clouds probably present a negative feedback. I’m even starting to doubt that solid state high clouds are a positive feedback. A remaining area to investigate is precip. Everything we thought we knew about H20 is probably wrong……”””””

    Why would that be so ? Water vapor (aka gas) consists of independent H2O molecules, each as free as a lark. Depending on how close they may be to each other or to other molecular species, and also depending on their mean velocity, which generally depend on pressure and Temperature respectively, they will spend part of their time involved in collisions, with other free molecules, and part of their time in free flight between such collisions.

    In any case, while in free flight, the H2O molecule can encounter a solar radiation photon; perhaps one with a suitable wavelength to excite some molecular excited state in the H2O molecule, thereby absorbing that solar energy, which as a result will never reach the surface, including the deep ocean, as a solar spectrum photon; thus resulting in a surface cooling effect.

    This effect clearly is operational at the individual molecular level, in the case of this H2O vapor, so I don’t see how there can be any significant altitude or other effect, apart from the abundance of such molecules; it still has to be a negative feedback cooling effect (in the sense that MORE H2O vapor molecules, leads to LESS solar radiation energy reaching earth’s surface to be stored in the ocean or rocks.

    Also the loss of such solar radiant energy to the surface, must result in a subsequent reduction in the emission of LWIR radiant energy from the surface, which can participate in the so-called “greenhouse” effect capture by other H2O molecules, or even by the much less abundant CO2 molecules. I’m not seeing any positive feedback build up in earth absorbed energy, as a result of this increase in H2O vapor; regardless of the altitude of such molecules.

  72. jorgekafkazar says:
    July 18, 2012 at 11:19 am

    chris y says: “The graph seems to confirm that we have had no global warming since about 1995. I think I see a wiggle from Pinatubo around 1991, when global atmospheric opacity dropped by 10% for a good part of a year.”

    Opacity???

    ______________________________

    I should have said that opacity increased by 10%, not decreased.

    Measurements of solar radiation transmittance through the atmosphere at Mauna Loa dropped from 93% to 83% during the eruption, and recovered by 1995 or so. I have seen this reported as a decrease in transmittance or an increase in opacity of the atmosphere.

  73. It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml). Their conclusions:
    “statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent

    They are also consistent with reduced sea ice from increase solar insolation/particulate deposition as the cause of a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor and higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures.

    From the paper,

    We have no clear explanation for this decadal-scale {around year 2000} shift from negative to positive relative humidity anomalies.

    The cause is accelerated ice melt after 2000.

  74. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 10:18 am
    …..I can just about comprehend people’s disbelief that humans are causing GW, I cannot get my head around why so many still think that the Earth is not warming at all.
    ________________________________
    It depends completely on the time frame you are talking about as to whether the earth is warming or cooling because the earth’s climate is cyclical.

    1979 to present: Graph #1

    1880 to 1976 (National Geographic)Graph #2

    10,000 yrs Greenland Ice CoreGraph #3

    10,000 yrs Vostok Ice CoreGraph #4

    140,000 yrs Vostock Ice Core (present on left)Graph #5

    450K yrs Vostock Ice Core (present on left)Graph #6

    There are also these peer reviewed studies among others.
    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) w11 ka ago and has … elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3 C above 20th century…

    Interesting WUWT discussion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    Other non-CO2 info from scientists
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (2004): http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/a-new-ice-age-day-after-tomorrow

    http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/MilanDefense_GRL.pdf

    http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

    http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-raycloud-seeding-hypothesis-is-converging-with-reality.html

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1954

    E M Smith (ChiefIO) had articles a few years ago about bond events and civilizations.
    Bond Events do occur and here is one paper on the subject: The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
    So what is a Bond Event? They are abnormally cold periods that happen about every 1470 years. We are likely headed into one now, IMHO.
    The 2 Kilo Year Event and You

    The Little Ice Age was an Intermediate Period Half Bond Event

    The Russian Academy of Science also thinks Global warming is ending: http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/

    As a farmer, a few degrees warmer would be a pain but colder is the real crisis especially for Canada, Russia and China who are on the northern most edge of the grain belt at the present temperatures.

    The Earth’s climate is a darn complicated system with the oceans a key factor as well as the impact of solar variation and changes in the atmosphere all complicated by land masses and mountains and volcanoes… Darn hard to figure out what all the factors are much less what effects which and how much. And then you toss in oscillations…

    Climate is still an infant science. We have learned a lot but there is still a lot more to learn. Spending thirty years stuck on CO2 as the “control knob” of climate was a real waste of time, effort and money.

  75. Ric Werme says:
    July 18, 2012 at 9:56 am

    “I doubt that hail in a severe Tstrm falls at anything close to that air speed. Rain drops are only in the 10s of mph, IIRC.”

    I don’t know the velocities involved but they have to be low as it seems it would take a long time for raindrops to ride the vertical air currents inside a boomer and transform themselves into hail stones of varying sizes.

  76. Speaking of T-storms this report is interesting: http://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/

    …. Under normal circumstances one would expect about three and a half minutes of free-fall to reach the breathable altitude of 10,000 feet. The circumstances, however, were not normal…. Bill’s brutalized body had spent around forty minutes bobbing around the area of atmosphere which mountaineers refer to unfondly as the Death Zone….

    No human before or since Bill Rankin is known to have parachuted through a cumulonimbus tower and lived to tell about it.

  77. Garrett says:
    July 18, 2012 at 10:18 am
    …..I can just about comprehend people’s disbelief that humans are causing GW, I cannot get my head around why so many still think that the Earth is not warming at all.

    The problem here is that many people, apparently you included, can’t get their head around what ‘The Earth’s climate is warming / has warmed, actually means’.

    Does it mean this second, minute, hour, day, week, year,decade, century, millenia?

    As Gail points out, it depends on what timescale you select, and you should ponder the following.

    At all times, the Earth’s climate has both warmed from one or more points in the past and has cooled from one or more points in the past, with only 2 exceptions when the climate is the warmest its ever been and when the climate is the coldest its ever been.

    So, the following two statements are always equally true.

    The Earth’s climate has warmed up to the present.

    The Earth’s climate has cooled up to the present.

  78. To Garret —

    You seem put out that some people don’t believe the earth is warming. A paper was recently discussed on this site that used 2000 years of fossilized tree rings to study the long term trend. It was negative. According to that paper over the last 2000 years the earth has been quite evidently cooling.

    What you should complain about are people who dont think that the earth has been getting warmer in the last century or so. Those fossilized tree rings did show two periods in the last two thousand years when the earth was substantially warmer than it is now so quite obviously warming periods do occur even though the overall trend for the last two thousand years has been one of cooling. And after all we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. So of course the earth is warming.

    I have myself never seen any person post on this site saying that the earth has not been generally warming since the Little Ice Age. But many people have pointed out that for the last fifteen years that warming trend has stalled. Even the climastrologists admit that — now claiming that their models have always predicted such a “no warming” period was possible and that it might last for another 30 years — a period of time at the end of which they all will be dead and buried. If it turns out that their models are finally falsified (they not being here to keep moving the goalposts) I suppose the only recourse the then current generation of people studying climate will have — is to go piss on their graves.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  79. Some of us were saying, the Magic Gas story is a lie from first to last, maybe when Anthony did Al Gore’s experiment online for himself, he saw too: there is no magic gas. It’s all a lie, and was from the beginning. It’s crime is what it is. Straight up ‘I fear no law enforcement on earth’ crime, by government employees gaming the system using other government employees – like Al Gore – as cover from law enforcement.

  80. Allan MacRae says:
    July 18, 2012 at 7:44 am

    Allan – I would like for you to take a look at my reply to Ferdinand here. I think I’ve potentially figured out the source of the temperature dependency of CO2 in which both you and I share an interest.

  81. “Catastroligists”, “Calamatologist” and Joe Bastardi’s “climate-clowns”, some subsitutes for the bland-sounding “alarmist.”

Comments are closed.