Jerusalem, February 2, 2014 – Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?
Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and its impact on climate is amplified in the stratosphere.
In a detailed study, the researchers from the three institutions examined the causes of changes in the temperatures and water vapor in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). The TTL is a critical region of our atmosphere with characteristics of both the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.
The TTL can have significant influences on both atmospheric chemistry and climate, as its temperature determines how much water vapor can enter the stratosphere. Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.
The Israeli and US scientists used measurements from satellite observations and output from chemistry-climate models to understand recent temperature trends in the TTL. Temperature measurements show where significant changes have taken place since 1979.
The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean – with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
The researchers are Dr. Chaim Garfinkel of the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. D. W. Waugh and Dr. L. Wang of Johns Hopkins, and Dr. L. D. Oman and Dr. M. M. Hurwitz of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, and the research was also highlighted in Nature Climate Change.
From the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
UPDATE: The Hockey Schtick adds this perspective
New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2
A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds water vapor can act as a negative-feedback cooling effect to significantly counteract anthropogenic global warming.
According to the paper, “The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean — with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the tropical tropopause region above the warming sea surface. Once the tropical tropopause cools, less water vapor is present in the tropical tropopause and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.”
The paper itself says, “In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future sea surface temperatures are of similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2, ozone, and methane,” which would indicate that this negative-feedback cooling effect is almost equivalent to the warming effect of man-made CO2, ozone, and methane and could almost fully offset global warming.
The paper is similar to another recent paper published in Nature Climate Change, finding warming of sea surface temperatures in the Indian and Pacific Ocean ‘warm pool’ is causing less water vapor to enter the top of the troposphere and could cause global cooling from this negative-feedback. The papers add to many others finding water vapor acts as a negative-feedback, not positive as assumed by IPCC climate models. Climate model false assumptions of positive-feedback from water vapor are the entire basis of Mann-made global warming alarm.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Negative feedbacks outweight positive feedbacks. Mind=blown! *sarc*
Not to mention the ensuing clouds reflect / scatter the incoming radiation back into space before it’s affected by greenhouse gases!
Saw that coming.
It looks like the long poo-pahed tropical lens has made its appearance in “the literature”.
Actually, I’m curious as to whether they think this is the mechanism responsible for the approximately 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapor observed over the last decade. I’m also curious as to whether they have cause, effect and so on mixed up a bit — it could easily be that both increased surface water vapor and decreased stratospheric water vapor arise from a THIRD (common) cause, and hence are correlated but not correlated as cause and effect. I don’t find the result implausible, but there is a lot going on at the top of the troposphere and as far as I recall the reduction of stratospheric water vapor is general and global, not localized, where of course they are talking about a highly localized increase in low level water vapor if they confine it to specific oceanic regions. It also leaves open why stratospheric water vapor has only varied significantly recently, when IIRC in the past there have been many times when oceanic surface waters in some part of the world spike hot. These things make me doubt the result, or at least consider it largely speculative at this point.
rgb
Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?
As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to……global warming hiding in the deep ocean
So what happens when the globe does not warm and ocean temps do not rise?
….when it’s sitting still, there’s no feedback
Here’s what it really looks like….
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Lindzen and Choi, Douglas and Christy, Willis, and Bob Tisdale are way out in front on this one. It is difficult to keep track of the paradoxes that disprove catastrophic AGW.
1) No observed long term warming in the tropics.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
2) Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation vs short term ocean temperature changes indicates the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by an increase or decrease of cloud cover in the tropics. (Willis’ governor.)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
3) Predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot is not observed.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
4) GCMs predict significant warming in the tropics rather than in high latitude regions. Pattern of warming observed warming does not support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”… …“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
I can see the excuses now: “see, not all of AGW shows up in the climate record, so that proves we’re right!”
Gaia works in mysterious ways.
Assumptions that form the basis of further investigation should always be properly presented in gold-standard research articles.
The authors state, “As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere.” The opening segment clearly indicates that the authors assume that anthropogenic warming is real and somehow selectively measurable from natural warming. So then, we can critique the authors’ assumption that the anthropogenic portion of increased CO2 concentration enhanced the “global” temperature which then, the authors say, caused an increase in ocean temperatures.
If the globe has warmed, so say the authors, all oceans should have warmed too, according to their opening segment. This premise which forms the basis of their further thesis, was not adequately understood or investigated by these authors and can be torn asunder in short order by all arm-chair data crunchers. The authors must have known that not all oceans have warmed. Therefore, this paper should have been rejected due to a false statement in its opening remarks.
Specifically, oceanic warming via shortwave solar infrared that is variably allowed in or reflected away due to atmospheric conditions is the cause of measurable ocean warming or cooling, accounts for selective ocean warming and cooling, and accounts for decreased or increased evaporation.
But their apparent premise is that recent ocean warming was caused by longwave infrared radiation from the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 warming the air, and then the air warming the oceans, kicking up additional water vapor that serves to enhance the warming of the air in a runaway cycle.
For their premise to be the basis of their further thesis (natural cooling counteracts anthropogenic warming), they must first provide a mechanized basis for this weird opposition to natural oceanic temperature oscillations. They do not, nor do they adequately explain how their premise appears to selectively warm some oceans while leaving others alone. The paper has not presented a proper treatise of their assumptions and should have been rejected.
New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-paper-finds-negative-feedback.html
wow it is just like those hippies said that Gaia really can do things like that
1. “…the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities”
— Assuming facts not in evidence.
2. “full brunt” — loaded language betraying the authors’ bias;
Result: reduced credibility.
3. “…understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance — Why? There is NO EVIDENCE for this, making it a highly implausible hypothesis at best, mere unsupported conjecture, at worst.
4. Re: Stratosphere – Troposphere Coupling Mechanisms
A. “… at equatorial latitudes Salby and Callaghan (2005) identified an interaction between the stratospheric B‐D circulation and the tropospheric Hadley circulation … but again, this does not provide a chain of causality.” (Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White (2010): Solar Influence on Climate., “Rev. Geophys.,” 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282. at 29)
“There are many proposed mechanisms for a downward influence from the lower stratosphere into the troposphere … response in tropical vertical velocity was not uniformly distributed in longitude but was largest over the Indian and West Pacific oceans, … despite having imposed SSTs, suggesting that their tropospheric signal was a response to changes in the stratosphere and not to the bottom-up mechanism of TSI heating of the ocean surface … .
This would be consistent with the results of Salby and Callaghan (2005) (see Figure 25), whose analysis suggested that the stratosphere and troposphere are linked by a large‐scale transfer of mass across the tropopause resulting in a coupling of the B‐D circulation in the stratosphere and the tropical Hadley circulation in the troposphere. However, as discussed in section 4.2.2, this does not preclude the possibility that there is an additional positive feedback from the oceans so that both top‐down and bottom‐up mechanisms are acting in the real world.” (Id. at 30)
B. General Comment Re: Attributing Causation of Climate
(and echoing Robert G. Brown at Duke above)
“… correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate
system,… . Since the climate system may react in a nonlinear way the response function can be quite different from the forcing function.” [Id. at 24]
Link to Gray, et. al.: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
{Note: all boldface type is my editing}
… and the authors of the Junk Science article above have been RESOUNDINGLY defeated by Ms. Pamela Gray! Nice job (at 1:26pm). Send that paper to the bird cage.
(how’s “everything” going? hope Valentine’s Day is extra special, this year (smile))
ummmm
this has been well documented for years and years.
it fits the climate models. nothing new here, move along people. . .move along. . .
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase.
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray — the question at 1:58pm is addressed to you — sorry for ambiguity, everyone.
Lattitde says Here’s what it really looks like….
Wow, look at all those hockey sticks.
It is hard to believe that this entire AGW “debate” as one side, the sanity brigade do earnest battle with “the flotilla of fools”.
If it wasn’t for the tragic waste of taxpayers hard earned money it would be funny – but that is not the case.
Many ordinary folk have wondered out loud over the years as to why the heck we are still here if past high carbon dioxide was supposed to have destroyed the biosphere? 2,000ppm, 1200ppm, 1000ppm, 800ppm all failed to destroy the biosphere, yet 600ppm will cause ‘dangerous warming’. What a load of fart.
Since the “full brunt” appears to be about zero, the bar isn’t set very high.
To echo Janice Moore, Pamela Gray nails the faulty premise of this paper. The rise in the temperature of “the oceans” is a) not well measured, b) where measured, de minimus.
To really get the water vapour lift they are suggesting they would have to provide proof that ocean temps have risen sufficiently to create all that water vapour. As nearly as I can see they have not provided any evidence of such a rise in temperature.
I’m confused. We need to declare war on coal and put up windmills and solar panels to prevent CAGW because Ma’ Gaea is doing the job herself?
First we had the ‘hiding missing hotspot‘ and now the ‘hiding missing heat’. I suspect that the CAGW speculation is in deep ‘sea’ trouble and the next 5 years will be interesting.
Let’s be honest, their speculation has run it’s course and in any other science the referee would have blown the final whistle and sent these charlatans off the pitch for violating the rules of the game and making up their own rules. Kicking someone in the eyes is normal play. Fabricating score sheets is par for the course. Very sad and very desperate.
@ur momisugly Jimbo LOVE your unvarnished comments (at 2:19pm and 2:42pm). LOL. You are SO right.
(still have yesterday’s BIG GAME — Hoooooraaaay, Seattle Seahawks!!! — on my mind)
“in any other science the referee would have blown the final whistle” (Jimbo)
Genuine Referee: False Start. … Holding. …. Out of bounds. …. Excessive time outs. Offense. Penalty: 50,000 yards. Yes — I — mean — it. Now, you get your little fannies back there and play the game right — or don’t play at all. … Pick it up! …. Men! — HUSTLE!
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
Truth wins. Every time.
And, since no one watched it last night when I posted it, here it is again!
Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaawwww!
{WARNING: If you haven’t watched the game YET (eye roll)…… spoiler alert….}
SEAHAWKS 43 — BRONCOS 8
#(:))
#(:))
#(:))
Happy? Me?? YOU BETCHA! #(:))
(FYI: I was born and raised about 1 hour from Seattle)