Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say Israeli, US scientists

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. 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say Israeli, US scientists

  1. Steven says:

    Negative feedbacks outweight positive feedbacks. Mind=blown! *sarc*

  2. True Conservative says:

    Not to mention the ensuing clouds reflect / scatter the incoming radiation back into space before it’s affected by greenhouse gases!

  3. Ted Getzel says:

    It looks like the long poo-pahed tropical lens has made its appearance in “the literature”.

  4. rgbatduke says:

    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

  5. Mike M says:

    Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?

  6. Latitude says:

    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

  7. William Astley says:

    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.”

  8. Two Labs says:

    I can see the excuses now: “see, not all of AGW shows up in the climate record, so that proves we’re right!”

  9. el gordo says:

    Gaia works in mysterious ways.

  10. Pamela Gray says:

    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.

  11. 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

  12. john says:

    wow it is just like those hippies said that Gaia really can do things like that

  13. Janice Moore says:

    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}

  14. Janice Moore says:

    … 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))

  15. jai mitchell says:

    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.

  16. Janice Moore says:

    @ Pamela Gray — the question at 1:58pm is addressed to you — sorry for ambiguity, everyone.

  17. Graham says:

    Lattitde says Here’s what it really looks like….

    Wow, look at all those hockey sticks.

  18. cnxtim says:

    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.

  19. Jimbo says:

    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.

  20. R Taylor says:

    Since the “full brunt” appears to be about zero, the bar isn’t set very high.

  21. Jay Currie says:

    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.

  22. Gunga Din says:

    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?

  23. Jimbo says:

    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.

  24. Janice Moore says:

    @ 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)

  25. Rud Istvan says:

    Willis Eschenbach already explained how and why in his thermostat governor posts. Lindzen hypothesized exactly this negative feedback in 2000, his so called adaptive iris. Simple consequences of Tstorms with humidity washout via precipitation, leaving latent heat of condensation to escape. Nice to see additional papers observing the phenomenon.

  26. Bart says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    February 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    A thoughtful critique. However, the bottom line is, here is a mechanism which tends to provide negative feedback, and simplified modeling shows the effect is potentially large enough to essentially nullify any putative warming. IOW, the science is not by any means settled.

  27. Jimbo says:

    Correctomundo?
    Let’s be honest, their speculation has run it’s course
    Let’s be honest, their speculation has run its course

  28. Gail Combs says:

    ERRrr, isn’t there a bit of a problem because IR can only impact the surface of the ocean and also IR is not ‘Energy Intense’ (I do not have the correct word for the concept)

    It is Sunlight espcially the visible light range and above that penetrates the oceans: graph 1 and graph 2

    On top of all that Mankind is only responsible for three percent of the CO2.

    Even if CO2 is bouncing IR back towards the oceans it is only in certain wavebands and it is insignificant compared to the energy from the sun. graph 3 This graph gives the relative energy of ‘Earthshine’ vs ‘sunshine’

    Finally you can add in the changes in albedo:
    graph 4

    And changes in the composition of the sun’s TSI
    NASA SOLAR IRRADIANCE (Gives changes for different wave lengths of solar energy)

    NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

    …Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere….

    Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

    The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”

    I think these scientists are so sunk in their CAGW thinking they can not think outside that box.

  29. JohnWho says:

    Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?

    Uh, did they specifically identify the exact amount of “global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities”, separating them from the natural processes that cause either warming or cooling?

  30. HGW xx/7 says:

    Jai, Jai, Jai…

    As a fellow Seattlite, which I am sure just delights you, I will preface this by saying that I am no climate scientist. I am a simple engineer who is nerdy with numbers and finds myself in the lukewarming camp. I do believe we are having an affect on the climate. Just as any animal does whose demand outstrips their resources, there is going to be push back. We have seen it time and tide again in nuclear power, war, industrialization, and so on. Yes, I know I will probably draw some wrath from the regulars on here, and you have every right to chastize me; this is a place of open debate. However, just as I see the positives of things like nuclear power, there are also clear and very detrimental downsides that are long-lasting and far-reaching.

    Likewise, however, is the matter of our global climate. Jai, I know the models have been right in some aspects and some have been more right than others. I know that some predicted we would get more snow in some places. I know some said the US would see even fewer hurricanes and tornadoes than before. I believe that the global temperature is increasing, some of it is our fault, and that effect without countereffect is impossible.

    Yet, just as I believe we can’t say ‘there is no problem, pollute away’, we can’t say ‘everything is a problem’. People can only take hearing ‘the models are right, all the time, no exceptions’ and then see things happen that are contrary to what they have been told. On the news and the internet and in movies, we are given these grandeose worst-case scenarios that are so over the top that people can’t help but laugh. It’s a non-stop stream of being told that our very existance is to blame for all the world’s ills. Just yesterday, before the slaughter-house that was the Super Bowl (go Seahawks), there was a stomach-turning marathon of climate-tastic movies on the SyFy channel, including such titles of as ‘Snowmageddon’ and ‘Ice Tornadoes’, sensationalistic plots that both pay lip service to CAGW while turning to blind eye to fact or reason. It’s all emotionally-based.

    There are facts on both sides of the debate, something you may very well disagree with me on. However, you can’t have it both ways and I think that’s how much of the public is feeling. No matter what we do, and despite all the good both our species, as well as the environmental movement has done, we are doomed and everything around us is a sign of it. The models cannot be wrong, humans cannot be right.

    Maybe if we balanced it out the the occasional, “you know, the models were a bit off and we may not end up seeing this devistating catastophe we previously predicted; this is something that we can take steps to alleviate, though,” people might feel a little more positive and have a reason to fight to improve the planet, as opposed to the throwing-up of hands that leads to turning a blind eyes to real problems that don’t need a model to ‘see’. Even the most recent IPCC report dialed back their sensitivity ranges in some cases and all they could resonably connect the changes in climates to is a shift in precipitation patterns and a higher chance of heat waves. That is hardly, “we were right on everything”.

    Jai, the models are not always right, they have made mistakes, there is room for debate on the amount of effect we are having on the planet, but if all you do is chime in here with the constant, “Uh, yeah, been there done that, still right, yada yada yada…”, you’re not going to get many more passengers on your ship. In fact, you’re going to have people heading for the life boats and ignoring the real problem left back on the ship…much like we saw in Antarctica.

    I know I cannot convince you that skeptics have a resonable argument, just as I won’t believe the hard-core Greens do. Just know that reason can be found in both camps and, as such, stomping your feet and saying “move along” to a group of people who have every right to state their case is a weak, weak position to take.

  31. Jimbo says:

    Janice Moore says:
    February 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm……….
    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!

    I love your input Janice. You have correctly described CAGW, it is in a state of utter and embarrassing confusion. Like I sad it is so sad to see. Grown men being forced by observations to lie, obfuscate, duck and dive and they somehow think no one is looking. So sad.

    I have Professor ‘Arctic Ice Free’ Peter Wadhams in my sights. I have his full dossier and intend to release it in September 2015 when he predicted we will have an ice free Arctic ocean. He also said 2016 for an ice free Arctic ocean. We can hit him twice, watch him squirm and make a NEW prediction of an ice free Arctic. CAGW, don’t you just love it.

  32. Caleb says:

    Man Oh Man, do I ever love this line: “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.”

    “Significant societal relevance;” I’m going to have to remember that one. It might come in handy, next time I get pulled over for speeding. (The trick is how to work it into the conversation.)

  33. Pamela Gray says:

    Janice, Valentines Day will be spent appropriately snuggled up with my man. It will be the first time in decades I have done such a thing.

    Unfortunately, it could signal the end of the pause in global warming! LOL!

    By the way, my tall handsome man reads this blog and thinks you are very sweet. I think you also have a scientific mind that I would like to see more of. Especially since I don’t get the significance of the hampster dance at all.

  34. davidmhoffer says:

    Well all reservations from pamela and rgb duly noted, we ought to be celebrating the fact that a paper on global warming which theorizes the existence of a negative feedback from water vapour got through peer review!

    On the other hand, the paper and the comments in this thread evinced an image of Gaia playing whack-a-mole with global warming. Its here. Whack! No, it popped up over there now. Whack! Sometimes no moles pop up at all at which point Gaia starts screaming “its hiding!” and whacking the machine at random…

  35. Janice Moore says:

    JIMBO! Thank you, so much. You made my day.

    Loaded for Wadham, heh, heh. That is terrific. We will stay tuned to WUWT!

    You go, Jimbo, Hero for Truth.

    And, since no one but Mario seems to have watched it late Friday night … AND BECAUSE YOU ARE WATCHING THIS THREAD (I hope) and because BART! just posted above…

    “It is also for ALL of you WUWT heroes, for all of you teachers fighting the daily fight against ignorance in the classroom (and in the faculty lounge), and for all of the excellent scientists, both those out there on the front lines, such as Murry Salby, and those who, like Bart and Konrad and Leif AND PAMELA, patiently persevere, month after month, correcting error, and for A-tho-ny! and all you wonderful mo-derat-ors who deal with all the filth so the rest of us don’t have to (thank you!), and for all you regular commenters who step to the plate and daily refute insidiously erroneous, green-eyed, beliefs that would devour our liberties and destroy our free market economy, and last but not least, for all the great cheer leaders like Stan Stendera! Go, Stan! (and Libby).

    THANK YOU for fighting the daily fight of good against ev1l, of truth against l1es.” (me, on Friday)

    YOU ARE MY HEROES!

    With gratitude,

    “Liberty”
    (and Janice)

  36. Janice Moore says:

    I am so sorry, Moderator, for that post going into moderation (again!!). I thought spelling lies and evil with “1”‘s and breaking up “mo-der-at-or” would do the trick. Please forgive the bother. J.

  37. Speed says:

    Link to article in Science Daily …
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm

    And from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem …
    http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=138594&CultureCode=en

    Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50772/abstract;jsessionid=2380BAEAB278C18E40305C375A64D11C.f04t04

    Ocean–atmosphere interactions: Bottom up in the tropics
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate2039.html
    (Paywalled)

  38. charles nelson says:

    The authors of this paper are ‘wriggling’…in order not to be howled down they must necessarily accept CAGW..this then permits them to gently undermine it with some fairly common sense science.
    We’re going to see a lot more ‘wriggling’ of this nature as Climate Scientists jockey for position in the new post CAGW order.

  39. jim Steele says:

    Does this mean Trenberth and Mann will try to make the editors of the journal resign in protest?

  40. Mike Maguire says:

    Earth’s clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm

    “Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes”.

    “A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a “negative feedback” mechanism — a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. “We don’t know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,” says Davies. “But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude.”

  41. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Pamela Gray,

    Thanks for responding. LOL, it is because I do not HAVE a scientific (just highly logical) mind that I LOVE the “Hamster Dance Song,” I guess… . #(:)). It only expresses (and allows me to dance to express) my JOY at the big win for Seattle. It’s the music mainly, not the video, that has significance in this context.

    That YOU, whose sharp, logical, disciplined, truly scientific, mind I admire, think I have potential to think more rigorously is high praise for me. Thank you for the encouragement!

    So GLAD to hear that the 14th will, indeed, be a lovely day/evening. SMILING for you, and so very happy. I can empathize more than you realize, I think. Thanks for passing along the compliment. MUCH appreciated. He certainly is a fine man (thus, worthy of you — YES. Don’t you shake your head at me, girl; you are a treasure). You make a great couple!

    Here’s your song for the day:
    (NOT all of the lyrics fit, the MUSIC is the main thing, here, just to express your joy about your guy; so you can DANCE — wheeeeeee! —
    well… it’s what I would be playing in your shoes….)
    #(:))
    “Walkin’ on Sunshine” — Katrina and the Waves

    Take care and ENJOY!,

    Janice

    [The mods caution all readers underneath "Hamsters Walking On Sunshine" to: (1) Not look up and (2) Wear proper personal protective equipment. ]

  42. John Francis says:

    If I understand the supposed mechanisms correctly, then
    CO2 has a greenhouse gas effect
    Water vapour has a greenhouse gas effect

    But.. Water vapour is a latent heat storage and re-delivery system, which seems to me to be likely to be vastly greater in effect than the other two. I have never seen these effects properly quantified, and I read a LOT about CAGW. Can anyone point me at such an article, if it exists?

  43. Leon Brozyna says:

    Who knows … it’s even possible that one of these days, scientists might figure out that it’s an amazing self-regulating system.

    Now all they have to do is come to grips with another amazing concept … mankind is not some sort of strange unnatural entity.

  44. Janice Moore says:

    Dear John Francis,

    Good observation. And… heeeeere you go!:

    1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/

    2. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    I hope that you find those links helpful,

    Janice

  45. 1sky1 says:

    Those inclined to presume solid knowledge of the effect of stratospheric water vapor upon surface and/or lower tropospheric temperatures would be well-advised to read Ellsaesser’s tutorial review at::http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC088iC06p03897/abstract

  46. Janice Moore says:

    Oh, Mod-er-ator (s), lol. Thank you for that warning to ward [off] potential liability (in case a certain narrow-eyed, pudgy-faced, tiny, little, vindictive, manikin looks up… and SPLAT! — heh, wouldn’t THAT be fun to see?).

    Well, if they forget to wear their little unmentionables, I’ll just argue the reduced capacity of hamsters and, hopefully, they’ll just do some time in a mental hospital instead of regular jail, heh, heh.

  47. Gary Pearse says:

    No tropical thunderstorms, but maybe they are closing in on it from the top.

  48. philjourdan says:

    Allowing for negative feed backs does not extend the C in CAGW. So they pretend they do not exist.

  49. hum says:

    Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi

  50. Myrrh says:

    For pity’s sake, enough of this scam. Haven’t any of these so called climate scientists heard about the water cycle? Don’t any of them know how we get winds and weather?

    The AGW claim that “the Earth would be 33°C colder without greenhouse gases”, as AGW defines greenhouse gases, infrared heat imbibing, is a deliberate science fraud.

    This is a simple sleight of hand, they have taken out the whole of the water cycle to create their AGW scenario, but they begin by taking out the real gas properties and processes of the bulk of our atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, which as the fluid gas air are the first step in regulating Earth’s temperature.

    It begins here:

    In traditional physics that -18°C is not the temperature of the Earth without AGW’s “greenhouse gases” in either of the two definitions they give, “all infrared heat imbibing or all such minus water”.

    In traditional science that -18°C is attributed to the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and, the comparison is with the Moon without an atmosphere, which traditionally is given as -23°C.

    The traditional science teaching figures are:

    Earth with atmosphere, 15°C
    Earth without atmosphere, -18°C
    Moon without atmosphere, -23°C

    Earth with atmosphere but without water, 67°C (think deserts)

    They have gone to great lengths to eliminate all knowledge of the great cooling power of the Water Cycle because it shows how great the power of the real greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen in regulating the Earth’s temperature.

    In traditional science, it is the real gas greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen and water which regulate temperature – that is why our atmosphere was first likenened to a greenhouse, real greenhouses both warm and cool to obtain optimum growing conditions for life.

    AGW’s fake “greenhouse gases” which only warm is simply ludicrous.

    So, unlike the Moon without our real gases for its atmosphere, the Earth is protected from the extremes of cold and heat. First by the warming power our real greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen which form a thermal blanket preventing heat from escaping too quickly before the surface is again heated by the Sun, air is a poor conductor of heat, and second, in these gases cooling by heat transfer away from the surface by convection, and, cooling by convection currents, winds. Hot air rises cold air sinks.

    Just with these real gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen, practically 100% of our atmosphere without water, we would have a temperature of 67°C and not 15°C.

    Water, which some AGWs claim is a greenhouse gas because it imbibes ir, which further reduces the heat from that 67°C, which the real gas air can achieve in expanding when heated and condensing when cooled. Water has a very high heat capacity, which means it takes longer to heat it up before it changes temperature and conversely it takes longer to cool, to lose that heat. ‘Trapping’ heat can only really apply to water here.

    Through the Water Cycle great amounts of heat are taken up and away into the cooler heights by evaporation, where the water vapour cools and condenses back to liquid water and returns to the surface in precipitation.

    Water cools the Earth down 52°C to bring the temperature back to 15°C from the 67°C the Earth would be without it.

    Wiki also mentions this traditional science teaching of water’s great cooling power, on its Water Cycle page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

    “The water cycle is powered from solar energy. 86% of the global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling.[18] Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.”

    This is still taught in standard traditional science from the empirically very well understood properties and process of real gases under gravity. AGW has changed all of these.

    There is no mechanism to get AGW’s “33°C warming by ir imbibing greenhouse gases from the -18°C it would be without them”.

    It is an illusion created by deliberate misattribution and changing the properties and processes of the natural real gas atmosphere around us.

    It is disgraceful that ‘climate scientists’ are completely ignorant of basic meteorology.

  51. Paul Jackson says:

    Odd that they are just finding negative feedback now, common sense dictates they must exist because we are still here; if all were positive feedbacks we’d either have gone Venusian or Ice-ball eons ago.

  52. george e. smith says:

    So a new study says so eh. Well they just haven’t been reading my posts like they should. I’ve been saying for years, that we couldn’t appreciably change the Temperature on this planet, if we wanted to; well until we boil away all the oceans.

    And how many times do I have to say, that water vapor itself is perfectly capable of kicking off a warming incident or a cooling incident, and doesn’t need ANY prompting from some CO2 galley slave driver. Freaky weather that leads to excessive precipitation, might be expected to then let more sun energy come in, and warm things up, leading to a burst of evaporation to put things back on keel.

    Supposedly, Peter Humbug did a terraflop simulation (or X-box) in which he took every last H2O molecule out of the atmosphere, and then let real physics take over.

    He got all the earth’s atmospheric water back again in three months. Well that’s what I remember from his paper. Not sure where I read it; SCIENCE, or Physics Today, or maybe Siam, but I did read it.

  53. TRG says:

    @HGW: The problem is that the alarmist camp simply lacks the proof sufficient to justify the kinds of changes they want to make to our economy. But it’s not just that their justification lacks proof, their solutions to the supposed problem are mostly fictional; they are unable to provide for our needs now or in the foreseeable future. To sum up, none of it works. Hell, I’m all for not burning fossil fuels too, but I need a good reason to quit, and I need some economic justification. On top of that, it’s fairly obvious that the hard left and the greens simply took global warming and used it to justify their pre-existing agenda.

    If our climate were as unstable as the alarmists claim, this dreaded climate change would have happened already. The climate will change in time, but not in a time frame that we have to worry about.

  54. george e. smith says:

    “””””……1sky1 says:

    February 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    Those inclined to presume solid knowledge of the effect of stratospheric water vapor upon surface and/or lower tropospheric temperatures would be well-advised to read Ellsaesser’s tutorial review ….”””””

    Did that; too many personal opinions, and selections and conflicting data to be ignored for my taste.

    If you ignore conflicting data; you are almost certain to bet on the wrong one. Proper modeling, would include all data, conflicting or not; assuming it is real data.

  55. george e. smith says:

    “””””……Mike Maguire says:

    February 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Earth’s clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm

    “Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. ……””””””

    Well I talked with Prof Davies about this paper, when I was back there, and got a copy of it. He’s a realist. I have not ever gained a sense of the UofA Physics Dep’t party line; I think they have a range The prof opined that a lot of these scientists do know which way is up, despite what they put in Peered at papers.

  56. goldminor says:

    Mike M says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    It means that natural influences are in complete control of atmospheric and oceanic systems. The small influence that humans may have on natural controls is overwhelmed by the forcings of Nature.

  57. Janice Moore says:

    Hi, George E. Smith (how’s son doing in college? — hope all is well),

    Re: “…or maybe Siam, but I did read it.” Of course you did, dear Mr. Smith, in a book… that (you) took … from a shelf. (you were remembering, I think, the lyrics from “Faraway Places,” recorded by many artists, including Bing Crosby in 1948).

    Take care, down there,

    Janice

  58. Myrrh says:

    SNIP

    “Myrrh” Your email address is FAKE. So, per blog policy, you won’t be allowed to comment here further. Beat it.- Anthony

    MX record about yahoo.com exists.
    Connection succeeded to mta6.am0.yahoodns.net SMTP.
    220 mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ESMTP ready

    > HELO verify-email.org
    250 mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

    > MAIL FROM:
    =250 sender ok

    > RCPT TO:
    =554 delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account (asbeforebefore@yahoo.com) [0] – mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

  59. jai mitchell says:

    HGW xx/7

    Thank you for your lengthy response. I did not post the information that I posted to “win people over to my camp”. I posted it to show that the paper is simply positing a mechanism that has been predicted and modeled for some time now. I placed a link in the post showing where they were talking about this very same dynamic.

    the reason I posted this is to show that the use of this paper as some kind of “proof” that the earth will cool itself down and somehow not experience global warming is not only not true but actually misrepresenting the paper and the science behind it.

    for the record. . .

  60. davidmhoffer says:

    jmitchell;
    I posted it to show that the paper is simply positing a mechanism that has been predicted and modeled for some time now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Say WHAT? What you alluded to in your post is, in fact, incorporated into the models. If you think that what this paper is about is the same thing…. LOL. Wow, you are over your head so far you don’t know you are drowning.

  61. Janice Moore says:

    Why, thank you, M-od-erator (didn’t want to force you to have to answer the mo-der-ation bell AGAIN), for making off of of. Heh, heh, heh. Now, THAT was fun to write.
    #(:))

  62. Frank says:

    Michael M wrote “Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?

    Nope. It means that the hot spot is being masked by the reported effect. As soon as the effect goes away, the hot spot will return with a vengeance. The models say so.

  63. Greg says:

    jai mitchell says:
    February 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    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.
    ===

    Well I guess they got that bit wrong as well then:
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=750

    TLS dropped as a result of the two major eruptions during the record and has been essentially FLAT since 1995.

  64. john karajas says:

    Well, well, well…………bit more heat, bit more evaporation of water, more water in the atmosphere, some more cloud development, helps things cool down a bit…………..NOW WHY DIDN’T WE THINK OF THAT BEFORE?/sarc.

  65. William McClenney says:

    jai mitchell says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    The thing is, Jai, we had better hope and pray some well-mixed trace gas can delay the next glacial inception. Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, right when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle old, was harrowing enough. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse, a few centuries older than half a precession cycle, and still within the Holocene.

    If the AGW hypothesis is correct, then the Industrial Age may very well have occurred at exactly the most opportune time for H. sapiens, perhaps during the second thermal pulse, the recent grand solar maximum, at the end of the interglaciation. Treat the antithesis of AGW lightly at your peril:

    “In this paper we consider the problem of the timing of the next glacial inception, about which there is on-going debate.

    “We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed
    natural cycles.”

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.3625.pdf

    This is in regards to Ruddiman’s 2003 paper laying forth the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/Ruddiman-Holocene_Carbon_Cycle_Anthropocene-ClimChange03.pdf

    Chronis Tzedakis, in an exhaustive look at the MIS-1/MIS-11/MIS-19 conundrum, considers the matters thusly (http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf):

    “While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”

    “The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …

    “With the end of MIS 11 full interglacial conditions and the start of ice accumulation estimated to have occurred at 395 kyr BP (de Abreu et al., 2005; Ruddiman 2005a, 2007), the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.

    “In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.”

    Tzedakis (2010) concludes with:

    “On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.”

    However, even more interesting are these comments:

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

    Sole, Turiel and Llebot writing in http://einstein.iec.cat/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdf state:

    “In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state.

    “Nor CO2 concentration either the astronomical cycle change the way in which the warming phase takes place. The coincidence in this phase is strong among all the characterized cycles; also, we have been able to recognize the presence of a similar warming phase in the early stages of the transition from glacial to interglacial age. Our analysis of the warming phase seems to indicate a universal triggering mechanism, what has been related with the possible existence of stochastic resonance [1,13, 21]. It has also been argued that a possible cause for the repetitive sequence of D/O events could be found in the change in the thermohaline Atlantic circulation [2,8,22,25]. However, a cause for this regular arrangement of cycles, together with a justification on the abruptness of the warming phase, is still absent in the scientific literature.”

    I assume you comprehend the problems here, Jai.

    At the absolute worst is that without anthropogenic influence (including early anthropogenic influence) some say we would already be deep into the next glacial inception. Others say it that is inconclusive. Still others argue either way, we are still uncomfortably close to the N65 summer solstice insolation value that threshold-ed inception of the last glacial. And will “remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    Basically, it’s your classic Gordian Knot. Assume, for instance, the worst case for CO2. Then assume, for instance, that glacial inception should have already occurred if not for the early anthopogenic hypothesis (GHGs, land use etc.). You know from Sole, Turiel and Llebot (2007) that “The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming.” So think very carefully.

    Strip the heathen devil gas from the late Holocene atmosphere and take your glacial inception chances? Really? That is your recommendation? According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis we should already be in the next glacial were it not for AGW! You are recommending removing the only (so far) hypothesized glacial inception deterrent?

    Why Jai? Why would you even entertain removing such a possible climate security blanket for at least the next 4,000 years? That, Jai, is the single most important question ever to be asked of a member of the genus Homo…….

    It doesn’t really matter how H2O or CO2 feedbacks work. What actually matters is how we can keep the Holocene going. Imagine where the genus Homo would now be if our technological evolution had been choked off by the LIA? Whale oil for light? We didn’t make it to electricity or fission? But we did make it to the next ~90,000 year long ice age?

    Who knows, maybe you Jai, and your ilk, can redress this grievous climate wrong…… It is, after all, a noble cause for the genus. But maybe not so much for the species. Imagine present-day hominids dealing with either a swift or long-drawn-out glacial inception……, which, if you are right, you might actually be able to precipitate. How well adapted are we, are you, for such a long speciation level freeze? H. neanderthalensis, a particularly well-adapted cold species hominid, didn’t make it to this interglacial. Will H. sapiens sapiens make it genetically intact to the next one?

    Perhaps the most fascinating thing of all hominid time to date is what if Jai et al are right? Removing anything resembling a late Holocene climate security blanket at such a potentially perilous climate time as a half-precession old interglacial might actually precipitate an extinction level event! At least for the less aware members of the species. And ~90kyr long ice ages are well known to whittle down hominid populations.

    My question for you, Jai, is which would you prefer? Present-day hominids surviving genetically intact to the next interglacial (leaving anything resembling a climate security blanket up there, at least for the next 4k years until insolation increases once again), or the climate-sharpened hominids you could possibly jump-start by removing any known or perceived atmospheric roadblock to the next glacial inception? Only if you are right do you actually get to choose……..

    Otherwise, Jai, enjoy this precious little interglacial, while it lasts………….

  66. Old England says:

    Congratulations Willis, another of your theories being proven.

    Seems to me that the ‘missing heat buried in the deep oceans’ has been transported up, up and away by water evaporation and clouds thence to radiate back out of the atmosphere.

  67. matfromdevon says:

    Not to mention the 156 watts of incoming solar IR blocked by GH gasses from reaching the surface and thus reducing Tmax.

  68. Mark says:

    “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.”

    I wonder what figures they used for man-made warming? Does this change offset an “end of the world!!!!11!” rise in temperatures, or a saner 1-1.2 degree rise?

  69. John Peter says:

    Looks to me as if they are focusing in on some of Willis Eschenbach’s thoughts on the matter with his musings on the thermostat to regulate earth’s temperature within manageable upper and lower limits.

  70. aaron says:

    Is there a historical record / index for forbush activity? I’d like to look at frequency and intensity of decades.

  71. jai mitchell says:

    Bill, (can I call you Bill?)

    thank you for your very insightful post, I enjoyed all of the papers you provided. I especially appreciate the Siroko et. al. and his analysis of LEAP in german lake sediment values. The LEAP event is especially devastating when one compares the much larger latent heat (figure 3) and meridional overturning heat transport (figures 7 and 8) rates that occurred during the late Eemian (see reference paper here:

    You are very correct. in absence of land-use changes and early rice agriculture, we would have experience a glacial event about 2,000 years ago. What would have happened would be analogous to the Younger Dryas Cooling event that involved a cessation of the AMOC and, coupled with a massive increase in dry, cold windstorms and associated glacial dust aerosol ejection which would produce a global dimming, CO2 reduction and Laurentide reformation.

    This younger dryas cooling event is recognized as the cause of the magaflora and Megafauna extinction in north America (as well as the destruction of the Clovis, a geographically distributed Neolithic culture with high tool, shelter and fire capabilities — perhaps the most resilient and virile lifeform that this planet has ever produced).

    It should be noted here that the carbon cycle that eventually drove the return to the ice age in previous cycles involved significantly larger natural CO2 sequestration mechanisms than currently exist. The northern hemisphere boreal evergreen forests stretched well into the arctic circle during the late Eemian and ocean biomass was likely 300% higher than we have today. These two CO2 removal mechanisms are currently operating signficantly below the late Eemian potential (with the Amazonian basin in the process of current collapse and a possible compensation with warming tundra, yet to be seen).

    6,500 years ago the trend of CO2 reduction stabilized at 255 ppm. If the rate of decline had continued it would be closer to 240 ppm today. Methane was dropping to 500 ppb 4,500 years ago and would be closer to 450 ppb today if Holocene anthropogenic changes did not occur. Today CO2 is at 400ppm and on its way to 650ppm, Methane is around 1800ppb and on its way to 2400ppb.

    Given these factors, your paper (Siroko et. al) indicates that a sudden increase in the atlantic gyre and a drying/cooling event in northern europe would herald the abrupt end of the interglacial (if there was not anthropogenic factors in our current climate).

    However, the amount of additional forcing that has been added to the climate due to greenhouse gasses has made paleoclimate comparisons moot. For example, the analysis of CO2 sensitivity using the shifts from glacial maximum to glacial minimum for the last 800kyr shows that the CO2 response mechanism explodes during the interglacial period. doi:10.1038/nature11574.

    since our anthropocene activities have, so far, prevented the resurgence into a new ice age, and done so using such a pitiful amount of new GHG addition (and changes in CO2 sequestration abilities), the increase of projected industrial age CO2 will necessarily lead to a runaway warming that is more closely aligned with the last time that CO2 and methane concentrations were this high, wayyyyy back to MIS-31 (in the absence of massive global geoengineering effort)

    The paleoenvironmental modification recorded at Site 1090 during MIS 31 iswell consistent with evidence of an extreme warming event from Antarctic nearshore deposits during MIS 31 (Scherer et al., 2003, 2008), which may have promoted a possible collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, with the recognition of a warming event occurring at about 1 Ma in the East
    Antarctica (Teitler et al., 2007; Villa et al., 2008) and of a southward displacement of the Polar Front at ODP Site 704 (Froelich et al., 1991) and 1094 (Flores and Sierro, 2007). These evidence suggest that this distinct warm event is likely the result of a modification in the
    poleward heat transport and/or polar amplification of an orbital induced climate event, which may have affected both the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet and the global thermohaline circulation.

    In the end, when looking at the potential for increased climate sensitivity above the current (conservative) estimates provided by the IPCC (+4C per doubling CO2 instead of 2.5C) and their (culpable) unwillingness to explore the very real carbon cycle feedbacks that are currently unfolding, the potential for a resurgence into a new glacial event, as though the industrial age will have no effect on the climate, is, in my view, extremely “magical thinking”.

    . . .Unless you have some better information about long-term geoengineering potential activities and how they may be used to prevent a runaway climate event similar to the P-Tr “great dying”.

    James Hansen produced the best comprehensive analysis of this information to date: review it here

    please pay specific attention to figure 2 that compares total forcing and temperature changes today and how it compares with the same values during the previous 800kyr.

  72. Gunga Din says:

    The hamster dance.
    If Alvin and the Chipmunks ever entered The Twilight Zone…… 8-)

  73. 1sky1 says:

    george e. smith:

    If you read Ellsaesser’s entire article, not just the abstract, the inescapable impression arises that NO ONE really knows. That was the point of my comment! To the extent that near-tropopausal temperatures are incoherent with their near-surface counterparts and the stratosphere is highly transparent to OLR, I suspect that the present authors’ speculations upon such linkage are largely unfounded.

  74. Adam says:

    Who cares what the war criminals say? B. D. S.

  75. I found it an interesting paper and actually learned a bit more about the interaction of the troposphere and stratosphere as temperatures change (and had to look up a few things too).

    They focused just on the area of the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific in the tropical latitudes in winter (January February and March). In one set of model runs they used the observed SST, greenhouse gases, solar output, sea ice and volcanic emissions from 1960 to 2004 to calculate the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere temperatures. The model results correlated very well with historical observed RSS temperatures.

    What they found was that the lower stratosphere temperature cooled over areas of the Indian Ocean 60W and the Western Pacific warm pool 160W where the SSTs had risen and the opposite happened over areas where the SSTs were below the mean. By modeling atmospheric circulation to determine water vapor and ozone levels they concluded that “the lower stratospheric temperature response to rising SSTs is opposed, but only partially, by changes in water vapor”

    Their conclusion was that sea surface temperature changes drive the temperature changes in the upper atmosphere in different regions and suggest that “It is therefore of paramount importance that attention be paid to the precise pattern of SST warming in chemistry-ocean-atmosphere simulations.”

  76. goldminor says:

    William McClenney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 11:59 pm

    jai mitchell says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    ————————————–
    @ William McClenney…very nice!!!

  77. R. de Haan says:

    Just dump this shit.

  78. Gail Combs says:

    I will second what goldminor says:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    William McClenney…very nice!!!

    To jai mitchell,

    The problem is climate scientists have Green House Gases on the brain and everything looks like a nail because they have that hammer however there is a heck of a lot more going on in climate then just green house gases.

    We know the effect of CO2 does not continue in a straight line. link

    The problem is the calculated effect of moving from 300 ppm of CO2 to 390 ppm is only 1.4 W/m2 or 1.1 °C increase in temperature and more CO2 will have even less of an effect. CAGW was based on water vapor amplifying the effect but reality does not bare that out. Everyone uses numbers for solar insolation like 428 Wm2 but the actual energy is between 1360.5 Wm2 and 1362 Wm2. That is what hits the earth’s atmosphere and interacts with it.

    The variable sun was supposed to be constant but more and more data is coming in showing that while TSI may not vary much, the energy at different wavelengths does and the actual effects are not well know. For example albedo was decreasing and then started increasing around 1997-98 link 1997/1998 was the big El Nino and also the start of solar cycle 23, not a particularly strong cycle link and also Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics Two solar cycles of nonincreasing magnetic flux 23 OCT 2002

    Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected….

    …ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall. [end of cycle 23]

    The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere… NASA

    Meanwhile the climate has switched gears and we are getting more meridional circulation. This brings up the lazy sun==> Δ UV ==> Δ ozone or Δ solar wind ==> BREWER-DOBSON CIRCULATION

    In times of low solar activity the upper atmosphere cools ( NASA mentioned the ‘collapse’) and the down welling of cold interacts with the up welling of warm. This interaction enlarges to the point the rotation of the polar vortex to the point it becomes unstable and we get a Polar Express like the USA has been experiencing. MUCH better explanations: Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region – 20 Years later
    Also:

    …In a winter cyclone the primary driver of the dynamics is the baroclinic instability in the winter circulation, with the storm extracting vorticity from the latitudinal shear in the circulation, and converting it to the vorticity of the cyclone. The effective diabatic heating associated with precipitation and reduced cooling of entrained air amounts to an increase in potential vorticity and uplift in the air mass, and is likely to concentrate the vorticity near the cyclone center. In addition, by enhancing the feedback processes inherent in the baroclinic instability, it can increase the overall vorticity of the cyclone. It has been demonstrated analytically by van Delden [1989] and from numerical storm simulations by Zimmerman et al. [1989] and Mallet et al. (1999) that a positive feedback exists between the storm dynamical configuration and the diabatic processes. Thus precipitation changes explain the many reported examples of correlations of the vorticity area index (VAI) with GCR flux change and Jz reviewed by Tinsley [2000]….
    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    Then move down to the Antarctic. If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage, headed up the coast of South America to Galapagos.
    fhhaynie, a retired EPA scientist says

    If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humbolt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change.

    So what happens in Drake Passage if the sea ice continues to expand in the Antarctic? Feb SH Sea Ice Graph The westerlies, the prevailing winds between 30°S and 60°S, in the Southern Hemisphere have been observed to have intensified significantly over the past decades. (from 2008) Will more ice cause more water to be headed up the coast of South America as the current is driven into the restriction of Drake Passage?

    Research on Drakes Passage today: http://climate.gmu.edu/research/drake.php

    …The experiments address a fundamental question of how the circulation of the ocean works. Since the global overturning circulation is apparently sensitive to wind even in regions where the ocean has eastern and western boundaries, it may be influenced by wind outside the Drake Passage latitudes. However, our results indicate that the unique geometry of the Drake Passage latitudes does make the global circulation – and perhaps the climate of the North Atlantic – especially sensitive to wind there.

    (Cold Antarctic water runs up the coast of Africa too.)

    “The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Horwitz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong. Since the
    solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE).”
    http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:210978/FULLTEXT01

    Climate Scientists have been so focused on CO2 (and their grant money) that very little has been done to research the oceans and the sun. The next coming decades with a lazy sun will hopefully wake scientists up and a lot of good research will get done. And I hope like heck William McClenney doesn’t get proved right during that time!

  79. jai mitchell says:

    Gail Combs,

    you said, “CAGW was based on water vapor amplifying the effect but reality does not bare that out.”

    You will simply need a whole lot more proof than you have offered to show that this graph is actually incorrect, I mean, you know that we can actually measure the wavelength of the longwave light that is leaving the planet to a very fine degree right?

    The fact is that atmospheric water vapor is increasing. This is a positive feedback.

    your assertion that water vapor will not act as a greenhouse gas is unscientific and seems like magical thinking.

    Don’t believe me?
    compare this satellite measurement of radiation spectrum leaving the earth’s atmosphere

    to dr. roy spencer’s same image

    see the part where the water vapor is absorbing the radiation? see how much more it is than CO2?

    this shows that water vapor has a higher GHG potential than CO2 BY DIRECT MEASUREMENT.

  80. Brian H says:

    They’re not altering the positive feedback mechanism, but rather the way the global system reacts, redirecting the moisture to the Indian Ocean monsoon, etc., at low levels, opening the TTL “window” to OLR.

  81. jai mitchell says:

    Brian,

    the difference in relative humidity in the stratosphere is minor compared to the change in relative humidity in the troposphere. Also this is a response to the warming of the region, it doesn’t follow that it then cools back down. Only that the stratosphere gets cooler. We observe this already.

  82. John Francis says:

    OK, I have had enough. I don’t care who you are, what qualifications you have, what research you have done, what theories you have developed, or even if you can-unlike many-actually manipulate an Excel spreadsheet, it is clear to this engineer that no-one understands or can model the weather or climate. To suggest that you KNOW for sure that CO2 is more effective in changing the climate than ocean currents, jetstreams, solar effects, ocean oscillations, albedo, clouds, land-use, the water cycle, and many, many more, tells me that you are an advocate and a shill, not a scientist. For Pete’s sake, shut up!

    Sorry, got carried away there, but you all know how I feel!

  83. jai mitchell says:

    [snip - tobacco has no place here, nor does theological discussions - mod]

Comments are closed.