Here’s an interesting paper that breaks with consensus. The only problem is that it is being ignored for the most part by the mainstream climate community, even going so far as to having a debate over the paper’s source of data (NCEP reanalysis of radiosonde data) and declaring the data to be too “iffy”. You can read all about that debate at Climate Audit called “
A peek behind the curtain“. It is a firsthand account of the attempt at publishing from one of the authors, Garth Paltridge. Here is how he characterized the debate at a conference:
Those ‘against’ (among them a number of people from GISS) simply said that the radiosonde data were too ‘iffy’ to report the trends publicly in a political climate where there are horrible people who might make sinful use of them. Those ‘for’ simply said that scientific reportage shouldn’t be constrained by the politically correct.
Since most of the objections seemed to be coming from GISS, who has a surface data set that one could also describe as “iffy”, I find their argument rather humorous.
What is really interesting though is this graph presented in comments at CA by Ken Gregory:
Ken writes:
“The relevant discussion of the water vapour effect from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Chapter 8 page 632):
The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1). Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere.
This means that changes in specific humidity in the upper troposphere (300 – 700 mb) may be very significant even though the amount of water vapour there is low due to the cold temperatures.
If relative humidity remains constant, CO2 induced warming would cause increasing specific humidity and a strong positive feedback. But if relative humidity is actually falling (due to water vapour being displaced by CO2 as per Miskolczi) then water vapour may cause a negative feedback. The specific humidity has declined dramatically in 2008 at ALL levels in the troposphere.
I do not know the accuracy of the NCEP reanalysis data on upper tropospheric humidity, but the direct measurement of humidity by weather balloons seems preferable to the very indirect determination from satellite data.”
I agree. Here is more on the paper and it’s conclusions. – Anthony
New Paper Suggests Long-Term Water Vapour Feedback is Negative
(1) Environmental Biology Group, RSBS, Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
(2) Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
(3) Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, TAS, Australia
The Abstract states:
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.
The paper concludes:
It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data.
In the meantime, it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant satellite measurements. There are still many problems associated with satellite retrieval of the humidity information pertaining to a particular level of the atmosphere—particularly in the upper troposphere. Basically, this is because an individual radiometric measurement is a complicated function not only of temperature and humidity (and perhaps of cloud cover because “cloud clearing” algorithms are not perfect), but is also a function of the vertical distribution of those variables over considerable depths of atmosphere. It is difficult to assign a trend in such measurements to an individual cause.
Since balloon data is the only alternative source of information on the past behavior of the middle and upper tropospheric humidity and since that behavior is the dominant control on water vapor feedback, it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.
Like this:
Like Loading...
I think I am missing something from Ken;’s comment.
“the specific humidity has declined dramatically in 2008 at ALL levels in the troposphere”
The graph in the post only goes through 2006, how dramatic is the decline in 2008? And do we have a better measurement of atmospheric humidity in the last few years that might give us some new insights into a dramatic decline? Can the recent data be linked somehow with a dramatic decline in solar activity and provide a causal explanation for reduced midwest stream flows after solar minimums?
A new paper by Falvey and Garreaud, from the University of Chile, looking at surface and radiosonde temperature data along the Chilean coast has been published in JGR. The conclusions may be of interest here. The abstract is given below. The results show marked cooling along the coast over the period 1979-2006.
Regional cooling in a warming world: Recent temperature trends in
the southeast Pacific and along the west coast of subtropical South
America (1979–2006)
Mark Falvey1 and Rene´ D. Garreaud1
Received 30 May 2008; revised 13 November 2008; accepted 9 December 2008; published 18 February 2009.
[1] While it is widely accepted that the global mean atmospheric temperature has
increased in recent decades, the spatial distribution of global warming has been complex.
In this study we comprehensively characterize the spatial pattern, including vertical
structure, of temperature trends along the subtropical west coast of South America
(continental Chile) for the period 1979–2006 and examine their consistency with
expectations based on the CMIP-3 ensemble of coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations for
the late 20th century. In central and northern Chile (17_–37_S) the most notable feature is
a strong contrast between surface cooling at coastal stations (_0.2_C/decade) and
warming in the Andes (+0.25_C/decade), only 100–200 km further inland. Coastal
radiosonde data imply that the coast-Andes variation is largely due to strong vertical
stratification of temperature trends in the atmosphere west of the Andes. The coastal
cooling appears to form part of a larger-scale, La Nin˜a-like pattern and may extend below
the ocean mixed layer to depths of at least 500 m. Over continental Chile the CMIP-3
GCM ensemble predicts temperature trends similar to those observed in the Andes. The
cooling along the Chilean coast is not reproduced by the models, but the mean SST
warming is weaker there than any other part of the world except the Southern Ocean. It is
proposed that the intensification of the South Pacific Anticyclone during recent decades,
which is also a simulated consequence of global warming, is likely to play a major role in
maintaining cooler temperatures off the coast of Chile.
Citation: Falvey, M., and R. D. Garreaud (2009), Regional cooling in a warming world: Recent temperature trends in the southeast
Pacific and along the west coast of subtropical South America (1979–2006), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D04102,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010519.
OT but it is about water:-
Cubbie given more time to pay
Cubbie Group, whose accounts show the June book value of its land, improvements and water rights was $410.2 million, breached covenants on $269 million of bank loans midway through last year. It has $380 million in liabilities.
It had until December to repay a short-term loan of $63 million and fix its situation but was unable to, leaving it at the mercy of its bankers.
Looks like they are overleveraged and may have serious problems in the near future!
This is the company that, with the connivance of the QLD gov, has managed to block the Murray-Darling catchment area and keep all the water for themselves (as long as they can pay the license)!
See the area between St George and Dirranbandi, Qld on Google maps/earth, whatever –
Here I hope
Steinar Midtskogen (10:58:58) : If we assume that temperatures at those altitudes are roughly in the -30 C – -40 C range, we need a temperature increase of at least 2 C (if my calculations are right) to see those drops in relative humidity if the amount of water stays the same. Has there been a 2 degree warming at those altitudes since 1948?
No. Download the excel sheet linked above. Air temp in C is listed in a table. Most I looked at (easiest to chart and hover over the lines) have warmed about 0.7°C.
I would also say looking at the data, that any errors in the method must be quite consistent to produce such smooth lines in each measurement. Can’t speak for bias or accuracy, but in terms of noise, there doesn’t seem to be much, which indicates either smoothing (likely over many radiosondes over many places at many times of year), or a pretty good method of joining all the data together. I would have expected a lot more noise just due to the nature of the beast.
Any method which does that makes me think the instrumentation and the method can’t be that bad or errors would be evident as noise (like the surface record). These curves are too consistent to have a whole lot of error that is not explainable or fixable if someone claims a bias or other measurement issue.
I don’t see any step changes or other weird artifacts that anyone could point to to trash the entire data set, so if there are any specific arguments against the data I’d sure like to know what they are so the impact of the errors can be evaluated.
Almost looks too perfect. Even the 1000mb data (near surface, like 100+m) looks unlike the surface record. If this data is right, then maybe the surface temp noise is nearly ALL UHI!
AKD – good thing there is the Pacific Ocean on the other side to replenish the water losses.
Doesn’t anyone else see the problem with this? The abstract seems to essentially state that warming causes cooling. Once again, it aint “global” is it.
” Ian Holton (14:54:59) :
300millibars is 30,000ft above MSL and 700mbs is 10,000ft above MSL.”
There is considerable variation with latitude and season.
“a drying of the Amazon and says this latest research confirms those models, at least for one year.”
Really preposterous. The trouble right now it is the opposite!. La Nina dries the west coast of south america, and wets the east side- except for a part of argentinian “pampa”-(in between there is a high mountain chain: The Andes), ”
We are prepared for supplying you all the food the hungry GWrs will need (specially a very fat one :))
Sorry it’s OT but a British Government Minister, Douglas Alexander, has just been in BBC TV’s Question Time commenting on out beloved leader’s recent address to Congress. Apparently, the main imperative driving the climate change debate is jobs….
MarkW @ur momisugly 13:59:00
Look at Ken’s charts and data @ur momisugly Ken Gregory 10:42:30
In the interest of full disclosure, here is an Excel spreadsheet with the NOAA data. Scoll down to row 72 to see a series of graphs of specific humidity.
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/Optical%20Depth%20Data.xls
NOAA’s very own data show specific humidity is decreasing, although all the climate models predict (or assume) that this should be increasing under Mann Made Global Warming. Is it time to use the F***d” word?
Bob S,
Here is a satellite anomaly map… note Chile:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/30yrbig.jpg
George E. Smith (11:56:06) : According to Wentz (RSS, Santa Rosa CA), a 1 deg C increase in mean global surface temperature results in a 7% increase in global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and total Global precipitation.
Reminds me of a counter current stripper. Shower cold water droplets through the air column to strip out the cold water soluble CO2.
Are there any papers / data / whatever about CO2 stripping via rainfall? If more CO2 just cranks up the rain stripper, it’s self limiting.
Ken Gregory,
Thanks for providing the entire spreadsheet so conveniently.
chriscolose (13:19:34) :
From your link:
“So, if RH were actually declining, it could simply be that the water vapor feedback is positive but less powerful than the mainstream science suggests.”
It is an interesting choice of words “mainstream science…” since by all appearances, discussion and understanding of climate feedbacks of all manner, especially water vapor is at its infancy. Your argument strikes me as the equivalent of statements like, “because of global warming, it is less cold.”
It seems somewhat straight forward – if RH declines so must the GH effect.
Mark Nodine (12:54:10) :
Can someone educate us on radiosonde data, i.e. what they are and why the data are so tangled?
Don’t know about the recent equipment but here is an interesting history of radiosondes: http://tinyurl.com/b67a9n
Leif Svalgaard (09:02:44) :
It has warmed, so even with the same amount of water vapor, RH will go down. The change [a couple of per cent] looks reasonable for ~1 degree warming.
Leif, my Q is…
If the models need RH to stay constant so that AH goes up with the warming induced by CO2/H2O, then we can only assume that CO2 has not caused the warming, and that there is another cause ?
If RH has in fact gone down proportionally to rising temperature, then this means that the entire CO2 AGW model is completely wrong. No wonder GISS is looking for a faulty sensor explanation. Otherwise, it’s game over !
Roger (11:41:52) :
Perhaps the models should also factor in some relative humility
I would rather see absolute humility, rather than relative humility.
George E. Smith (14:20:59) :
So I’ll bite !
Just what the blazes is 300-700 mb ? Would that be millibarns, or is that some other unit; and unit of what ? and how does it relate to relative humidity ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
George, “bar” is a unit of pressure measurement, roughly equivalent to one atmosphere or 14.7 psia (pounds per square inch absolute). A millibar (mb) is one one-thousandth of a bar. It is merely a way to measure small changes in pressure without resorting to lots of decimals.
Thus, 500 millibar is roughly 7.35 psia.
Hope this helps.
In the meantime, it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models
Did he really say that? I guess you really have to do some serious sucking up to get a paper published these days…
http://www.sensorsone.co.uk/altitude-pressure-units-conversion.html
Gives a conversion chart of altitude vs pressure in mb (millibars).
This states that 700 mb is roughly 10,000 feet above sea level, and 300 mb is roughly 25,000 feet above sea level.
crosspatch (12:35:07) :
By the way, NCDC has the February numbers for North America. This February was a bit warmer than last February.
That’s amazingly counter-intuitive. massive snowfalls, record local cold – and yet warmer – what are they actually measuring?
oops, make that 300 mb is roughly 30,000 feet above sea level. I ought to be able to read a table better than that, after all these years!
[grin]
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
this bicarbonate then falls in the rain stripping both CO2 and H2O?
Oh God save me from another carbonate chemistry thread… but … is anyone looking at the chemistry of cloud formation and what it might mean for both H2O and CO2 residence?
(and I just know it will end up dragging in whatever that stuff was the plankton put into the air that increases rainfall … and NH4 and … )
Anthony,
We shall see whether the Paltrige et.al paper survives not only the scientific but more importantly the very political meat grinder because the implications of its [careful] conclusions are clearly far reaching.
You might want to take a look a Willie Soon’s [ at Harvard Smithsonian] latest paper published in Physical Geography which shows a high correlation between solar activity and changes/fluctuations in surface temperatures in the Arctic, also showing that no such correlations exist for CO2.
Regards and keep up the good work.
Jeff Alberts (15:42:42) :
Regional cooling in a warming world:
Doesn’t anyone else see the problem with this? The abstract seems to essentially state that warming causes cooling. Once again, it aint “global” is it.
Fits a framework of explanation based on cyclic ocean currents – warm in one area – cool in another… But not a framework based on well mixed CO2 driving global temperature rises everywhere.
“”” novoburgo (15:42:45) :
” Ian Holton (14:54:59) :
300millibars is 30,000ft above MSL and 700mbs is 10,000ft above MSL.”
There is considerable variation with latitude and season. “””
Wunnerful ! simply wunnerful. Measure something else and then assume a relationship (quite arbitrary) between that and what you wanted to know. Seems like typical climate science though.
Those Japanese Ancient Astrologers are looking better all the time.