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...
You are not the only one.
Unfortunately, there may be too few with any scientific or political clout [of which I am neither] to make any significant difference. I sincerely hope I am wrong in this dim view.
At least!
Constant specific humidity and falling RH also implies that the oceans are not warming.
E.M.Smith (12:15:02) :
If I’m following this right, you are saying that as the temperature goes up, the RH goes down, and the GHG potential goes down with it, all else held static.
Isn’t that, on the face of it, negative feedback? THE dominant GHG drops in activity as temperatures rise? It can’t be that simple…
No, the GHG potential goes up with it. Higher temperature means that the air can hold more water vapor. Because of that the relative humidity must drop if all else is held static. Any direct feedback will be positive.
Also, lower relative humidity could mean fewer clouds, lower albedo and increased warming.
Then , which way around is it? Did a temperature rise cause lower relative humidity or did lower relative humidity cause a temperature rise?
So we finally have a theory which links man-made CO2 to global cooling…just when they needed it.
The Carbon Controlistas have now got it both ways. Damned if you do and Damned if you don’t.
[snip – thank you but, let this argument die. – Anthony]
Carl Wolk (11:08:37) :
If the NCEP data is correct, then it is interesting that RH continued to fall even while the globe wasn’t warming during the ’50s, ’60s, and part of the ’70s; this suggests that changing H20 concentration is not dependent on temperature, but perhaps on CO2 concentration, as suggested by Miskolszi.
Co2 causes drout! The sky is falling, but no rain!
I predict that as temperatures continue to decline, the IPCC will ‘discover’ that co2 causes cooling and low rainfall. We will continue to be taxed for ‘climate change’ whatever happens. If we allow it.
Robert Bateman (20:52:53) :
‘All this for the dumbest idea ever invented: regulating CO2.’
Regulating CO2 has never been about science, It’s about a NEW TAX REVENUE stream for goverments. The consumer (you and I) will pay a CO2 tax that will rival income rate.
Steinar Midtskogen (22:05:46) :
Please note – not only did RH decrease, so did AH except very close to the surface…
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/Ken/Optical%20Depth%20Data.xls
NOAA’s very own data cast the lie to GlobalWarming.
The problem with radiosonde data is that the sonde and sensor designs changed over the years. You would hope though that some careful comparisons were done between old and new designs.
Looking at the graphs for RH does anyone want to surmise that there was a change in sonde design around 1965? Does anyone here know if that was so?
The following is excerpted from an article written in November 2002 by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me.
How did we know all this way back then, and have the confidence to write it, sign it with our real names, and publish it?
Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their predictions of future climate changes are highly suspect. These models incorrectly assume that increased CO2 concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, and also assume large positive feedbacks arising from increased CO2 concentration, for which there is no scientific evidence. Without these speculated positive feedbacks, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical warming of only approximately 1º C.
Full paper at http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Graeme Rodaughan (16:14:40) :
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?
The central plains states were all warmer this February. In fact, Wichita, KS was 89 F yesterday (3/5/09). IMHO, it’s partly because it’s so dry. Less than an inch of moisture since November. Dry soil=less retained “cold”+less evaporative cooling. Soil temps are about 4 F above average. In places the bermuda is starting to grow, which is early.
“”” Allan M R MacRae (05:42:25) :
The following is excerpted from an article written in November 2002 by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me.
How did we know all this way back then, and have the confidence to write it, sign it with our real names, and publish it?
Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng. “””
Wow Allan; you guys are among the true archeo-climatology elites; to write such radical stuff in 2002, almost as far back as 1997, which seems to be when the climatology “big Bang” occurred with the first launch of polar satellites. To be in at the very beginnings of a new science must be a great thrill.
We’re glad you had the guts to write your ideas way back then, and put your names to it. Some folks like to hide behind CB handles; like names of burrowing rodents, prairie dogs, marmots or wombats and such.
Years later, their handles are lost on the scrap heap of history. You picked some pretty heavy duty company there with Dr Baliunas.
Thanks for bringing your paper to our attention today.
George
Mike Borgelt (05:00:30) : “The problem with radiosonde data is that the sonde and sensor designs changed over the years. You would hope though that some careful comparisons were done between old and new designs. Looking at the graphs for RH does anyone want to surmise that there was a change in sonde design around 1965? Does anyone here know if that was so?”
Hair hygrometers were replaced much earlier than that — maybe the late ’50s. I say that in regard to U.S. equipment and have absolutely no idea what happened in the rest of world as to equipment adoption.
It needs to be said over, and over, and over again that these instruments were absolutely NOT laboratory quality instruments. They were measuring the atmosphere to support weather forecasts, and they were perfectly adequate for that. They were NOT launched for climatological studies, nor are they operated in a pristine laboratory environment.
Also most radiosonde operators would have admitted that the altitude and temperatures reported were far, far more accurate than humidity measurements. Actually, RH played a very small part in calculating heights of pressure levels. But second guessing what an RH value should have been years ago is surely less accurate still!
Finally, it needs to be said that not many critics seem familiar enough with WMO level selection criteria over the years to opine about what was done, or what should have been done, or even how external forces play on these devices. What happens when they ascend thru thunderstorms, hail, or maybe a jet stream? How far away, and in what direction from the launch point was the tropopause measured? How much difference would you expect in RH values when the instrument rises through the middle of a nice juicy cloud instead of skirting it. What about getting caught in a down draft? How about the rules for reporting super-adiabatic lapse rates? How accurately can operators estimate Mean Virtual Temperatures for a layer? How much difference does it make? How accurate is the instrument calibration before launch?
RAOB runs involve considerably more operator expertise and involvement than recording two temperatures once a day on a USHCN site, but data from USCHN is a primary source of data for AGW calculations. I’d bet the farm that RAOBs furnish far more accurate data than any USHCN site.
“”” Roger Sowell (16:09:26) :
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 “””
Well thanks for that Roger; I didn’t know; but then IANAL, and I just reread the evidence above and nowhere on that garph did I see the word “bar”. I’d swear in court, on a stack of bibles that it said “mb”, and not “bar”.
And in the normal Science lingo (m) is the standard prefix for “milli” meaning 1/1000th, or 10^-3. and (b) in my Handbook of Physics, in the section on Kinetic theory of gases, lists the unit (b) for “barn” as 1b = 10^-28 m^2. It is also used for nuclear reaction crossections, in the sense that if an incoming particle strikes a “target” area equal to the “crossection” for the specific reaction, centered on the target species, that reaction is likely to occur; probably with some associated statistics.
It literally comes from the simple concept of hitting the side of a “barn”.
So when I see mb, that means millibarn or 10^-31 m^2.
Now my handbook says use “bar”, short for “barometer” to mean barometric pressure; and evidently from subsequent readers, they actually meant “altitude” measured in “feet”; a totally bizarre misconstrusion if there ever was one.
The only other use of the lower case letter (b), that I could discover was in units of m^3/mol, as the constant of internal volume in Van der Waals equation:- (p+(n/V)^2 a)(V-nb) = nRT
But I couldn’t find any peer reviewable support for using (b) to measure altitude in feet.
But thanks for clearing up that “bar” thing for me; even if it wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the story.
George
HASITBEEN4YEARSYET: “2/3 Earth surface area is about 131,293,600 miles^2
= 340,048,861 km^2
= 340,048,861,000,000 m^2”
umm a km is 1,000m not 1,000,000…..
Just an FYI.
@jon H (11:06:04)
FYI
So, these guys need to correct their site?
http://www.theconvertersite.com/conversions/area/square-meters-to-square-kilometers.php
1E06 sq m(eters) = 1 sq km
You can also check the miles to square km here…
http://www.theconvertersite.com/conversions/area.php
I don’t see that I’ve made any errors.
Anything else?
OT, but especially for a meteorologist most relevant.
Anthony says: “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.”
Cold water, yes. Hot air, yes. Warm or cold food, yes. Any physical entity can be said to be cold or warm, but temperature is not one of them. One can cool down or heat up water or air or food but you cannot heat up a temperature. Semantically, the expression “cold temperatures” is unintelligible.
Much of the feedback is emotional, as it is in the comments following this Wall Street Journal article on Al Gore being challenged: click
Bjorn Lomborg politely challenged Al Gore to debate one point. As always, Gore runs and hides out from any debate. But what’s really interesting is the preponderance of readers’ comments, which view the AGW hypothesis with great skepticism.
The fact that the general public is skeptical of the AGW/CO2 claim verifies the charge by Prof. Richard Lindzen that climate journals, and other scientific societies joining in the climate debate, and the climate peer-review process itself have conspired to game the system, publishing that which supports their point of view and blocking contrary points of view through various maneuvers.
If that is not the case, would someone please explain why none of the organizations in question are willing to do a blind polling of their membership on the AGW question? It’s as if the leadership AMS [for example] deems itself to be the arbiters of science — and the membership is tolerated only because they pay the dues.
Jon H (11:06:04) :
HASITBEEN4YEARSYET: “2/3 Earth surface area is about 131,293,600 miles^2
= 340,048,861 km^2
= 340,048,861,000,000 m^2″
umm a km is 1,000m not 1,000,000…..
Just an FYI.
He did’t say that. 1 km² = 1,000² m² = 1,000,000 m².
@Steinar Midtskogen (12:56:43)
Thanks. I posted twice on that already, and neither has been allowed out of the spam filter yet.
Smokey
The various professional societies will only poll their members when they are sure they can control the results. They will certainly not allow polling questions to be non biased or to allow anyone to easily disagree with the hype. Federal funding is too important to the financial health of both the members and the organizations for them to risk being on the black list.
As a result AAPT has our winter meeting polluted by Al Gore’s baloney and people on line use pseudonyms.
Negative feedback can be proven by comparing temp and Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)
The observations clearly show that when temp increases, so does the energy lost to space. That is negative feedback right there!
water vapor positive feedback does exist though, but only when a source of evaporation is present, ie only at the surface. If there is no water present then you cant increase the concentration via evaporation can you!
Water vapor positive feedback generally goes by another name though 🙂
The positive feedback loop leads to an explosion, also called convection, a well know cooling process!
All explosions are forms of negative feedback for those who don’t know!
They remove energy from the system undergoing positive feedback when the energy in the system exceeds the structural bonds holding the system together, resulting in kinetic dissipation of energy!
cheers
Rod Smith (10:30:14) Also most radiosonde operators would have admitted that the altitude and temperatures reported were far, far more accurate than humidity measurements. Actually, RH played a very small part in calculating heights of pressure levels. But second guessing what an RH value should have been years ago is surely less accurate still!
Agreed. I’ve looked at enough results of these to have seen quite a few sensors iced up after rising through cloud etc.
However note that even the temperature results are being questioned by those who don’t like the results (no tropical troposphere hot spot). The RH sensor history I don’t know about, the sixties were before my time with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, however the averaged results in the graph seem to be free of steps except for the slope change around 1965.
The RAOBs were to support short term weather forecasting as was the surface station network. That we need to go to extreme statistical techniques to extract dubious results from sensors never designed for this tells me not much of great significance is going on. Except for the world going insane that is.
George E. Smith: I’m actually surprised that the pressure levels are still quoted in millibars in the paper. Weather forecasts in Australia use hectoPascals even in TV weather reports.
The relationship between pressure and temperature in the atmosphere depends on the mean temperature in the layer in question. The quoted relationships are only approximate. Aircraft “altimeters” don’t measure altitude(except radar altimeters) they measure pressure and assume an ISA standard atmosphere for calibration. This has serious consequences for clearance from the ground which is allowed for in calculations of lowest safe altitude in a given area.
“Airspeed Indicators” don’t measure speed either.
It is sad that so little money is granted to getting proper climate data, and so much on futile modelling studies based on poor data sources.