Support for the saturated greenhouse effect leaves the likelihood of AGW tipping points in the cold

From The Hockey Shtick, word of a new paper that supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect. We’ve seen this before, in the form of this graph.

In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic net downward IR forcing effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:

The flatter portion of the graph gradually smooths out, as the effect of CO2 forcing becomes saturated with increased concentration. And this graphic of his shows carbon dioxide’s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:

What’s more, in this new paper there appears to be some evidence for a negative climate feedback, in the form of slightly lowered relative humidity trend, which makes climate sensitivity lower. Relative humidity (RH) is the ratio of the actual amount of water vapor in the air to the amount it could hold when saturated expressed as a percentage OR the ratio of the actual vapor pressure to the saturation vapor pressure expressed as a percentage. The amount of water vapor the air can hold increases with temperature. Relative humidity therefore decreases with increasing temperature if the actual amount of water vapor stays the same. While the study found a slight increase in specific humidity (the mass of water vapor per unit mass of air), relative humidity (near the surface, 2 meter measurement) decreased by 0.5% per decade, resulting in an overall slightly drier atmosphere.

If a positive water vapor feedback response existed in the climate system, you’d expect both the specific and relative humidity to increase with time. It didn’t. This ends up putting the kibosh on the idea of tipping points, and a lack of positive water vapor feedback pretty much takes all the scare out of CO2 induced climate change.

Of note is the issue with station inhomogeneity which apparently had been masking the signal in earlier studies. This study looked at stations individually to determining where such inhomogeneity existed. Here’s an example in figure 3 of their paper:

From THS:

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010.

Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases. The Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ instead predicts relative humidity will decrease to offset an increase in specific humidity, as has just been demonstrated by observations in this paper. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature.

Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010

V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden*

Physics Dept., Petrie Bldg., York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON Canada, M3J 1P3; e-mail: wlaser@yorku.ca

Abstract

Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied. The water vapor pressure was determined and seasonal averages were computed. Data were first examined for inhomogeneities using a statistical test to determine whether the data was fit better to a straight line or a straight line plus an abrupt step which may arise from changes in instruments and/or procedure. Trends were then found for data not having discontinuities. Statistically significant warming trends affecting the Midwestern U.S., Canadian prairies and the western Arctic are evident in winter and to a lesser extent in spring while statistically significant increases in water vapor pressure occur primarily in summer for some stations in the eastern half of the U.S. The temperature (water vapor pressure) trends averaged over all stations were 0.30 (0.07), 0.24 (0.06), 0.13 (0.11), 0.11 (0.07) C/decade (hPa/decade) in the winter, spring, summer and autumn seasons, respectively. The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade.

The full paper from the Journal of Climate can be viewed at this link.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Game, set, match.
And in time for IPCC 5.
Oh Dear.

Adam Gallon

Looking at that chart of relative humidity, there appears to be a step change circa 1970. A precursor to the Great Pacific Climate Shift?

Scotish Sceptic

This reduction in water vapour fits in with that paper which showed a link between vegetative cover and local warming (which they then went on to say “couldn’t” cause global warming … which is nonsense)
Vegetation grows by evaporation. It sucks up ground water that would otherwise flow into rivers and pushes it into the air. Take away the vegetation, leave a field ploughed for a few months, cut downt the trees for lower vegetation, and the amount of vaporation decreases leading to rising temperature.
That is why “Urban heating” starts at population densities as small as a few 10’s of people per square kilometer. It’s not the people, so much as what the do to the vegetation.

The two pillars on which the rotten edifice of Global Warmery totters are (a) Sensitivity and (b) Feedback. The above work hacks away at pillar b.
If the climate’s sensitivity to rising CO2 is dwarfed by other influences (IPCC AR4 says CO2’s the biggie) then that pillar is demolished. If temperature changes have a self-correcting tendency (negative feedback) rather than self-escalating (positive), then the other pillar goes.
In short, the scare story evaporates if CO2 is no big deal and if warm things tend to cool.

Mydogsgotnonose

The assumption that IR absorbed by GHGs is thermalised locally is wrong. Not only is the energy quantised so it can only be transferred to another GHG molecule, not symmetrical O2 and N2, it is also almost immediately re-emitted in a random direction by another excited molecule which restores Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium and Equipartition of Energy.
The real GHG warming is at second phases, cloud droplets, black carbon etc. The former gives increased convection so accelerates precipitation thus reducing relative humidity, the physical origin of Miskolczi’s observation]
[I’ve solved the cloud physics and the other three major mistakes in climate science are elementary, so should not have been made by professionals! Basically, the game is over and we’#ll have to find employment for all those failures in climate science department.]

definitely a post to bookmark and roll out as evidence that AGW theory does not stand up to scrutiny

Frans Franken

Perfect to see Miskolczi confirmed again by measurements. Now let some “climate-neutral” government spend a couple of million on evaluation of this theory and potentially save trillions on this climate change derangement. And be very grateful to Miskolczi rather than firing him from NASA.

I think tipping point is nothing to do with CO2.
The key is the North Atlantic ocean’s circulation on which these 3 forecasts are based:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm
Changes are first felt in the Europe where climate is controlled by the Gulf stream, while American continent isn’t , except the area under influence of the Florida current.
.

KNR

Here is a example of the excuses this paper will be meet with.
Ones, this work does not count, as it does not cover ever square inch of the world .
Two, the people behind it once bought fuel, so their clearly in the pay of big oil
Three, these people are not ‘climate scientists’ and certainly not experts as none of these would ever make these claims.
Four, ‘the Team’ reject this so it must be worthless, and no need to actual read it.
Five, its in conflict with the ‘models’ and they are never wrong so this must be.

Claude

Will read the paper later today, but have to admit there’s something I don’t see, and that’s the disappearance of water vapor feedback.
While it’s true that relative humidity is going down by 0.5% per decade, specific humidity is still going up. So, it seems like there will still be water vapor feedback, just not as much as if SPECIFIC humidity were going down.

Scottish Sceptic

Unofficial End to Global Warming Scam
For years I’ve been dipping into google search for “Global warming”. OK, they are hugely biased, and vastly exaggerate the pro-warming sites, which is why the best feel for what is actually being created comes from short time slots like the last 24hours or latest news (last hour).
A few years ago I would have been hard pressed to find any substantial sceptic articles.
But, in the last few days (after a time not looking), I started looking again. The first time I saw an overwhelming majority of sceptical articles, I assumed it was a fluke. The next time … I assumed it was an extended fluke. I considered whether there was some common theme which meant that there was a rush of sceptical works … but whilst the European winter features, it is hardly the dominant theme. Sceptic articles not so much are in the majority, … it is more that it is all but impossible to find anything substantial that is pro warming (unless you count something on snails!!!).
This is not a fluke. The tide has turned. Global warming activists might put on a brave face, but in reality they have nothing to say, their enthusiasm is rock bottom … global warming scepticism is not only in the ascendancy, almost all new articles are now sceptical.
OK, hardly scientific, but in terms of my own personal expertise having monitored this quite intensely for many years, the present evidence shows that the scam is over.
So, why are the politicians still acting the way they are? You might ask.
There is a saying … kick a dinosaur between the legs and it will be a long time until the nerve inpulse reaches its brain at it reacts. For politicians that time-scale is around 5-10years. In other words, most of them don’t talk to ordinary people, don’t care about what ordinary people think – until its time to ask us to vote for them. So, for most of the time, they draw their inspiration and beliefs from the other deluded individuals in the same bubble devorced from everyone else.
One election … when no one likes global warming … that’s a fluke. Two elections when people don’t like parties who pursue the idiotic policy of destroying our carbon based economies … that’s a worrying lack of understanding of the electorate …. three elections … and they were always against global warming taxes!

Claude

Sorry, totally blew the second paragraph of previous comment.
While it’s true that relative humidity is going down by 0.5% per decade, specific humidity is still going up. So, it seems like there will still be water vapor feedback, not the disapperance we’d see if SPECIFIC humidity were going down.

Dodgy Geezer

@Jay Currie
“…And in time for IPCC 5. Oh Dear….”
I think you will find, if the paper gets into IPCC 5, that it is presented as
“…and it has also been shown that increased CO2 levels cause dessication of the atmosphere, which has the potential to kill every living thing on earth….”

Scottish Sceptic

Just one last comment … you might ask why I don’t have tabulated figures in a scientific way… the reason is that Google are known to be (have been?) strongly pro-warming and any kind of statistics were likely to be affected by the spin they wanted to put on the figures rather than anything meaningful. That is why e.g. when you search for “global warming”, it will appear that the web is overwhelmingly behind google’s own view on the subject.
Indeed, any attempt to show the decline in support for global warming in the google stats, was likely to result in a change in those stats. Stats can be manipulated, but what is far more difficult to manipulate is the enthusiasm of the source articles for a subject.
And in my judgement, the enthusiasm of pro-warmists is now rock bottom. A few may be going through the actions because that is their job, or their reputations have been hung in this noose. But those with a choice, have found something better.

Patagon

I am sorry, but I am not that sure about some of the points mentioned here.
I can see a negative feedback in Paltridge (2009) reanalisys study (*), but I don’t think it is that clear in this study.
A very small reduction in relative humidity is compatible with an increase in net water vapour content in the atmosphere (specific humidity), and it is this second which will affect the radiative properties.
The seasonal values are a bit confussing too. Saturation water vapor content increases exponentially with temperature, so it is normal that a smaller positive trend in summer temperature brings about a bigger trend in water vapour pressure when compared to winter.
What is interesting, and the authors repeat it several times in the paper, is that there is not statistically significant increase in water vapour trends. That means that there is no conclusive evidence of positive water vapour feedback, and that one of the fundamental tenets of the AGW hypothesis is still invisible to the human eye.
(*)Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook
Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2009, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, Pages 351-359

Interestingly, today’s Frankfurter Algemeine carries a lengthy article claiming that solar radiation variations are “irrelevant and constant, that CO2 and water vapour are the only things that matter and IPCC 2007 got everything right …
I’d love to send them an email saying “B*ll*cks” but sadly my written German wouldn’t say it effectively, and they don’t have an email address for responses to this …

John Marshall

Not more model output!
If the theory of GHG’s worked as advertised then when feeling cold one could get into a freezer to get warm. We all know that this is impossible but people still believe that a colder atmospheric CO2 molecule will radiate heat to a warmer surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that this cannot happen! Another so called greenhouse gas, water vapour, actually causes cooling. Evapouration needs heat which is extracted from the surface cooling it. If it convects then forms cloud then the released heat will exchange with the surrounding atmosphere and be radiated to cooler areas and eventually to space. This cloud formation cools the surface.
It all comes down to whether the use of the SB formula for BB radiation is the correct one to use for a planet. Earth is not a black body with a uniform surface it is the exact opposite. It also assumes that the majority of the heat is lost through radiation it is not. Cloud formation demonstrates that heat is being lost by convection. Within the atmospheric envelope heat distribution is through convection it is only at the atmosphere/space interface that radiation becomes the overriding heat loss method. Heat is also wind distributed around the surface and from day to night sides. Heat is also generated through atmospheric compression and the difference between saturated and dry adiabatic lapse rates, a la Foehne effect, which produces extra heat probably confused with a GHG warming. The Foehne effect is real GHG warming is not.

Nice article, shame that is is bogus and obsolete, because there is no greenhouse effect. It is simply impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics.
As RW Woods has shown and recently repeated.
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
For more info read Hans SChreuders excellent website
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/
and read the Sky Dragon Slayers book.
The greenhouse effect from back radiation, the biggest urban myth of our time.

William M. Connolley

> Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases
No. The GCMs make no assumption of fixed relative humidity. That is an emergent property, approximately.

Oh, and how do we know that there is not some other cause of the drop in water vapur measurements. Increased urbanisation for example over the USA or air travel (high stmosphere effects), or changes in solar activity.
Or is it a measurement artifact much like UHI for temperatures…..

John Marshal- great post, spot on! 🙂

Not a model in sight. Simply observations. How refreshing.

Mydogsgotnonose says:
February 8, 2012 at 1:09 am
“The real GHG warming is at second phases, cloud droplets, black carbon etc. The former gives increased convection so accelerates precipitation thus reducing relative humidity, the physical origin of Miskolczi’s observation]”
____________________________________________________
Indeed yes, Mydog … Just what the ‘Slayers’ and I have been saying. Increased convection goes with reduced relative humidity, and vice versa. So, as we know, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is only about two-thirds of the dry adiabatic lapse rate, primarily because of the release of latent heat in the formation of rain drops which then carry the energy back downwards, warming air and sometimes the ocean and land as well
Apart from turbulent weather, this is the only way thermal energy can go downwards in the troposphere, because it cannot do so by convection or radiation – just by those rain drops that “keep falling on my head … ”
Elementary my Dear Watson.

Bloke down the pub

Does anyone else spot a connection here between this post and the snows of Kilimanjaro?

I was a meteorological technician (professional weather observer) at the start of my career. I wonder if the paper’s authors accounted for the following facts…
Many years ago temperatures at Canadian airport stations were measured manually. The dry bulb temperature and wet bulb temperatures were measured with *MERCURY* thermometers. The dry bulb and wet bulb were then used to calculate RH and dewpoint (vapour pressure). The temperatures at Schefferville, QC often do fall below -30 C and colder during the winter. I don’t have a copy of MANOBS (the observing manual) but I vaguely remember that weather observers were supposed to take the mercury thermometers indoors once the temperature fell below -30, to protect them from freezing (mercury freezes at -38.8 C). Under those circumstances, we were to read the hourly “dry bulb temperature” from the minimum thermometer, which uses a column of alcohol. The wet bulb (and therefore the RH and dew point and vapour pressure) was missing during hours when the mercury thermometers were out of service. Therefore there would be a number of hours during the winter when RH and vapour pressure would be missing. This would be 100% biased to hours with dry bulb temperatures below -30 C.
Fast-forward to current times, and temperature+RH+dewpoint are measured by sensors at autostations. The temperature range for valid data depends on which sensor from which manufacturer is used. So in more recent data, the winter data holes would be fewer, and the temperature threshold for missing data would probably be lower.
So we’re looking at at least 2 temp/RD/vapour_pressure data sets with different characteristics during the winter. I’d hate to be the guy analyzing the data.

Antonia

I just want to tell Willis that we experienced his thunderstorm theory of cooling today. It wasn’t a particularly hot day, but the clouds were building and towering magnificently. As I took the washing off the line I was hit by a squall. Moments later the rain came.
My daughter lives maybe two kilometres from me as the crow flies. She recorded 60 milimetres of rain plus heavy hail (pea sized). From the same storm I recorded 17 milimetres with a bit of hail. And yes, Anthony, we had both emptied our rain gauges in the morning.
So I had to provide cardigans for the family, even though February is generally the hottest month of the year in the you-beaut-land-of-Oz. The storm-deposited ice really cooled things down.

Globally, RH has been dropping at 0.2%/decade
as I said before
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

I have known about logarithmic saturation of greenhouse effect since the end of 1990s, when information about it was widely publicized by Steven Milloy’s site, JunkScience.com, and other skeptic sites. At that time I didn’t even know about the existence of WUWT.
WUWT is an excellent source of information, better than JunkScience, in my opinion, and it is good to find out that scientific papers supporting this fact are being published.
But why is it necessary to emphasize Mr. Eschenbach’s copying and posting of the graph in 2006? He didn’t develop the theory, he didn’t develop the graph, he was not the first (or the second, or the hundredth) to bring attention to it. Since when it’s always “Willis this and Willis that”? Makes me feel queasy.

Folks, I think this article may be the most important yet for reasons explained below..
It is well known that the moist adiabatic lapse rate (when relative humidity is high) is only about two-thirds of the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and so the rate of convection increases when the relative humidity decreases.
The following quote from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate explains how this is the result of the release of latent heat in precipitation.
“The reason for the difference between the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rate values is that latent heat is released when water condenses, thus decreasing the rate of temperature drop as altitude increases. This heat release process is an important source of energy in the development of thunderstorms. An unsaturated parcel of air of given temperature, altitude and moisture content below that of the corresponding dewpoint cools at the dry adiabatic lapse rate as altitude increases until the dewpoint line for the given moisture content is intersected…”
But all this might appear to be just the opposite of what the article is saying has happened if one assumes that a faster adiabatic lapse rate should lead to cooling.
But does it? Does it allow thermal energy to escape more quickly because the temperature gradient is steeper? Does the release of less latent heat mean less warming of the atmosphere? It appears not.
I suggest (backed up by the data in this article) that the opposite is indeed the case, with lower relative humidity leading to warming.
This is what Anthony is saying and it is very significant. We see negative feedback, not positive feedback as the IPCC would like to see.
So, why is it so?
My hypothesis is this:
(1), As you will know from my posts and my ‘Radiation’ page, I agree with Prof Claes Johnson that there can be no transfer of thermal energy by radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. So backradiation from water vapour is a non-event.
(2) Water vapour and trace gases are the only ones doing the radiating and all radiating from the atmosphere helps to rid the Earth system of thermal energy. (None of it is absorbed by the surface, so it all goes to space.) The reduction in the quantity of water vapour has been very small, so that is far outweighed by the additional radiation due to the higher temperatures at any given level which result from lower lapse rates.
(3) So, the lower the relative humidity, the higher the lapse rate and the lower the rate of radiation, this leading to net warming of the atmosphere. If we can assume that the temperature gradient pivots around an average value (determined by SBL) somewhere in the atmosphere, then that could also lead to higher surface temperatures.
So, in conclusion, I still say there is no greenhouse effect due to either backradiation or trapping of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. Only water vapour can have an effect due to its unique phase change which releases latent heat. It’s effect is seen through a variation in the lapse rate, (due to release of latent heat) which in turn affects the rate of radiation and thus the climate.
Whatever is affecting relative humidity may well operate in natural cycles for reasons not yet fully understood. I doubt that mankind can control the process in any way.

Mods
For some reason I can’t post a reply on the Clive Best thread. It comes up as ‘error on page.’
Would you be so kind as to remove the following information in its entirety and place it in that thread? Thanks a lot;
“Clive
Most interesting article, thank you. For those that prefer real temperatures rather than anomalies, clicking on my name will take you to my site where I collect (mostly) pre 1860 temperature data sets from around the world expressed in real terms.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Anomalies do help to better compare temperature changes between the various data sets so form a worthwhile function. However they have had the side effect of becoming the basis for a meaningless (in my view) single ‘global’ temperature.
A global temperature has a number of problems, not the least of which is that it disguises regional nuances. Around one third of global stations have been cooling for some time as we observed in this linked article. Intriguingly, separating out the individual stations from the composite of stations used to create an ‘average global temperature’ yields some surprising results. It appears that warming is by no means global as there are many hundreds of locations around the world that have exhibited a cooling trend for at least 30 years-a statistically meaningful period in climate terms.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
These general figures were confirmed by the recent BEST temperature reconstruction which reckoned that 30% of all the stations they surveyed were cooling. Many of the rest (but by no means all) are in urban areas, which many of us believe do not reflect the full amount of localised warming caused by buildings/roads etc. Add in that many stations are not where they started out and have migrated to often warmer climes such as the local airport, and that many stations have become replaced by others or been deleted, and we start to see an immensely complex picture emerging where we are not comparing like with like.
There is a further complication with lack of historic context. For reasons best known to themselves GISS began their global temperatures at 1880 and as such do not differentiate themselves enough to Hadley which began thirty years earlier. I suspect this date was chosen as this was when many of the US stations started to be established, but as regards a global reach a start date around 1910 or so would bring in more global stations and have the advantage of greater consistency, as by that time the Stephenson screen was in almost universal use.
The start date of 1880 does not allow the context of the warmer period immediately preceding it, which means the subsequent decline and upward hockey stick effect is accentuated (the hockey stick commenced with instrumental readings from 1900) . I wrote about the 1880 start date here; where I link three long temperature records along the Hudson river in the USA.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/triplets-on-the-hudson-river/#comment-13064
I think the most we can say with certainty is that we have warmed a little since the depths of the Little Ice age, which would surely come as a relief to most of us, but instead seems to be the source of much angst afflicting most of the Western World, who apparently have stopped learning history and are confused by statistics and context.
I hope you will be continuing your work and develop your ideas.
Tonyb “

Corey S.

If you click to print the document at the link Anthony has to view it, you can download it as a PDF.

Louis Hooffstetter

The ‘Journal of Climate’ published this blasphemy?
Off with the editor’s head! (As well as Miskolczi’s!)
But seriously, it appears the tide has turned.

Bill Illis

This is an important paper because it used a large number of actual measurements from stations rather than a gridded dataset (which are subject to various processing biases etc.)
While specific humidity was increasing, it is about 15% of the value that the theory and the climate models are based on.
The theory is that specific humidity should increase by 7.0% per 1.0C increase in temperatures and across North America, there is an average of 18 g/kg or 18 kg/m2 of water vapour in the air. So we should expect to see specific humidity increase by about 1.5 g/kg for the 1.2C these stations increased over the last 6 decades.
It only increased at about 0.24 g/kg over the 6 decades, or 1.0% per 1.0C, mostly flat . Which is also what the other long-term dataset NCEP reanalysis shows the global water vapour changing by over the same period. Almost no positive feedback from water vapour going back 6 decades.

John Brookes

“If a positive water vapor feedback response existed in the climate system, you’d expect both the specific and relative humidity to increase with time. It didn’t. This ends up putting the kibosh on the idea of tipping points, and a lack of positive water vapor feedback pretty much takes all the scare out of CO2 induced climate change.”
Actually, I think you’d expect the relative humidity to stay constant.
That sudden and dramatic drop in relative humidity in 1970 is fascinating. I wonder if it is world wide?
Since 1970, relative humidity seems to be gradually increasing. But that would be cherry picking…
[Reply: Relative humidity has been decreasing. ~dbs, mod.]

LazyTeenager

If a positive water vapor feedback response existed in the climate system, you’d expect both the specific and relative humidity to increase with time.
——–
And why would you, or anyone else for that matter, expect relative humidity to increase with time. Even accepting that warming is happening it is not a forgone conclusion.
I have no reason to expect that as I tend to think the cause and effect relationships around this are complex.
My naive expectation is that relative humidity is about cloud formation and has no effect whatsoever on increased greenhouse effect due to water vapour.
At the same time reduced humidity means less cloud and reduced albedo leading to more surface insolation. Naively this means more heating. But clouds can warm or cool depending on altitude and type thus complicating the interpretation.

LazyTeenager

From The Hockey Shtick, word of a new paper that supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect. We’ve seen this before, in the form of this graph.
————-
The MODTRAN graph is classic green house gas theory and the saturation effect is well understood in that framework. It has nothing to do with Miskolczi’s hypothesis which is poorly supported.

LazyTeenager

Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specif
——–
I find the claim that it is assumed that relative humidity is constant very hard to credit.
My first expectation would be that relative humidity would be calculated via the physics from first principles. My second expectation would be that if it isn’t then there would be experimental/observation evidence that thus is in fact the case.
“assumption” is not plausible for a key fact like this.

LazyTeenager

Statistically significant warming trends affecting the Midwestern U.S., Canadian prairies and the western Arctic are evident in winter and to a lesser extent in spring
———–
This claim of a warming trend is curious since it is generally accepted, especially here, that across the continental USA there has been minimal warming trend.

Bobl

Someone please inform me. I always hear about a constant rise of temperature for a doubling of CO2, but isnt temperature related to the natural logarithm of the CO2 concentration? If so, should it not be a constant rise for a increase in CO2 of e, or put another way a constant temperature rise for each 2.718 times increase in CO2? 2.718 is a far cry from 2 (Ie 35 % error)
Enquiring minds want to know?

LazyTeenager

The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature.
———
If the M. Hypothesis is mediated by temperature, would another consequence be that changes in solar insolation would also not produce a change in global temperature?

Ken Harvey

What are you going to do next, Anthony, now that AWG is disposed of? Can I suggest statistical mis-analysis as a subject that is in dire need of going under the microscope?

All of this continues to be done in the (unrecognized) context of a general, and very basic, scientific incompetence, on the part of all concerned. Climate science is founded upon false theory, whose unwarranted acceptance into science has mis-educated at least one whole generation of scientists. Not only is there no greenhouse effect at all, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the radiative transfer theory, which theoretically implies the greenhouse effect, is also clearly false (very obviously, showing that there is no carbon dioxide “greenhouse” warming negates the theory that predicts such warming). The radiative theory is not only wrong to assume the Earth’s surface to be a blackbody, but wrong to assume each differential layer of the atmosphere radiates thermally as a “graybody” (as local emissivity times Planck/blackbody distribution function). These false assumptions necessarily make the calculated radiation the EFFECT of a strict, set temperature distribution (which is physically provided by the hydrostatic lapse rate structure of the atmosphere, as given in the empirical Standard Atmosphere), not the CAUSE of temperature variations. Basically, the radiative transfer theory of the atmosphere does not address the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, but, it appears to me, is just a “light extinction model” (which merely tracks the light removed from, and added to, a highly directional beam of light in traversing a nearly-transparent medium, and does not provide any real insight into the thermodynamic effect of the light, and indeed naively fails to distinguish between a directed beam and omnidirectional thermal radiation). So the naive use of that theory (as shown in the “modtrans results” graphs presented in the article here) is worthless. Everyone needs to re-educate themselves on the fundamental warming of the atmosphere, responsible for the temperature-versus-pressure structure of the Standard Atmosphere (which, note, is a fundamentally stable thermodynamic state, not subject to “runaway climate” at all). Climate science cannot go forward without the fundamental correction provided by the Venus/Earth comparison I have done, and which should have been done, and generally accepted, 20 years ago–if there had been any competent scientists to do it.

Tom_R

How is RH measured? Could the errors caused by site changes and UHI contribute to the RH apparently decreasing when it actually remains constant but at a lower temperature?

John Silver

I have said it before and I say it again:
Me and my green friends want 1200 ppm to be comfortable.
Burn, baby, burn.

Anthony Scalzi

Here’s the Team Approved(TM) version of Fig 3.
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/9610/isaacwijngaardenfig3tea.png
[that image is blocked . . kbmod]

DirkH

“The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature.”
That would actually fit quite wonderfully to Beenstock & Reingewertz’ econometric analysis of the possible causation of temperature by CO2 concentrations (which they were able to rule out). Oh, and it should make lukewarmers rethink their position…

DirkH

LazyTeenager says:
February 8, 2012 at 5:04 am
“If the M. Hypothesis is mediated by temperature, would another consequence be that changes in solar insolation would also not produce a change in global temperature?”
Miskolczi postulates a constant overall transparency of the atmosphere; in other words, increases in CO2 should be offset (with a time lag) by decreases in H2O, the other important greenhouse gas.
He does not postulate a constant temperature. Also, he does not talk about the level of cloudiness.

DirkH

LazyTeenager says:
February 8, 2012 at 4:57 am
“My first expectation would be that relative humidity would be calculated via the physics from first principles. ”
You really swallowed that Gavin Schmidt line hook, line and sinker, did ya? Google “Convection Parameterization” for some interesting insights into the world of climate and weather models.

Steve Keohane

Here is a RH% graph at different atmospheric levels, 1948-2008.
http://i38.tinypic.com/30bedtg.jpg

RockyRoad

Of course there is no “tipping point” induced by CO2–otherwise, the earth’s atmosphere would be filled with most of the ocean’s H2O in response to our ancient world when the CO2 content was 10 times what we currently have. That’s why “climate scientists” have to ignore climate change in the past.
One would think “Epic Fail” Michael Mann, supposedly a “geologist”, would know that. But then, telling the truth in “climate science” doesn’t garner copious grants and favoritism from the UN, now does it?