Where’s that positive feedback that is supposed to manifest itself in water vapor, the most potent natural greenhouse gas?
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes:
image Figure 4 from Vonder Haar et al 2012
As promised by Tom Vonder Haar; see the posts
“Water Vapor Feedback Still Uncertain” By Marcel Crok
The new dataset covering 20+ years will be available to the public in 2012 or 2013.
The initial results are now ready as reported in the paper
Vonder Haar, T. H., J. Bytheway, and J. M. Forsythe (2012), Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL052094, in press.
Here’s the Abstract:
The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) dataset is a global (land and ocean) water vapor dataset created by merging multiple sources of atmospheric water vapor to form a global data base of total and layered precipitable water vapor. Under the NASA Making Earth Science Data Records for Research Environments (MEaSUREs) program, NVAP is being reprocessed and extended, increasing its 14-year coverage to include 22 years of data. The NVAP-MEaSUREs (NVAP-M) dataset is geared towards varied user needs, and biases in the original dataset caused by algorithm and input changes were removed. This is accomplished by relying on peer reviewed algorithms and producing the data in multiple “streams” to create products geared towards studies of both climate and weather. We briefly discuss the need for reprocessing and extension, steps taken to improve the product, and provide some early science results highlighting the improvements and potential scientific uses of NVAP-M.
Dr. Pielke adds:
The current paper is not the final word on this subject. The end of the paper reads
The results of Figs. 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a forthcoming paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the supplement. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.
However, the figure at the top of this post, if it turns about to be robust, raises fundamental issues with respect to the ability of global climate models to skillfully model the role of humans in altering the climate.
Forrest Mimms III writes via email:
This paper is a bit sketchy and needs filling out. Nevertheless, it’s quite possibly the most significant water vapor paper in a decade.
The key finding of this paper is the time series in Fig. 4(c), which bears a rough resemblance to my time series over nearly the same time.This time series is devastating to the modeler’s assumptions about the positive feedback of water vapor in a world with steadily rising CO2 levels.
…
The modelers have no explanation for why temperature and PW across the SE USA have actually declined during the last century. The explanation is likely a combination of at least three factors:
1. Global warming is best described as regional warming.
2. ENSO and other natural cycles play a major role.
3. How can we trust the global temperature record when (as shown by you, Watts, et al.) so many stations are improperly situated, especially as urbanization has arrived or surrounded them.
UPDATE:
Here’s the full paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf
Thanks Leif.
First it was the hotspot (MIA), nearly 15 years of flat temps and now this. Get ready for climate gymnastics folks.
We will see whether it will be added to their list of failure and lack of predictive / projected / scenario skill.
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
This is so good! The AGW crowd can’t keep ignoring the continuing stream of important papers refuting their claims. Nor can the MSM. And this is a big one! Way to go! 🙂
Seriously? Here we go again. Promoting a peer-reviewed paper from the Geophysical Research Letters journal that, on a first look, appears to raise questions about climate modelling. In other words, a cherry-pick that you think supports your viewpoint. If this site was to be truly concerned about the science, then one would expect to see discussions about all the other articles that are published in that same journal but do not support your position.
On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). The data is very useful to climate scientists and will no doubt be included in further reports, along with the multitude of other data resources. I will look forward to seeing WUWT publishing a graph of the NVAP dataset once it has been “subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses” (as advocated by the paper author, Tom Vonder Haar) and at the end of the decade when the time series will be greater than 30 years.
Humid areas have lower temperature than dry areas eg rain forest vs middle east. Water can absorb highest quantity of heat thus helps to lower temperature eg extinguishing fire. So how the water vapour is a green house gase? Together with the covection current of hot air, water vapor is helping the earth to deliver heat to the space thus reduce the temperature of the earth, that’s why it becomes cool immediately when it rains.
The models assume 40% extra energy than reality by assuming incorrect boundary conditions. This increases IR warming by ~400%, biasing heat transfer to radiative thus exaggerating the effect of trace CO2 when from fundamental physics there can be no CO2-AGW.
They offset it by exaggerating cooling, assuming optical depth of low level clouds is twice reality. The variable ‘aerosol indirect effect’ used to fine tune is based on patently wrong physics. The carbon-traders, banks. energy majors and captive politicians fund this deception.
“the figure at the top of this post, if it turns about to be robust, raises fundamental issues with respect to the ability of global climate models to skillfully model the role of humans in altering the climate.”
How so? Have you compared this figure to TWP in GCM output to show serious discrepancies? Does this figure show that the physics of the model are fundamentally wrong? Or are you just dreaming?
This is a poor paper. It has started to build the foundations for a paper that MAY be more useful for climate research of the future. It is not by any assessment definitive but they had to begin somewhere.
Tell that to the Guardian and the BBC who trumpet extreme weather events (in most cases without peer reviewed papers) and who look at this years weather!!!! Go on, I’m sure you can find their cotacts page. 🙂
The problem for CAGW believers is that radiative forcing from a doubling of (spurious) pre industrial levels of CO2 cannot cause dangerous warming. This is why “strongly positive water vapour feedback” (SPWVF) was invented. The primary purpose of Mann’s “short center the data prior to PCS” hockey stick was not just to eliminate past natural climate variability, but primarily to rewrite past temperatures to lower levels than present corrupted surface station records. If SPWVF did not occur during the hotter MWP, why should we expect it now? What was the climate “science” approach? Dodgy proxy studies and a lame attempt to call the MWP regional and rebrand it as the MCA. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
Garrett, or is it Mr Rip Van Winkle, you must have slept for a a year or two and missed the discussion here of papers that support the CAGW viewpoint
+1 Garrett says … “Seriously? Here we go again”
So true … let’s get some consistency here. How about some objective discussion … how about a reasoned presentation of papers that show a broader picture … at least on a 1:1 ratio for perceived anti- / pro- positions of science publications (ignoring the fact that such a view is a fallacy, and even if true the actual publication ratio is N:1 where N >> 1)
Here’s some 2012 candidates I might suggest:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052116.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b37086508tl62011/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.6623H
Water vapor records are available from every observation station – but are never used as the climate ‘scientists‘ like to incorrectly use temperature as a metric for heat energy which the gullible and scientifically ignorant media get excited about.
The entire CO2 global warming (sic) hypothesis is based on the claim that CO2 ‘traps heat in the atmosphere’. Yet atmospheric temperature is NOT a measure of heat content. Yet these people not only use temperature they average the temperature showing their complete lack of understanding of physics.
The enthalpy (heat capacity) of the atmosphere varies considerably with humidity. As I have said before “a misty Louisiana Bayou at 100% humidity after an afternoon storm with the temperature at 78F</b will hold twice as much heat energy as the air in the Arizona desert at close to zero humidity but at 100F. ” . This is important as it takes far less heat energy to raise the temperature at the poles where the air is very dry than it does in the tropics where the air is very humid. Averaging these atmospheric temperatures is generating a meaningless number. It is quite probable that a day starting at a low temperature with mist or radiation fog which then ‘burns off’ to a ‘warm’ afternoon actually has no significant change in atmospheric heat content as the enthalpy in the morning is extremely high with liquid water droplets and in the ‘warm’ afternoon is low with drier air.
A correct metric for Atmospheric Energy Content would be an integral of the atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram over the 24 hour period. This can be worked out using the existing station records using existing ‘wet bulb’/dew point temperatures to obtain the humidity and thus the enthalpy of the air; then using the temperature to calculate the Kj/Kg. Even better just use ocean heat content as the top few meters of ocean hold as much heat as the entire atmosphere. But the climate ‘scientists‘ know these metrics do not support the cause so they keep every body arguing about minutiae of time of day of temperature measurements, adjustments of temperature measurements etc. to prevent the gullible realizing that atmospheric temperature is not the right metric and that average global atmospheric temperature is meaningless.
If science could put the modelers in a bind, they would have been in a bind 30 years ago, because every scrap of science has been against them from the start. Only lack of money will put them in a bind.
The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?
Au contraire mon ami! This site regularly pillories junk science and advocacy based on junk science. The most recent is “Hansen’s Death Trains – now with extra scary ‘coal fallout’” a couple down from this story. We just love it when Michael Mann publishes almost anything.
You can hardly say that we ignore this stuff.
Forrest Mimms writes via email:. . .
Forrest Mims III, perhaps?
This site regularly posts discussions of papers that do not support its position.
I suspect, just as with the Argo data, some young wannabe will have a revelation and figure out why the data is wrong, justify an adjustment and voila! Global Warming Borscht! And a plush job somewhere.
Garrett: CAGW papers get trumpeted to the high heavens in the MSM, papers that even remotely question any tenant of the church of CAGW, not so much. It is only on fine sites like Mr. Watts’ that we even hear about these papers, so take your “cherry picking” charge and blow it out your ear! We also discuss the pro-CAGW papers. Of course, it is usually to point out the expectation bias, other logical fallacies and statistical gymnastics required to state their conclusions, but the papers are covered. Get over it, the science was never settled. That was a ploy by politicians disguised as scientists to win a public relations battle, it was never about the science.
“On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). ”
As did the period that purported to show some actual global warming.. (but only in the heavily manipulated land temperature calculations )
As you say.. a very limited time series. in BOTH cases.
Garret, it only takes one observation to disprove a theory … well, in most sciences anyway; but not Crimatology it appears.
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
[ ]
“On top of all that, this article and the results therein are focused on a limited time series (22 years). The data is very useful to climate scientists and will no doubt be included in further reports, along with the multitude of other data resources. I will look forward to seeing WUWT publishing a graph of the NVAP dataset once it has been “subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses” (as advocated by the paper author, Tom Vonder Haar) and at the end of the decade when the time series will be greater than 30 years.”
Yeah, right!
So how come a hot spell in the US this summer is apparently proof of cAGW and underlines that we’re all going to fry?
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
Seriously? Here we go again. Promoting a peer-reviewed paper from the Geophysical Research Letters journal that, on a first look, appears to raise questions about climate modelling. In other words, a cherry-pick that you think supports your viewpoint…..
____________________________________________
However many confirming instances there are for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. Science progresses when a theory is shown to be wrong and a new theory is introduced which better explains the phenomena. ~ Karl Popper
So how many times do the climate models and CAGW have to be proved wrong before the darn zombie quits coming back from the dead???
1. Climate Models did not predict the current no warming period. GRAPH “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” ~ Trenberth (Yeah, Yeah it is quoted out of context…)
2. NO troposphere Hot Spot
And now this paper.
Of course the real killers are these graphs #1 and #2
Why don’t you quit beating this dead horse and find something else to use to scare the masses into accepting slave collars HMMMmmm?
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
So, what do you expect us to do? Ignore the data until then? 30 years, if I understand it, is just a convention going back to when climatology was primarily data collection. Personally, I think 60 years is a good interval as it allows us to look beyond the PDO/AMO cycles, and allow for smaller sections to study the PDO/AMO cycles.
Ben Santer says 17 years is good enough for his work, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
Perhaps water vapor is different.
Dev Bahadur Dongol says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:44 am
The first part yes, the second part, not really. The adiabatic expansion within the upward moving air results in cooler temperatures, down to sub-freezing temperatures (hence the existance of hail).
When rain and ice falls, it does not undergo adiabatic warming, so it cools the atmosphere under it, all the way to the ground. The heat gets left behind and radiates away after the clouds evaporate.
So it’s really adiabatic cooling and rain formation that makes for a refreshing thunderstorm. And maybe cool air in the air mass behind a cold front, if that’s what triggered the rain….