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.
Robert of Ottawa says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:38 am
“Garret, it only takes one observation to disprove a theory … well, in most sciences anyway; but not Crimatology it appears.”
“Crimatology”. Nice!
There seems to be an active but ignored taking of sides on their side regarding weather events. We get bombarded by mainstream reports of this or that weather extreme being touted by some climate expert as evidence of global warming. Then months later we get an article from NOAA and others saying it was all just normal variations in weather patterns unrelated to global warming. Me thinks this back story is heating up.
Ian W says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am
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….
____________________________
Ian, how about an article for WUWT on this very important point? With graphs maybe?
You have mentioned it before and I really think the point needs to be emphasized by making it a WUWT article (Lets the rest of us book mark it for future reference too)
The theory over-estimates the water vapour feedback because they do not understand that the biggest weather phenomenon of the planet is the major factor controlling it – the ENSO. In addition, temperatures are not really increasing so there is no water vapour feedback from that.
Here is the NCEP Reanalysis water vapour levels versus the ENSO going back to 1948 and updated for June 2012. It is pretty flat (perhaps up a tiny bit but could also be called flat). Tropics water vapour level are actually below normal right now.
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2616/ensotcwv48june12.png
The upcoming IPCC AR5 forecast, however, already has water vapour levels up by 6.0% (matches the NCEP data pretty closely up to about 1994 but then it diverges following the predicted water vapour feedback from the predicted higher temperatures according to the Classius-Clayperon relation)). The IPCC forecast is up 6.0% already and is estimated to be up 24.0% by the year 2100.
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3627/ensotcwvipccjune12.png
Not happening so far.
[snip – multiple site policy violations ~mod]
The graph seems to confirm that we have had no global warming since about 1995.
I think I see a wiggle from Pinatubo around 1991, when global atmospheric opacity dropped by 10% for a good part of a year.
I see no lingering effects from Pinatubo that Hansen used as excuse #4,127 for why global temperatures have not increased.
It would be interesting to overlay monthly global temperatures from UAH or RSS to see if water vapor leads or lags temperature.
It would be interesting to see if regional water vapor is correlated with regional temperature anomalies.
Sometimes the trolls should be ignored into nonexistence, except for one small nonsense comment.
Bob Shapiro says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
“The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?”
Because the earth’s land surface is not symmetrically distributed between north and south. A majority of the continents are in the northern hemisphere. Earth is cooler during northern winters than southern winters. That would have some effect on cloud distribution.
For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely. In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side. This can be seen very easily thanks to Google Reader (here’s a screenshot: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2UBUzWj8xshdWtZRkFEWmNlbGs). Considering that journals publish hundreds of AGW related articles every year, one would expect just a few more such articles on WUWT, if it really was all about the science.
It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml). Their conclusions:
“statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent
If your first reaction to such research is that it’s the result of corrupt scientists and an ultra-left liberal agenda, then your arguments are not about the science.
Bob Shapiro says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?
==========
The northern hemisphere is mostly land, and the southern is mostly ocean.
Climatology? Nah, it doesn’t merit an ‘ology’ any more than their fellow-travellers in Astrology. Geology and biology faculties should strip ’em of their ‘ology’ and demote them to Climatography.
Bob Shapiro says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?
—-
Presumably because of differences in the annual cycle in the land dominated northern hemisphere and the ocean dominated southern hemisphere.
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 2:42 am
Seriously? Here we go again
===================
Garrett, I stil keep thinking that a theory debunked once, is debunked once and forever. It’s like a dead horse. You can go on with stuffing hay into its corpse, but he will never stand up again. Bury that poor animal and buy a new one.
“Bob Shapiro says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:16 am
The graph seems to have a very obvious annual cycle. But, if it’s for truly global data, why should this be so?”
Because the northern hemisphere has such different land coverage than the southern, we should expect to see annual cycles in almost all global data. The effects of direct sunlight (summer) are different when the sunlight hits land rather than water.
Does anyone remember the Pinatubo paper that calulated water vapor feedback?
I remeber they accounted for drying due to cloud formation, but I’ve long suspected they neglected the albedo effect.
The temperature determines the atmosphere’s capacity for water vapor, but wind, pressure, and light determine how much evaporation happens.
I’d like to look at it again.
Ian W’s post is a keeper.
I second the recommendation that it be turned into a separate thread.
Ian W says:
July 18, 2012 at 4:03 am
======================
Well stated.
Crimetology:
Now, how do you get the City Wok chef to use it in a South Park episode?
Missing from the AGW hypothesis is the actual mechanics of clouds. The average cumulus cloud weights 800 tons and “floats” by two mechanisms, evaporation off of the side and bottom surfaces, which create updrafts holding the 62 pound/cu ft water dropplets in the air. Water dropples have a perfect slip stream shape and a 200 mph terminal velocity. This means high velocity vertical up and down slip streams within the cloud. Read the first hand observations of conditions within a series of cumulus clouds by a solo student pilot in a 1600 pound Cessna in “Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out”. Clouds are not what you, or the Clima-whatevers think. Clouds transport latent and convective heat from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere in a heat exchange that has NO IR signature. K-T meets the real world of energy transfer, and loses.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
Ken Gregory did this work in 2008. See
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html
Part of the thermostat mechaism that is not understood is why there is only as much water vapor in the atmosphere to begin with. The atmosphere could hold a lot more water vapor than it actually does.
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am
“For those who say that WUWT does publish info on papers that support the AGW theory, I never explicitly said otherwise. Though I do think it only happens very, very rarely. In fact, over the past half a month (almost 100 blog posts on WUWT), hardly one of the posts have pointed to research from the AGW side. …”
==================
“… over the past half a month …” That sounds like about 2 weeks. Are you new to WUWT or only have a memory capable of “half a month” recollection?
An army of independents frequent this site and collectively will remember much more than the past “half a month”. Perhaps some of the comments will help get you up to speed on the many topics discussed here. Anyway, welcome to WUWT. Your continued reading at this site may be quite an educational opportunity. The “past half a month” is hardly a beginning.
What we know so far.
1. The physics of carbon dioxide changed 15 years ago.
2. The physics of water vapor changed 20 years ago.
3. The physics of the troposphere exhibits the uncertainty principle on macro scale you can measure the position of the hot spot or the temperature but no both at the same time.
4. The disappearance of the MWP, which now appears as the current warm period is a manifestation of ‘spooky action at a distance’, in fact the two are the same event and it is only the position in time of the observer that determines the outcome of the measurement.
5. The Sun only provides light to the Earth; the heat that you perceive is actually magnetically reflected heat from the Earths mantle which is several millions of degrees.
6. Climate Science is the sole bedrock science from which mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology (in that order) are extrapolated.
Garrett says:
July 18, 2012 at 6:31 am
“It turns out that the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres recently published a paper on the “recent changes in tropospheric water vapor over the Arctic” (HTML version not behind a paywall: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1210/2011JD017421/index.shtml). Their conclusions:
“statistically significant trends in precipitable water over the Arctic as assessed over the period 1979–2010 are mostly positive. … [The results are] consistent with a changing Arctic environment with a warmer atmosphere that can carry more water vapor, higher north Atlantic sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice extent. ”
“If your first reaction to such research is that it’s the result of corrupt scientists and an ultra-left liberal agenda, then your arguments are not about the science.”
——-
Turns out one of that one of the authors of that paper (Julienne Stroeve) has made many posts here on Arctic Ice Extent and the work she has done.
Of course being a regular reader of WUWT you already knew that, right?
Now, who is the one jumping to conclusions?
Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.