New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)
Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III
I was an “expert reviewer” for the first and second order drafts of the 2013 Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report 5 (AR5). The names and reviews of all the reviewers will be posted online when the final report is released. Meanwhile, reviewers are required to not publish the draft report. However, the entire second draft report was leaked on December 13, 2012, without IPCC permission and has subsequently received wide publicity.
My review mainly concerns the role of water vapor, a key component of global climate models. A special concern is that a new paper on a major global water vapor study (NVAP-M) needs to be cited in the final draft of AR5.
This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.
He suggested that I do so, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of my homepage at www.forrestmims.org.
The official IPCC spreadsheet version of my review is here. A Word version is here.
A PDF version (prepared by Anthony from the Word version) is here: Mims_IPCC_AR5_SOD_Review
A relevant passage from the AR5 review by Mimms (added by Anthony):
The obvious concern to this reviewer, who has measured total column water vapor for 22.5 years, is the absence of any mention of the 2012 NVAP-M paper. This paper concludes,
“Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”
Non-specialist readers must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers. Many cited papers in AR5 have yet to be published, but the first NVAP-M paper was published earlier this year (after the FOD reviews) and is definitely worthy of citation: Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Being we have stopped warming for approx 16 years now, and with the clearer atmosphere, it is very apparant that the clear atmosphere is responsable for our cooling period.
Can I get a grant to study this further?
Replying to: Donald L. Klipstein December 15, 2012 at 8:32 am
Donald said,
The effect of a given amount of water vapor on OLR depends very strongly on altitude. The Solomon 2010 paper states,
This is a large effect.
Did you fail to grasp the significance of my statement;
“For me, I stick to the basics. There is no way known to thermodynamics that a cooler object (like the atmosphere) can cause net warming to a hotter object (like the surface of the earth), regardless of any lower-order energy exchanges which may be occurring (like CO2 resonance to terrestrial long wave radiation at about 15 microns)…….I want them to stop frightening the kids and I want my ‘kin money back.”
That’s a view that is quite in vogue with many of my electrical engineer colleagues. These guys had a semester of thermodynamics, 90% of which they had forgotten 2 weeks after the final. And, of course, if climate scientists really were that stupid, that they’d propose something in violation of one of the laws of thermodynamics, then that surely would be a pretty outrageous scam indeed.
But say he’s right. The climate scientists are just such morons as this guy believes. What would be a sound remedy to debunk the scam of said morons?
Do a proper study. Apply the laws of thermodynamics. Using math to keep track of the relationships. The relaltionships are, yes, pretty basic thermodynamics, but the first thing you encounter is complexity. Just the sheer numbers complex relationships going on within Earth’s climate.
Fortunately, we have a remedy. Computers. Computers are a God send for wading through tons and tons of math. Yes. We can render the mathematical relationships as expressed in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics within mathematical modelling.
Now we are cookin’ with gas.
Point is: It’s the above commenter who is one hell of a moron in my book.
It didn’t take him much of a trial to find himself innocent of responsibility for taking one hell of a gamble with the grandkids’ life support system. Here’s what he should have done before he legitimately can claim indemnity from reponsibility:
Do the math correctly.
And build a superior climate model. By superior, I mean it does a better job of
PREDICTING climate. Predictions. That’s what separates the grownups from the pups, baby. Predictions.
The day any one of these deniers can do that is the day any one of them has a fentogram of credibility.
After AR4 SAR, TAR, FAR & now #5 its the law of 5s all over, lost track of the IPCC acronyms, which was #1 and #4?
30 years, billions wasted,millions brainwashed and a new psychosis added to the list(fear of self&weather) whats left to hold this pseudo religion together.
Are we about to see another Jonestown? If its a slow motion train wreck, who is going to loot the wreck? I am loving it, its long past time these parasites received a dosage, designed to reduce their numbers to a “sustainable level”.
They will always be with us, but the host sickens noticeably when their number reach todays levels.
Government is the natural home of these idiotic, rent seeking self proclaimed experts.
Follow the money, what do you find? This world wide scam has been funded, promoted and enabled by our governments.
Time to force govt to investigate their own gullibility and culpability in this foolish waste of wealth.
Your opinion of your govt will never be higher than it is today.
Charles Ashurst:
You say much that I agree in your post at December 15, 2012 at 9:54 am.
I especially like this
Clearly, those who have built climate models to date have yet to leave the womb because none of their predictions – not any – have been correct.
The day that climate modellers can build a model with predictive ability is the day any one of them has a fentogram of capability.
Richard
@Charles Ashurst fortunately there are some people still in the game who don’t believe that climate astrology is the answer.
perpetually tweaking models to hindcast the past in the hope that they will predict the future ( as they surely do not ) is not the way to spend taxpayers money.
Climate change is an entity that has gone on for millennia. Organisms adapt or die. We are well enough prepared to adapt if we get on the same page and understand that the changes are coming and there is nothing we can do to affect them. Adaptation is what has made this species successful and we did not need beurocracy and fundamentalism to achieve that.
@ur momisugly Charles Ashurst, Predictions ,,,baby. So what prediction have we wrought from 30 years and billions of tax dollars? Oh the IPCC now only makes projections. Silly me; I project a few guesses about you, that does not mean they have value.
The behaviour of this UN body speak loudly. Have you been listening?
We don’t know what drives the weather, 30 yrs of which we call climate,but we are sure that one of the 16 “drivers” we identify, is the one that does it all.
Now by coincidence this is the only “driver” that can be taxed and regulated. And your friendly UN is here to help with that.
Bernie Madoff is serving a life sentence for operating a far less pernicious fraud.
A free copy of the referenced paper is available here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf. Upon reading it I found that the authors do not claim that global water vapor has not increased. The lead post is incorrect in its claim that this paper shows water vapor has not increased.
The entire purpose of the review of the second draft is to add material that may have been missed in the original drafting. If Mr. Mims just sends in a comment the authors will consider the new data.
If the biggest complaint about the IPCC second drafts are the ones raised here about solar activity and atmospheric water vapor they have done an outstanding job! Neither complaint stands up to review. The solar forcing report has been contradicted by the author of the chapter and the cited reference does not support the water vapor claim.
michael sweet:
In your post at December 15, 2012 at 10:33 am you say
I know from personal experience that both your statements which I quote are plain wrong.
I will be charitable and assume you made such mistaken comments because you are naive.
Richard
Well I am just PO’d now! You mean that the dihydrogen monoxide coming out of my shower is not real?
Darn that dioxide carbon molecule.
I’m sorry but the IPCC and most of the commentators appear to be ignoring the most important element here – the physical properties of water.
Water vapour is the gaseous form of H2O (H2O(g)). It is a colourless and odourless gas. The atmospheric concentration of H2O(g) given the conditions on earth vary between 0% and 4%. The physical properties of H2O(g) prevents it from going to 0% or rising above 4% unless the pressure or temperature of the gas is raised considerably above livable conditions. The concentration of H2O(g) is not dependent upon the concentration of CO2 except in the contribution of CO2’s partial pressure to the overall pressure of the atmosphere. The concentration of H2O(g) is dependent entirely on the atmospheric temperature, if the pressure remains constant, or it is dependent entirely on the atmospheric pressure, if the temperature remains constant. Thus, the concentration of H2O(g) in the atmosphere is more likely to be towards the high end of its range in regions where the temperature and/or the air pressure is higher.
The IPCC’s modellers appear to be using a global average of the H2O(g) concentrations but, unless they are completely ignoring the physical limitations of H2O(g), they should know that the upper limit of 4% still applies globally. They are completely wrong if they assume that H2O(g) concentrations will rise above 4% because that would mean that the global atmospheric conditions would have to have an average temperature well above 300K and/or an atmospheric pressure well above 1 bar. The reason that they do not see any increase in the average global H2O(g) levels is obviously because the average global temperatures have not risen and the atmospheric pressure has remained the same – regardless of any increased CO2 concentration.
And, before anyone goes onto an argument involving clouds – clouds are not H2O(g), they are an aerosol of solid (H2O(s)) and liquid water (H2O(l)) and have completely different physical properties, including their ability to absorb/emit/reflect radiation.
Camburn says:
December 15, 2012 at 9:25 am
……
NASA:One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds.
Combining solar and the Earth magnetic properties, accurately traces n. Hemisphere’s natural variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
(see also NASA-JPL link within)
I have a suggestion for WUWT:
Create two main Articles for crowd sourcing Entitled:
Peer-Reviewed Work not in AR5 2nd draft that should be included in Final.
Work Cited in AR5 improperly because it is withdrawn, later revised, or not Peer Reviewed.
Moderate each strongly to point.
As this Mims and Rawls articles point out, we ought not get lost in fine detail. The big errors are the factors left out of analysis and discussion.
Crowdsourcing of what peer-reviewed documents are missing, and an article focused on that subject, would be a fine resource here.
michael sweet says:
December 15, 2012 at 10:33 am
And they most certainly indicate that it may have decreased.
michael sweet says:
December 15, 2012 at 10:33 am
The article you referenced shows no ability to establish a trend. This is contrary to the feed back mechanism currently portrayed via GCM’s.
This is another fail in regards to current parameters employed in GCM’s and their predictive abilty.
Charles Ashurst says:
December 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
Laughable, Charles—on several fronts. First, the “predictions” meme you assert: These “climate scientists” can’t even hindcast, say nothing of forecast. They have demonstrated less than a (and I believe that’s a “femtogram”, not the fentogram you invented) of credibility so far. And I believe they never will, because the earth isn’t dancing to their tune—it has a climate mind of its own, if you catch my drift.
The next is your reliance on “math”. Sure computers are quick, but they’re stupid—they just spit out what you put in.
I’m betting you’ve never run a computer model of anything. I have—not on climate, but on 3-d statistics and economic evaluations in mining; thousands of them. And I tell you what—I can make those models dance to my tune anytime; I can give them assumptions (constraints and algorithms in mathematical form) that will produce practically any answer I want.
It isn’t hard. All I have to do is know what I want the computer to tell me and it will—with petaflops of speed if I throw enough money into the machine.
And what the Warmistas have been telling us their computers are telling them is exactly what they want to tell us directly—but they’re still wrong.
So come back when you have a femtogram of credibility, Charles. Right now the earth’s 5,980 yottagrams of heft is proving the agenda-driven “climate scientists” wrong.
And it probably always will until they become scientists.
Jimbo says:
December 15, 2012 at 6:27 am
I believe you’re right, Jimbo. However, as a geologist I was hoping that the earth’s inevitable plunge into the next Ice Age would be delayed or perhaps even obviated by man’s influence on the climate. Apparently that isn’t going to be the case.
vukcevic says:
December 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
Vuk:
Your link is good. However, the corrected T, as exibited in the graph, I do not agree with. I think the divergence shows that we are missing something critical to the debate as to cause of warming.
From the Australian Broadcasting Commission link provided by TonyM,
December 14, 2012 at 8:32 pm :
“Climate communication fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland John Cooke”
OMG, he’s really got the snout in the trough now.
Charles Ashurst says:
December 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
I spent a day at Oxford Uiversity to learn more about climate models. They had a nice tool on a spreadscheet: an Energy Balance Model (EBM) with simple math: the four series of forcings (GHGs, human aerosols, volcanic aerosols and solar) inputs were multiplied with a factor which heated up the upper part of the oceans and therefore the earth’s temperature.
With the right factor for 2xCO2 and the same factor for the other input variables, the “model” could reproduce the temperature of the past century quite well:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/oxford001.gif
A nice feature was that one could change the individual factors for each forcing. With some experiments, it was easy to show that the “model” could perform even better in retrofitting the past by halving the effect of 2xCO2 by firmly reducing the effect of human (and volcanic) aerosols, which are highly uncertain (and in my opinion largely overestimated), thereby doubling the relative strength of solar. Here the result:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/oxford002.gif
The main points:
– The same “model” can fit the past temperature trends with wide diverging parmeters for the same forcings, as is the case in all “big” models, especially for cloud cover and human aerosols.
– All “big” models use “one factor fits all” for all types of forcings, which can’t be true: 1 W/m2 change in solar input has its main effects in the stratosphere (jet stream position, cloud and rain patterns) and the deeper ocean surface. 1 W/m2 more CO2 has its main effect in the troposphere and the upper fraction of a mm of the ocean’s surface. Really the same effect on ocean heating?
– The difference in “prediction” of the two EBM runs is a factor 2 until the end of this century. The current “big” models have a range of 1:3…
BTW, that simple EBM model on a spreadsheet performs as good in “predicting the past” as many of the multi-million-dollar models running for months on the largest supercomputers. See:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070417214507/http://www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/kaufmann/documents/Model-temporal-relation.pdf
What does that learn us about the perfomance of the models currently in use for the future warming “projection” (which is “non-prediction”)?
@Michael Sweet – thanks for the link.
I have to agree with Camburn. Looking at the data, they most certainly indicate that it may have decreased, at least in the past ten years.
It is apparent that they are using the average global values for the concentration of H2O(g), expressed as mm of TPW (Total Precipitable Water), and at different altitudes as well as latitudes. Looking at the Global Monthly Average TPW Timeseries it is apparent that the average runs, approximately, from a maximum of 28mm to a minimum of 22mm annually. This would give an annual average of 25mm +/- 3mm (12%). The graph appears to flatline over the entire length of the period with an increasing trend during the first ten years and a decreasing trend over the last ten.
Regardless that 20 years is too small a sample size to establish a long term trend, it still generates doubt into the IPCC assertions that increasing CO2 concentrations will increase H2O(g) concentrations, and undermines the accuracy of the models that they are using.
Forrest Mims, thank you so much for coming forward. This information is so important. The evidence is mounting and no one who looks at it can dispute it. Even the MSM would have a hard time looking the other way. Speaking of which… have we any response from that quarter yet? We’ve GOT to keep all of this out in the open where everyone can see it. These are the nuts and bolts of the scam’s destruction.
The tropical sea surface temperature determines the water vapor concentration above the surface. If the atmospheric water vapor has not changed then ocean SST has not changed. Only clouds can change the tropical SST, by changing the net albedo over the ocean.
Around 20000 years ago began a massive warming trend that stopped 8000 years ago. Why did that warming trend stop?? Clouds.
Today, Earth is at its maximum temperature. Clouds prevent any more warming. Most of the current rise in CO2 is recovery from the LIA. CO2 follows temperature.
After reading Charles Ashurst comments I had an inspiration; what WUWT needs is a special page to immortalize comments such as his. It would be tremendously useful as a resource to study the terminal psuedo-scientific green phenomenon. I mean if natural selection doesn’t deal with them, its up to us.
O/T. Anthony, for some reason I am not getting my “likes” to register. Going by only two blogger’s likes showing sofar (that I can see), I’d say I’m not the only one. It happened (for me) on Alec’s post, too. Whatever the reason – know you have more “likes” than is showing. This is all fantastic, by the way. 🙂