NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor

Global water vapor

Global water vapor (Photo credit: oakridgelabnews)

Guest post submitted by Ken Gregory, Friends of

An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.

The world has spent over $ 1 trillion on climate change mitigation based on climate models that don’t work. They are notoriously poor at simulating the 20th century warming because they do not include natural causes of climate change – mainly due to the changing sun –  and they grossly exaggerate the feedback effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretically warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation, the amount or distribution of water vapor and clouds. Climate models amplify the initial CO2 effect by a factor of three by assuming positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, for which there is little direct evidence. Most of the amplification by the climate models is due to an increase in upper atmosphere water vapor.

The Satellite Data

The NASA water vapor project (NVAP) uses multiple satellite sensors to create a standard climate dataset to measure long-term variability of global water vapor.

NASA recently released the Heritage NVAP data which gives water vapor measurement from 1988 to 2001 on a 1 degree by 1 degree grid, in three vertical layers.1 The NVAP-M project, which is not yet available, extends the analysis to 2009 and gives five vertical layers.

From the NVAP project page:

The NASA MEaSUREs program began in 2008 and has the goal of creating stable, community accepted Earth System Data Records (ESDRs) for a variety of geophysical time series. A reanalysis and extension of the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP), called NVAP-M is being performed as part of this program. When processing is complete, NVAP-M will span 1987-2010. Read about changes in the new version.

Water vapor content of an atmospheric layer is represented by the height in millimeters (mm) that would result from precipitating all the water vapor in a vertical column to liquid water. The near-surface layer is from the surface to where the atmospheric pressure is 700 millibar (mb), or about 3 km altitude. The middle layer is from 700 mb to 500 mb air pressure, or from 3 km to 6 km attitude. The upper layer is from 500 mb to 300 mb air pressure, or from 6 km to 10 km altitude.

The global annual average precipitable water vapor by atmospheric layer and by hemisphere from 1988 to 2001 is shown in Figure 1.

The graph is presented on a logarithmic scale so the vertical change of the curves approximately represents the forcing effect of the change. For a steady earth temperature, the amount of incoming solar energy absorbed by the climate system must be balanced by an equal amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere. An increase of water vapor in the upper atmosphere would temporarily reduce the OLR, creating a forcing of more incoming than outgoing energy, which raises the temperature of the atmosphere until the balance is restored.


Figure 1.  Precipitable water vapor by layer, global and by hemisphere.

The graph shows a significant percentage decline in upper and middle layer water vapor from 1995 to 2001. The near-surface layer shows a smaller percentage increase, but a larger absolute increase in water vapor than the other layers. The upper and middle layer water vapor decreases are greater in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere.

Table 1 below shows the precipitable water vapor for the three layers of the Heritage NVAP and the CO2 content for the years 1990 and 2001, and the change.

Layer L1 near-surface L2 middle L3 upper Sum CO2
1013-700 700-500 500-300
mm mm mm mm ppmv
1990 18.99 4.6 1.49 25.08 354.16
2001 20.72 4.03 0.94 25.69 371.07
change 1.73 -0.57 -0.55 0.61 16.91

Table 1.  Heritage NVAP 1990 and 2001 water vapour and CO2.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi performed computations using the HARTCODE line-by-line radiative code to determine the sensitivity of OLR to a 0.3 mm change in precipitable water vapor in each of 5 layers of the NVAP-M project. The program uses thousands of measured absorption lines and is capable of doing accurate radiative flux calculations.  Figure 2 shows the effect on OLR of a change of 0.3 mm in each layer.

The results show that a water vapor change in the 500-300 mb layer has 29 times the effect on OLR than the same change in the 1013-850 mb near-surface layer. A water vapor change in the 300-200 mb layer has 81 times the effect on OLR than the same change in the 1013-850 mb near-surface layer.


Figure 2. Sensitivity of 0.3 mm precipitable water vapor change on outgoing longwave radiation by atmospheric layer.

Table 2 below shows the change in OLR per change in water vapor in each layer, and the change in OLR from 1990 to 2001 due to the change in precipitable water vapor (PWV).

L1 L2 L3 Sum CO2
OLR/PWV W/m2/mm -0.329 -1.192 -4.75
OLR/CO2 W/m2/ppmv -0.0101
OLR change W/m2 -0.569 0.679 2.613 2.723 -0.171

Table 2.  Change of OLR by layer from water vapor and from CO2 from 1990 to 2001.

The calculations show that the cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during this 11-year period. The cooling effect of the two upper layers is 5.8 times greater than the warming effect of the lowest layer.

These results highlight the fact that changes in the total water vapor column, from surface to the top of the atmosphere, is of little relevance to climate change because the sensitivity of OLR to water vapor changes in the upper atmosphere overwhelms changes in the lower atmosphere.

The precipitable water vapour by layer versus latitude by one degree bands for the year 1991 is shown in Figure 3. The North Pole is at the right side of the figure. The water vapor amount in the Arctic in the 500 to 300 mb layer goes to a minimum of 0.53 mm at 68.5 degrees North, then increases to 0.94 mm near the North Pole.


Figure 3. Precipitable water vapor by layer in 1991.

The NVAP-M project extends the analysis to 2009 and reprocesses the Heritage NVAP data. This layered data is not publicly available. The total precipitable water (TPW) data is shown in Figure 4, reproduced from the paper Vonder Haar et al (2012) here. There is no evidence of increasing water vapor to enhance the small warming effect from CO2.


Figure 4. Global month total precipitable water vapor NVAP-M.

The Radiosonde Data

Water vapor humidity data is measured by radiosonde (on weather balloons) and by satellites.  The radiosonde humidity data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.


Figure 5. Global relative humidity, middle and upper atmosphere, from radiosonde data, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.

A graph of the global average annual relative humidity (RH) from 300 mb to 700 mb is shown in Figure 5. The specific humidity in g/kg of moist air at 400 mb (8 km) is shown in Figure 6. It shows that specific humidity has declined by 14% since 1948 using the best fit line.


Figure 6.  Specific humidity at 400 mb pressure level

In contrast, climate models all show RH staying constant, implying that specific humidity is forecast to increase with warming. So climate models show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with warming in the upper troposphere, but the data shows falling specific humidity and negative feedback.

Many climate scientists dismiss the radiosonde data because of changing instrumentation and the declining humidity conflicts with the climate model simulations. However, the radiosonde instruments were calibrated and the data corrected for changes in response times. The data before 1960 should be regarded as unreliable due to poor global coverage and inferior instruments. The near surface radiosonde measurements from 1960 to date show no change in relative humidity which is consistent with theory. Both the satellite and radiosonde data shows declining upper atmosphere humidity, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. The radiosonde data only measures humidity over land stations, so it is interesting to compare to the satellite measurements which have global coverage.

Comparison Between Radiosonde and Satellite Data

The specific humidity radiosonde data was converted to precipitable water vapor for comparison with the satellite data. Figure 7 compares the satellite data to the radiosonde data for the years 1988 to 2001.


Figure 7. Comparison between NOAA radiosonde and NVAP satellite derived precipitable water vapor.

The NOAA and NVAP data compares very well for the period 1988 to 1995. The NVAP satellite data shows less water vapor in the upper and middle layers than the NOAA data. In 2000 and 2001 the NVAP data shows more water vapor in the near-surface layer than the NOAA data. The vertical change on the logarithmic graph is roughly equal to the forcing effect of each layer, so the NVAP data shows water vapor has a greater cooling effect than the radiosonde data.

The Tropical Hot Spot

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming – a “hot-spot” of enhanced warming in the upper atmosphere at 8 km to 13 km over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in Figure 8. The temperature at this “hot-spot” is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations from weather balloons shown below does not show the projected hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. If it was there it would have been easily detected.

The hot-spot is forecast in climate models due to the theory that the water vapor profile in the tropics is dominated by the moist adiabatic lapse rate, which requires that water vapor increases in the upper atmosphere with warming. The moist adiabatic lapse rate describes how the temperature of a parcel of water-saturated air changes as it move up in the atmosphere by convection such as within a thunder cloud. A graph here shows two lapse rate profiles with a larger temperature difference in the upper atmosphere than at the surface. The projected water vapor increase creates the hot-spot and is responsible for half to two-thirds of the surface warming in the IPCC climate models.


Figure 8. Climate models predict a hot spot of enhanced warming rate in the tropics, 8 km to 13 km altitude. Radiosonde data shows the hot spot does not exist. Red indicates the fastest warming rate. Source:

The projected upper atmosphere water vapor trends and temperature amplification at the hot-spot are intricately linked in the IPCC climate theory. The declining upper atmosphere humidity is consistent with the lack of a tropical hot spot, and both observations prove that the IPCC climate theory is wrong.

A recent technical paper Po-Chedley and Fu (2012) here compares the temperature trends of the lower and upper troposphere in the tropics from satellite data to the climate model projections from the period 1981 to 2008.2 The upper troposphere is the part of the atmosphere where the pressure ranges from 500 mb to 100 mb, or from about 6 km to 15 km. The paper reports that the warming trend during 1981 to 2008 in the upper troposphere simulated by climate models is 1.19 times the simulated warming trend of the lower atmosphere in the tropics.  (Note this comparison is to the lower atmosphere, not the surface, and includes 10 years of no warming to 2008.) Using the most current version (5.5) of the satellite temperature data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), the warming trend of the upper troposphere is only 0.973 of the lower troposphere in the tropics for the same period. This is different from that reported in the paper because the authors used an obsolete version (5.4) of the data. The satellite data shows not only a lack of a hot-spot, it shows a cold-spot just where a hot-spot was predicted.


Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001. It is the best available data for water vapor because it has global coverage. Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period. Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.

Note 1. The NVAP data in Excel format is here.

Note 2.  The lower troposphere data is:

The upper troposphere data is calculated as 1.1 x middle troposphere – 0.1 x lower stratosphere; where middle troposphere is: and the lower stratosphere is:


The original article is located at


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Myron Mesecke

Stick a fork in it. It’s done.
Of course instead of changing the computer models they will come up with yet another excuse for the lack of warming. The last thing they will do is admit they were in error.

A C Osborn

Less Cloud = Colder????
Since when?

Do you have the data used to plot the global NVAP-M data in Fig. 4? I have been unable to get these data, which I need to superimpose over total column water vapor data measured almost daily in South-Central Texas from Feb 1990 to present. The NVAP-M data plotted in Fig. 4 and my plot show visual agreement and an overall slight decline that I would like to quantify. (I previously posted about NVAP-M at WUWT here:


“Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretically warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation”
Why? are they really sure?


Figure 8 only shows data up to 1999. Is there a plot available with data since then?

Someone needs to ask Jim Hansen, publicly, with tape rolling, what he thinks of this report. Doesn’t it blow the entire AGW CO2 Based Climate Change theory right out of the water?
Will NASA science data be ignored by NASA “scientists” like Hansen?


Global cooling is on the way!

Sara Hindle

Why does the upper atmosphere satellite data humidity decline after 1995 more than the radiosonde humidity data? Is there some reason upper atmosphere humidity would decline more over the oceans than over land?

Joe Prins

The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory.
Pretty much says it all. Just like the Mann trick as described by Dr. Susan Crockford today:

Mr O'Brien

CAGW ! ? or what ever they are calling the “religion” today. It makes ya wanna weep.


More evidence of global cooling. There will be no lack of ice for my Mai Tai. 🙂

Martin Audley

Time to take the AGW theory out of the oven – it’s done.


Check you dates in your conclusion. Is it 1998 or 1990?
Either way, this is another huge hurdle for “the CAGW cause!”


oops wrong anecdotal citation (and one more);
20 meters of snowfall in Hokkaido;

Climate warming boogieman blamed, oh my…


I’m waiting for the first one to publish a paper plotting atmospheric CO2 vs upper atmospheric water vapor.

Doug Proctor

“The NVAP-M project, which is not yet available, extends the analysis to 2009 and gives five vertical layers.”
Although not available yet, it is already understood: the data beyond 2001 has, in somebody’s computer, been added to the program that produced the earlier profiles. It is only the desire to have greater detail and certainty of results that has stopped the new data from being released.
If the new data contradicted the older data, that would have been put in a press release to discredit the initial speculations that everyone knows was going to happen. The silence tells you that the new data is not supportive of CAGW.
People like Hansen and Gore already know about stuff like this. It is in their career, persona and financial interests to be aware of whatever is happening that might aid or detract from their positions.
How Stoat/Connelly/Tamino will spin this, I’ll be interested to see. Perhaps they will say it is because of aerosols. Or volcanoes. Probably just say it is not important.


But, but, but the decline in water vapour is down to global warming! Don’t you, erm, get it?

William McClenney

Well, it’s just like I always thought, the IPCC’s theories don’t hold water!


Maybe this is a negative feedback. Maybe this is due to a cooler sun. But because alarmists claim that water vapor is a high-sensitivity amplifier of carbon dioxide warming will have a problem with this situation.
Alarmists who try to claim that water vapor has decreased because of their much-claimed high sensitivity to carbon dioxide will also have to admit that the water vapor has decreased due to cooler temperatures, because carbon dioxide’s higher temperatures are supposed to force more water vapor.


Now I’m truly confuzzed. I was told that globull warming would cause more frequent and serverer storms because of more evaporation,thus more water to come back home.Now there is less atmospheric water vapour,so less warming,so wouldn’t the converse of less storms and less precipatation be true? My head hurts,and it’s to darn early for a drink!

Theo Goodwin

“Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.”
I suggest that this final statement of your conclusion should be qualified just a bit. How about “the supposed forcing from water vapor does not magnify the forcing from CO2 alone.”

Ian H

Correction needed in the conclusion. Data goes from 1988 to 2001 not 1998 to 2001.

Theo Goodwin

I forgot to say that I enjoyed your essay. Good work.


Sorry, where is the “decline”?
The data (Fig. 1) show a significant INCREASE in total water wapor after 1997, just as expected.
Warmer temperatures near surface (as expected) -> more water vapor.
Lower temperatures in the higher layers (as it should be) -> less water vapor.
What counts is the total water vapor in the column and this is decided by the lower levels of the atmosphere, where most of the moisture is concentrated.
Perfect agreement with the CAGW theory.
Sorry, your analysis must be more careful.

Alex – this is not true. Yes the total water vapor may well increase but what really matters is the concentration in the upper atmosphere which defines the effective emission height. This determines how much radiation escapes to space. Everything below that is more or less determined by thermodynamics (convection evaporation and the lapse rate). The height of the troposphere depends on CO2 AND H2O. This then determines the surface temperature because convection stabilizes the lapse rate.

Cees de Valk

Umm … fair enough. But how come it did not cool between 1990 and 2001?

Great work! a Climate Detective at large.

Mac the Knife

Thank you, Ken Gregory!
WOW! This strikes right to the heart of falsifying the hypothesis that man made CO2 is the primary cause of ‘global warming’. I’ll read this again in detail later today, as my lunch break time is limited but….this is good analyses!


OK, so this lack of water vapour is our fault, our grandchildren will all die of thirst – what should we tax next?

These results back up the previous WUWT posts namely:
New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind
Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor
Radiative transfer through the atmosphere is mostly controlled by water vapour, because its concentration is changing rapidly whereas CO2 is essentially constant. As a result radiative cooling of the surface increases rapidly for dry atmospheres, which then reduces the convective losses. In deserts radiation loss dominates heat transfer whereas convection dominates heat transfer in the tropics. At night deserts cool quickly through radiation whereas the tropics remain warm at night when convection halts. Therefore it is H2O that controls the balance between radiative cooling and convective/evaporative cooling of the surface.
The CO2 radiative transfer for fixed concentration is not actually constant but depends also on humidity levels in the upper atmosphere because some H2O absorption lines overlap with the CO2 lines. The effective emission height for H20 outside the 15micron band is in general lower than for CO2 because most humidity is concentrated in the lower levels of the atmosphere. However what matters for CO2 feedback is the water vapour content at the top of the troposphere. If H20 levels fall in this region then this can completely offset any increases in CO2. So in terms of radiative forcing at the TOA.
RF = 5.2 Ln(C/C0) – X Ln(H/H0)
Ken’s work shows that the NVAP-M data support ‘X’ acting as a negative feedback.

The Other Phil

Haven’t fully absorbed it all, but this has the potential of being quite a big deal


obviously your hygrometer needs to be adjusted………/snark

Laurence O'Donnell

WOW!!!!! If only there would notice of this in the main [stream] news outlets.

Before we pop a cork and have parades and things, we should wait for the updated data. 2001 was quite a while ago.

The Other Phil

I’m struggling with the statement (critical to the conclusions) that the change on OLR (as a ratio to change in water vapor) for upper layers is orders of magnitude more than for lower layers. Can someone provide a physical explanation why this is plausible? I realize that someone has measure this, they aren’t simply hypothesizing it, but I’d like to know why it is so.


another decline? quick – hide it!

Theo Goodwin

Richard says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:15 am
‘“Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretically warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation”
Why? are they really sure?’
Some say that the figure is Arrhenius’ estimate from laboratory work. Some say that it is Richard Lindzen’s best guess. If the latter is true, I think he was just throwing a bone to the mainstream. There might be other “sources.”
No one has a clue what the value is in the atmosphere. That is because forcings and feedbacks are at work in the atmosphere and the magnitudes of the forcings and feedbacks are unknown.

A C Osborn says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:11 am

Less Cloud = Colder????
Since when?

The article doesn’t mention clouds. Clouds contain liquid water. We are talking about water vapor.
Forrest M. Mims III says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:13 am

Do you have the data used to plot the global NVAP-M data in Fig. 4?

The NVAP-M data has not been released. Mary Jane Saddington of the NASA Langley ASDC User Services wrote in January, “First, please be aware that a new dataset, in netCDF
format will be available in the March timeframe.” Its not there yet. However, the Vonder Haar et al (2012) paper (see the link under Figure 3) shows on page 16 the annual global total precipitable water vapor (not by layer) of every second year from 1988 to 2008.
Richard says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:15 am

“Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretically warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation”
Why? are they really sure?

The 150 years is the actual CO2 increase from 1960 to 2012 plus 0.5%/year thereafter.
Most scientists that have carefully considered the no-feedback case would agree that a CO2 doubling would cause about a 1 C increase in temperature, but recognized that this theoretical result could never happen. A warming must cause a change in evaporation, which is a strong negative feedback.
Ian H says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:51 am

Correction needed in the conclusion. Data goes from 1988 to 2001 not 1998 to 2001.

Good catch! I’ll correct it on my website.


Maybe Patchy should get back to running steam engines and get some
water vapor back into the atmosphere…

Richard deSousa

No surprise here. The colder it gets the more moisture gets frozen out of the atmosphere!

Lance Wallace

Checking the links in the above shows there was a paper published online on Aug 3 in GRL:
Thomas H. Vonder Haar1,2,*, Janice L. Bytheway1,2, John M. Forsythe1,3
Article first published online: 3 AUG 2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012GL052094
Can anyone get the full pdf (behind a paywall)?
The abstract was uninformative:
“Keywords: climate data record;water cycle;water vapor
[1] 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.”


And the slow descent in to the next ice age continues despite Man[n]
they will be hung by their own comments IE} more heat means more water vapour!


Given models and the analysis of real data, I’ll go with the data everytime. How long till the popular media and the public wake up to being hoodwinked by the CAGW bureaucratic boondoogle?

Ian W

More importantly, a reduction in water vapor content of the atmosphere lowers its enthalpy. The lower humidity alone could account for all the atmospheric temperature increases as less heat is required to raise the ‘temperature’ of the drier atmosphere.

Michael D Smith

Yep. CO2 merely changes the height at which radiative balance takes place. Water vapor adjusts to maintain equilibrium. Instantly. CO2 drives changes in water vapor such that radiative balance is maintained. The cooling / vapor transport mechanisms of the lower layers don’t change with CO2 so the balance is maintained by reducing GHG’s (water vapor) in the upper atmosphere.
It’s worse than we thought. Maybe the temperature won’t change at all, but we’ve gone and upset the balance of the water vapor.
Airplanes will fly better. The horror!
The whole idea that H20 is not a forcing, it’s a feedback is the source of the error from the beginning. The notion that the “Team” still holds onto its golden goose in the light of more than a decade of contradictory real world evidence just shows how entrenched the players in this money pit are. The enhanced greenhouse theory has been dead for years now, yet we still have people hanging on for dear life. It’s inexplicable from a scientific viewpoint. Positive feedback doesn’t even make intuitive sense.
Josh could come up with a good cartoon for that one I’m sure (showing LWR interacting with 1 CO2 molecule and 1 H2O. Each one carries a sign… Josh take it from there)


We have moved into a world of science where (as long as it’s climate) observations don’t matter. Whether it’s water vapour decline, AWOL hotspot or flat temps for over 15 years, none of it really matters to the faithful. The theory and models must be defended no matter how many times they are falsified.

The world has spent over $ 1 trillion on climate change mitigation based on climate models that don’t work. They are notoriously poor at simulating the 20th century warming because they do not include natural causes of climate change – mainly due to the changing sun – and they grossly exaggerate the feedback effects of greenhouse gas emissions.My bold.
It is the understanding of natural oscillations of both sun and the Earth combined, which opens possibility of the implementation in the climate change science.


I think the graphs are visually misleading … note the log scale! So the visual decline at the top of the atmosphere *looks* like it is hugely greater than the increase near the surface, but its not!
To draw valid conclusions we need to see the changes compared in absolute terms.

“I think the graphs are visually misleading … note the log scale! ”
Log scales make sense because we are addressing TOA radiative forcing.



@highflight56433 says: Maybe some of that water vapor is in the oceans
Yeah, the missing water vapor has been found.. in the deep ocean!