Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say Israeli, US scientists

Jerusalem, February 2, 2014 – Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?

Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and its impact on climate is amplified in the stratosphere.

In a detailed study, the researchers from the three institutions examined the causes of changes in the temperatures and water vapor in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). The TTL is a critical region of our atmosphere with characteristics of both the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.

The TTL can have significant influences on both atmospheric chemistry and climate, as its temperature determines how much water vapor can enter the stratosphere. Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.

The Israeli and US scientists used measurements from satellite observations and output from chemistry-climate models to understand recent temperature trends in the TTL. Temperature measurements show where significant changes have taken place since 1979.

The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean – with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere,

Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.


The researchers are Dr. Chaim Garfinkel of the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. D. W. Waugh and Dr. L. Wang of Johns Hopkins, and Dr. L. D. Oman and Dr. M. M. Hurwitz of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, and the research was also highlighted in Nature Climate Change.

From the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

UPDATE: The Hockey Schtick adds this perspective

New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2

A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds water vapor can act as a negative-feedback cooling effect to significantly counteract anthropogenic global warming.

According to the paper, “The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean — with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the tropical tropopause region above the warming sea surface. Once the tropical tropopause cools, less water vapor is present in the tropical tropopause and also above in the stratosphere,

Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.”

The paper itself says, “In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future sea surface temperatures are of similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2, ozone, and methane,” which would indicate that this negative-feedback cooling effect is almost equivalent to the warming effect of man-made CO2, ozone, and methane and could almost fully offset global warming.

The paper is similar to another recent paper published in Nature Climate Change, finding warming of sea surface temperatures in the Indian and Pacific Ocean ‘warm pool’ is causing less water vapor to enter the top of the troposphere and could cause global cooling from this negative-feedback. The papers add to many others finding water vapor acts as a negative-feedback, not positive as assumed by IPCC climate models. Climate model false assumptions of positive-feedback from water vapor are the entire basis of Mann-made global warming alarm. 


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Negative feedbacks outweight positive feedbacks. Mind=blown! *sarc*

True Conservative

Not to mention the ensuing clouds reflect / scatter the incoming radiation back into space before it’s affected by greenhouse gases!

Saw that coming.

It looks like the long poo-pahed tropical lens has made its appearance in “the literature”.


Actually, I’m curious as to whether they think this is the mechanism responsible for the approximately 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapor observed over the last decade. I’m also curious as to whether they have cause, effect and so on mixed up a bit — it could easily be that both increased surface water vapor and decreased stratospheric water vapor arise from a THIRD (common) cause, and hence are correlated but not correlated as cause and effect. I don’t find the result implausible, but there is a lot going on at the top of the troposphere and as far as I recall the reduction of stratospheric water vapor is general and global, not localized, where of course they are talking about a highly localized increase in low level water vapor if they confine it to specific oceanic regions. It also leaves open why stratospheric water vapor has only varied significantly recently, when IIRC in the past there have been many times when oceanic surface waters in some part of the world spike hot. These things make me doubt the result, or at least consider it largely speculative at this point.

Mike M

Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?


As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to……global warming hiding in the deep ocean
So what happens when the globe does not warm and ocean temps do not rise?
….when it’s sitting still, there’s no feedback
Here’s what it really looks like….

William Astley

Lindzen and Choi, Douglas and Christy, Willis, and Bob Tisdale are way out in front on this one. It is difficult to keep track of the paradoxes that disprove catastrophic AGW.
1) No observed long term warming in the tropics.
2) Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation vs short term ocean temperature changes indicates the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by an increase or decrease of cloud cover in the tropics. (Willis’ governor.)
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
3) Predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot is not observed.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
4) GCMs predict significant warming in the tropics rather than in high latitude regions. Pattern of warming observed warming does not support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”… …“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Two Labs

I can see the excuses now: “see, not all of AGW shows up in the climate record, so that proves we’re right!”

el gordo

Gaia works in mysterious ways.

Pamela Gray

Assumptions that form the basis of further investigation should always be properly presented in gold-standard research articles.
The authors state, “As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere.” The opening segment clearly indicates that the authors assume that anthropogenic warming is real and somehow selectively measurable from natural warming. So then, we can critique the authors’ assumption that the anthropogenic portion of increased CO2 concentration enhanced the “global” temperature which then, the authors say, caused an increase in ocean temperatures.
If the globe has warmed, so say the authors, all oceans should have warmed too, according to their opening segment. This premise which forms the basis of their further thesis, was not adequately understood or investigated by these authors and can be torn asunder in short order by all arm-chair data crunchers. The authors must have known that not all oceans have warmed. Therefore, this paper should have been rejected due to a false statement in its opening remarks.
Specifically, oceanic warming via shortwave solar infrared that is variably allowed in or reflected away due to atmospheric conditions is the cause of measurable ocean warming or cooling, accounts for selective ocean warming and cooling, and accounts for decreased or increased evaporation.
But their apparent premise is that recent ocean warming was caused by longwave infrared radiation from the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 warming the air, and then the air warming the oceans, kicking up additional water vapor that serves to enhance the warming of the air in a runaway cycle.
For their premise to be the basis of their further thesis (natural cooling counteracts anthropogenic warming), they must first provide a mechanized basis for this weird opposition to natural oceanic temperature oscillations. They do not, nor do they adequately explain how their premise appears to selectively warm some oceans while leaving others alone. The paper has not presented a proper treatise of their assumptions and should have been rejected.

New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2


wow it is just like those hippies said that Gaia really can do things like that

Janice Moore

1. “…the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities”
— Assuming facts not in evidence.
2. “full brunt” — loaded language betraying the authors’ bias;
Result: reduced credibility.
3. “…understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance — Why? There is NO EVIDENCE for this, making it a highly implausible hypothesis at best, mere unsupported conjecture, at worst.
4. Re: Stratosphere – Troposphere Coupling Mechanisms
A. “… at equatorial latitudes Salby and Callaghan (2005) identified an interaction between the stratospheric B‐D circulation and the tropospheric Hadley circulation … but again, this does not provide a chain of causality.” (Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White (2010): Solar Influence on Climate., “Rev. Geophys.,” 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282. at 29)
“There are many proposed mechanisms for a downward influence from the lower stratosphere into the troposphere … response in tropical vertical velocity was not uniformly distributed in longitude but was largest over the Indian and West Pacific oceans, … despite having imposed SSTs, suggesting that their tropospheric signal was a response to changes in the stratosphere and not to the bottom-up mechanism of TSI heating of the ocean surface … .
This would be consistent with the results of Salby and Callaghan (2005) (see Figure 25), whose analysis suggested that the stratosphere and troposphere are linked by a large‐scale transfer of mass across the tropopause resulting in a coupling of the B‐D circulation in the stratosphere and the tropical Hadley circulation in the troposphere. However, as discussed in section 4.2.2, this does not preclude the possibility that there is an additional positive feedback from the oceans so that both top‐down and bottom‐up mechanisms are acting in the real world.” (Id. at 30)
B. General Comment Re: Attributing Causation of Climate
(and echoing Robert G. Brown at Duke above)
“… correlation coefficients, which suggest a link but are not sufficient to indicate any causal mechanism. In addition, there is substantial internal variability in the climate
system,… . Since the climate system may react in a nonlinear way the response function can be quite different from the forcing function.” [Id. at 24]
Link to Gray, et. al.:
{Note: all boldface type is my editing}

Janice Moore

… and the authors of the Junk Science article above have been RESOUNDINGLY defeated by Ms. Pamela Gray! Nice job (at 1:26pm). Send that paper to the bird cage.
(how’s “everything” going? hope Valentine’s Day is extra special, this year (smile))

jai mitchell

this has been well documented for years and years.
it fits the climate models. nothing new here, move along people. . .move along. . .
One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase.

Janice Moore

@ Pamela Gray — the question at 1:58pm is addressed to you — sorry for ambiguity, everyone.


Lattitde says Here’s what it really looks like….
Wow, look at all those hockey sticks.


It is hard to believe that this entire AGW “debate” as one side, the sanity brigade do earnest battle with “the flotilla of fools”.
If it wasn’t for the tragic waste of taxpayers hard earned money it would be funny – but that is not the case.


Many ordinary folk have wondered out loud over the years as to why the heck we are still here if past high carbon dioxide was supposed to have destroyed the biosphere? 2,000ppm, 1200ppm, 1000ppm, 800ppm all failed to destroy the biosphere, yet 600ppm will cause ‘dangerous warming’. What a load of fart.

Since the “full brunt” appears to be about zero, the bar isn’t set very high.

To echo Janice Moore, Pamela Gray nails the faulty premise of this paper. The rise in the temperature of “the oceans” is a) not well measured, b) where measured, de minimus.
To really get the water vapour lift they are suggesting they would have to provide proof that ocean temps have risen sufficiently to create all that water vapour. As nearly as I can see they have not provided any evidence of such a rise in temperature.

Gunga Din

I’m confused. We need to declare war on coal and put up windmills and solar panels to prevent CAGW because Ma’ Gaea is doing the job herself?


First we had the ‘hiding missing hotspot‘ and now the ‘hiding missing heat’. I suspect that the CAGW speculation is in deep ‘sea’ trouble and the next 5 years will be interesting.
Let’s be honest, their speculation has run it’s course and in any other science the referee would have blown the final whistle and sent these charlatans off the pitch for violating the rules of the game and making up their own rules. Kicking someone in the eyes is normal play. Fabricating score sheets is par for the course. Very sad and very desperate.

Janice Moore

@ Jimbo LOVE your unvarnished comments (at 2:19pm and 2:42pm). LOL. You are SO right.
(still have yesterday’s BIG GAME — Hoooooraaaay, Seattle Seahawks!!! — on my mind)
“in any other science the referee would have blown the final whistle” (Jimbo)
Genuine Referee: False Start. … Holding. …. Out of bounds. …. Excessive time outs. Offense. Penalty: 50,000 yards. Yes — I — mean — it. Now, you get your little fannies back there and play the game right — or don’t play at all. … Pick it up! …. Men! — HUSTLE!
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
Truth wins. Every time.
And, since no one watched it last night when I posted it, here it is again!

{WARNING: If you haven’t watched the game YET (eye roll)…… spoiler alert….}
Happy? Me?? YOU BETCHA! #(:))
(FYI: I was born and raised about 1 hour from Seattle)

Rud Istvan

Willis Eschenbach already explained how and why in his thermostat governor posts. Lindzen hypothesized exactly this negative feedback in 2000, his so called adaptive iris. Simple consequences of Tstorms with humidity washout via precipitation, leaving latent heat of condensation to escape. Nice to see additional papers observing the phenomenon.


Pamela Gray says:
February 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm
A thoughtful critique. However, the bottom line is, here is a mechanism which tends to provide negative feedback, and simplified modeling shows the effect is potentially large enough to essentially nullify any putative warming. IOW, the science is not by any means settled.


Let’s be honest, their speculation has run it’s course
Let’s be honest, their speculation has run its course

Gail Combs

ERRrr, isn’t there a bit of a problem because IR can only impact the surface of the ocean and also IR is not ‘Energy Intense’ (I do not have the correct word for the concept)
It is Sunlight espcially the visible light range and above that penetrates the oceans: graph 1 and graph 2
On top of all that Mankind is only responsible for three percent of the CO2.
Even if CO2 is bouncing IR back towards the oceans it is only in certain wavebands and it is insignificant compared to the energy from the sun. graph 3 This graph gives the relative energy of ‘Earthshine’ vs ‘sunshine’
Finally you can add in the changes in albedo:
graph 4
And changes in the composition of the sun’s TSI
NASA SOLAR IRRADIANCE (Gives changes for different wave lengths of solar energy)
NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

…Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere….
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”

I think these scientists are so sunk in their CAGW thinking they can not think outside that box.


Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?
Uh, did they specifically identify the exact amount of “global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities”, separating them from the natural processes that cause either warming or cooling?

HGW xx/7

Jai, Jai, Jai…
As a fellow Seattlite, which I am sure just delights you, I will preface this by saying that I am no climate scientist. I am a simple engineer who is nerdy with numbers and finds myself in the lukewarming camp. I do believe we are having an affect on the climate. Just as any animal does whose demand outstrips their resources, there is going to be push back. We have seen it time and tide again in nuclear power, war, industrialization, and so on. Yes, I know I will probably draw some wrath from the regulars on here, and you have every right to chastize me; this is a place of open debate. However, just as I see the positives of things like nuclear power, there are also clear and very detrimental downsides that are long-lasting and far-reaching.
Likewise, however, is the matter of our global climate. Jai, I know the models have been right in some aspects and some have been more right than others. I know that some predicted we would get more snow in some places. I know some said the US would see even fewer hurricanes and tornadoes than before. I believe that the global temperature is increasing, some of it is our fault, and that effect without countereffect is impossible.
Yet, just as I believe we can’t say ‘there is no problem, pollute away’, we can’t say ‘everything is a problem’. People can only take hearing ‘the models are right, all the time, no exceptions’ and then see things happen that are contrary to what they have been told. On the news and the internet and in movies, we are given these grandeose worst-case scenarios that are so over the top that people can’t help but laugh. It’s a non-stop stream of being told that our very existance is to blame for all the world’s ills. Just yesterday, before the slaughter-house that was the Super Bowl (go Seahawks), there was a stomach-turning marathon of climate-tastic movies on the SyFy channel, including such titles of as ‘Snowmageddon’ and ‘Ice Tornadoes’, sensationalistic plots that both pay lip service to CAGW while turning to blind eye to fact or reason. It’s all emotionally-based.
There are facts on both sides of the debate, something you may very well disagree with me on. However, you can’t have it both ways and I think that’s how much of the public is feeling. No matter what we do, and despite all the good both our species, as well as the environmental movement has done, we are doomed and everything around us is a sign of it. The models cannot be wrong, humans cannot be right.
Maybe if we balanced it out the the occasional, “you know, the models were a bit off and we may not end up seeing this devistating catastophe we previously predicted; this is something that we can take steps to alleviate, though,” people might feel a little more positive and have a reason to fight to improve the planet, as opposed to the throwing-up of hands that leads to turning a blind eyes to real problems that don’t need a model to ‘see’. Even the most recent IPCC report dialed back their sensitivity ranges in some cases and all they could resonably connect the changes in climates to is a shift in precipitation patterns and a higher chance of heat waves. That is hardly, “we were right on everything”.
Jai, the models are not always right, they have made mistakes, there is room for debate on the amount of effect we are having on the planet, but if all you do is chime in here with the constant, “Uh, yeah, been there done that, still right, yada yada yada…”, you’re not going to get many more passengers on your ship. In fact, you’re going to have people heading for the life boats and ignoring the real problem left back on the ship…much like we saw in Antarctica.
I know I cannot convince you that skeptics have a resonable argument, just as I won’t believe the hard-core Greens do. Just know that reason can be found in both camps and, as such, stomping your feet and saying “move along” to a group of people who have every right to state their case is a weak, weak position to take.


Janice Moore says:
February 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm……….
Pick it up! …. Men! — HUSTLE!
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
Truth wins. Every time.
And, since no one watched it last night when I posted it, here it is again!

I love your input Janice. You have correctly described CAGW, it is in a state of utter and embarrassing confusion. Like I sad it is so sad to see. Grown men being forced by observations to lie, obfuscate, duck and dive and they somehow think no one is looking. So sad.
I have Professor ‘Arctic Ice Free’ Peter Wadhams in my sights. I have his full dossier and intend to release it in September 2015 when he predicted we will have an ice free Arctic ocean. He also said 2016 for an ice free Arctic ocean. We can hit him twice, watch him squirm and make a NEW prediction of an ice free Arctic. CAGW, don’t you just love it.

Man Oh Man, do I ever love this line: “Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.”
“Significant societal relevance;” I’m going to have to remember that one. It might come in handy, next time I get pulled over for speeding. (The trick is how to work it into the conversation.)

Pamela Gray

Janice, Valentines Day will be spent appropriately snuggled up with my man. It will be the first time in decades I have done such a thing.
Unfortunately, it could signal the end of the pause in global warming! LOL!
By the way, my tall handsome man reads this blog and thinks you are very sweet. I think you also have a scientific mind that I would like to see more of. Especially since I don’t get the significance of the hampster dance at all.


Well all reservations from pamela and rgb duly noted, we ought to be celebrating the fact that a paper on global warming which theorizes the existence of a negative feedback from water vapour got through peer review!
On the other hand, the paper and the comments in this thread evinced an image of Gaia playing whack-a-mole with global warming. Its here. Whack! No, it popped up over there now. Whack! Sometimes no moles pop up at all at which point Gaia starts screaming “its hiding!” and whacking the machine at random…

Janice Moore

JIMBO! Thank you, so much. You made my day.
Loaded for Wadham, heh, heh. That is terrific. We will stay tuned to WUWT!
You go, Jimbo, Hero for Truth.
And, since no one but Mario seems to have watched it late Friday night … AND BECAUSE YOU ARE WATCHING THIS THREAD (I hope) and because BART! just posted above…
“It is also for ALL of you WUWT heroes, for all of you teachers fighting the daily fight against ignorance in the classroom (and in the faculty lounge), and for all of the excellent scientists, both those out there on the front lines, such as Murry Salby, and those who, like Bart and Konrad and Leif AND PAMELA, patiently persevere, month after month, correcting error, and for A-tho-ny! and all you wonderful mo-derat-ors who deal with all the filth so the rest of us don’t have to (thank you!), and for all you regular commenters who step to the plate and daily refute insidiously erroneous, green-eyed, beliefs that would devour our liberties and destroy our free market economy, and last but not least, for all the great cheer leaders like Stan Stendera! Go, Stan! (and Libby).
THANK YOU for fighting the daily fight of good against ev1l, of truth against l1es.” (me, on Friday)

With gratitude,
(and Janice)

Janice Moore

I am so sorry, Moderator, for that post going into moderation (again!!). I thought spelling lies and evil with “1”‘s and breaking up “mo-der-at-or” would do the trick. Please forgive the bother. J.


Link to article in Science Daily …
And from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem …
Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone;jsessionid=2380BAEAB278C18E40305C375A64D11C.f04t04
Ocean–atmosphere interactions: Bottom up in the tropics

charles nelson

The authors of this paper are ‘wriggling’…in order not to be howled down they must necessarily accept CAGW..this then permits them to gently undermine it with some fairly common sense science.
We’re going to see a lot more ‘wriggling’ of this nature as Climate Scientists jockey for position in the new post CAGW order.

Does this mean Trenberth and Mann will try to make the editors of the journal resign in protest?

Mike Maguire

Earth’s clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds:
“Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes”.
“A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a “negative feedback” mechanism — a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. “We don’t know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,” says Davies. “But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude.”

Janice Moore

Dear Pamela Gray,
Thanks for responding. LOL, it is because I do not HAVE a scientific (just highly logical) mind that I LOVE the “Hamster Dance Song,” I guess… . #(:)). It only expresses (and allows me to dance to express) my JOY at the big win for Seattle. It’s the music mainly, not the video, that has significance in this context.
That YOU, whose sharp, logical, disciplined, truly scientific, mind I admire, think I have potential to think more rigorously is high praise for me. Thank you for the encouragement!
So GLAD to hear that the 14th will, indeed, be a lovely day/evening. SMILING for you, and so very happy. I can empathize more than you realize, I think. Thanks for passing along the compliment. MUCH appreciated. He certainly is a fine man (thus, worthy of you — YES. Don’t you shake your head at me, girl; you are a treasure). You make a great couple!
Here’s your song for the day:
(NOT all of the lyrics fit, the MUSIC is the main thing, here, just to express your joy about your guy; so you can DANCE — wheeeeeee! —
well… it’s what I would be playing in your shoes….)
“Walkin’ on Sunshine” — Katrina and the Waves

Take care and ENJOY!,
[The mods caution all readers underneath “Hamsters Walking On Sunshine” to: (1) Not look up and (2) Wear proper personal protective equipment. ]

John Francis

If I understand the supposed mechanisms correctly, then
CO2 has a greenhouse gas effect
Water vapour has a greenhouse gas effect
But.. Water vapour is a latent heat storage and re-delivery system, which seems to me to be likely to be vastly greater in effect than the other two. I have never seen these effects properly quantified, and I read a LOT about CAGW. Can anyone point me at such an article, if it exists?

Leon Brozyna

Who knows … it’s even possible that one of these days, scientists might figure out that it’s an amazing self-regulating system.
Now all they have to do is come to grips with another amazing concept … mankind is not some sort of strange unnatural entity.

Janice Moore

Dear John Francis,
Good observation. And… heeeeere you go!:
I hope that you find those links helpful,


Those inclined to presume solid knowledge of the effect of stratospheric water vapor upon surface and/or lower tropospheric temperatures would be well-advised to read Ellsaesser’s tutorial review at::

Janice Moore

Oh, Mod-er-ator (s), lol. Thank you for that warning to ward [off] potential liability (in case a certain narrow-eyed, pudgy-faced, tiny, little, vindictive, manikin looks up… and SPLAT! — heh, wouldn’t THAT be fun to see?).
Well, if they forget to wear their little unmentionables, I’ll just argue the reduced capacity of hamsters and, hopefully, they’ll just do some time in a mental hospital instead of regular jail, heh, heh.

Gary Pearse

No tropical thunderstorms, but maybe they are closing in on it from the top.

Allowing for negative feed backs does not extend the C in CAGW. So they pretend they do not exist.


Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi