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.
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.
Correctomundo?
Let’s be honest, their speculation has run it’s course
Let’s be honest, their speculation has run its course
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
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?
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.
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.)
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…
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)
YOU ARE MY HEROES!
With gratitude,
“Liberty”
(and Janice)
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 …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm
And from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem …
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=138594&CultureCode=en
Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50772/abstract;jsessionid=2380BAEAB278C18E40305C375A64D11C.f04t04
Ocean–atmosphere interactions: Bottom up in the tropics
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate2039.html
(Paywalled)
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?
Earth’s clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm
“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.”
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!,
Janice
[The mods caution all readers underneath “Hamsters Walking On Sunshine” to: (1) Not look up and (2) Wear proper personal protective equipment. ]
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?
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.
Dear John Francis,
Good observation. And… heeeeere you go!:
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/
2. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I hope that you find those links helpful,
Janice
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::http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC088iC06p03897/abstract
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.
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