Just because something is said to be an amplifier doesn’t mean it actually is doing so, plus other datasets don’t show an increase in water vapor. See below. Also, you gotta love the big burning ball of hot they included with the press release.
From the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
Scientists suggest that water vapor will intensify future climate change projections
MIAMI – A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.
“The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere,” said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.
To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth’s surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.
Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping the Earth’s radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.
Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the Earth’s temperature.
The paper, titled “Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming,” was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper’s authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.abstract
Full paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.full.pdf
Supporting Information: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/07/23/1409659111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201409659SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT
Abstract
Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change
Significance
The fact that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas underscores the need for an accurate understanding of the changes in its distribution over space and time. Although satellite observations have revealed a moistening trend in the upper troposphere, it has been unclear whether the observed moistening is a facet of natural variability or a direct result of human activities. Here, we use a set of coordinated model experiments to confirm that the satellite-observed increase in upper-tropospheric water vapor over the last three decades is primarily attributable to human activities. This attribution has significant implications for climate sciences because it corroborates the presence of the largest positive feedback in the climate system.
==============================================================
I note this graph from their SI, the trend seems tiny, and one wonders if they have done all the appropriate orbital drift corrections that people often like to mention about Christy and Spencer:
However, this dataset below of relative humidity, from reanalysis of in-situ radiosonde measurements (not from remote sensing) suggests water vapor has not been on the increase in the upper troposphere, nor in the middle, nor in the lower troposphere.
Atmospheric Relative Humidity from NOAA ESRL data:
![NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/noaa20esrl20atmospericrelativehumidity20globalmonthlytempsince194820with37monthrunningaverage1.gif)
Relative atmospheric humidity (%) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2014. Last diagram update: 12 July 2014.
Click here to download the raw data used to generate the above diagram. Use the following search parameters: Relative humidity, mb, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
Specific Humidity (the ratio of the mass of water vapor in air to the total mass of the mixture of air and water vapor) also shows no increase in the upper troposphere. In fact it shows a down-trend, opposite of what would be expected from a water vapor feedback amplifying mechanism.
Atmospheric Specific Humidity from NOAA ESRL data:
![NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/noaa20esrl20atmospericspecifichumidity20globalmonthlytempsince194820with37monthrunningaverage1.gif)
Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: June 2014. Last diagram update: 12 July 2014.
Click here to download the raw data used to generate the above diagram. Use the following search parameters: Specific humidity, mb, 90N-90S, 0-357.5E, monthly values, area weighted grid.
h/t to Ole Humlum at http://climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Atmospheric%20water%20vapor
Interestingly, the 300 mb level (~9-10km above the surface), is the level most commercial airlines fly. Some folks worry that all that water vapor coming from those jet engines each day might have an effect on the upper troposphere, and I’m not talking about the “Chemtrail” loonies. I wonder if their remote satellite sensing was tuned to deal with that?
![Contrails-NASA-Langley-Research-Center-1024x809[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/contrails-nasa-langley-research-center-1024x8091.gif)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No global warming for over 16 years. That is the amplification at work I suppose.
Other deadly amplification at work.
Arctic temperature
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Arctic sea ice extent
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
It’s getting worse everyday, much worse than I ever imagined, and we must act now!
The IPCC states –
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?
In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback.
Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.
=====================================================
Negative lapse rate feedback has not occurred according to RSS data, and you can’t have one without the other!
Temperature Mid Troposphere – Tropics (-25,25) Trend = 0.085 K/decade
Temperature Lower Troposphere – Tropics (-25,25) Trend = 0.103 K/decade
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Funny how the first graphs are plotted. The y axis is not the data for that year, but for a data period ending that year. It doesn’t say the duration of the time period. If it’s 10 years, the latest value is for 1995-2005, which is terribly old, especially when you remember the last mega ElNinio of 1998, which must have made the tropospheric humidity go bonkers
Even if they DID find an increase, surface global warming is at a hiatus for over 16 years. It’s not responding, it is a dead parrot. It’s all a mess, poorly understood, and modeled to death.
Louis Frank, et al, at the University of Iowa observed a continuous flux of small comets entering the atmosphere. Comets big enough to appear on the images taken from the Dynamics Explorer Satellite, later confirmed by observations from the NASA Polar Spacecraft and ground-based telescopes detailed in a paper published in Journal of Geophysical Research, March 2001 Space Physics.
It would be interesting to consider the water vapor being continually added to the upper atmosphere by these small comets. But it would be hugely disruptive to a lot of “settled” science.
http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/
Did I hear hotspot? Heh, heh.
Of course the outcome states that only manmade carbon is essentially the cause, and it cannot be explained by natural forces. So let’s forget the fact that solar cycles and solar activity have a far stronger correlation to weather than any existing carbon climate models and let’s all support the obvious end-game here – a UN regulated global climate tax.
Anthony’s diligence in offering reportage on all these “It’s worse than we thought” papers is to be commended. I must admit, I rarely get beyond the first paragraph, but it’s good for the historical record.
I have to tell you all that the underground bunker I’m planning for the impending climate catastrophe is still very much at the concept stage, so if any of you are further ahead than me in terms of implementation then my family and I will be very grateful to receive your hospitality.
I’m still torn between the vision of a proper bunker or something more akin to Noah’s Ark.
Difficult choices. I wonder what Dana Nuccitelli would advise?
I am pretty sure if you used these models you could show that global human population rise is not natural and solely the artifact of increased CO2. Junk parameters in = junk results out. Those Godlike Models have temps still going up up and away while real world temps have flatlined, it is amazing how they think some junk parameters = proof. I am going to make a Model to predict the hypotenuse and I will use the formula 2A2 + B2 = C2. When the results in the real world do not work out I will call skeptics of my Model and formula deniers and change the real world results in my favor.
When will these scientists understand the parameters in their formula are wrong? The feedbacks in the real world do not match the parameters in their formula, hence the reason real world temps have remained flat while their formula says it should be accelerating even faster than it was in the 1990’s. Junk in, junk out. Fix the equation because it is incorrect, how many years must pass before they understand this?
Again and again, it’s ‘models all the way down’.
If reality doesn’t confirm your hypothesis, models certainly will.
Jimbo says:
July 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm
If they actually DID find an increase in the satellite data, one wonders how much of it is actually from ‘feedback” and how much of it is simply added moisture due to water vapor in jet exhaust?
Even if they DID find an increase, surface global warming is at a hiatus for over 16 years. It’s not responding, it is a dead parrot. It’s all a mess, poorly understood, and modeled to death.
——————————–
It’s not dead, Sir, it’s sleeping!
They used “climate models” to “show” that CO2 can be the only cause for increased moisture. The same old nonsense of using climate models to prove what the climate model assume. Another FAIL by government funded science research.
We have had a series of El Nino driven evaporation events over the study time period. That they used climate models to study volcanic and solar influence confirms to me they did not consider evaporation from El Nino events. This appears to me to be another case of climate scientists dismissing weather pattern variations that have long term oscillations. I also question whether or not adequate measures were obtained in order to determine normal variation. Was one of the scientists a meteorologist? Was one of the scientists a statistician? These two disciplines are absolutely central to these investigations.
As soon as i see the stock-in-trade emotive images i switch off such Madison Avenue inspired diatribe
If they have managed to detect a water vapour feedback trend (although they leave off nearly 10 years of the latest data), which would be expected, this paper therefore suggests that at least in the short term, the tropical tropospheric vapour feedback is not as important as assumed by the models.
There is a very strong negative feedback mechanism when humidity increases. It is called clouds. No model I know of handles the effect of clouds adequately.
Here is an observation: “The cause of Climate Change is still up in the air.”
http://lenbilen.com/2012/02/02/the-cause-of-climate-change-is-still-up-in-the-air/
Any increase in land surface and sea surface temperatures will result in more water vapor in the lower atmosphere. There have been none of these.
More water vapor in the atmosphere will make the energy transfer from the surface to the Tropopause faster. Models that they use, are based on BS and yield garbage results. Computer generated results are no replacement for real facts based on observed results. pg
This alleged co2 induced positive water vapour feedback has NEVER overwhelmed the system. Negative feedback exists too, that is why we are here commenting. I think we need to forget this shite.
We are here for a reason. Carry on typing and don’t worry about water vapour overheating your neighborhood. Dangerous co2 induced warming is based on garbage. Water vapour induced dangerous warming does not exist.
William Abbott says:
July 28, 2014 at 3:57 pm
======================================
I remember reading an article, likely in SA, about 20 years ago which proposed a similar thought that this is in part how the Earth gained it,s water mass.
Let me be clear. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but it has not and will not cause dangerous warming today, tomorrow or in 2100. It never has.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Without it we would be freezing chaps. We are here today and alive. This is a con job.
“New study claims to confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier – but other data says no”
Ain’t settled science great?
Anthony here is a link to the shadowing effect created by contrails http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings
How long would co2 say aloft ? http://ci.coastal.edu/~sgilman/770lecwatersalt.htm
The change illustrated in their Fig. S1.Decadal trends of observed brightness temperatures as a function of time span is laughable! With those error bars, the changes could just as well be strongly negative and they would still be within the error bars drawn. Any supposedly detected change is swamped by noise—just like the claim of CO2 heating the atmosphere.
“The fact that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas underscores the need for an accurate understanding of the changes in its distribution over space and time.”
There it is. The money request. I knew it would be in there somewhere.