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.
“So now we have CO2 rising AND water vapor rising, but still no increase in temperature. How do they explain that?”
They (the world’s experts on the subject) explain “that” by pointing out your assertion is false. See the problem now?
“Does anyone here seriously consider that airplanes change upper tropospheric water vapor levels more than factors affecting global temperature do?”
Since the evidence shows that aircraft do in fact modify high altitude cloud formations, then yes, the answer to your question is “Of course.” In fact the effect has been measured during time periods when air craft in large numbers were grounded during various human-caused crises. When thousands of air craft stop flying, night time temperatures cool faster than when those air craft are not grounded.
(Note that one of several reasons why the USA’s commercial aircraft industry did not build its high altitude super-sonic aircraft fleet was because of the major impact those aircraft would have.)
“Why, does a paper published in 2014, ignore nearly 10 year’s worth of data?”
Er…. because the data series ended 10 years ago. How can scientists study data that have not been collected?
Water vapor as a serious feedback multiplier is a joke. Effects of changing the entire atmospheric column absolute humidity would need a temperature increase of 5 deg C to increase the content by 30% which is a far cry from a doubling. Water vapor is very similar to co2 in effect but 2 to3 times more potent and accounts already for 2 to 3 times the amount of IR blocking as co2. In clear skies, a co2 doubling results in about 3.7 w/m^2 increase in absorption and an h2o doubling would result in 2 to 3 times that amount but at constant relative humidity (a fairly acceptable assumption) it would take 5 deg C rise to give just a 30% increase in absolute humidity. This much increase in h2o would be similar to blocking to the co2 doubling which without feedbacks would cause around 1 deg C temperature rise – so of this supposed 5 deg C rise in T, we have enough added blocking to accommodate 2 deg C and nothing to cause the added 3 deg C needed for that 5 deg C rise.
The net result of this is that if Earth warms 1 deg C due to CO2 increases (a doubling), h2o vapor can contribute only an additional small fraction of the amount.
Of course the added h2o present is going to want to create more clouds which result in higher albedo and more blocked incoming solar than increased upward IR blocking. The added IR will help to increase the convection rates and transfer more heat upward. It’s really a great negative feedback system for temperature regulation and heat transfer.
Nice timing on this. I was recently showering the hair-on-fire alarmist loonies with the water vapor reduction problem for AGW and I brought it up in a WUWT thread.
I had some success with the loons in local news comments who demanded sources.
This worked well.
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
And this.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/climate-scientists-confirm-that-actual-atmospheric-water-vapor-levels-invalidate-global-warming-tipp.html
Some alarmists appeared disturbed by the importance.
In my layperson opinion the water vapor problem may be the most significant,and useful AGW flaw for fellow laypersons, editorial boards and skeptical politicians.
This new attempt to distort the status of water vapor also displays the willingness to deceive by researchers.
I am finding myself thinking the clarity of the role of water vapor, trend observations and the new lying about it could be the stake in the heart of AGW.
It’s great this new study and distortion his surfaced.
Anthony has crushed it in grand fashion.
This thread will be my lead in new story comments.
It’s The Water.
I’m so confused, we have some trolls on here saying there is no pause and no scientist believes there is one. Yet I’ve read plenty of scientific papers recently trying to explain the pause. Could that troll explain?
You beat me to the punch. I was going to show those vary graphs that show water vapor is not increasing but decreasing. It amazes me how AGW enthusiast ignore data.
Desertphile says:
“(Note that one of several reasons why the USA’s commercial aircraft industry did not build its high altitude super-sonic aircraft fleet was because of the major impact those aircraft would have.)”
care to back that claim up with evidenced?
Now, there’s a low earth orbit!
Desertphile says:
…the global average increase would be about 2.62c by year 2100.
In your fevered dreams.
Earth to Desertphile:
Global warming has stopped. Accept reality.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
In actual reality, I think it is now rather obvious that water vapor is being driven in much larger part or entirely by factors other then temps.
I have been coming here for quite some time and I am curious about one thing: What would convince people on here that AGW is real and does present a serious threat to civilization? What would be the evidence that would finally push each skeptic over? I do not intend to be inflammatory, I am just curious as to how you WUWT readers would see it.
knr says:
July 29, 2014 at 8:06 am
Desertphile says:
“(Note that one of several reasons why the USA’s commercial aircraft industry did not build its high altitude super-sonic aircraft fleet was because of the major impact those aircraft would have.)”
care to back that claim up with evidenced?
Try this for starters: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pc.26.100175.001531?journalCode=physchem
Desertphile says:
July 29, 2014 at 6:31 am
Curious which of the many recently published papers trying to explain this lack of warming do you value?
Variation since 1960 of global sea surface temperature (HadSST3), observed sunspot number (Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), and Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at 300 mb altitude (Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA)). Base period: 1961-1990. The thin lines in the diagram represent the monthly values, while the thick lines is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last month shown: March 2014. Last diagram update: 1 May 2014.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalSeaSurfaceMonthlyTemp%20and%20300mbSpecificHumidity%20Since1960.gif
Andrew Clark says:
I have been coming here for quite some time and I am curious about one thing: What would convince people on here that AGW is real and does present a serious threat to civilization? What would be the evidence that would finally push each skeptic over?
You are turning our oft-asked question on it’s head:
What would convince the alarmist crowd that CAGW exists? There is no scientific evidence to support runaway global warming. There is no testable, measurable evidence showing that human emissions cause global warming, so…
…what would it take to convince you that CAGW exists?
Not to mention the fact that every wild-eyed alarmist prediction has turned out to be flat wrong. Really, what would it take for you to be the least bit skeptical? Anything? Or are you an evidence-free True Believer?
Vilify CO2, Then vilify water..
Life causes climate change,END LIFE NOW!!
Save Earth as a nice dry rock just like the Moon,
It’ll never change.
Observations show something in our atmosphere negates the IR absorbtion, greenhouse effect from CO2..
This is proved by the fact that ever increasing atmospheric CO2 level has not increased temperature for 17+ years. No co-relation.
If not clouds and H2O vapor then what?
ren says:
July 29, 2014 at 4:14 am
“The disturbing condition the Gulf Stream.”
“Disturbing”? really?
You’re disturbed by the Gulf Stream?
Stimpy hangs his head.
Me, I’m ROFLMAO.
Andrew Clark,
I suspect your question is a juvenile stunt.
But did you read and grasp the information above?
Do you understand the water vapor problem for AGW?
If so how do you then follow with such an obtuse question?
Plus if you are going to ask such a question you should preface it with at least one thing that has YOU so convinced.
To answer your question, “What would convince people on here that AGW is real and does present a serious threat to civilization?”, if any of the climate models and countless other predictions and baseless attributions to AGW were actually coming true that would be convincing.
How is it that you have failed to assess or recognize how inconsistent and contradictory to reality AGW assertions have been?
The real world atmospheric water vapor reduction destroys the theory of CO2 emissions=AGW.
There is no getting out of that box.
The IPCC has made it clear that AGW must have increased water vapor for their hypothesis to hold up. They have never claimed that trace greenhouse gas CO2 alone can warm the planet.
The AGW theory must have increased water vapor for the IPCC greenhouse effect to occur as defined.
This is an easy get for any layperson.
Oh dear. Another ‘dumb ass’ paper that misses out atmospheric physics.
Firstly, 50% of incoming solar is in the form of infra red. Increasing GHG concentrations reduces the intensity of surface heating by solar irradiance whilst simultaneously increasing the heat capacity and therefore reducing the temperature increase for increased direct atmospheric absorption.
Secondly, if upper tropospheric water vapour increases then that water has ALREADY cooled the surface through moist convective heat transfer. The most significant form of heating of the upper troposphere is moist convection which is simultaneously the major surface cooling process with current atmospheric composition. A simple diagram projecting adiabats from an altitude shows that for a given energy the surface equilibrium temperature is REDUCED by its water content.
Thirdly, increasing GHG content at upper tropospheric heights increases atmospheric emissivity enabling more heat to be radiated to space for the same temperature or an equal amount from a lower temperature. Maintained upper tropospheric moisture requires a continuously increased heat transfer from the surface due to circulation and precipitation.
From the effective radiative height the surface equilibrium temperature supported by the atmosphere is given by a projection of the environmental lapse to 0m. The greater the water content the lower the surface temperature and equally significantly the heat capacity buffers the thermal response to heat uptake.
As ‘Kevin K’ above has stated, resorting to ‘heat trapping’ as a descriptive summation of complex processes is a give away.
Steve Oregon says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:37 am
Andrew Clark,
I suspect your question is a juvenile stunt.
But did you read and grasp the information above?
Do you understand the water vapor problem for AGW?
If so how do you then follow with such an obtuse question?
Plus if you are going to ask such a question you should preface it with at least one thing that has YOU so convinced.
To answer your question, “What would convince people on here that AGW is real and does present a serious threat to civilization?”, if any of the climate models and countless other predictions and baseless attributions to AGW were actually coming true that would be convincing.
Well, not exactly, Steve.
Even if some of the models were more accurate and many of the attributions to AGW came true, that is not evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause.
Just one example: Mt. Kilimanjaro. The loss of Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice cap was attributed to AGW by CO2 back when the ice was clearly becoming less and less.
Sounds convincing, except:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/07/kilimanjaro-glaciers-just-wont-die-nowhere-near-extinction/
it is not a warming global climate that is the culprit.
I was being generous? 🙂
Specific humidity: 300 hPa, 500 hPa, 700 hPa, 925 hPa.
Absolute humidity is the total amount of water vapour present in a given volume of air. It does not take temperature into consideration. Absolute humidity in the atmosphere ranges from near zero to roughly 30 grams per cubic meter when the air is saturated at 30 °C.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.31.183.20.77.209.11.56.58.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.31.183.20.77.209.12.10.12.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.31.183.20.77.209.12.11.15.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/climindex.31.183.20.77.209.12.12.47.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
See Matt Ridley thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/matt-ridley-a-lukewarmers-ten-tests/
First paragraph: