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)
Haven’t seen the words methane and water vapor used in the same sentence yet .
As heat rises and replaced with cooler drier air a breeze starts. One of the first things we are thought is to blow on our hot food to cool it down. It’s called the wind chill factor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill
Yeah… let’s look at the water vapor at that altitude… and neglect the sub-visible cirrus, as always.
It is a well-understood principle of argument — at least up until the last few decades, anyway — that the burden of proof is on the positive. From that perspective, the question you ask is perfectly appropriate.
Everybody’s answer to your question will be different, but in my mind, the first simple question to be asked, before we start asking any other questions, is this: Have we seen similar increases in temperature within the past several hundred years, occurring at similar rates of increase as we see today; and if so, what were their effects?
If we make a perfectly defensible assumption that the Central England Temperature (CET) record is valid as a rough proxy for historical global mean temperature, we see that similar increases in temperature have occurred several times within the past three hundred years and that these increases in temperature were not accompanied by impacts which were of such a magnitude that they were of documented concern to the people who were experiencing them at the time.
Not that the public perception of the magnitude of these impacts might not have been different had there been an 18th Century version of the BBC in existence.
Climate scientists can perform any number of climate model runs and can write any number of papers about what those model runs indicate to them personally as climate scientists. But if those scientists don’t know enough about how the earth’s heat capture processes and its heat transfer processes actually work so as to be able to explain with good confidence just why these past increases in temperature occurred in the absence of elevated levels of carbon dioxide, then on what basis should we as the scientifically-informed public trust them to make accurate predictions about the magnitude and effects of future increases in CO2 concentration?
Greg Goodman says:
July 28, 2014 at 5:39 pm
“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.”
So they used a climate model to confirm what climate models are right.
Circularity?
++++++++++++
You nailed it. A circular argument. They use GCMs to show GCMs are correct. Huh???
“jmorpuss says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:11 pm”
Say what?
From Andrew Clark on July 29, 2014 at 9:26 am:
That’s a two parter. The evidence is pretty good that AGW is real. Some portion of the CO2 increase is attributable to humans thus some increase of the global average temperature, but as the logarithmic greenhouse effect of CO2 is effectively saturated it’s not much.
But we humans have done things that increase regional temperatures thus are said to cause global warming when it’s all averaged together. Land use changes mainly, from farming to paving roads to the use of concrete and other materials that excessively warm in sunlight when compared to natural vegetation.
Dr James Hansen, formerly of NASA GISS, has done lots of work on black carbon, aka soot from burning carbon-based materials. Our sprinkling with fine ashes of the northern territories may be responsible for about 1/2 or so of the Arctic warming and increases in the melting of snowpack, glaciers, sea ice, etc. It’s likely there’s a similar effect in the South Hemisphere.
So accepting AGW, even if it’s just regional effects on land that get averaged into the global average temperatures, is easy.
But we are in a “pause” that is growing quite lengthy. There is growing evidence we have entered a global cooling phase.
After reviewing the evidence, the greatest one being the planet continues to robustly support diverse life after very many millenia of natural disasters and naturally-occurring long-term disruptive influences, we have concluded Earth’s biosphere is resilient, and can handle the minor irritation that is humanity. The evidence is mounting that the planet has adapted to us. At best we may have increased the baseline global average temperature a small amount, which likely is temporary as we naturally shift to energy sources like nuclear which are less carbon-intensive and increase our overall energy efficiency over the coming centuries.
With the temperatures not cooperating, and the alarmists reduced to shrieking about “Extreme Weather Events!” that history reveals are not extreme in either intensity or frequency, the second part of your question, convincing us AGW is a serious threat to civilization, appears impossible.
Indeed, as seen on the news from the Middle East to the Ukraine to Europe to the White House, the most serious threat to civilization is civilization. Nothing else comes even remotely close.
I’m having some difficulty agreeing the T2 satellite observation trends in the paper to the RSS data. They say T2 is MSU/AMSU channel 2 brightness temperatures. My understanding is that AMSU channel 5 is the equivalent of MSU channel 2, and that the merged MSU ch. 2 / AMSU ch. 5 record is used to compile the RSS TMT temperature series (see http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature).
The paper gives a global-mean T2 trend over 1979-2005 of 0.17 K/decade. But the RSS TMT data I downloaded shows a global (-82.5 to 82.5 deg.) trend of 0.10 K/decade over that period (0.08 over 1979-2013). And the UAH TMT global data I have shows a trend of only 0.05 K/decade over 1979-2005 (same over 1979-2013). By comparison, the CMIP5 multimodel mean T2 trend is 0.20 +/-0.10 K/decade over 1979-2010. Unless I am going wrong somewhere, this seems to cast doubt on the paper’s findings that CMIP5 coupled models produce decadal trends consistent with satellite observations (except at a sufficiently low probability level).
Moreover, the HIRS data seems to reflect humidity over a much wider pressure range (200-500 hPa in the tropics, and 350-700 hPa at mid-latitudes) than that most important for water vapour feedback. The paper states that WV absorptivity scales with fractional changes in WV (which therefore are key for WV feedback strength). Model Historical simulations show ~2x higher fractional changes at 200 hPa than over 500-700 hPa (Fig. S2). It is unclear to what extent the HIRS data used will reflect changes in WV in the part of the range where models show the greatest fractional increase in WV. The absolute amount of WV in the 200-400 hPa range is only a fraction of that in the 500-700 hPa range.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
Does anyone here seriously consider that airplanes change upper tropospheric water vapor levels more than factors affecting global temperature do? The above satellite photo appears to me to show that cirrus type clouds concentrate their formations to where jetliners fly, possibly at the expense of elsewhere. I see jet contrails spreading out into cirrus-type clouds only when I see overhead or nearby weather conditions causing cirrus-type clouds to form on their own.
IIRC closing the airspace over North America in September 2001 did apparently cause a temperature change.
@ur momisugly Patrick you asked were the extra energy was coming from and I provided a link .
As they are measuring from 600mb upwards, they are including a lot of middle troposphere too. Interestingly the 600mb specific humidity increases from around 1995, from when the AMO went positive, which would be the wrong sign to be associated with increased GHG forcing.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Probably more important is the differential in the regional variability. From the paper:
“Decadal trends in upper-tropospheric relative humidity exhibits distinct regional patterns associated with changes in the atmospheric circulation, but the decadal trends over larger domains are small due to opposing changes at regional scales.”
“jmorpuss says:
July 30, 2014 at 3:05 pm”
You provided a Wikipedia link that talked of microwave ovens. I don’t see the connection you are trying to make.
How many times have we been told that water in the atmosphere accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse heat effect (GHE)? We have heard it countless times.
This means that the remaining 5% of the GHE is attributed to the greenhouse trace gases. Right?
Carbon dioxide is responsible for about 72% of that 5% … in other words, 3.6% (5% x 72%) of the GHE can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Right?
The IPCC AR4 asserted that only 3% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is from human activity, the overwhelming 97% of CO2 coming from natural sources. Right?
This means that approximately 0.11 of 1% (3.6% x 3%) of the GHE can be attributed to human-induced CO2. Right?
Can someone give me one scientific reason why the world has gone mad over something that has no discernible effect on the GHE, and certainly cannot be driving climate change?
@ur momisugly Patrick try reading the link ,it has nothing to do with the oven , it’s about atmospheric microwaves .
“jmorpuss says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:19 am”
Fine. Without an EXTERNAL AMPILFYING source beyond the Sun, where does the extra energy come from to AMPLIFY atmospheric “warming”? Its not there!
@ur momisugly Mervyn don’t blow a valve there buddy . You do know it’s about disttribution of wealth isn’t it. The only thing is everything has cost so much for so long that we can’t go back and just give away to porer nation free energy . Over the last 100 years man has invested billions if not trillions of dollars in high voltage power lines , if we were to use tech’s that already exist we could run our homes off grid right now . Nano tech’s and the capacitor /battery have improved over the last 50 years that there’s no need for high voltage at home . Now big buisness and industry are 3 phase hungry and would need a AC network, so let them lead the way getting of the grid by funding free energy. If their going to put up all these microwave towers ,then at least let rectenna tech’s advance in the public sector for recharging . People like Tom Bearden will be remembered as leaders in overunity and free energy. I read somewhere years ago thet in a perfect world there could be 24 billion of us living here together. Won’t happen if we don’t get our shite together and put the monopoly game away for another rainy day. Long live us humans .
@ur momisugly Patrick ,sorry mate not used to such a quick reply.
From what I’ve worked out it’s about the Photoelectric effect (photon) http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/PhotoelectricEffect.html
From jmorpuss on July 31, 2014 at 3:48 am:
Actually there is still plenty of need for high voltage distribution to individual homes. Running an individual home generation system is normally expensive in comparison. Even when the kWh cost looks cheaper, it is you who has to come up with quick cash for repairs. And at 2AM in the dead of winter, it is you who has to either get it working then or get someone else whom you will pay handsomely to get it working ASAP. With your own system it is you who has to worry 24/7/365.25 if the system will keep working and if it needs fuel or servicing. With a utility, your major worry is simply paying the bill.
Then there’s the insurance issue. As in paying even a little bit more per kWh is insurance against repairs. But also your home insurance company may frown on home generation and demand more to cover the risk.
Bearden is already recognized, in the Wikipedia History of perpetual motion machines entry, for building a device that reputedly extracted “vacuum energy” from “the immediate environment”.
I’m sorry, I thought I was conversing with at least a semi-rational person. But when you rail against “Big Electricity” and hold up yet another promoter of “Zero-point energy” as a shining example of genius, the evidence says otherwise.
“jmorpuss says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:12 am”
Again, where does the *EXTRA ENERGY* come from to *AMPLIFY*?
“jmorpuss says:
July 31, 2014 at 3:48 am
Now big buisness and industry are 3 phase hungry and would need a AC network…”
3 phase power is about energy transport efficiency. Its the best way we know to dated to transport power over distance. Unlike DC power. Your alternator in your car is 110vac 3 phase, regutlated to 12vdc to charge the battery!
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
First, note the gratuitous claim that the post-1978 warming can not be due to natural causes. It is irrelevant to their paper.
Second, the increase in upper tropospheric moistening by itself may be a negative feedback to temperature increase, because the of the energy necessary to vaporize the surface water and raise it to the upper troposphere.
Third, unanswered in the paper, is whether the upper-troposphere moistening is a part of an increase in the rate of the hydrologic cycle, or accompanied by an increase in upper tropospheric clouds.
Fourth, also unanswered in the paper, is whether the increase in upper troposphere moistening is cause by the increase in tropospheric CO2 concentration, with its attendant increase in downwelling LWIR.
Fifth, the paper provides no evidence that the upper troposphere moistening does in fact provide a positive feedback to CO2-induced warming. It could increase the rate of radiation of energy from the upper troposphere to space and the upper atmosphere.
Despite the gratuitous references to man-made warming, it looks like a good paper.
Anthony: 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.
On the whole, do you think these are more reliable or less biased than the remote sensing? It’s something that I don’t know anything about.
Matthew Marler,
You give many reasons why this paper is no good, but then you say it looks like a good paper.
It appears to be a series of assertions made to generate grant income. Because as of now, there still is no credible evidence of any “fingerprint of AGW”. So without such evidence, the authors resort to assertions. That isn’t good enough.
Pamela Gray: 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.
You amplified my comment nicely. Their consideration of “natural processes” was limited to a selection of models, overlooking much of what happens in the system..
Jimbo: ——————————-
Abstract
C. I. Garfinkel, D. W. Waugh, L. D. Oman, L. Wang, M. M. Hurwitz. Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2013; 118 (17): 9658 DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50772
Thank you for the link.