Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects.

The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.

Figure 1, from IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5), shows the few forcing variables they examine.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Their mandate is limited to determining only “human causes of climate change”. Why are “Changes in solar irradiance” included? How do humans influence it? Why not include all changes in solar activity? The top panel labeled “Well-mixed greenhouse gases” is apparently done to eliminate water vapor, which is not well mixed? It can’t be anything else, because CO2 is not “well-mixed” either as the recent satellite images show.

There are other deceptions in the chart, including the claim that the “Level of Confidence” for CO2 is very high. This claim is false because CO2 levels have risen for 18+ years while temperature hasn’t increased, in contradiction to their major assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It is not surprising because it doesn’t occur in any record. The “High” rating for “Total Anthropogenic RF relative to 1750” is a self-serving IPCC assessment. It must be high because we created it.

Why Sins of Commission and Omission Work

Another deception was creating the illusion that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. The IPCC acknowledges H2O is the most important, but that is not what the public understands. Figure 2 shows a diagram taken from the ABC news website a few years ago.

clip_image004

Figure 2

The IPCC was designed and managed to perpetuate this deception and cynically do it openly. Deception is possible because most know very little about climate, as the Yale Education study showed (Figure 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3

Graded like a school exam, they found over half failed (52%) and 77 percent received D or F.

Too many scientists don’t know because they accept without checking. They assume, or don’t want to believe, that funding or a political agenda can corrupt other scientists. Klaus-Eckert Puls’ comment explains.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”

I described this as “daylight robbery” three years ago because they don’t hide what they are doing. Explaining how it is done is central to persuading the public of the falsity of IPCC proclamations, without requiring people to understand the science. Sins of omission are as damaging as those of commission.

The whole wheel comprises the so-called greenhouse gasses, of which water vapor is 95 percent by volume. The nut on the rear wheel is total CO2, but the IPCC narrow their focus to a portion of one thread, the human fraction. The IPCC ignore water vapor by assuming humans don’t change it measurably. In the 2007 Report they wrote,

“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”

It is essentially impossible to determine the impact of 4 percent if you have very limited knowledge about 95 percent.

The IPCC tried to downplay the role of water vapor in affecting global temperatures by amplifying the role of CO2 and CH4. The range of numbers used to determine greenhouse effectiveness or Global Warming Potential (GWP) suggested people were just creating numbers – it was not scientific. The IPCC note,

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time-integrated RF due to a pulse emission of a given component, relative to a pulse emission of an equal mass of CO2 (Figure 8.28a and formula). The GWP was presented in the First IPCC Assessment (Houghton et al., 1990), stating ‘It must be stressed that there is no universally accepted methodology for combining all the relevant factors into a single global warming potential for greenhouse gas emissions.

Appropriately, questions about the GWP assessments persist. It prompted Gavin Schmidt, graduate of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), part creator of the website Real Climate, and now director of NASA GISS to offer clarification.

The relative contributions of atmospheric longwave absorbers to the presentday global greenhouse effect are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change.

The source of his clarification appears to disabuse his claim.

Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the presentday and under doubled CO2.

This form of affirmation is the standard circular argument of the IPCC. What I say is correct because my models say so. Schmidt further confuses the issue by saying,

With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (50% of the effect), followed by clouds (25%) and then CO2 with 20%.

Clouds are made up of water droplets so the total effect of water, according to Schmidt, is ~75 percent. The role of water in all its phases is critical to understanding weather and climate. For example, the upper portions of most clouds are predominantly ice crystals that change the albedo factor considerably. Roger Harrabin reported Roy Spencer’s view;

“He thinks clouds are impossible to model at present.”

IPCC claim greenhouse gasses raise global temperature by 33°C. Water vapor varies between slightly more than 0 and 4 percent of the atmosphere. According to Schmidt, this means water vapor accounts for approximately 25°C of the warming. Using an average of 2 percent, this means approximately 12.5°C per 1 percent. But, we don’t know how much water vapor there is or how much it varies. Does a minor fluctuation in water vapor at least equal or exceed the warming effect claimed for the human portion of CO2?

The IPCC is also unsure about the GWP as they explain in AR5. However, it is still not enough to recognize that it alone likely puts their entire computer model output in question.

The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However, the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.

They conclude;

Many cloud processes are unrealistic in current GCMs, and as such their cloud response to climate change remains uncertain.

Importance of Water Vapor

Water, whether gaseous or liquid, serves to modify the temperature range. It increases minimums and decreases maximums and carries out other important processes.

As one website notes,

Over 99% of the atmospheric moisture is in the form of water vapor, and this vapor is the principal source of the atmospheric energy that drives the development of weather systems on short time scales and influences the climate on longer time scales.

 

Movement of water vapor, and its associated latent heat of vaporization, is also responsible for about 50% of the transport of heat from the tropics to the poles.  The movement of water vapor is also important for determining the amount of precipitation a region receives.

The effect of the increased volume of atmospheric water vapor is not knowable because until recently there were only very crude estimates of atmospheric water vapor levels. Here is a 1996 quote,

“It is very hard to quantify water vapor in the atmosphere.  Its concentration changes continually with time, location and altitude.” “A vertical profile is obtained with a weather balloon.  To get a global overview, only satellite measurements are suitable.  From a satellite, the absorption of the reflecting sunlight due to water vapor molecules is measured.  The results are pictures of global water vapor distributions and their changes.  The measurement error, however, is still about 30 to 40%.”

 

Four different measurements reflect the difficulties in determining the role of water in the atmosphere; Relative Humidity, Absolute Humidity, Specific Humidity, and Mixing Ratio. Relative Humidity is the only one the public knows, but it is also the most meaningless.

Recently satellite systems claim more accurate measures.

Total column water vapor is a measure of the total gaseous water contained in a vertical column of atmosphere. It is quite different from the more familiar relative humidity, which is the amount of water vapor in air relative to the amount of water vapor the air is capable of holding. Atmospheric water vapor is the absolute amount of water dissolved in air.

 

The IPCC lack of confidence about precipitation indicates they are not dealing with water vapor properly. Quotes from AR5 illustrate the problem.

Confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas since 1901 is low prior to 1951 and medium afterwards. Averaged over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere, precipitation has increased since 1901 (medium confidence before and high confidence after 1951). For other latitudes area-averaged long-term positive or negative trends have low confidence (Figure 4).

clip_image008

Figure 4 (Source IPCC)

The problem with this map is it assumes the number and accuracy of precipitation measures are the same in 1901 as in 2010. But the IPCC indicate that is not the case.

At regional scales, precipitation is not simulated as well, and the assessment remains difficult owing to observational uncertainties.

The simulation of precipitation is a more stringent test for models as it depends heavily on processes that must be parameterized. Challenges are compounded by the link to surface fields (topography, coastline, vegetation) that lead to much greater spatial heterogeneity at regional scales.

These comments apply to horizontal measures of precipitation, which are assumed to be a reflection of accuracy of knowledge about water vapor in the vertical column. Here is what the IPCC say about that.

Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes. The CMIP3 models exhibited a significant dry bias of up to 25% in the boundary layer and a significant moist bias in the free troposphere of up to 100% (John and Soden, 2007). Upper tropospheric water vapour varied by a factor of three across the multi-model ensemble (Su et al., 2006). Many models have large biases in lower stratospheric water vapour (Gettelman et al., 2010), which could have implications for surface temperature change (Solomon et al., 2010).

Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.

Benjamin Franklin included the nursery rhyme, “For want of a nail, the shoe was lost” in his Poor Richards Almanack. It is appears the IPCC car is lost for the want of a water wheel.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Another great post. Thanks Dr. Ball.
We live on a water world and the IPCC claims that CO2 does it all. Someday this lunacy will end. (I hope)

Agreed, thank you, Dr. Ball.
Aside – I dislike the adjective “greenhouse”. It is a flawed and provocative analogy, IMO. I prefer “atmospheric”. The only value, to me, of “greenhouse” is to point out that CO2 is plant food.

Truthseeker

Exactly! A greenhouse works by blocking convection, which incidently is how insulation works. No free flowing gas blocks convection. Therefore no gas acts like a greenhouse. To continue to use the term helps the alarmists. An actual greenhouse is known to be warmer because it blocks convection. Using the term “greenhouse gas” invokes this association and hence you fuel alarmism.
Stop using the term “greenhouse gas”. Just stop. Saying that it is a “generally accepted term” is a large part of the problem,.
Water has a huge effect in our climate system because of phase change and the storage and release of energy that occurs, not because of any radiative properties it may have.

gbaikie

Yes. and Earth atmosphere is greenhouse and the major significant of CO2 in Earth greenhouse
is the same a CO2 in smaller human constructed greenhouse- without the CO2 the plants die.
The heat trapped in a human constructed greenhouse is due to the roof of greenhouse
blocking convection losses of heat.
The roof of Earth huge greenhouse is caused gravity keeping the gases on the planet.
Since earth’s gases can’t escape into space due force of Earth gravity, it’s roof is the gravity.
So the panes of glass make the human made greenhouse, and god made earth is using a more sophisticated gravity roof. Both stop convection. Though God’s house is much bigger and better at stopping all convectional heat losses
So Earth has near perfect barrier to convection loss of heat and it’s roof is more transparent
to sunlight than any pane of glass. This roof is the boundary between Earth atmosphere and vacuum of space and though varies it’s about 800 km in elevation. Below this roof harmful solar energy is blocked- most of the UV and X-rays are absorbed.
And much closer to the surface there is what called the troposphere- where most of the convectional processes occur. And the lower part of the troposphere much of evaporational
processes are confined.
So it’s is wonderous greenhouse for spaceship Earth.
But the roof is caused by gravity, not the so called greenhouse gases.
Not a glass greenhouse but rather a gravity greenhouse.

@ gbaikie February 8, 2015 at 11:11 pm

The heat trapped in a human constructed greenhouse is due to the roof of greenhouse blocking convection losses of heat.
The roof of Earth huge greenhouse is caused gravity keeping the gases on the planet.
Since earth’s gases can’t escape into space due force of Earth gravity, it’s roof is the gravity.

Shur nuff, shur nuff.
But, but, butt, …… Earth’s gravity “greenhouse” roof doesn’t do diddly at keeping your butt warm and comfy during the cold month of wintertime.
The fact that, no matter where you live, you are still highly dependent on having a “human constructed roof” over your head ….. which negates most all of your above piffle.

george e. smith

“””””…..Water has a huge effect in our climate system because of phase change and the storage and release of energy that occurs, not because of any radiative properties it may have……”””””
Well that is not entirely true.
Water in the atmosphere DOES have important radiative properties.
Mostly because it can and does absorb a significant amount of incoming solar energy at solar wavelengths, as well as scattering an additional amount of those wavelength energies back out to space.
The result of this is to reduce the amount of solar spectrum energy that can reach the ocean surface and penetrate to considerable depths where it can ultimately be absorbed and converted in part to heat, which heat won’t be seen on the surface for a long time.
g
Water in the atmosphere has a considerable radiative effect. CO2 does the same (absorb incoming) but to a much smaller extent than H2O. O3 also absorbs incoming.
So so-called GHGs have a significant effect on how much solar energy gets stored in the deep oceans at solar spectrum wavelengths.

gbaikie

–But, but, butt, …… Earth’s gravity “greenhouse” roof doesn’t do diddly at keeping your butt warm and comfy during the cold month of wintertime. —
One of the purpose of a greenhouse is to prevent freezing which adversely effect plants- so if not getting below say 10 C or 50 F at night, it is ok for plants.
But this is not comfy warm for humans.
Or for an idea of minimal warmth is what is advised to keep a lower heating bill, which is to keep a thermostat set at :
“”Five Action Steps to Cut Natural Gas and Propane Use
You can take some steps to reduce the amount of energy that you’re using and lower your utility bills:
Turn down your thermostat to 68 degrees. For every degree you lower your heat in the 60-degree to 70-degree range, you’ll save up to 5 percent on heating costs. “”
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/tips/winter.html
And 68 F is 20 C.
And so unless you like it on cooler side or want to lower heating bill, I suggest setting it higher than 20 C.
But for our Earth’s gravity “greenhouse” warm it up enough for humans who lack the technology of fire one needs to live in tropics- which is normally above 25 C [unless you are in a desert or higher elevations]
So if want to live in mountains and/or live 30 degree latitude or higher up towards the frozen wastelands, you should use heater in your home whenever it’s not summer.

–But, but, butt, …… me thinks that all the avid proponents of CAGW most probably have all the walls and ceiling of their homes insulated with CO2 ….. therefore not being subject to any incurred expenses for the purchase of an oxidizing fuel for “warming” their abodes.

jeff

A demonstration to show the relative significance of water vapor/ CO2 – the rapid cooling which occurs when humidity is low – like in a desert, or during winter when the air is dry, or in the upper atmosphere( the highest clouds are ~25k feet). I’ve worked outside a lot, and I found it better to look at the sky, than a thermometer when deciding if I needed long johns – if there’s cloud cover, the temperature doesn’t decline much at night – but high humidity is the same, I think.
Most population centers are near lots of water. The insulating effect of each cities cloud of vapor prevents most people from being aware of the difference – they just seldom see the rapid temp changes that occur on really dry days. And it doesn’t seem that many are aware of this as a demo of CO2/water vapor effect.

Water is really happening?

ewb

Water you saying? 🙂

GeeJam

Yes ‘Water you on about?’ Well,this is an innocent and paradigmatic question (and maybe because I possess an IQ of only two), but when I’m told “Water Vapour is a potent atmospheric greenhouse gas”, where does this ‘gas’ fit in with the total breakdown of all gases by volume?
http://i.imgur.com/QzV7x8E.jpg
Does Water Vapour simply compress the existing ten gases shown in my diagram (without altering the volume of each), or is Water Vapour an inclusive part of the existing Hydrogen/Oxygen components? Irrespective of the amount of Water Vapour present during any given weather situation, is it ‘additional to’ or ‘inclusive of’ the existing breakdown of gases? Answers on the back of a postcard. Thank you.

Your illustration is for dry air. No water. As explained in the article, water varies from near 0 (particularly near the poles) to 4% or higher near the equator. Water is not considered because to do so, one needs to consider humidity, then define humidity, note the altitude, account for micro-droplets of water that are too small to see, but are not water vapour, etc., etc. That is, you can’t actually know what the composition of the atmosphere is to more than 1 % per thing measured. O2 goes from 20.9476% in dry air at STP to 21% ±0 to 4% in the real atmosphere.

Phil Cartier

The chart shows the percentages of only the gases, not including water vapor), in the air. Physical measurements of the free atmosphere have to include water vapor and free water and ice, as in clouds. Water has an extremely complex physical behavior with a high heat capacity and an even higher heat of fusion and vaporization than any of the other gases and most other molecules. I believe that makes is nearly impossible to accurately measure the behavior of a moist atmosphere, much less model it in the free atmosphere. HVAC(air conditioning) engineers can do a pretty good job designing and modelling air handling systems, but that is a much more limited set of conditions.

@ GeeJam February 9, 2015 at 4:41 am

Answers on the back of a postcard. Thank you.

The “short” answer to your question is:
Atmospheric water (H2O) vapor (humidity or H2O droplets) is neither an ‘additional to’ or ‘inclusive of’ your above noted breakdown of atmospheric gases?
If and/or whenever water (H2O) vapor is included in with the aforesaid gasses …. then the aforesaid stated percentages (%) of said gasses decreases in direct proportion to the quantity of water (H2O) vapor resident in any given portion of the atmosphere.
In simpler terms, …. any increase in water (H2O) molecules will, per say, “push” the other gas molecules out of the “area” thus causing said “decrease”.
The H2O molecule weighs less than the other gas molecules and thus the reason for “low pressure systems”, to wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_system
Only at extreme altitudes or the extreme cold of Antarctica will the atmospheric H2O vapor even be close to being 0% (zero) ….. and thus will always be far greater than the CO2 at all other places, …. normally ranging from 15,000 to 40,000+ ppm (1.5% to 4+%) verses the current CO2 at 400 ppm (0.04%).

Jan Christoffersen

Geejam,
In the diagram, methane is shown as 0.002% of the atmosphere. Wrong, I think. It is about 1,900 ppb or 1.9 ppm or 0.00019 %, an order of magnitude lower than shown.

GeeJam

Thank you both John and Phil. I’ve modified the graphic with a sub-header header which now reads ‘dry air – excluding water vapour’. Now I understand.

GeeJam

Thank you (also) Samuel and Jan.
Jan, you are correct. My combined sources for atmospheric CH4 average out 1,800ppb as at 2011. I’ve simply divided this figure by 1K (a billion is a thousand millions*) which equals 1.8ppm. From this (and accounting for CH4 increases since 2011), I believe I’ve safely asserted CH4 to be 0.0002% volume. Thus, in my diagram, 0.002% is an error. I have missed off a zero. My apologies.
*or is a billion still a million millions as in the old days?

george e. smith

I always understood that one mole of any gas occupied 22.4 litres at STP.
That is; 22.4 litres of ANY gas at STP contains the exact same number of molecules. (Avogadro’s number, 6.023 E+23).
So why do you state your atmospheric gas abundances in volume, rather than molecular species percentage ??
We can always count the number of molecules in any sized atmospheric sample, to get their abundances, so why bother isolating each species and then adjusting its volume till you have STP, or any other condition.
PPMV is a nonsense unit; give us PPM.

Global cooling

Let’s be scientific and assert nothing about their motives. Just focus on facts. I became a climate sceptic by reading IPCCs AR4 report. Facts and observations do not support conclusions written to the policymakers.

Agreed, same action and result.
The IPCC AR4 should be compulsory reading for all “Climate Concerned citizens”, their task find the science claimed to to support the stated conclusions.
A truly nasty case of Find Waldo, as Waldo is not present.

That’s exactly the report that made me commit apostasy to Global Warming. That, and the AR4’s section on policy recommendations to turn to biofuel which lead to a disastrous 7 years of global starvation, the Arab Spring, and civil unrest world wide. That report alone is damning of the warmists, there’s really no need to read any other “skeptic” arguments at all when you can just read the report that the warmists take their sources from. It only gets worse when you read the AR5 report, regarding the Pause, and then notice the uptick in the reports shrilling of disasters. Reading both reports, and then tracking if their predictions actually happened is like watching a drunk gambler with the crappiest luck bet the house in Vegas, and then hearing that same drunk say he’s still going to win, after losing it all.
I think if every warmist read the AR4 and AR5 report, we wouldn’t hear such shrill screeches today about “climate change.”
But they don’t, or they can’t. Almost none of them do. And it’s put out from the same organization they take their marching orders from…

Brute

@Global cooling
I agree. Stick to the facts.

Rick Chapman

I am concerned that all too many of you would rather ignore the facts, both that we can see for ourselves and those which science has concluded (all too conservatively though) will happen. It doesn’t really matter that you feel that your “money” invested in big fossil fuels is so important, and that come hell or high water (there is definitely a pun therein) you will stand your position. The Thing is the world will go on whether you make your choice to be foolish or not. Scientists and engineers world wide are helping implement changes to circumvent climate change as best as possible; whether it is higher efficiency lighting, zero emission cars, renewable energy resource deveopment or various other methods. People everywhere are buying in because these technologies allow some financial freedoms which reliance on oil doesn’t. Oil is like Cable TV, it is very good at what it does, however there are better cheaper solutions.

Rick Chapman
Let’s look at each of your sentences by itself. There are certainly enough errors and omissions in each to confuse things by integrating them, and addressing everything at once.

I am concerned that all too many of you would rather ignore the facts, both that we can see for ourselves and those which science has concluded (all too conservatively though) will happen.

There is nothing “conservative” about the exaggerated threats and projected futures common in ALL of the CAGW religious beliefs. And, quite frankly, it IS a religion because it has NO evidence of ANY of its projections and predictions of massive future harm. Rather, the exaggerations are ALL on the part of the politicians and their Big-Government-paid self-selected priests (er, scientists) shielded by anonymous pal-reviewed papers that have consistently been proved wrong, exaggerated, and cherry-picked around true statistics.
Thus, the actual global-average heatup rate the past 18 years has been 0.0. But the calculated 100 year heatup rate is only 1.1 to 1.3 degrees C IF a doubling of CO2 actually occurs AND IF the natural variations do not turn negative. BUT! The politicial scientists call for a +4 degree C rise in 85 years, THEN, their brethern in the other disciplines write as if +6, +8 or +10 degree C increase WILL ABSOLUTELY OCCUR. THEN, the politicians write speeches and policies about a +15 “disaster” that must be controlled NOW … by killing millions of real people actually alive and trying to live now. The benefits of fossil fuel ARE the world’s 7 billion people, its animals and livestock and wildlife, and its 100 trillion economy.
Your CAGW religion is driven by leaders who want to kill them.

It doesn’t really matter that you feel that your “money” invested in big fossil fuels is so important, and that come hell or high water (there is definitely a pun therein) you will stand your position. The Thing is the world will go on whether you make your choice to be foolish or not.

Back to “evil oil” and “Big Oil” money, eh? Why? Big Government wants 1.3 trillion a year in new coal and carbon taxes. Big Finance wants 20 trillion a year in carbon trading futures – which will be worthless if any skeptic is right. How many “self-selected” and ultra-biased “scientists” can you buy for 1.3 trillion dollars?
High water-> Is a “potential” rise of 24 inches of seawater in 85 years a threat? To a few, yes. A very few. Now. Tell me EXACTLY how destroying the worlds’ economies for 85 years and killing millions of people a year is going to reduce that 24 inches to 12 inches rise. IF sea level rise is a threat and even that “threat’ is not a given fact, but only projections – why is the solution not dams, roads, canals, and dikes to protect people and animals and farms in a few places, rather than killing people everywhere with artificially high energy prices everywhere … THAT WILL NOT CHANGE SEA LEVEL RISE!

Scientists and engineers world wide are helping implement changes to circumvent climate change as best as possible; whether it is higher efficiency lighting, zero emission cars, renewable energy resource deveopment or various other methods.

No. These people who you admire are being paid BY Big Government TO donors and supporters of Big Government and Big Finance and Big Science specifically BECAUSE they have convinced Big Government to PAY for these false promises and uneconomic wastes of our money. You too, can get a few 100 million in Green Energy funds tax-free for several years by donating money to your local democrat. Don’t worry about paying it back. Nobody else has. Anywhere.
In Spain, the “solar power” producers used diesel generators to run lights over their solar power panels each night to produce their “profits” … Here, the democrat donors just burn birds over the desert in great flaming smoketrails of deceit.

Cbeaudry

Higher efficiency lighting: Is more expensive and creates waste that is more harmfull to the environment
Zero emission cars: Though reduction in emission by technology is a great thing to do, even 100% electric cars, need to get energy from somehwere. So zero emission cars are a good option for reducing localised smog, not for climate change
Renewable energy: Is expensive, VERY EXPENSIVE. The lies being told about it being cheap are just that lies. I think its important to keep doing research in these fields, and society WILL switch over when they become efficient and cost effective.
What you say about financial freedom is a lie, one maybe you dont even understand yourself.
You will have to explain to me exactly how the points you mentioned above lead to financial freedom.

ECK

“better cheaper solutions”. Name one. I can, coal.

CodeTech

That’s quite the little fantasy world you’ve created for yourself, “Rick”. Let me throw in a few observations while we’re at it.
“Facts”. You and facts are not in any way acquainted. But that’s ok, as a concern troll I know you won’t be back anyway.
“Choice to be foolish”. Sorry little man, that choice is already taken. By you. You appear to be so delusional that you actually think there is such things as “zero emission cars”.
“Financial freedoms”. Hilarious. I’ll have to remember that one next time I’m demonstrating just how disconnected from reality the average “believer” is. Better cheaper solutions than oil? To power our civilization? No, there is not. Even though I’d like to see a massive ramp-up of nuclear, you can’t pour it into you fuel tank.

george e. smith

Well I’m all ears; so what are these “better cheaper solutions” ??
“”””” higher efficiency lighting, zero emission cars, renewable energy resource deveopment or various other methods. …..””””” Well I know all about higher efficiency lighting.
So what are these “zero emission cars”, including of course all overhead of their energy sources ??
What “renewable energy resource development are you talking about, and just what are “various other methods” ??
You should sell your house and invest the proceeds in these “better” options; you’ll make an absolute killing !!

Its interesting to me that some people believe energy efficiencies are the propriety of AGW advocates. In fact, here again we have innovation and the free market to thank for LEDs, high efficiency furnaces, gas heat, electric cars, solar and wind. It is the drive to become less dependent, to receive more bang for the buck, the drive to make possible a connected world that links innovation to the consumer. We all want these things. Efficiency and progress drive us all.
My wife and I drove electric scooters for years, the only reason we have a car is for work, as soon as we can get an electric with range we will, my home lighting is all energy efficient, I eat organic as much as possible, both my wife and I have planted pine, spruce and cedars, fir and balsam seedlings; I’ve planted well over a million personally. We drink non fluoridated water…and we are not at all partisan. We don’t parrot news, rather we dig in and vet.
I’d say these behaviors are indicative of our times, and proprietary of the age we live in.

Here is a cartoon explaining why the public is not allowed to know that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas:
http://www.maxphoton.com/science-science/

Jimbo

When I used to comment at the Guardian I was told many times by others that co2 was the most important greenhouse gas. I was also told about runaway and all that. I was very polite and showed them they were wrong with references.

IPCC – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. ”
============
IPCC
“Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf

Jimbo

Folks and journalists at the Guardian kept telling me to listen to the science. I did but they didn’t. They continue to spread misinformation making stuff up that was the opposite of what the IPCC said was unsupported in the science literature. Go figure.

Guardian – 10 July 2013
Nafeez Ahmed
James Hansen: Fossil fuel addiction could trigger runaway global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming
======
Guardian – 27 October 2008
Australia’s Stern review warns of runaway global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/27/climate-change-australia

old construction worker

While having a debate with my 90 (now 93) year old mother I said water vapor was a green house gas and she said no it wasn’t. All I could do was walk away.

Interestingly, it was my father (at 82 years of age at the time) who first stated to me that water vapor was by far the predominant greenhouse gas.
So I started reading up on the whole AGW issue in order to set him straight.
I learnt a helluva lot pretty quickly, and I am still amazed at the certainty combined with the lack of knowledge of most alarmists.

Rick K

Mark,
I commend you! If only others would do the same!

joelobryan

“I am still amazed at the certainty combined with the lack of knowledge of most alarmists.
Uninformed Alarmist: One who practices a religious-like adherence to an orthodoxy, driven mostly by (1) a tribal ideology, (2) leading to in-group bias, and (3) an avoidance of cognitive dissonance.
In cruder terms, it’s called “Being a sheep, and with scientific ignorance, allows one being led to the slaughter” by ideologically-driven “academics” who surrendered their ethics for a paycheck from the political class.
There has always been snakeoil salesmen for as long as there has been gullible people who can’t recognize pseudoscience from science.

@ Joel O’Bryan
It would seem then that there is not such thing as an “informed Alarmist”.

lee

My son once told me it was amazing the amount I learned; between his ages of 18 and 25.

rd50

Please stop arguing with your mother.
Mothers know best.
Now, go eat your peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Leo Smith

No, eat your Greens.

Why are “Changes in solar irradiance” included? How do humans influence it? Why not include all changes in solar activity?
Because TSI is where the energy is. TSI is the 800-pound gorilla in the energy input to the system.

I disagree. Clouds are the 800 pound gorilla.
A small change in TSI has been observed to create more La Nina like conditions as clouds are swept from the eastern Pacific. On average the eastern tropical Pacific may experience an increase of 8 W/m2 and as much as 200 W/m2 due to less clouds. The extra-tropics are always radiating more heat back to space than absorbed. Any analysis of changes in solar irradiance and climate must look at the affects of TSI on the tropical ocean cloud patterns and how ocean oscillations redistribute absorbed tropical heat poleward. Direct changes in TSI are felt nearly 100% in the tropics but approach zero towards the poles. Any change in TSI alters the hemispheric temperature gradient that affects heat redistribution. A blanket of CO2 does not alter that gradient.

disagreeing does not make it so. Clouds are effects, more than causes.

It appears that there may be a number of 800 pound gorillas in the room,
but none of them are named “CO2”.

Well, there is a sensible middle position. BOTH!
GCMs do not and cannot have the grid/time scale resolution to even try to model tropical convection cells. Computationally infeasible. So they have to parameterize Lindzen’s adaptive IR iris hypothesis related to tropical Tstorms.
Those CMIP5 parameters are ‘tuned’ to ~1975-2005 by the official CMIP5 ‘experimental design’, which assumed GHG was all. (Taylor, BAMS 2012). The pause shows GHG is not. Thus all models were tuned ‘hot’ per Asadoku 2009 in order to best hindcast that 30 year requirement. Thus all CMIP5 are now falsified by a >18 year unprojected ‘pause’, the absence of a tropical troposphere hotspot, and underprediction of precipitation by half. The latter two diagnostics follow directly from Lindzen’s hypothesized homeostasis mechanism. The former is now a warmunist own goal based on 100% GHG attribution.
Tropical convection, troposphere humidity feedback, cloud feedback, inherent GCM limitations, and IPCC attribution are separate essays in my newish ebook with a Judith Curry foreword.

Lief OK Lets accept your word smiting. “Clouds are effects, more than causes”
Lets take an example of heatwave and no change in TSI. Record heat is caused by a high pressure system with dry air decreasing air ad soil heat capacity and no clouds increasing insolation. Temperatures to rise. What do you call the “cause” of the resulting high temperature?

HA, the energy source of a good butt paddling doesn’t decrease just because you put on a couple extra layers of clothing to lessen the hurtful effect on your rear end.

george e. smith

So Rud,
Just which of those “separate essays in (your) newish ebook” are the results of your own researches, rather than a rehash of what many have simply stated many times before ??

Joe Crawford

Thanks Doc,
It has long amazed me that they can claim such certainty from so little knowledge. I’m not sure how it happened, but it looks like we have now raised several of generations that believe in the infallibility of the computer… that.regardless of the program or the data, the computer cannot lie. How else could they place such confidence in the GCMs.

Leo Smith

It has long amazed me that they can claim such certainty from so little knowledge.

Why? if you are going to lie, the more complete conviction you bring to the party, the more likely you are to be believed…

Old'un

Does anyone know when the next update from the CO2 sensing satellite will be released?

They suggest monthly, but haven’t seen anything since end of December –
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

Old'un

Thanks Bubba.
Methinks they may be struggling to write a credible narrative to support the release that still supports the CAGW party line.

Dawtgtomis (Steve Lochhaas from SIUE)

Wow! go to the news tab there to find alarmist mega-propaganda…

joelobryan

OCO-2 level 2 data is supposedly going to be available starting around early March 2015.
It will be available here:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCO-2/data-holdings/oco-2

So if you show a pie chart graph (like in Fig. 2) and include water vapor as one of the greenhouse gases, what would the percentage of water vapor be? Would it be 95% as stated at one point in your article, by volume?

While not a pie chart, check out the chart at Table 3 of this link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Hope that helps.

Thanks JohnWho, I keep trying, but I can’t seem to get to that link or even geocraft.com…

J. Philip Peterson –
Geez, works for me on multiple PCs using Windows, Android, and iOS
Maybe if you try clearing your cache or using a different browser?
Dunno.
But, FWIW, the graphic does show:
Water vapor —– 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.950%
CFC’s (and other misc. gases) 0.072%
Total 100.000%

beng1

I believe Pielke Sr showed, from a net viewpoint, that WV was ~2/3 the greenhouse effect, and CO2 ~1/3. Looking at the IR diagrams & the extent of the radiation “notches”, this seemed reasonable.

Finally saw the 95% water chart (table 3) on Chrome. When you search Google Images for Greenhouse Gases, here is what you get, none of them show water vapor:comment image%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.noaanews.noaa.gov%252Fstories2011%252F20110803_nonco2.html%3B6563%3B5471

The GHG effect is a result of the climate not the cause. This is why CO2 is always following the temperature trend.
When the oceans cool the long term effects will be to diminish the GHG effect.

“Their mandate is limited to determining only “human causes of climate change”. Why are “Changes in solar irradiance” included? How do humans influence it? Why not include all changes in solar activity?
1 changes in solar irradiance are included so they can be tested for importance.
Let suppose we want to answer the question “what is the human portion of the change in temperature”
Simple. get two earths. Observe what one earth does with humans and remove humans from the second earth. Both earths in this experiment would have a sun.
But we cant do that experiment. This is what makes climate science an OBSERVATIONAL science and not an experimental science. in experimental science we do controlled experiments. In observational science
are ability to do experiments is limited. We can run two earths.
Consequently there are three options.
A) proclaim that the only true science is experimental.
B) statistically analyze the data to come up with “best explnations”
C) run simulated experiments.
In both A and B if you want to tease out the human contribution you need the natural contribution.
easy peasy.
Why not use all changes in solar?
Start with the changes you have good data on
Start with the changes known to cause a change in temperature. Every day TSI drops to zero at night for one part of the planet. temperature drops. Go figure TSI might be important.
Add other solar phenomena IF and When somebody can describe it in physics.

maccassar

Mosher
If you would have been writing on blogs like this in 1940 and were a firm believer in the AGW theories, how do you think you would have held up with the Observational Science for the next 30 years until 1970 when there had been no significant warming for 30 years. Don’t you think your self confidence would have been teetering a little? For the last 75 years of Observational Science, only 33% of that time has there been significant warming.
I wonder how the IPCC would have handled it all between 1940 and 1970.
Perhaps their charter would have been more oriented toward science. That is, lets find out what is really going on rather than having decided it beforehand and then spending the next 25 years justifying their decision.

“That is, lets find out what is really going on rather than having decided it beforehand and then spending the next 25 years justifying their decision.”
If I did not know better, I would suspect someone of thinking that science is all about trying to find out how things really work; a search for truth as it were. Government funded science does not work that way. The IPCC has it right — give them the answer the masters want to hear and they will justify it to the death like all good post-modern scientists. (I almost used a name of someone here, but asked myself why. Everyone can see the alarmists trolls here for themselves)
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” ~ H. L. Mencken … and the IPCC found it in CO2.

highflight56433

Yes, great men put us on the moon…now flawed models dictate science.

MarkW

“changes in solar irradiance are included so they can be tested for importance.”
Then why exclude water vapor?

TYoke

Mosher,
Your post addresses the question of how, or to what degree, we can discover scientific truths in an uncertain world. You declare:
“Consequently there are three options.
A) proclaim that the only true science is experimental.
B) statistically analyze the data to come up with “best explnations”
C) run simulated experiments.”
It is not a terrible list, but there is a lot of nuance missing. Consider a somewhat alternative framing of your three ideas.
Consequently there are three options.
A)Run properly controlled experiments that test otherwise unobvious predictions from a model. This is an especially convincing way to gain confidence in the truth or falsity of that model.
B)Argue that existing experimental data correlates well with the predictions of a model, or disagrees with the predictions of the model. The statistical approach can be useful but is highly susceptible to the “curve fitting” or over-fitting or post hoc ergo propter hoc error. “after this, therefore because of this”. Hence, the value of such an argument is limited when trying to achieve certainty for or against a model.
C)Argue deductively forward on the basis of theory that is already accepted as being true. 400 years into the scientific revolution we now know a lot of physics. However, the world is a complicated place, and arguing from “known” theory is therefore fraught with possible error. Global climate is fearfully complex, and even in the most sophisticated climate theories a great many assumptions and simplifications are necessary, quite apart from the excellent chance of simply doing the sums wrong at one or more points. Consequently, confidence in the truth of the model simulations is accordingly diminished.
Mosher, your overall point is that controlled experiments would be ideal but are not possible, and yet we need to try and move forward anyway. That is no doubt true, but it is still very important to bear in mind that options B) and C) are not as good as option A), generally speaking.
This means that a certain degree of humility, when B) and C) are the only options, is very much warranted.

IanH

…. but never use an ensemble of GCMs and try and convince us that has any predictive capabillity

u.k.(us)

We are the experiment, we live in it everyday.
Don’t know why the temps recorded need to be constantly adjusted though, it might make one assume that there is a correct value, being striven for.

Alberta Slim

Mosher
Where is the observational evidence of the CS formula…………..??
I really do not know. This is a serious question.

Konrad.

Steven Mosher
February 8, 2015 at 12:20 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven, this comment is ridiculous –

” This is what makes climate science an OBSERVATIONAL science and not an experimental science.”
This may be true of meteorology, but with so called “climate science”, the foundation claims of the Church of Radiative Climastrology can easily be tested in the lab.
We can check if radiative gases attenuate LWIR. They do.
We can check if radiative gases conductively heated emit LWIR. They do.
We can check if the surface of the planet is a “near blackbody” as climastrologists foundation dogma claims. It isn’t. 71% is an extreme SW selective surface.
We can check if incident LWIR slows the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (another foundation claim). It doesn’t.
We can check if the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR from the atmosphere. They won’t. As a SW selective surface, the sun alone would heat them to Tmax ~80C were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
The reason the climastrologists run to hand waving about surface station data and computer models and avoid the lab is because their claims that our radiatively cooled atmosphere is warming the surface can’t survive empirical experiment.

richard verney

Absolutely.
There is a material difference between land and oceans (which are a selective surface and one which is free to evaporate with consequential change in latent energy),
We can test whether DWLWIR possesses sensible energy and is capable of performing sensible work in the environ in which it finds itself.
Willis’s article or Radiating the Oceans employs circular logic when he relies upon the assertion that the oceans would freeze but for DWLWIR being inputted into them, and fails to address at what rate the supposed energy from DWLWIR would need to be sequestered to depth, if that energy is to do something other than simply drive evaporation, and fails to address what process(es) could sequester the energy to depth at sufficient rate.
It is about time those that support the AGW meme, did some proper experiments to back up their claims rather than argue we only have one Earth, so we cannot test anything and hence the need for computer modelling.
.

David Harrington

I think you mean “we cannot run two Earths”

@ Steven Mosher February 8, 2015 at 12:20 pm

But we cant do that experiment. This is what makes climate science an OBSERVATIONAL science and not an experimental science.

It was utterly foolish for anyone to even suggest such an experiment …… and therefore such foolishness does not preclude the fact that a “simple” experiment can be performed that will “prove without any doubt” as to whether or not all the fear-mongering claims about CAGW are nothing more than funded-interest “junk science”.
OBSERVATIONAL science is …… farmer and sailor science …… but only they know how to correctly employ what they have learned from their observations.

Reg Nelson

The more you look at the underlying science, the more you see that the science of the Earth’s climate is poorly understood at this point in time.
An honest, objective person would admit as much. A naive, uneducated, foolish, or corrupt person would not. Instead they would rather shout down anyone who disagrees them with “The science is settled!” nonsense.

Reg Nelson,
Correctomundo. Objective science is on the skeptics’ side. The general public seems to be coming around, too.
There is a reader poll in ^that article.^ Currently more than 91% of readers agree that fiddling with the temperature record is a huge scandal. [Anyone can take the poll.]

GeeJam

dbstealey, thanks for the link. I voted on the poll earlier (once on my PC, once on my Laptop and once on my ipad). Just now, 90% of 77,940 voters (so far) say ‘Climate Scientists were telling porkies’ – or words to that effect.
However, Christopher Booker’s report on Paul Homewood’s perpetual search for the truth does not warrant the appalling amount of vitriolic remarks left in the comments section by both sides of the CAGW debate. Whilst, on the whole, comments by our WUWT community remains civilised, it becomes a full scale bloodbath in the Telegraph (to name but one MSM source). Yes, people are angry, people have been pushed too far – but venomous attitudes do nothing to help our ‘rationalist’ cause.
It also hinders progress when many ‘believers’ in the Telegraph’s comments section continually refer to ‘Grist’ – a web site which provides them with pages and pages of ‘responses’ to counter-argue with our skeptical views.
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Question: Despite many searches, I cannot find one web site that provides the exact opposite to ‘Grist’ – a series of rational responses to common CAGW claims. Is there such a site?

On http://www.1ocean-1climate.com I have found the followings: “There are a number of man-made contributory factors that may have had specific impacts on the atmospheric heating, e.g. local warming in the cities (due to housing, roads, and other resultant factors), smoke and dust over long distances or deforestation of huge forest areas. Each of the above examples may have had temporary or long lasting implications, but none of them is a major source for the strong warming or cooling trends during the last 150 years. However, two major contributors (shipping and naval war) have been given little or no attention at all until now. Although the surface of the oceans is gigantic, their structure can be still influenced by certain factors. ”
This, somewhat, interferes with the IPPC report. I mean, humans have a contribution on climate change, obviousely. But not so much the driver of a car, but the leader of a country that fought wars at sea. The climate is the continuation of the oceans, so I think what happend to the oceans should have been considered until now.

timc

From 1900 to 2010 the global population grew by 5 billion,how much CO2 was added by the additional people?( this is not a common core problem)

highflight56433

Go to the 6700+ commenter’s at the bottom of this article. Only the media, fraud science, and politicians are beating the CAGW drum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

1saveenergy

now up to 44,000+
So is a 91% consensus of 44,000 stronger than a 97% consensus of 79 ????

highflight56433

Since 79 is fixed and 44,000+ is increasing…no contest.

GeologyJim

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
FACT 1: Ice-core records repeatedly and consistently show that temperature changes first [up or down] before CO2 changes
FACT 2: Over the last 18+ years, satellite data show no net global warming, while atmospheric CO2 has risen more than 10 percent.
CONCLUSION: CO2 is not the “control knob” on temperature or climate. Other than as plant food, CO2 does not matter
CO2 does not matter
Time to abolish/defund the IPCC before it commits more fraud

FACT 2+: The Berkeley Earth Land + Ocean Data anomaly dataset shows no global average temperature increase since 2003.
The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies GISS Surface Temperature Analysis monthly anomaly dataset shows no temperature increase in their Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index five-year Running Mean since 2002.

If you’re looking at US Govt temperature records. They are a fabribrication achieved through “homogonizing” the historic record. NASA or NOAA temperature “records” are a deception. A misrepresentation of the true record. A record meticulously compiled over the years .A record that should have been sacrosanct.

cnxtim

It’s dominant use in CAGW is photographically
It is rising H2O droplets that provide the terror images of “pollutant” gasses emerging from coal fired power station stacks – when suitably backlit by the sun.
Take note warmists looking for that Kodak moment, the Battersea Power station is long defunct, so you must find another photographic model for your Chicken Little congregation.

Barry

Many people are trying to better understand water vapor (indeed, the entire hydrologic cycle) and how it impacts the energy balance. Obviously it’s of critical importance. But please explain to me how humans can have a significant impact on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Do you know how much water evaporates from the oceans each day?

MarkW

The point is that until you understand how changes in water vapor affect the climate, trying to determine the other, much, much smaller contributions, is a waste of time.

highflight56433

The point is that evil people are being deceptive for their own gain.

Good point Barry, water vapor is controlled by both natural cycles AND landscape changes. Indeed it is natural ocean oscillations that dominate changes in water vapor. Even Trenberth acknowledged global water vapor was dominated by El NIno.
Locally humans dry the land and affect convective storms. In the 1800s California’s central valley was considered swampland. Owens Lake that once allowed steamboat passage is now dry.

Dawtgtomis (Steve Lochhaas from SIUE)

Please forgive the reiteration of my nursery rhyme:
On a cold winter day
that’s snowy and grey,
“Oh where is our globe ‘a warming?”
Depends on the sun,
which way oceans run,
and clouds, in complexity forming.

Dihydrogen monoxide must now be banned
The mere thought of its use must forever be canned
The delegates spoke
in Cancun, what a joke.
It wasn’t exactly what Watt once had planned.
http://lenbilen.com/2012/01/30/dihydrogen-monoxide-the-main-source-of-greenhouse-gases-a-limerick/

The new Hydrogen pollution narrative

Every scientist acknowledges that H20 has greater opacity in the Infrared than CO2, and is thus the stronger component to holding in the Earth’s heat. The point is the H20 precipitates out as rain and snow, CO2 does not.
Because warm air holds much more water vapor than cool air, there is a strong positive feedback effect that amplifies the blanketing of the atmosphere in the infrared when CO2 increases. If we had a water-free planet, the effect of CO2 would be much less.
But we live on a watery planet. Which means it’s worth taking care of it.

I love taking care of my planet! That’s why I rant at global warming alarmism and poor reasoning skill of those who believe it! See my comment below on water vapour and CO2 ratios

Latitude

Chris, if that happened…it would have already happened
We would have had run away global humidity before….
Actually, if that were possible, we wouldn’t be here right now

Of course it has happened before! For most of Earth’s 4.6 Billion years the Earth has been quite significantly warmer than it is today. The planet has been there before; it will survive. Humans haven’t been in this climate regime before; their survivability is the question.

Greig

Chris, warm air indeeds holds more water vapour, so you acknowledge that temperatures rise first, then water vapour increases through evaporation. Right? But now be aware that oceans are drawing most of the extra heat from CO2 warming out of the atmosphere through radiative transfer, and apparently mixing more than previously expected (see England et al). And this is moderating the rate of warming and evaporation. So how does that result in a “strong positive feedback”?

mebbe

Well, it depends on which dollops of air you’re comparing and contrasting. The air in the Sahara is hot but holds very little water vapour. The air here on the BC coast is 20 degrees cooler but has 3 or 4 times as much water in it.
Everybody’s familiar with the (perhaps tiresome) insistence that air doesn’t “hold” water, but the imprecise language might lead to laxity in visualization.
In the AGW melodrama, we are repeatedly reminded that it’s not the (puny) rise in temperature that will knot our knickers but the Weirding of Weather, where everything becomes all topsy-turvy.
Yes, we have “wet will become wetter, dry will become drier” for when “warm will become colder” doesn’t seem to be selling, but, generally we can’t count on a concomitant rise in evaporated but not yet precipitated water vapour with a rise in temperature.
The wet becoming wetter thing intrigues me because I don’t know if the “Wet Coast” counts as wet.
Sure, the cold season is wet but we have 3 months of very dry, so, if our dry becomes drier, it can only become drier by encroaching on the wet. Thereby, the wet also becomes drier …etc.
We’re quit a bit drier than Atlanta, anyways.

Greig

Yes indeed, mebbe, when asking a simple question of logic (“So how does that result in a “strong positive feedback”?”), we are reminded that we should change the subject to discussing the “Wierding of Weather”. And if we take the bait, and remind that the IPCC AR5 and SREX reports advise that we are not observing an increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, then… well I suppose it usually descends at this point to accusations of anti-science and climate denial and Gish Gallop, and such.

Bart

So many circular loops in Chris’ logic, so little time…

More CO2–>greater infrared opacity–>more convective atmosphere–>more extreme weather events (drought, flood, temperature extremes).
That’s it in a nutshell.

Greig

Chris, you forgot water vapour feedback, which is the subject of the article above.

Leo Smith

Humans haven’t been in this climate regime before; their survivability is the question.

Actually there is solid data to show that human society first flourished in a period somewhat warmer than today – the Holocene optimum.

richard verney

Where did humans evolve?
It is clear that for humans as a specie, the globe is way too cold.
If it was not for our ability to adapt ourselves (with clothing) or to adapt our environs (with buildings and fire), very little of this globe would be habitable for humans.
The reason why we all wear clothes (and not a loin cloth/bikini etc) is not for modesty, but because it is simply too damn cold on planet Earth.
You only have to look where humans live with little clothes (Rainforests/Australian Outback etc) to realise how little of the globe is environmentally suitable for humans as a pure specie, and why if one were only considering humans, one would wish to see a globe that was vastly warmer.
But wea ll know that bio diversity is grweater in warm/wet environs and at its least in cold/arid environs. Science tells us that a warmer globe would greatly benefit life in general, and bio diversity would be increased if the globe were to warm.

If we had a water-free planet, the effect of CO2 would be much less.

The effect of the CO2 can’t be any less than what it already is.
A 0.0 (zero) measurable effect is still ZERO.

Gary in Erko

“like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.”
Or … like trying to understand how a car works by measuring only ozone from the exhaust.

Gary in Erko

“like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.”

Or … like trying to understand how a car works by measuring only ozone from the exhaust.

While ignoring ALL of the economic benefits of EVERY car and truck and railroad worldwide while counting the bugs killed on an average windshield in Florida..

NielsZoo

Are you including Love Bug season? That could make a huge difference;-)

Greig

But Gary, science proves that the thread on the nut is positve, and you are saying it is negative, so you are anti-science and a science denier. And you obviously don’t care about the bugs dying on the windshield, you are an enemy of the planet.
We need to replace all the cars and trucks urgently with sustainable bicycles. Vote Green.

emsnews

Or the nut behind the steering wheel.

Magoo

The IPCC states that water vapour should produce around half of the warming shown in the global climate models, and this should result in the upper troposphere warming faster than the surface:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’
And:
‘In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’
If we fast forward to the AR5 they have the results to see if this is really occurring (table 2.8, page 197, chapter 2, working group I, IPCC AR5 report):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
ALL temperature records show the lower troposphere (LT) warming faster than the mid/upper troposphere (MT) – i.e. no tropospheric hotspot & the opposite of what was predicted. It’s true the hotspot can be caused by any type of forcing, not just CO2, but the fact that it doesn’t exist shows that there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour regardless of what should be causing it.

Alan McIntire

And in discussing water vapor, you didn’t mention irrigation of much of the west, including the San Joaquin Valley here in California. Putting additional water- and water vapor- in a desert can also affect temperature significantly.

Kenw

“It ain’t the heat, it’s the humidity”, the fat lady sang.

Barry
Apparently the IPCC know the answer to your question. Confronted with problem of CO2 saturation that set an upper limit on temperature increase, even with doubling and tripling of CO2, they invoked a positive feedback mechanism? This claimed that the small temperature increase caused by increased CO2 due to humans, resulted in increased evaporation. The higher water vapor level in turn caused a further temperature increase as a positive feedback mechanism.
So, they only include water vapor when it suits their claim of a positive feedback. This implies they do know how much water vapor varies and how much it increased due to human activity. Can anybody show me their calculations and real world proof of the claim?

MikeUK

I’ll believe the predictions of climate models when they can do all of the following:
1. Derive from first principles the average amount of cloud cover
2. Derive from first principles the average amount of snowfall
3. Derive from first principles the transparency of the oceans (a more transparent ocean is a cooler ocean)
4. derive from first principles the average amount of vegetation

MikeUK

5. Derive from first principles the average amount of sea ice

Konrad.

3. Derive from first principles the transparency of the oceans (a more transparent ocean is a cooler ocean)
Mike,
you may want to review the physics of that statement. The more transparent the oceans, the deeper solar radiation penetrates, the longer it takes the energy to return to the surface, the hotter the oceans get.
This was the greatest mistake of the climastrologists. By using standard S-B equations on the ocean surface they effectively treated them as opaque. That resulted in the utterly false claim that the oceans could only be heated to 255K (-18C) by solar radiation alone. The reality? The oceans could be driven to a surface Tmax of around 80C if not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.

(a more transparent ocean is a cooler ocean)”

This is the sort of VERY basic physics , undoubted well understood by the end of the 19th century to which one should be able to immediately provide a link to the experimentally verified , quantitative relationships . They certainly must be required in any undergraduate curriculum in “climate science” . These basic relationships apply to any semi-transparent medium , atmosphere , ocean , or glass .
I’m an APL programmer for whom “more” and “less” don’t cut it . If it’s not quantitative , it’s word waving , never-converging BS .
Basically , the ocean is blue because it is most transparent in blue . That transparency provides a greater chance for a photon to be scattered or reflected back out . My best cut at the temperature of an ocean blue ball is here : http://cosy.com/Science/WaterEquilibriumTemp.jpg . Were we a naked ocean blue ball , our temperature would be about 0.98 of the 278.7 ( I express that to 4 decimal places because the entire phenomenon this battle for a rational future is over is on the order of the 4th. decimal place ) gray body temperature in our obit .
I’m far more interested in implementing my own abstraction of APL in Forth than this stuff which has diverted me only because of the politically consequential nonscience being foisted . I welcome feedback from and collaboration with physicists whose core interest is understanding these issues ( in the form of classical , well defined and understood experimentally unambiguous , quantitative relationships ) to build an open , executable vocabulary building to a quantitative model of the planet in my nascent 4th.CoSy . Anybody who does not know what APL is , I recommend the first few slides of my Heartland presentation : http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html . Suffice it to say that a spectral map of the planet can be applied to a sphere with just a single line or so expression and run on any scale computer .

Basically , the ocean is blue because it is most transparent in blue . That transparency provides a greater chance for a photon to be scattered or reflected back out . My best cut at the temperature of an ocean blue ball is here : http://cosy.com/Science/WaterEquilibriumTemp.jpg . Were we a naked ocean blue ball , our temperature would be about 0.98 of the 278.7

Good start. Now due that calculation for the round sphere of “blue water” we actually are on, and the actual albedo of water at various solar elevation angles found between 80 south and 80 north. See, the radiation is falling between 45 north and south, but the heat is radiating out from each latitude band differently into space since each band is at a different degree K w/r to space.

You offering to help ? I’m “working like a grad student” to get my 4th.CoSy ready for a Google Hangout to uber-nerds by the end of this month or next . Only those interested in bleeding edge programming language implementation are likely to be interested .
The handful of definitions in http://Kx.com's K to compute the temperature of radiantly heated uniformly colored balls are on my Heartland slides . Definitely implementing a Lambertian cosine function on a ball is one of the obvious next steps I’d like to do when I reach that sort of thing in 4th.CoSy . ( Roy Spencer described this approach as “ray-tracing” . I’d never thought of it that way since it’s so much simpler than what’s generally thought of ( here’s some I did some years ago with the http://www.povray.org language : http://glasstables.cosy.com/TableMain.jpg ) but essentially he’s right . ) I really am curious what the isotherms are like on a simple ball . How much does the 0c “tipping point” boundary move with a 0.1c change in mean temperature .
I really am interested in the classical minimalist analytical understanding of experimentally verifiable simple arrangements first . As I point out in my Heartland presentation Griffiths’ “Electrodynamics” which I inherited from my niece spends the first 280 pages on “statics” . I’ve only implemented the first half a chapter of such a treatment of planetary temperature physics but that’s sufficient to show the quantitatively howling absurdity of Hansen’s claim that Venus is an example of a “runaway” .

Konrad.

Bob Armstrong & RACookPE1978,
Standard S-B equations cannot give the correct answer for SW translucent / IR opaque materials being illuminated by solar SW. For that you need CFD (computational fluid dynamics) or empirical experiment. I ran the experiments.
Climastrologists claimed 255K (surface without radiative atmosphere) being raised 33K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. Wrong. It’s surface at 312K being cooled to 288K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
AGW is not “less than we thought”. AGW from CO2 is a physical impossibility.

I don’t know what you mean by “Standard S-B equations” . It requires Planck and dot products between spectra for even the simplest computations of radiative balance between anything other than gray ( flat spectrum ) objects .
And as I pointed out before , the 255K meme is more an indication of how pathetically amateurish and consequently stagnate this uniquely retarded branch of applied physics is . It’s an irrelevant computationally useless dead end .

Konrad.

”And as I pointed out before , the 255K meme is more an indication of how pathetically amateurish and consequently stagnate this uniquely retarded branch of applied physics is . It’s an irrelevant computationally useless dead end .”
Sorry Bob. It’s biologically impossible for me to have your babies.
But if you agree that AGW is a physical impossibility, I’m sure I can get over it.
With therapy…

NielsZoo

This is great and adds even more nails to the CAGW coffin with simple logic… however, my pet peeve. Water vapor is NOT a gas anywhere in our atmosphere except briefly at volcanic vents before cooling to equilibrium temps and “normal” atmospheric pressures. At the highest point on Earth the boiling point of water is ~72°C (161°F) and I don’t think it gets that hot at the top of Everest. (Hottest recorded natural temp is 134°F in Death Valley, below sea level.) Look at any phase diagram for water and our atmospheric conditions don’t fall in the gas area. The reason I bring this up is, as Dr. Ball points out, the AGW types not only omit allowing for water vapor’s sensible heat in calculations and models, they omit the massive amounts of energy in latent heat transferred in and out of the atmosphere as water vapor evaporates and condenses out of solution. Gases do NOT do this above their boiling points.</rant>

Water vapor is NOT a gas anywhere in our atmosphere except briefly at volcanic vents before cooling to equilibrium temps and “normal” atmospheric pressures.

Are you suggesting that if you have a clear blue sky without a cloud that the amount of water vapour in the air has to be zero? There just may not be enough vapour molecules to coalesce to the liquid form.

Leo Smith

No. he is suggesting its not a gas, that’s all, Its vapour.
However its a pretty fine line to tread to say that a vapour is not a gas..

NielsZoo

Werner, I suggested no such thing. Water vapor’s the #3 component of our atmosphere and just because something is “invisible” in some conditions does not make it a gas.
By (partial) definition the state of matter that we call a “gas” is a molecular substance that’s always above its boiling point at ambient pressure. It can dissolve in another liquid or solid but it won’t change states and condense into liquid without a pressure increase and temperature decrease. Gases and vapors have very different characteristics. Only vapors can move back and forth between liquid and vapor and a significant amount of energy is required for them to move in and out of solution (latent heat.) Since the Global Climate [insert current term here] is all about atmospheric energy and where it goes, that’s not a “fine line” it’s a large mover of energy. No gas in our atmosphere can do that at naturally found temp’s and pressures. Only water vapor has that ability in measurable amounts. (There are other trace compounds that can as well but they don’t make significant contributions to the energy flow.)
Next, in gas form most elements are also insignificant emitters of radiation at pressures found in most of our atmosphere, but vapors, acting like dispersed liquids can and do emit since (oversimplified) they are closer to their liquid phase energy wise. This is also important as the ridiculous “back radiation” fallacy attempts to equate CO2 as a gas with water as a vapor. CO2, as a gas, has an emissivity (at normal atmospheric pressures) that is essentially zero but water vapor does emit radiation at normal atmospheric pressures. So that’s not such a fine line either.

richard verney

Leo Smith
February 9, 2015 at 2:41 am
No. he is suggesting its not a gas, that’s all, Its vapour.
However its a pretty fine line to tread to say that a vapour is not a gas..
//////////////////////////////
Not necessarily, since the optical absorption of LWIR in water is such that it only penetrates and is fully absorbed within a few microns. Accordingly, when water is water ‘vapour’ and not a ‘gas’ the size of the ‘droplets’ could become material as to how effective an LWIR block it becomes, and at what altitude it is operating.
For example, when you have a sea mist (or fog over the ocean), how much DWLWIR actually reaches the ocean below, and how much of the DWLWIR is fully absorbed in the mist lying above the ocean?

My understanding is that if you had a single tungsten atom in the air, that atom would be in the gas phase, regardless how slow it may be moving. It does not depend on what the melting point of a chunk of solid tungsten might be.

Werner Brozek

My understanding is that if you had a single tungsten atom in the air, that atom would be in the gas phase, regardless how slow it may be moving. It does not depend on what the melting point of a chunk of solid tungsten might be.

True, as stated. A single uncharged atom of “chemical” anything loose in the atmosphere is the definition of a “gas”. A single charged ion would be a plasma, by that logic. Spectroscopically, the light waves emitted by a hot body are from the individual ions and atoms, not the “gas” as a whole. true – but almost irrelevant at the same time.
But, in the real world, the “properties” of a chemical depend on how it is “packed” into a crystal arrangement, or as smoothly “flowing” separate atoms and compounds (a stable liquid), or freely moving (as a gas.) The metal’s properties (tungsten in your example) are STRICTLY controlled by the crystal lattice and its very strong non-random directional bonds. Thus, a melting point is a property of the crystal (diamond, coal, peat, etc are all the same atom, right?). Equally, a single liquid has very, very different strength and corrosion and stress-strain curves as it deforms under pressure: See the different types of steel I can make by very slightly changing the crystal properties and cooling rate of the same original carbon-iron-oxygen-manganese-silicon-nickel-copper mix originally stirred up. Or add more or less of the same atoms to get very different properties of the final crystal. Or beat the crystal mechanically (forging it) and get yet a fourth or fifth or sixth different kind of steel properties.
Thus, a gas will behave differently thermodynamically depending on its concentration, its composition, and its local “weather” (pressure, temperature, humidity, wind speed, wet bulb temperature) conditions. The “weather” in turn means that the film coefficients for heat transfer change as well when the temmperature of either – or both! – surfaces confing the gas change!

NielsZoo

RACook, thanks for making the point I was trying to get at with phase properties of water. You said that much better than I.

See the different types of steel I can make by very slightly changing the crystal properties and cooling rate of the same original carbon-iron-oxygen-manganese-silicon-nickel-copper mix originally stirred up.

I have a degree in metallurgical engineering so I am well aware of that. I basically agree with what you are saying. But this does not affect the basic definitions of gas, liquid and solid.
However I am not sure about:

Spectroscopically, the light waves emitted by a hot body are from the individual ions and atoms, not the “gas” as a whole. true – but almost irrelevant at the same time.

If you have fog or clouds, you have fine droplets of liquid water and liquid water has very different properties from water vapour in which no two water molecules are attached. Water vapour in the air is transparent, but clouds are not. So in terms of how hot the sun warms the earth has a lot to do with the phase of the H2O.

harrytwinotter

Water vapour is a gas.

NielsZoo

Not in our atmosphere. Look at any phase diagram for water and even though (by convention) they label gaseous water as “vapor” note the temperatures and pressures associated with it. They do not naturally occur on our planet. All of the water in our atmosphere falls inside the liquid and solid phases.

harrytwinotter

NielsZoo,
water vapour is a gas, otherwise air would contain 0% humidity. I suspect you are misreading the phase diagram for water.

NielsZoo

You need to look carefully at the phase diagram for water and tell me where in our atmosphere water vapor is a gas. As to your comment about 0% humidity??? I can’t help you if you don’t understand how one substance dissolves in and saturates another. That’s basic chemistry and far beyond the scope of a comment. Take a look at See RACook’s excellent comment above as a better explanation as to why I always bring this up.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29
“Note, however, that the pressure referred to here is the partial pressure of the substance, not the total (e.g. atmospheric) pressure of the entire system.”
If this were not the case, sublimation would not be possible, but as we know, it happens.

Alan McIntire

Of COURSE it’s a gas. At any temperature, even below freezing, there’s a fraction of gaseous H20 in the atmosphere. That ratio is much lower than the liquid water/vapor ratio at 15 C or 30 C, but it’s still greater than zero. If it WASN’T a gas, you wouldn’t get any benefit from perspiring. As it is, your body is cooled by the latent heat of evaporation.

Kit Carruthers

Another Tim Ball conspiracy theory piece. Quelle surprise!

Explain.
No one like it when someone makes a hit ‘n’ run comment like that. What, exactly, is your objection?
State it here chapter and verse, or we will rightly assume you are just trolling.

MCourtney

dbstealey, once again we have commented at the same time.
We move in different ways from completely different political perspectives. But we move in parallel.
I think we are exact opposites.

Of course we are exact opposites! You are British, and I am American.☺

MCourtney

No. His Stormfrontesque posts are not like this. I disagree and disagreed with those.
But…
Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas. That is a physical reality.
Observable facts about physical reality are not the same as subjective ideas about social constructs.

There are other deceptions in the chart…
The “High” rating for “Total Anthropogenic RF relative to 1750” is a self-serving IPCC assessment. It must be high because we created it.
The IPCC was designed and managed to perpetuate this deception and cynically do it openly.
Too many scientists don’t know because they accept without checking. They assume, or don’t want to believe, that funding or a political agenda can corrupt other scientists.
I gave up at this point; I’m sure you can see why, to wit, Ball is accusing the IPCC and scientists of widespread corruption to spread a lie (or something-or-other) about CO2.
[But. Are any of those statements inaccurate? .mod]

Bruce Cobb

The ipcc have an agenda, and it’s purely a political one. Their pretense of doing science is blatant, and yes, they are spreading lies (manmade global warming propaganda). They are corrupt to the core.

Kit Carruthers;
gave up at this point; I’m sure you can see why, to wit, Ball is accusing the IPCC and scientists of widespread corruption to spread a lie

And when actually CAUGHT in a lie (the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 debacle) the HEAD of the IPCC admitted that they knew the info was wrong but put it in anyway in the hopes of spurring governments to action. Read the climategate emails, read all the grey literature incorrect references that turned AR4 into a mockery, read carefully the tortured wording of ALL the AR reports to give the impression of certain things without actually saying them….. There’s an awful lot of fuel for that fire.

richardscourtney

Kit Carruthers
You list a series of true statements by Tim Ball then you conclude

I gave up at this point; I’m sure you can see why, to wit, Ball is accusing the IPCC and scientists of widespread corruption to spread a lie (or something-or-other) about CO2.

NO! Ball is explaining how the IPCC operates the Role of the IPCC as stated by the IPCC itself.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.
It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say CO2-induced AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

This says the IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
1
amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
2
by politicians approving the SPM
3
then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism. And the IPCC explicitly states this in it ‘Principles’.

Richard

Bill Murphy

Ball is accusing the IPCC and scientists of widespread corruption to spread a lie…

Since corruption and deception are proven facts from emails leaked to the public record, how does pointing it out qualify as “accusing?”

policycritic

@Kit Carruthers,
Over the last four years I separately verified everything that richardscourtney writes at February 8, 2015 at 10:59 pm. richardscourtney is reporting accurately and without hyperbole. I’ve made it plain here I’m not a scientist, but I *will* research a topic relentlessly. I don’t mind being ignorant, or being perceived as ignorant. But ‘stupid’ is refusing, on my part, to correct that ignorance. Determining the IPCC’s mandate is job #1 if you want to take its documents seriously, imo, so I looked into it. Further, there are feeder documents, papers (published as books) written by people like Dr. Irving M. Mintzer (formerly of the World Resources Institute) and Rajendra Pachauri (before he headed the IPCC)–too lengthy to go into here–that presuppose a warming world way ahead of the science (1994) and advocates global policies imposed with the weight of government money that they, of course, will ultimately manage. Mintzer has a B.A. and MBA from Berkeley, and a PhD in Energy Resources (I called and verified). Pachauri is a railway engineer.
There is a lot to be suspicious of: if you read the literature.
I actually plowed through 2/3 of the IPCC AR5 (I’m being honest, I didn’t finish it). Your statement that Dr. Ball wrote another “conspiracy theory piece” is laughable. (The discussion of the scientific differences of opinion here is another matter.) Even I, the token scientific ignoramus on this blog, asked when I saw Figure 1 above in the original AR5, “Where is the water vapor?” You need to direct your Monsieur Poirot skills to the people who are actually bamboozling you.

rogerknights

“the HEAD of the IPCC admitted that they knew the info was wrong but put it in anyway in the hopes of spurring governments to action.”
No, that was Lal, the head of the Asia group, speaking to David Rose of the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, he wasn’t taped, so he denied he’d said it a couple of days later. Rose then said he had indeed said it.

I dispute the claim of certain gasses having a “greenhouse effect” at all, but even if I play along with the hypothesis, the CO2 to water ratio and IR absorbtion properties makes the alarmists fear of CO2 increases laughable!
According to all the literature water vapour is 6 times as “greenhousy” as CO2. At 1% concentration in the atmosphere (I take a low average) that’s 20 times the current CO2 level and (according to basic arithmetic (assuming basic arithmetic is allowed in these days where 10 page equations are needed to secure funding)) that’s 120 times the greenhousyness of CO2.
If the total greenhouse effect is 33C (another dubious claim as that assumes the huge difference in Albedo between the Earth and the Moon is irrelevant) then CO2’s total role is no more than 0.28C (rounded up!) and man’s role in the last 160 years of temperature change to be <0.1C

Greig

In addition to the issues raised by Tim in his article, there is also the issue of transfer of latent heat through evapotranspiration. As an example, consider heating of the land where soils are very dry, and there is no latent energy absorbed during evaporation, leading to run way local warming. Compare this to the simple conclusion of the IPCC that CO2 = warming = more evaporation = positive feedback. In the case of heating of dry soils, increased water and evaporation retard temperature increase. And that’s just pne of many such examples where water vapour effects are counter intuitive. It just ain’t simple, and yet so many believe that it is simple.
Water vapour dominates climate in numerous ways, and yet current climate science only considers greenhouse feedback important, and this goes mostly unquantified. Feedback is estimated from paleoclimate records, even though in the past we have never had the situation where CO2 increases precede temperature increase (so the paleoclimate records are not analogous to the present, obviously). In climate modelling, many of water vapours impacts are simply ignored, or cast aside as a work in progress.
Yet the warmies declare the science is settled: “science sez CO2 means warming, and yous say it’s not, so yous are anti-science deniers”. Really, that is the argument the warmies have resorted to, go check HotWhopper. [sigh].
Whilst water vapour effects remain a mostly unanswered question, we simply do not know how increasing CO2 will impact on global warming. How much and how fast? Climate science has a long way to go to quantify all of the phenomena associated, and the debate on greenhouse policy must take this uncertainty into account.

MCourtney

The water vapour argument is that it responds to the other forcing and has no independent impact (as water vapour is always available in excess).
This is actually correct.
The failing of the alarmists is not the idea that water vapour adjusts in response to other forcings.
The failing of the alarmists is the idea that nothing else adjusts in response to other forcings

Dawtgtomis (Steve Lochhaas from SIUE)

Quite succinct! (+1000)

eo

The decision making paradigm between the skeptics and the believers of AGW is very different and it would difficult to come up with a sound discussion and resolve the issue. The skeptics have moved towards more rigorous analysis of raw data and soundness of the assumptions of the models used. On the other hand, to the believers the smoothing of raw data and dropping of major causes such as water vapor does not matter. To the believers, the most important fact is to get the politicians, decision makers and the public to move in the direction of what they believe is the salvation of the world and they think they are succeeding it. In fact any sound decision maker from the simple home owner to big business takes insurance in case their decision is faulty or there are unforeseen events that will prove their decision wrong and result to disaster for their home or businesses. A sound decision maker if goes for the believer side he should finance the skeptical studies so he will be ready to take corrective actions if his current actions is proven to be a failure. However, this is not happening because the believers have complete faith on the correctness of their actions and in fact they are concentrating the studies and researches to further support their position. they do not feel or appreciate the need for an insurance as they have more than 100 per cent confident they are correct and what is needed is more propaganda to convert the skeptics to their side. It does not matter if IPPC will ignore water vapor and even other non-man made factors affecting climate change. On the extreme side to some “believers” climate change is not even important but the real mission is to alter human society back to the concept of the noble savage that has always been popular in the human dreams making fictions such as robinson Crusoe or current TV shows on being marooned in islands to philosophical works.

highflight56433

“…they believe is the salvation of the world…” no, it is purely money, greed, and control.

pat

speaking of water…and BBC…
beginning late January & going into February, BBC has endlessly promo-ed and then aired and repeated 50 minutes of BBC’s Claudia Hammond with Marine Biologist Mary Hagerdorn at the Wellcome (Trust) Collection, with opening claim by Hagerdorn that ALL CORAL in the world could be gone within FIFTY years.
Now, BBC World Service’s “Science Hour” last night includes Hammond/Hagerdorn/Wellcome excerpts with BBC presenter’s intro stating “some experts” claim ALL CORAL in the world could be gone within FORTY years from triple whammy from humanity, pollution, global warming and ocean acidification. that was a quick LOST DECADE.
the original 50-min show:
Download Audio: BBC: Exchanges at the Frontier: Saving Coral 31Jan15
Sat, 31 Jan 2015
Duration: 50 mins
Marine Biologist Mary Hagedorn has an innovative plan to save the coral reefs
Download
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ideas
Latest Science Show: Coral segment begins half-way through the 49-minute program, approx 24 mins in:
8 Feb: BBC World Service: The Science Show: Cosmic Renaissance; Three Person Babies; Chimpanzee language
Note in Summary…Boosting coral populations…
Download
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/science

Jer0me

It’s just … wait for it …
“Worse than they thought!”

Latitude

run away global humidity is a fail………….
if it were possible, we would not be here right now

Only slightly O/T: Anthony Watts has made both Climate Depot, and today’s DRUDGE REPORT. Excellent!
They say no publicity is bad publicity, but this is very good on more than one level. Kudos!

Dawtgtomis (Steve Lochhaas from SIUE)

Just heard the DSCOVR launch is scrubbed for today… Bummer!

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
“It is essentially impossible to determine the impact of 4 percent if you have very limited knowledge about 95 percent.”
Yes, and water should be considered twice, as it would be the means for the amplification of the warming effect of CO2.

pat

thanx to the MSM, the public don’t know this either:
30 Jan: Foreign Policy Mag: McKenzie Funk: The Hack That Warmed the World
Europe’s carbon-trading market was supposed to be capitalism’s solution to global warming. Instead, it became a playground for gangsters, international crime syndicates, and even two-bit crooks — who stole hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution credits.
Although stockbrokers have to be licensed, just about anybody can become a carbon trader. (In 2007, the New York Times had called carbon traders the “rising stars” of London’s financial district.)…
As for carbon trading as a strategy to save the world, Beddoes remains skeptical. “Biggest scam on the planet!”…
These crimes point to an inherent flaw in cap-and-trade systems: the difficulty of substantiating transactions that involve nothing palpable. “The noteworthy potential for the carbon market to be exploited,” Interpol says in its report, “rests on a single significant vulnerability that distinguishes it from other markets—the intangible nature of carbon itself.” Put another way, if a man who buys a horse never receives it, he’ll pick up on the scam. But if he buys the right, represented by a numerical code, to emit an invisible gas or the promise that someone else will emit less of that gas in the future, he might easily be fooled…
In 2015, because of problems like excess credits, the main 
barrier to carbon crime may be that credits have become so cheap. But there’s still strong faith in the potential of cap and trade, and a mounting concern about fraud.
So while officials wait for prices—***and global temperatures—to rise***, they’re finally tightening security…
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/30/climate-change-hack-carbon-credit-black-dragon/
***Funk seems rather more CAGW sceptical since writing his recent, well-researched book, “Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming”, which didn’t take sides on CAGW, but examined those cashing in, mostly in a positive light, & looked at potential benefits to countries, industries, individuals, etc., if the world did warm, according to the predictions.
btw Christopher Booker’s latest – The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever – posted by highflight56433 above, had 9,226 comments when i last checked. add your voices…for the sake of your children and grand-children!

GeeJam

Pat, it’s now an incredible 21,251 comments. Go, go, go, Christopher Booker . . . .

I wish someone would model the effect of water vapor on climate. I read somewhere (maybe WUWT) that the weather in the mid-west is influenced by the massive irrigation in California. Is that true? Does the loss of the Mississippi delta affect the strength of Hurricanes that hit New Orleans? Inquiring minds want to know.

Babsy

The weather in the Midwest is influenced by the warm, southerly flow of moisture off the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks to the IPCC “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.” More at http://tinyurl.com/naexuho

jim2

This must be the Brian Williams presentation of greenhouse gasses.

Hoser

It’l on Drudge now. That means everyone will probably know soon. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
How will the media spin this one?
Anthony and WUWT and many others should get a lot of credit for exposing the truth.

@Hoser
“How will the media spin this one?”
They basically just won’t mention it. – Hope I’m wrong…

Hoser

It’s –
Now that reminds me of a man in a shredded suit, long hair, a beard, and the Liberty Bell March.

I keep asking this question. If the human contribution to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere is around 3% of the total flux into the atmosphere from natural sources (very close to a rounding error), how can this lead to any major climate change? The biosphere recycles the CO2. And, it is healthier because of it.

Alx

“Deception is possible because most know very little about climate, as the Yale Education study showed.”

The Yale education study was to measure how many people had not been indoctrinated to climate dogma. From the executive summary these are examples of what people are “failing” to know.
1. 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
2. 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
3. 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;
4. 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification.
Item 1 and 3 are basic facts, but without context are meaningless in terms of climate concerns. Items 2 and 4 however is BS, politely put as propaganda. It is only speculation that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. Coral bleaching are isolated incidents and tied to AGW only because anything perceiveed as bad has to be due to AGW. In medieval times we had Satan screwing everything up, in modern times we have CO2.
Tim Balls point is true that people are easily deceived because they have limited science knowledge. The reality is it would be difficult to find someone in a Mall who even heard of the first law of thermodynamics never mind climate dynamics. Most peoples climate knowledge stops at. “don’t want it to snow, rain or get cold.”
The Yale quiz was half basic climate concepts and half on how well the propaganda is taking hold. A sad day for Yale and higher education.

Bill Illis

Tim Ball’s excellent post (and the fact that lower Troposphere temperatures are rising less than the Surface) has caused me to think that we can actually re-write the Global Warming theory now.
–> First, the theory is based on what happens in the Troposphere. An increase of 3.7 W/m2 from CO2 doubling impacts the troposphere by increasing its temperature by about 1.0C (according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations which is actually used in the theory) (and then there is some adjustment in the Stratosphere and the temperature increase rises to about 1.2C).
–> There are also various assumptions about how the Surface (where we live) reacts to that temperature increase in the Troposphere. The lapse rate decreases and the surface warms just as fast as the troposphere.
–> But that is not what is happening. The Surface is warming faster than the Troposphere. The lapse rate is actually increasing and the link to surface temperature assumptions is therefore broken. There is not a tropical troposphere hotspot and therefore we can move away from the troposphere-focus and just go back to the Surface.
–> For CO2 doubling at the Surface, the temperature increase is actually much smaller according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations. While 3.7 W/m2 additional forcing in the troposphere produces 1.0C of warming (and 1.2C when some type of Stratosphere adjustment takes place), the Surface only increases by 0.68C for an extra 3.7 W/m2 of forcing.
–> If we move the theory back to the Surface, we can do away with the lapse rate feedback and the Stratosphere some type of adjustment and just focus on Water Vapor, Cloud and Albedo feedbacks as they impact the Surface.
–> The empirical evidence to date says that water vapor feedback is only 4.5% per 1.0C (not 7.0% per 1.0C as assumed in the theory and is directly built into the climate models) and cloud feedback is straight up ZERO (not the +0.7 W/m2/C assumed in the theory). The CERES and ERBE satellites show absolutely ZERO change in the net cloud radiative forcing since 1984 and it appears to be the same -22.0 W/m2 it has always been.
–> So let’s plug all the new numbers into a revised global warming theory calculation and actually see if this new method actually works and compare it to what has happened.
–> Since 1850, Forcing has increased by 1.9 W/m2 which should have produced a surface temperature increase of 0.352C by itself.
–> Water vapor feedback kicks in at 4.5% per 1.0C and we get an initial round of another 0.102C temperature increase and then another 0.029C and then another 0.009C and so on.
–> The feedbacks on feedbacks eventually diminish (in about 9 to 45 days that is with a tiny further adjustment in the long-run from Albedo feedback) and the temperature increase at the Surface stabilizes at +0.5C.
–> Is that not what has actually happened to Surface temperatures since 1850 when one pulls out the fake temperature adjustments.
http://s3.postimg.org/gp7blh6wz/Global_Warming_to_Date_Rewritten.png
–> When CO2 doubles and we do get to 3.7 W/m2 of forcing, the temperature increase will only be 0.96C. Welcome to the new Global Warming Equations.

Danny Thomas

I searched here and J. Curry’s site, and see no reference to this. Alternate explaination and not on topic of water vapor but indicates O3 is the most important GHG. Apologies to Dr. Ball (and all if inappropriate but I just found it yesterday). Published 30 May 2013 out of Univ. of Waterloo, Canada.
Quoting: “Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5 ~ 7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1 ~ 2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently.”
Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732%20

Just got off the tractor putting out top dressing 18-46-0 fertilizer on the wheat.
Opened up the lap top to see if Brian Williams was still checking the temp’s from the back of a Chinook Helo and sure as the sun comes up Drudge Report has the truth up for more to see.
Drudge will not be called before King Obama and be forced to admit he hates Climate Change because he hates other race members and [is] not a mullah’s student of fake science.
Win!

Konrad.

Surely you know Brian Williams has far more important things to do?
Suddenly the indicator flashed orange. I thought Oh shit! “Fuel light is on”, I said to Neil crisply. “60 seconds”.
#brianwilliamsmisremembers