Challenging climate sensitivity: 'Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing' #AGU16 presentation

By Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts

Today at the American Geophysical Union Convention, Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts will be presenting at 1:10PM in Moscone South.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Study at AGU 2016 challenges conventional wisdom on climate sensitivity

‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’

December 14th, 2016 – San Francisco, CA – A new study about the role of water vapor in climate sensitivity is being presented at the 2016 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union today by Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts in session A33B: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks: Advances and New Paradigms, in Moscone South Poster Hall at 1:10PM to 6PM December 14th, position A33B-0226.

The study, using satellite measured water vapor data obtained from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, CA, suggests that the global climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, and the potential feedback mechanism of increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere, is actually far less than postulated by the IPCC.

An investigation was conducted utilizing the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) 1°x1° gridded total precipitable water (TPW) dataset to determine the magnitude of upwelling long-wave infrared radiation from Earth’s surface since 1988. TPW represents the mass of water vapor in a 1 meter by 1 meter column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. As referenced in IPCC AR5 WGI Box 8.1, the radiative effect of absorption by water vapor is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Therefore it is the fractional change in water vapor concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a climate forcing mechanism. A time-series analysis utilizing a Loess decomposition filter indicated there is a clear upward trend in the RSS TPW data since 1988. The observed total change over the period is ~ 1.5 kg/m^2, centered around the long-term mean of 28.7 kg/m^2. Utilizing the observed relationship between water content and atmospheric absorption, the RSS TPW data indicates an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015.

Key finding:

The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.

Corresponding author: Willis Eschenbach willis@surfacetemps.org

agu16-poster

The full poster is here: agu16-poster-final (PDF)

Links to data and code: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/TPW.zip  (600 MB)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PiperPaul

Put observers at all the fire alarms. Just a suggestion.

Resourceguy

and thermostats too

Pop Piasa

“and thermostats too”
Ouch – too true! Nobody usually tips the building engineer, but…

It seems amazing that Eschenbach and Watts, can show a clear relationship between H2O and temperature from the observational data. No doubt as a result of the billions of dollars in funding they receive from the fossil fuel industry (sarc). But at the same time the IPCC and all the climate scientists on Earth, with trillions of taxpayers dollars are not able to show the same thing for CO2 from the observational data.
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Isaac Newton

Charles Higley

What is really funny is that a their not finding a temperature increase with increased downwelling IR radiation makes perfectly normal thermodynamic sense. The downwelling radiation is redirected IR from the surface. As the surface is warmer than the water vapor and CO2 in the air that is absorbing and radiating IR (in all directions), the surface will not absorb the downwelling portion of IR and reflect it back upward, where it is eventually lost to space *which is colder than absolute zero, as it has no temperature). The energy levels in the surface that are equivalent to the downwelling IR energies are already full. In other words, the relatively cool IR radiation cannot warm the already hotter surface. This is why this key part of the global warming junk science is a complete failure.

MarkW

Nothing is colder than absolute zero, and space does indeed have a temperature. If I remember correctly it’s around 3K.

David Lilley

The background radiation in space is the same as would be emitted by a black body at 3 degrees K. This does not mean that the temperature of space is 3 degrees K. Space does not have a temperature. Temperature is a property of matter.

ironargonaut

Watts are a unit of energy; temperature is not. Why would one assume a rise in one would force a rise in the other? That is what is wrong with this paper and most of CAGW arguments you are comparing apples to oranges. Add energy to a glass of ice water it’s temperature won’t rise until the ice melts. Pressure cooker etc.
Along that vein can this data be used to do a real energy calculation? I.e. Calculate the change in energy of the atmosphere over time?
I realize this paper is meant to show how the forcing is wrong using the standards set by the CAGW crowd. The work is fine. I just think the beginning premise for all this climate nonsense is not justifiable I.e. Using temp as a measure of energy.

Calculate the change in energy of the atmosphere over time?

It can be done with surface data, but so far I haven’t noticed anything that alters my conclusions.

Pages 2/3 of the PDF appear blank to me.

J

Same here. Pages 2-3 are blank.
Firefox 48.0 on Win 7.

Ben

Bottom left corner has a QR Code to scan, which says it will produce a downloadable copy.
Has anyone tried that?
Might be the same problem with pages 2 and 3 missing. Just an option to explore.
Do you have a link? Thanks

Idem, page 2-3 blank, Firefox 50 MacOS X

So since the beginning the argument from climate scientists has been that water vapor heating as a result of co2 heating would be about 2-3 times the co2 heating. Given that the total of all forcings is 5.6 w/m2 and water vapor is about half the total it implies that the ratio of 2-3:1 for water vapor is wrong and is more like either 1.2:1 of 1.5:1. This would explain why it appears in other calculations that sensitivity to co2 is probably half or less what the IPCC predicted.
Of course what this leaves out is how the ice ages happened. If the multiplier on co2 is so low then it is clear that something else is responsible for the ice age variations. I beleive the answer for that is in my blog here. Another Big Failure in Climate Science – Underwater Volcanoes Before we get to volcanoes I want to take you on a little history.
When this climate science was born by Jim Hansen the logic was simple.  The ice… https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/another-big-failure-in-climate-science-underwater-volcanoes/

Agree with your first paragraph completely. Reached similar conclusions using completely different logic in a comment below.

josh

The comparison of 3.3 W/m^2 from water vapor is from 1988 vs 2.3 W/m^2 from all forcings since 1750! The actual change in CO2 forcing since 1988 is less than 1 W/m^2, which is quite in line with other estimates.
As for temperature: according to IPCC WG1, “Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). “Note however that this is the direct water vapor feedback effect; vapor in turn affects cloud formation and other things, thus the total impact on temperature from including vapor can be greater than just the increased absorption of upwelling radiation.

logiclogic
The real problem with the theory (IPCC or others) that CO2 causes the temperature movement from glacial to interglacial is – that the relative DENSITY of CO2 in the atmosphere is LOWEST during the warming phase and highest in a cooling phase.
Yes, the CO2 ppm increases during the warming phase but the density reduces (delayed mostly).
When the term ppm is removed from the discussion and relative density / saturation is used then the discussion comes to an end. One must always look at the temperature profile leading up to and after any data point when using either ppm (with a temperature reference) or simply relative density to fully understand the true state of the equilibrium at that time. Is it in a positive or negative state, simply because of temperature change..
The real problem remains a very poor understanding between the use of ppm and relative density during temperature movements within equilibriums.

Ozonebust, what do you mean by “relative density”? How can it differ from ppm? Please define your terms, I’ve seen them nowhere else and searching for “CO2 relative density” gives only results that mention the density difference (unchangeable) due to 44 vs 29 molecular weight.

Doug
I will put forward a chart and notes over the next few days and put the link at this spot.
Regards

richard verney

I have long suggested that Climate Sensitivity is not a mathematical concept, but rather, if it exists at all, it can only be ascertained, assessed and quantified by direct observational measurement.
The issue here is how CO2 behaves not in laboratory conditions, but rather in the complex mix of the Earth’s atmosphere and Earth System with all feedbacks both atmospheric and land based.
One often hears people suggest all other matters being constant, CO2 will lead to warming. However, we know as fact that when we burn carbon, or gas, all other matter do not remain constant. It is therefore absurd to talk about what would happen if all other matters remain constant.
I also frequently state that I do not accept the terminology of CO2 being a GHG. We know that it is a radiative gas. We know its laboratory characteristics, but that does not mean that it is a GHG. Whether it is a GHG, or not, can only be answered and determined by direct observational measurement over time.
I am far from convinced there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2. The paleo record, for what it is worth (by which I take on board that it is mainly proxy evidence which must have large error bounds) is very problematic to the Earth having any significant Climate Sensivity to CO2.
All we can say is that despite our best measuring efforts, we are presently unable to eek out the signal, if any at all, to CO2 over and above the noise of natural variation and the inherent lack of sensitivity and/or error margins of our best measuring equipment.
I am interested in seeing more detail on the presentation. Well done to all involved.

gallopingcamel

” Whether it is a GHG, or not, can only be answered and determined by direct observational measurement over time.”
…..
This has been done: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Camel, after reading the full paper a few times I’m not convinced Feldman actually block WV in the measurements. Since the absorption/emission spectra for H20 & CO2 overlap significantly, and since CO2 and H20 can exchange energy freely, the problem of separating the measures is significant. It seems likely to me Feldman was measuring the same effect reported in this presentation; WV has increased, continues to increase, and the result is an increase in LW IR. Feldman essentially leaps to the conclusion this is solely a result of increased atmospheric CO2 and weakly defends that assertion by noting the measures they took were in “clear skies”. Unfortunately that does almost nothing to block water; clear skies can easily contain large amounts of water, ask any IR astronomer; it’s the reason ground based observatories are built in places like Muana Kea and airborne platforms such as the Kuiper Airborne Observatory and SOPHIA were developed. Water vapor is a serious problem, even in “clear skies”.
I think the same criticism might be made of Anthony & Willis’ effort, but the take home message for me would be “it doesn’t really matter.” They’ve demonstrated WV explains 95% of the variability in IR absorption all by itself (at least I think that’s what they’re saying. If that’s the case, CO2 doesn’t matter.

I suppose my real question would be, “to what extent has water vapor been measured absent CO2?” It’s the reverse of my criticism of Feldman, “To what extent has CO2 been measured absent water?”
If both methods depend on band restricted radiance measures, a discussion of how they were “blocked” is necessary.

george e. smith

Well H2O and CO2 absorption/emission BANDS may overlap, that does not mean that the actual individual spectral LINES are anywhere close to overlapping.
If you use a sledge hammer to smash in a half inch brad, you don’t necessarily get what you expected. The CO2 and H2O individual spectral lines at atmospheric Temperatures and pressures are quite separate.
I don’t know why we have to continually restate this at WUWT
G

Toneb

“If that’s the case, CO2 doesn’t matter.”
It matters.
Because without CO2 there can be no increase in WV content.
It cannot increase unless there is a temp increase.
And it cannot “pull itself up by it’s own bootstraps”.
IOW: Something else MUST make the temp increase BEFORE water vapour can increase its absolute humidity in the atmosphere.
CO2 is what is doing that.
Because it is non-condensing.
H2O condenses, which is why it cannot drive itself.
“The maximum amount of water vapour in the air is controlled by temperature. A typical column of air extending from the surface to the stratosphere in polar regions may contain only a few kilograms of water vapour per square metre, while a simi- lar column of air in the tropics may contain up to 70 kg. With every extra degree of air temperature, the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water vapour (see upper-left insert in the FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). This increase in concentration ampli es the green- house effect, and therefore leads to more warming. This process, referred to as the water vapour feed- back, is well understood and quanti ed. It occurs in all models used to estimate climate change, where its strength is consistent with observations. Although an increase in atmospheric water vapour has been observed, this change is recognized as a climate feed- back (from increased atmospheric temperature) and should not be interpreted as a radiative forcing from anthropogenic emissions.
Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a signifcant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.”
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Toneb
What you set out is the conjuring trick at the heart of the CAGW meme. You concede that water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but then produce like a rabbit from a hat the claim that water vapour cannot heat itself, but can only be warmed by CO2. Why? This makes no sense. WV and CO2 are both greenhouse gasses. If one can by radiative sleight of hand warm itself and neighboring molecules, so can the other. If one can’t, the other can’t either. Take away this “now you see me now you don’t” trick and nothing is left; except to different atmospheric components, one – WV, with a major radiative effect, and another – CO2 – with a negligible effect.

Chimp

Toneb,
Of course you don’t need more CO2 in order to achieve higher temperatures and more water vapor in the air.
The sun’s output varies. That alone can cause heating, as can fewer clouds.
As the late, great Father of Climatology, Reid Bryson, said “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide”.
The “canonical” ECS of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 is totally fictitious. It was made up without any reference to physical reality. It’s the average of two guesses made in the 1970s and never tested by the IPCC or anyone else.

Toneb

Ptolemy2:
“What you set out is the conjuring trick at the heart of the CAGW meme. You concede that water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 but then produce like a rabbit from a hat the claim that water vapour cannot heat itself, but can only be warmed by CO2. Why? This makes no sense. WV and CO2 are both greenhouse gasses. If one can by radiative sleight of hand warm itself and neighboring molecules, so can the other. If one can’t, the other can’t either. Take away this “now you see me now you don’t” trick and nothing is left; except to different atmospheric components, one – WV, with a major radiative effect, and another – CO2 – with a negligible effect..
Water vapour cannot increase it’s absolute humidity in a gas unless the gas temperature rises.
This is because when its VP for theat temp reaches 100% RH – it precipitates out. And it does so quickly with the hydrological cycle only around 10 days from evaporation to precipitation back to the surface.
Something has to make the atmosphere’s temp rise outside of that cycle.
WV cannot do it on it’s own via radiative forcing.
If it did then we would have a runaway GHE.
There would be a permanent +ve feed-back loop.
The process must be self limiting.
Or else your logic would see temp/humidity forever climbing unless some -ve forcing came in.
It does.
Precipitation.
Therefore there must be radiative forcing mechanism that is NOT self-regulating because of it’s temp.
That is CO2.

The process must be self limiting.
Or else your logic would see temp/humidity forever climbing unless some -ve forcing came in.
It does.
Precipitation.
Therefore there must be radiative forcing mechanism that is NOT self-regulating because of it’s temp.
That is CO2.

First, every night there a reset of humidity to the mornings dew points unless the winds blow in a different air mass with a different amount of water vapor.
And night time cooling is temperature regulated by dew point through rel humidity toggling between two different clear sky cooling rates.

old construction worker

“Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between…….”
So, where is the “Hot Spot” Ace?

Toneb

Chimp:
“Toneb,
Of course you don’t need more CO2 in order to achieve higher temperatures and more water vapor in the air.”
Please see above reply to ptolemy2 and tell me why we do not have a runaway GHE on Earth then.
“The sun’s output varies. That alone can cause heating, as can fewer clouds.”
It also causes cooling.
It’s the Solar cycle.
It cycles. ~ 11 years.
“As the late, great Father of Climatology, Reid Bryson, said “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide”.
A quote is not science, no matter who it comes from.
“The “canonical” ECS of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 is totally fictitious. It was made up without any reference to physical reality. It’s the average of two guesses made in the 1970s and never tested by the IPCC or anyone else.”
Yes of course it is.
Made fictitious by the thousands of Earth scientists that contribute to the IPCC ARs
Because – which is it?
They are all incompetent. It
They are all committing a fraud.
You know more than they do.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

George, I believe this is a distinction without a difference in the case of the passive microwave sensors in use for these measures though, and that’s the reason I raised the question. Since the atmosphere is at various temperatures and pressures between the surface and space, it’s the overlapping absorption/emission bands that would be important.
I can imagine the sensors might be built to use a portion of the spectrum that is unique to water perhaps? Still, CO2 would still logically influence water since it’s possible for the two molecules to exchange energy in that overlapping window.
I’ve read the “Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD) Version 2” from GISS/RSS in hopes of finding how this is done and haven’t yet figured it out.

Michael J. Dunn

Comment for George Smith:
I don’t understand your argument that we can disregard the overlap of CO2 and H2O absorption bands, on the grounds that it only matters whether the individual spectral lines overlap. The point is, at atmospheric conditions, the spectral lines are “pressure-broadened” by molecular collisions disturbing the natural resonance point at which the pure molecule would display lines. If you had these gases in nearly a pure vacuum, what you are saying might be plausible. But the fact that they are pressure-broadened really does result in continuous absorption over bands of spectrum. In the case of CO2, it is a peaked distribution between 14 and 16 microns. In the case of water, it is a broad distribution that starts at 10 microns and gently diminishes over an order of magnitude out to 100 microns.

Gerald Machnee

RE toneb
**Water vapour cannot increase it’s absolute humidity in a gas unless the gas temperature rises.**
Where did you get this from? make it up?
Absolute humidity does not mean it is saturated. Absolute humidity is the actual amount of moisture in the air which can be close to zero. Unless the air is saturated you can add water vapor.
Where the CAGW people are mistaken is the assumption that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in water vapor which will then cause runaway warming. What real scientists are learning is that when the water vapor increases so doe the cloud which then results in solar radiation being reflected which results in cooling – hence no significant temperature change.

They’ve demonstrated WV explains 95% of the variability in IR absorption all by itself (at least I think that’s what they’re saying. If that’s the case, CO2 doesn’t matter.
==========================
that was my read as well.

jclarke341

Toneb,
You are correct when you point out that the heating from water vapor is self regulating by the act of precipitation. Precipitation, however, also regulates the heating from CO2, thus reducing the impact of the doubling of CO2 on temperature. It is also why increasing CO2 has never produced a runaway greenhouse effect.
Secondly, there are obviously things besides CO2 concentration that regulate the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. All evidence indicates that the temperature swings of the last several thousand years occurred with a steady concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ice cores and other proxies reveal that the change in temperatures at the beginning and ending of cold periods changed first, followed by the concentration of atmospheric CO2 some 500-1,000 years later. Glaciation began to increase when CO2 was at a relative peak, and then decreased again when CO2 was at a relative minimum, time and time again!. This fact alone shows that something other than CO2 has far more control over atmospheric temperatures.
The argument from ignorance that it must be CO2 that regulates temperature because we don’t know what else it could be, is really pathetic. Especially, since Holocene temperature changes all occurred without a change in CO2 and temperature changes from one glacial period to the next all preceded the change in CO2. In either case, there is no apparent causation from CO2 for the observed conditions. Why must it be CO2, when the evidence indicates it plays little or no role? Why can’t we just admit that we don’t know all the reasons for climate change on any significant time scale, but that the evidence indicates that changing CO2 is not significant?
That would be a valid scientific conclusion!

Toneb says:” Something else MUST make the temp increase BEFORE water vapour can increase its absolute humidity in the atmosphere.
CO2 is what is doing that.”

Ah, yes; the old saw where obviously some mystical other component does the deed and without any scientific observation, the rabbit in the hat must be CO2. No proof or even knowledge needed. Anyone can play this game.
Well, that is amazing. Without data, without evidence, without direct observation; magic happens!
It’s CO2 wot done it.
Them four molecules of CO2 for every 9,996 molecules of atmosphere magically heat up many thousands of water vapor molecules.
Now Toneb: Exactly and explicitly define and show evidence for this CO2 dastardly deed of magic. Exactly how does a few molecules of CO₂ heat so many molecules of H₂O?
Water is just as flexible, if not moreso, a molecule as carbon dioxide.
Absorption of a photon is soon followed by the release of a photon. For temperature to actually rise, requires that those photons be absorbed and another photon be captured; while CO₂ rampages around trying to impart some energy to another atmospheric molecule.
Otherwise, as soon as the photon is emitted, the energy level of a CO₂ molecule returns to before absorbing a photon.

Richard M

While Feldman reports an increase in IR from CO2 there is another paper which reports on the total IR over a similar period. Gero and Turner showed no increased in total downwelling IR (actually a decrease in clear sky). For both of these to be accurate then there must have been a decrease in IR from other sources with the most likely choice being water vapor.
This raises an interesting question. Even though TPW has increased does that really mean you’ll get more IR at the surface? I think the answer may be no. You may need to look at the water column vertically to determine the effect. More water vapor at the surface has little effect because of saturation. At higher altitudes you have a bigger effect and the water vapor there seems to be decreasing.

ironargonaut

Toneb “Something else MUST make the temp increase BEFORE water vapour can increase its absolute humidity in the atmosphere.” You mean like a change in atmospheric pressure? Why can’t it be that and not CO2? Isn’t that how el-Nino/nina years change the average global temp? Or whatever else you think cause the changes. Its not CO2.

Toneb

AtheoK:
“Ah, yes; the old saw where obviously some mystical other component does the deed and without any scientific observation, the rabbit in the hat must be CO2. No proof or even knowledge needed. Anyone can play this game.
Well, that is amazing. Without data, without evidence, without direct observation; magic happens!”
CO2 is not needed to rebut the idea that WV can drive GW.
It is, and always will be a FEED-BACK.
Because it PRECIPITATES.
It is self regulating and needs something else to change the atmosphere’s temperature before it can increase/decrease.
150 years of empirical proof, that you choose to ignore – one of the latest here….
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
“It’s CO2 wot done it.
Them four molecules of CO2 for every 9,996 molecules of atmosphere magically heat up many thousands of water vapor molecules.”
Yes correct.
Not magic, as I said just empirical science.
Without which the Earth would be it’s BB temp of -18C and Venus would not be at around 470C despite having an albedo of ~0.7.
“Now Toneb: Exactly and explicitly define and show evidence for this CO2 dastardly deed of magic. Exactly how does a few molecules of CO₂ heat so many molecules of H₂O?”
Go look yourself. You won’t find it here.
Start with Arrhenius.
“Water is just as flexible, if not moreso, a molecule as carbon dioxide.
Absorption of a photon is soon followed by the release of a photon. For temperature to actually rise, requires that those photons be absorbed and another photon be captured; while CO₂ rampages around trying to impart some energy to another atmospheric molecule.”
No it doesn’t entirely, photons are emitted that impinge back on the surface. It is a radiative forcing and it can be seen (I have more times than I care to remember) that the ground will warm BEFORE the air above it.
It’s called science
Ever done some?

AndyG55

Poor Toneb, your link is a JOKE.
The time period starts at the very bottom of a La Nino and ends at the very peak of an El Nino
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH !!!

AndyG55

“It’s called science
Ever done some?”
Its becoming more and more obvious that you particularly… HAVEN’T

AndyG55

Very odd that the link Toneb posted was posted 5 years after the data finished.
Amazing because if they actually had anything, surely they would have posted it earlier. !!
Or did the data REALLY finish ????
Did the full data actually go further than the very peak of the 2010 El Nino, say to 2012?
This would have told a VERY different story, that would not have met the alarmist scam.

Crispin in Waterloo

Tonyb
I must add my voice to the others, in correction:
“Because without CO2 there can be no increase in WV content. It cannot increase unless there is a temp increase.”
This is completely untrue. The claim violates several fundamentals of well established physics of gases and vapour pressure.
Water vapour concentration rises and falls all the time whether the air is hot or cold.

Toneb

Jclarke341:
“Ice cores and other proxies reveal that the change in temperatures at the beginning and ending of cold periods changed first, followed by the concentration of atmospheric CO2 some 500-1,000 years later. Glaciation began to increase when CO2 was at a relative peak, and then decreased again when CO2 was at a relative minimum, time and time again!. This fact alone shows that something other than CO2 has far more control over atmospheric temperatures..
They do indeed.
And for very good reason.
That is the natural state of affairs re the carbon cycle.
Mankind has reversed that by making CO2 come first.
CO2 can be a driver or a feed-back.
It is in the carbon cycle a feedback (as is H2O).
No, CO2 has “control” due it’s non-condensing nature.
The driver shown in ice-cores is the orbital eccentricity of the Earth changing insulation/ice/albedo/temp in high latitude NH landmasses.
CO2 follows as a feedback….. normally.
But not now.
“The argument from ignorance that it must be CO2 that regulates temperature because we don’t know what else it could be, is really pathetic. Especially, since Holocene temperature changes all occurred without a change in CO2 and temperature changes from one glacial period to the next all preceded the change in CO2. In either case, there is no apparent causation from CO2 for the observed conditions. Why must it be CO2, when the evidence indicates it plays little or no role? Why can’t we just admit that we don’t know all the reasons for climate change on any significant time scale, but that the evidence indicates that changing CO2 is not significant?”
No, not ignorance, instead from ~150 years of empirical science begun by Tyndall, Fourier and Arrhenius.
We know the reasons, and if you read the real science rather than posting on *sceptic* blogs you would find it.

We know the reasons,

Nonsense, if you did there wouldn’t be a concern with it, and you’d understand this graph, and you don’t.comment image

Geoff Sherrington

GES,
Is your comment an observation from a thought process, or a comment based on hands-on experience?
In some spectroscopy work, one of the performance-limiting procedures is subtraction of overlapping signals each with uncertain baselines, especially if the performance of the instrument is challenged, as with low signal strength. Quite a lot of specific experimentation is often needed with calibrated mixtures in a lab environment, if that possibility is open.

AtheoK,
“Them four molecules of CO2 for every 9,996 molecules of atmosphere magically heat up many thousands of water vapor molecules.”
AFAIK,
-water vapor per molecule is a less stronger GHG than CO2, but in general more water vapur is in the atmosphere
-Water vapor and CO2 are both GHGs, doing the same work
-in 95% of all cases, a GHG heated up from absorbing a photon, is transferring the energy to another molecule including O2 and NO by contact, instead of emitting it as a IR beam/photon.
-Through transferring the heat by contact/conduction to all other molecules, the complete air is heatet up
– Energy transfer to the space is only possible through transferring the heat by contact to greenhouse gasses which are radiating the energy towards space.
-in a dry air, there is nearly nil water vapor, and CO2 is doing the job mostly alone.
-even if they are only 0.04% molecules of CO2 in the air, they are “wildly bouncing around” and are enough in number so that a IR beam or Photon will “hit” one GHG after 25 Meter or so

Toneb:
Your answer/rebuttal is no more of a real answer than the previous attempt.
You still state an outcome, then decide that CO2 have been the cause.
In your world, no observation is needed on how four molecules heats up 9,996 other atmospheric molecules. It just happens because you claim it.
Arrhenius only proved that CO2 under laboratory conditions had the potential to be a GHG. And he even speculated on possible influences, without ever designing or conducting a serious test to prove his speculations.
Long after, CAGW adherents have yet to design or test those speculations. Assuption and correlation is enough.
Real science; ever try it?
Johannes:
CO2 as an atmospheric gas, is uniquely responsive to Infrared in one small area of light spectrum frequency, where water H2O dominates a large majority of the light spectrum. Outside of the one small frequency spectrum, CO2 shares all other frequencies with other GHGs, especially water.
Water is a stronger GHG, absorbing photons through multiple molecule shapes across a broad range of light frequencies than CO2.
Exactly how much energy is transmitted to other atmospheric molecules? If the CO2 energy state has not returned to the proper angle, it will not absorb another photon.
According to Toneb, the GHGs’ transmit their photons down to the surface. Well, depending on height of the molecule, that angle of transmission is anywhere of 360° vertically, horizontally, obliquely, wherever, GHG emissions are occasionally towards the Earth, usually not.
No matter what, the ground cools at a steady rate. All the GHGs accomplish is a slower cool down. CO2 molecules might stay one photon more excited than previously.
It takes a large number of infrared photons for humans to feel the warmth.
Yes, drier air has less water to hold the infrared frequency increase in energy.
How much less water?
I understand that Atacama Desert can range as water vapor levels as low as 2-4%. Normally, deserts still hold a 10%-30% moisture level.
CO2 is right at 0.04% of the atmosphere at peak, somewhat evenly mixed.
Yet, especially in deserts, or even after clear cold fronts pass through; one can feel the moment sunlight falls below the horizon. Cooling is quick. The drier the desert, the colder that temperature reaches, frosts are not uncommon.

No matter what, the ground cools at a steady rate.

Actually it has 2 speeds, below about 70-75% rel humidity, above that it slows until 100% where the cooling rate is about 1/3rd of the high speed mode. The transition is air temp nearing dew point temperature, making it temperature regulated to dew point, co2 doesn’t affect it at all.

comment image

G. Karst

Well said! Climate sensitivity is an embarrassing failure of the climate community. How can anyone contemplate action under the present discipline? GK

george e. smith

Does AGU even have an officially approved statement of EXACTLY what ” Climate Sensitivity ” is.
I’ve NEVER seen one that everybody in the industry (of MMGWCCC) agrees to.
There’s NO reference of ANY kind to “Climate Sensitivity” in my Encyclopedia of Physics Handbook. And no definition as to the units it is measured in.
G

Pop Piasa

Climate sensitivity errors are the reason current models forecasted miserably and hindcast requiring data adjustment.

A question for the physicists. Recent OCO2 monitoring shows that CO2 is not evenly mixed in the atmosphere, at least on seasonally variable timeframes. If we can measure WV variations in a column of air, and CO2 in a column of air, shouldn’t we be able to determine definitively whether or not WV (absolute humidity) can change without a change in CO2 (an increase necessary to heat the air in order to increase the amount of WV)?

Thomas Homer

Thank you Richard Verney for providing an excellent summary of what we know today.
“We know [CO2’s] laboratory characteristics, but that does not mean that [CO2] is a GHG.”
As for gallopingcamel’s comment below that we have already measured CO2’s ‘GHG’ effect, his link includes:
“derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations”
What was measured? And, together with ‘ancillary measurements’, yeah, we need to add those in.
So if we have indeed measured this effect, then we must be measuring it today correct? Where are the charts? Again, I want to see how elevation affects these measurements, i.e. Denver vs Miami. I want to see how atmospheric tides affect these measurements. Elevation and atmospheric tides alter the amount of atmosphere over a given location, and more atmosphere must show more “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance” correct? Alas, there are no charts. It’s not being measured today like I described. If nothing is being measured, then nothing is being measured.
What do these measurements look like during an eclipse?
What are the “radiative transfer calculations” that we should expect to see on Mars with a 95% CO2 atmosphere? And, why isn’t the Mars’ Rover reporting results from its: “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements”?

Richard Verney
Very well said.
You echo Karl Popper: true climate science must start with observation – what is happening, how are climate players related, in the past and present? With as many experimental/observational clues as possible, cautiously propose explanatory models, not claiming detailed predictive skill, bearing in mind and allowing for unknown unknowns. This is what Popper calls correct deductive science.
The modern climate science approach by contrast is hubris filled and is precisely what Popper rejected as inductive; build a theoretical house of cards of assumption upon assumption, and take its output as strong predictions, arrogantly and blithely dismissing the possibility of any unknown unknowns and even torturing scientific principles and language by labelling such model outputs as “experiments”.
Just saying something doesn’t make it so, no matter who you think you are.
There are some very good comments on this thread.

Germinio

Richard,
if you do not believe there is any climate sensitivity to CO2 then how do you explain the current
annual temperature of the earth? A simple energy balance argument based on the Stefan-Boltzmann
law predicts an average temperature of about -30C rather than the observed 14C. So you have over
40C of warming to explain. The only explanation that is consistent with observed experimental absorption
lines and current theories of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics is the greenhouse effect. And the
most important greenhouse gas is CO2 – since it does not condense out of the atmosphere like water
vapour and so can kick start the whole process with water vapour being a very large positive feedback.

G, just a few fact corrections for your edification. Absent WVF at constant CO2, Earth would be ~ minus 18C versus plus ~ 15C with. Those estimates you can google. Your numbers are off.
Water vapor is a much more potent GHG given its ‘mickey mouse’ asymmetric shape compared to linear CO2. Those quantum ‘ vibrational’ facts you can also google.
Whether water vapor or CO2 predominates given the above depends on the temp/wv lapse rate in the troposphere, and so varies with altitude. You will discover higher is colder, and colder is dryer. So at altitude, ‘well mixed’ CO2 has a stronger GHE. Learn, please.

Geronimo

Hi Ristvan,
You are right about the temperature absent an atmosphere, I had remembered the number
wrong. So the amount of warming you need to explain is 30C not 40C if you do not believe
the greenhouse effect. And I agree that water vapour is a more more powerful greenhouse
gas than CO2 (as does everyone) but what is important is what is a driver and what is a
feedback. Absent CO2 the water vapour would rapidly condense out of the atmosphere (in
a few weeks if I recall correctly) and the earth would freeze. CO2 adds a bit of heat to the
atmosphere that raises the temperature sufficiently to allow water vapour to remain in the
atmosphere for long enough to heat it up and cause more water to be evaporated which in
terms heats up the atmosphere even more.

the center of mass of the convecting portion of the atmosphere (troposphere) averages 5 km in height. The lapse rate due to gravity and condensation of water is 6.5 C/km. The GHG effect is 33 C.
5 km x 6.5 C/km = 32.5 C
So, about 98.5% of the GHG effect can be explained by convection, water and gravity without any need for CO2.sensitivity.
Below 5km the troposphere is warmer than predicted for radiation alone. Above 5km it is cooler.

Mike the Morlock

Geronimo December 14, 2016 at 5:45 pm
“but what is important is what is a driver and what is a
feedback. Absent CO2 the water vapour would rapidly condense out of the atmosphere (in
a few weeks if I recall correctly) and the earth would freeze.”
Interesting thought, but is it the control knob in the way you speculate? Is it the CO2 itself or the Plant life it supports that prevents WV from condensing out.
I know many will toss hands in the air and think I am all wet. But understand this, the planet we walk on is living. It is not just an atmosphere but a biosphere that interacts, thus regulating our climate. Yes other factors too, but the point is there is no one control knob. One needs to understand the complete planetary system to gain any understanding of cause and effect.
I am not getting spiritual, just pointing out deeper thinking is required insofar as the climate/biosphere works.
michael

I believe co2 is a base, which water then builds on. But, water now regulates cooling at night using dew point as its minimum temp reference point.comment image

The effects of CO2 are assumed to be logarithmic; if we take for sake of argument, the value of climate sensitivity to be 2.5 (the amount of temperature rise for each doubling of CO2 levels), and temps were about 10C and CO2 was 180ppm; then increasing CO2 to 360 ppm would be expected to increase temps to 12.5C. To increase temps from 12.5C to 15C you would expect to have to increase CO2 from 360 to 720ppm. Since temp are in the 14C range, CO2 is in the 400ppm range, something is clearly wrong with our definition of climate sensitivity.

Alan McIntire

ristvan, that -18c assumes no atmosphere, but clouds the same as now, giving the same albdo as the current earth- very unrealistic. The actual net effect of greenhouse gases must be considerably less than the 33 c figure.

GO Willis and Anthony!

Nice poster. Two observations. (1) A robust finding that the WVF is positive. That comports with the facts that doubled CO2 absent feedbacks is ~+1.2C, observational sensitivity is ~1.65, so in Bode terms the net feedback is positive on order of 0.25. (2) Given the magnitude of measured delta WVF, it is likely that the other major feedback, clouds, is negative rather than positive as IPCC asserts and CMIP5 models. Clouds are also the AR5 greatest uncertainty. Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris hypothesis (involving cirrus and thunderstorms) is one cloud negative feedback mechanism beyond simple net albedo.

george e. smith

Clouds are the dominant part of H2O feedback, and the net is negative, NOT positive.
G

Windchasers

If the H2O feedback is negative, then you’re gonna need a helluva large forcing or feedback from somewhere else to explain why the Earth’s surface is so warm.
You’d also need to explain how the numbers don’t add up. The albedo from extra clouds comes nowhere close to making up for H2O’s greenhouse gas properties.
TL;DR: H2O feedback is positive.

MarkW

You don’t have to increase cloud cover to compensate for all of H2Os greenhouse properties. All you need to cover is the changes in H2O.
If a small increase in WV causes a small increase in cloud cover, then H2O can easily have a negative feedback.

Hugs

Lots of cheering. I was lost.
Can you explain me where the good news were?

Hivemind

The good news is that somebody has actually gotten off their butts and measured something, instead of theorising about what it might be.

Janice Moore

… the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature …

is the knock-out punch to AGW.
Game over.
GO GET ‘EM, ANTHONY AND WILLIS!
(“’em” are the climate hu$tler$’ scientists-for-hire)

We are so PROUD of you!

“with little corresponding change in temperature”
But it depends on what “little” means. As I noted below, for HADCRUT, GISS and NOAA it’s at least 1.7°C/Cen since 1988, which equals a rise of about 0.5°C. Not what I would call little.

Chimp

Those “data” series are entirely fictitious.

Then what basis is for saying here is little change in temperature?

Nick Stokes
“But it depends on what “little” means. As I noted below, for HADCRUT, GISS and NOAA it’s at least 1.7°C/Cen since 1988, which equals a rise of about 0.5°C. Not what I would call little”
Not quite Nick. How big or little it is, in this instance, actually depends on what the “correspondence” is.
0.5 C is the temperature rise since 1988. Thank you for noting that.
Now…how does that temperature rise “correspond” with an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere of 1.5 kg/m^2 AND an increase in down welling long wave radiation of 3.3 W/m2 over the period 1988 – 2015???
Is 0.5 C a “little” corresponding temperature change, or a “big” corresponding temperature change?

‘Is 0.5 C a “little” corresponding temperature change, or a “big” corresponding temperature change?’
It’s about what the GCMs expected.

Janice Moore
Chimp

Nick Stokes
December 14, 2016 at 2:22 pm
There are actual observations since 1979, which haven’t been subject to the same blatant manipulation as the supposed “surface data sets”.
At UAH’s satellite record of 0.125°C per decade, in 100 years earth would enjoy a climate balmier by a whopping 1.25 degrees C than now. Maybe that seems like a lot to you, but not to me. It’s liable to hit -19 C where I live tonight.

Janice Moore
Alx

“It’s about what the GCMs expected”
LOL, that’s a good one.
Like I said to my friends before a snow storm; I could forecast with complete certainty that we would be getting between 1 and 15 inches. We got 3 inches, I was right, exactly what I expected.

Chimp

Yup. An expected 0.5° C with error bars of 2.0 °C.
That’s “climate science” for you!

““… what the GCM’s expected””
Indeed so. Your plot ends 2013. But not that the increase 1988-2016 expected is about 0.65°C. And observed is about 0.5. That press release here says “little corresponding change in temperature”. I think CMIP5 was a lot more accurate.

Another cherry picked short segment of a decades long cycle!?
How much of that rise is recovery from the LIA?
How much of that rise is normal cycling from the end of the ice age?
Assuming everywhere in the world can track and identify 0.5°C increase?
Not likely!
More hot air relying upon an irrational anomaly approach to poorly defined, badly installed, poorly maintained, badly located independent temperature stations.
Bad data collection, coupled with terrible data control, data maintenance and data presentation procedures.

Willis Eschenbach

Nick Stokes December 14, 2016 at 2:07 pm Edit

“with little corresponding change in temperature”

But it depends on what “little” means. As I noted below, for HADCRUT, GISS and NOAA it’s at least 1.7°C/Cen since 1988, which equals a rise of about 0.5°C. Not what I would call little.

Nice try, Nick, but actually, per the ReynoldsOI SST dataset, the net change since 1988 is only 0.28°C. This has given us a change in forcing of 3.3 W/m2. This would mean that IF this is thermal feedback, the feedback is 3.3 / 0.28 = 11.8 W/m2 per degree. And THAT is what I meant by a “little corresponding change in temperature.
The problem is this. IF this is WV feedback, fine. In that case, we have a feedback of 11.8 W/m2 per degree of ocean warming. Now, IF that feedback warms the ocean by more than 1.0°C we will get runaway feedback.
And that puts a MAXIMUM limit on the climate sensitivity, which is that the climate sensitivity cannot be larger than one degree C per 11.8 W/m2 of increased forcing. This points to a MAXIMUM change from CO2 doubling (nominally 3.7 W/m2) of only 0.3°C per doubling
You see the problem now?
w.

“And THAT is what I meant by a “little corresponding change in temperature.”
Mean surface temperature is what is normally understood as the response to the forcing. AR5 Glossary:
“In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration .”
WV is of course a feedback, so it is reasonable to say that SST is a component of what feeds back to evaporate the water. But only part; the main thing governing precipitable water is simply that warmer air can hold more water.
“And that puts a MAXIMUM limit on the climate sensitivity, which is that the climate sensitivity cannot be larger than one degree C per 11.8 W/m2 of increased forcing.”
Well, you didn’t talk about this in your poster. But it ignores the transience issues. First, the 3.3 extra forcing did not apply over the period. In fact, it seems to rise rather steeply at the end. And the transient issue is illustrated by the homely kettle analogy. If you switch on a flame (x W/m2), you can’t measure the temperature of water T a few seconds later and say – OK, that temp T/x is the sensitivity. wait about the same time again, and T has probably doubled, with the same x, so you would estimate double he sensitivity CS is defined either at equilibrium (and the time scales re centuries) or by a prescribed rate of heating and duration, as in TCS.

Atheok
“Another cherry picked short segment of a decades long cycle”
Willis analysis started 1988. I showed the trend for that period. What would you prefer?

Janice,
““… what the GCM’s expected””
The Christy plot is out of date, if it was ever accurate. Here is an update, discussed in a post here, and with data and code here. The progress of surface temperature in response to GHG forcing and water vapor and other feedback is indeed, within the range of variation, what the GCMs expected.comment image

Toneb

“What the GCM’s expected”…comment image

Greg

The problem is this. IF this is WV feedback, fine. In that case, we have a feedback of 11.8 W/m2 per degree of ocean warming. Now, IF that feedback warms the ocean by more than 1.0°C we will get runaway feedback.
And that puts a MAXIMUM limit on the climate sensitivity, which is that the climate sensitivity cannot be larger than one degree C per 11.8 W/m2 of increased forcing. This points to a MAXIMUM change from CO2 doubling (nominally 3.7 W/m2) of only 0.3°C per doubling …
You see the problem now?
w.

Yes, I think I do see the problem.
Firstly your big IF. This must be at least WV f/b plus CO2 and that has probably risen by about half the supposed post industrialisation total since 1988.
That 11.8 W/m2 per kelvin cannot produce anything more. It has already done it’s job. It is slowing the natural cooling but it is not like an IR lamp that will take 15 to 20 years to warm the oceans.
This is why it must be regarded as a FEEDBACK and not a ‘forcing’. It should be used to reduce the magnitude of the Planck feedback λ0

lee

‘But not that the increase 1988-2016 expected is about 0.65°C. And observed is about 0.5.’
Only 30% out?

lee
“Only 30% out?”
The claim in the press release was
“with little corresponding change in temperature”
70% of expected is not “little change”.

Toneb

All they have done is quantify the level of WV feedback that comes out of the models.
WV is a feedback and not a driver.
It is not fed into the models.
From a part of the IPCC AR5 SPM that was not quoted on the poster…
“Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of climate change. Radiative forcing14 (RF) quantifies the change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 Hardly:
All they have done is quantify the level of WV feedback that comes out of the models.
WV is a feedback and not a driver.
It is not fed into the models.
From a part of the IPCC AR5 SPM that was not quoted on the poster…
“Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of climate change. Radiative forcing14 (RF) quantifies the change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 relative to 1750, unless otherwise indicated. Positive RF leads to surface warming, negative RF leads to surface cooling. RF is estimated based on in-situ and remote observations, properties of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and calculations using numerical models representing observed processes. Some emitted compounds affect the atmospheric concentration of other substances. The RF can be reported based on the concentration changes of each substance15. Alternatively, the emission-based RF of a compound can be reported, which provides a more direct link to human activities. It includes contributions from all substances affected by that emission. The total anthropogenic RF of the two approaches are identical when considering all drivers. to 1750, unless otherwise indicated. Positive RF leads to surface warming, negative RF leads to surface cooling. RF is estimated based on in-situ and remote observations, properties of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and calculations using numerical models representing observed processes. Some emitted compounds affect the atmospheric concentration of other substances. The RF can be reported based on the concentration changes of each substance15. Alternatively, the emission-based RF of a compound can be reported, which provides a more direct link to human activities. It includes contributions from all substances affected by that emission. The total anthropogenic RF of the two approaches are identical when considering all drivers.

brians356

But Willis and Anthony are not bonafide “climate scientists”, don’t you see? I predict a walk-out will be staged in protest.

Janice Moore

Ev1l flees from the light, thus, your guess is a rational one. Cowards flee, too.

I suggest that Anthony and Willis are true scientists. A PHD does not a scientist make.
True scientists observe and reach conclusions, they do not rely on mythamatics (intended) or convoluted computer code.

John West

Agree, but without any way to discredit the work they’ll have to discredit the presenters. Their entire world view as well their reputations depend upon “climate change” being a very real threat to ……

Which will just come back to bite them in the arse because how much MORE stupid will they look if two discredited “insert libelous playground insult here” non-experts are the ones who strike the fatal blow to their precious theory? I need to go screen cap some specific websites….muhuhahahahahaha.

“who strike the fatal blow to their precious theory? “
Where is the fatal blow? Or any blow at all?

Janice Moore

“Where is the fatal blow?” said Nick, scratching his head in confusion.
http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/shutterstock_121746304.jpg

Well, yes, the poster does say there is more water. But if there is a fatal blow, surely someone could say what it is.

Willis Eschenbach

Nick, I discuss the “blow to the theory” above.
w.

brians356
If their presentation stands up to scrutiny, and I’m pretty damned sure it will, there will be no contest. Plus you don’t need miles of credentials to be able to throw a spanner in the works.
Although, probably your comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
GOOD LUCK, you two!

” to be able to throw a spanner in the works”
How is this a spanner in the works?

AndyG55

You really are paid to remain ignorant, aren’t you Nick. !!

“to remain ignorant”
You can enlighten me, Andy. Spell itout!

A picture is worth a thousand wordscomment image
This there is 2 different cooling rates at night under clear skies, a high speed rate where rel humidity is under about 70 to 80%
Co2 is the major ghg in play at the high speed cooling at ~60W/m^2 +/-5W/m^2
Over about 80%, but less that the upper 90% is the “linear” zone, where a change in rel humidity changed the cooling rate, then at 100% rel humidity the water vapor limited rate is about 20W/m^2 +/-5W/m^2.
A 3 to 1 cut in cooling rate at ~100% rel humidity.
Now, because this is nonlinear, normal correlation statistics do not work.
This is why a pure data statistics search for science, in this case for at least the last 50 years, you guys did not find this!!!!!

Hivemind

They are genuine scientists. Just not “the right sort” of climate scientists, which is to say true believers.

Chimp

Einstein had three favorite scientists, all British: the Englishmen Newton and Faraday and the Scot Maxwell. While two enjoyed university educations, Faraday’s formal schooling, basic at best, ended at age 14, when he was apprenticed to a bookbinder.
William Herschel was a musician; Lavoisier a lawyer. Cavendish went down from Cambridge without a degree. Darwin graduated with a degree in Theology.
Citizen scientists with or without even bachelor degrees have always made and continue to make important contributions to the advancement of understanding of nature.

Janice Moore

All of you who pray, now is the time. Anthony and Willis are up against far more than flesh and blood. They are challenging the fortress of the force behind all lies: Ev1l.
“New Avengers” — (“I Need a Hero”)

(youtube)
Dedicated to all heroes for science truth
(and especially for you, my own forever hero).
Janice

commieBob

I’m baffled.
I thought the IPCC agreed that doubling CO2, all other things being the same, would yield about a 1.5 C increase in temperature. The increased temperature would increase evaporation and the resulting water vapour would then trap more heat resulting in more downwelling longwave IR resulting in CAGW. In other word, positive feedback.
It appears that Anthony and Willis have confirmed the increase in water vapour. It also appears that downwelling longwave IR has also increased.
Are Anthony and Willis saying that the IPCC is correct? Given that they probably aren’t agreeing with the IPCC, what are they saying?

stevekeohane

Maybe this is what you are looking for:
Key finding
This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from
water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.

Commie Bob, Janice Moore above already answered this.
… the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature …
This means there is little, or no measurable, or correlated Greenhouse effect from CO2 in the dynamic real world feedback systems of the earths atmosphere. Empirical evidence rules.
Even a thick head dullard like myself can discern this.

Long ago, we had an article or two here at WUWT about a negative feedback of WV. As relative humidity increases, so does precipitation, often in the form of thunderstorms, which rapidly draw warm moist air to higher altitudes, where a phase change from vapor to ice occurs. This liberates the latent heat of condensation and freezing, 2257 and 334 kJ/kg respectively, at roughly tropopause altitudes.
The combination of the radiative forcing and this negative feedback means that at low WV concentrations there is a strong net positive feedback, but as WV goes higher, and relative humidity becomes self-limiting, it acts as a brake on that feedback. Eventually, the system is saturated, and any additional surface evaporation would result in that higher-altitude condensation/freezing, negating it.

aaron

They are affirming a key positive feedback exists, which is half of the size the IPCC purports it to be.
For temp increases to reach the levels which would plausibly cause anyone concern, feedbacks would need to be at the high end, emission would need to be much higher than they are, and the growth in sinks would need to stop and reverse. That would take a global abandonment of nuclear power and natural gas and switch back to coal for nearly all of our power production, and that still ignores the growing carbon sinks (as the biosphere gets bigger, it grows faster, absorbing more CO2).

Janice Moore

Dear Aaron,
I think, if you read their report carefully, you will find that they are not “affirming a key positive feedback exists.” They only:
1. Affirm that such a feedback, given the behavior of CO2 in a highly controlled laboratory setting, MIGHT exist.
2. Given (only hypothetically or ad arguendo) CO2 can affect (at all) climate to create a positive feedback:
1) It is insignificant compared to water vapor (i.e. water vapor is the controlling causation);
2) It is much less than the IPCC’s computer simulations guessed (to the point that those models are not fit for purpose” — i.e., they are engineering models being used FAR beyond any sane bounds); and
3) Negating (or “negative”) feedbacks make CO2’s conjectured warming impact (if it exists at all) too small to measure.
Finally, EVEN IF there were a net positive effect from CO2, it is, on balance, largely beneficial.
BLAM!
AGW is dead.
Rejoice!
#(:))
Janice

Janice Moore

Sorry for YELLING the last half — close bold error 🙁 (should have close after “not fit for purpose”)

Steve Fraser

Janice…
Bold is just emphasis. ALLCAPS is yelling. No problem either way.

commieBob

Thanks Janice.
What’s bugging me is that, if I understand correctly, the IPCC predicted both more water vapour and more downwelling longwave IR as a result. Anthony and Willis seem to be confirming this. yes/no?

CommieBob-
“What’s bugging me is that, if I understand correctly, the IPCC predicted both more water vapour and more downwelling longwave IR as a result. Anthony and Willis seem to be confirming this. yes/no?”
Neither one of those things is controversial or disputed by skeptics Bob. You have to finish out the theory-more water vapour=more down welling longwave IR=INCREASING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES within a sensitivity range calculated by the IPCC. What Willis and Anthony did was to confirm that there already IS both MORE water vapor AND more down welling long range IR as a result of that increased water vapor….but NO EXPECTED increase in temperatures!!!
They just proved that the runaway global warming, or even dangerous global warming the IPCC predicts will come about simply due to increasing amounts of heat absorbing GHGs, is NOT happening now, so is highly unlikely (to use IPCC wording) to occur in the future.

sailboarder

Willis previously theorized that vertical transport of heat through thunderstorms etc can start earlier and finish later each day, without any temperature rise. To me that explains the results in the poster. Temperature cannot rise to any measurable amount. Is 0.7 C measurable against natural variation?

Janice Moore

MOD! Thank you for fixing my close-bold error (in 11AM comment)! How often does THAT happen! Merry Christmas to me! 🙂

The down welling increased.
The temperature increased.
That is correlation. Do not assume causation.

Richard M

No, they did not find that water vapor feedback exists. They found that water vapor has increased and they have provided no information on why. It might be from added CO2 or it might be from increased temperature caused by natural variation such as the PDO or AMO. What they found is no matter what caused the increase in water vapor, the temperature change that occurred during the same time was minimal.

commieBob. The IPCC’s transient CS is about 1.7-1.8 C degrees calculated by the formula 0.5 * 5.35 *ln(560/280). The climate sensitivity parameter 0.5 means positive water feedback doubling the warming effects of CO2. The equilibrium CS of 3.0-3.5 C degrees means that there are other positive feedbacks like reduced albedo (less snow and ice).

A, the IPCC TCR and ECS are way too high as based on faulty climate models and faulty assumptions like the 0.5. IF wvf doubles no feedback CO2 doubling, then it produces an ECS 2.4. As AR4 asserted ECS is 3, then you are correct net other (mostly clouds) is positive. BUT :
Observational TCR is ~1.3, and observational ECS is ~1.65. Both numbers using only IPCC AR5 values. See Lewis and Curry 2014 for details. Dessler’s 2010 louds paper actually shows clouds about 0, not positive. So do ICOADS and ISCCP cloud data. So wvf has to be less than 2x CO2 alone to match observation.

ristvan. I only explained in which way IPCC calculates climate sensitivities. Transient CS is about 4 times too high because of positive water feedback applied twicely. You write that the observational TCR is 1.3 and ECS 1.6. I say that it is impossible to observe these parameters simply therefore that if you measure temperature changes in the real climate, it is impossible to eliminate all possible reasons for the temperature change. Can you give at least one example about the publication based on observed methodology?
You say that TCR and ECS of IPPC are based on the faulty climate models. Yes, I agree but those models are pretty simple. TCR = 0.5 * 5,35 * ln(560/280) = 1.85 C. What is wrong in this formula? CSP (Climate Sensitivity Parameter) 0.5 means positive water feedback and therefore the right value is 0.27. Also the coefficient 5.35 means positive water feedback and therefore the right value is 3.12.

A. Lewis and Curry 2014. You can dodge paywall by accessing it via Judith’s blog Climate Etc. Not only does it use only AR5 values, it also does the calculations for intervals that seek to wash out natural variation so that more of the result is GHE sensitivity.

The measurements show a significant increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, AND a significant increase in down welling long-wave radiation WITHOUT a corresponding increase in global temperatures. This means that the atmosphere’s sensitivity to changes in GHGs is so small it could actually not exist.

commieBob

I wonder if that realization is why James Hansen has changed his tune so abruptly.

Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries. link

I wonder how many climate scientists will be surprised by what Anthony and Willis have to say. Maybe James Hansen isn’t the only one who has realized that CAGW isn’t happening any time soon.

“why James Hansen has changed his tune so abruptly”
There is no change of tune there. Hansen predicted in 1988 how temperatures would rise. And that has been well borne out. What he is saying, and has been saying, is that that trend isn’t going to stop easily. And that we need to take action now to have an effect in the future.

“The measurements show a significant increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, AND a significant increase in down welling long-wave radiation WITHOUT a corresponding increase in global temperatures.”
The poster gives no data on global temperatures. They are not mentioned.

“The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.
You just posted the temperature. Run it against the “corresponding” increases. Is the result big or little?

Your quote is not from the poster, which doesn’t mention temperature change.

It’s from the press release of the study! I’m sorry the poster isn’t a direct, exact duplicate of the press release. Are you being obtuse by nature or because you are afraid to run the numbers?

Chimp

Nick Stokes
December 14, 2016 at 2:16 pm
Temperatures were already rising when Jim made that “prediction”. The PDO had flipped. Since then, temperature has risen well within normal bounds for a warming cycle in the Holocene.
There is no reason to attribute whatever warming has occurred since 1977 to man-made CO2 and every reason to attribute it to natural fluctuations.
The null hypothesis can’t be rejected, which means that trillions have been wasted and millions of live lost because of a lie.
If there were justice in the world, heads would roll.

Aphan,
“I’m sorry the poster isn’t a direct, exact duplicate of the press release.”
One might hope rather that the press release would follow the poster. But the press release gives no temperature data either.
As I said before, there isn’t anywhere one can simply run numbers to determine what the wv feedback should have done. The best guide is the CMIP5 simulations, which rose by about this amount in that period (with variations due to Pinatubo).

commieBob

Nick Stokes December 14, 2016 at 2:16 pm
… There is no change of tune there.

In October, James Hansen said:

Negative CO2 emissions, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air, is now required.

In December he said:

However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries.

Dr. Hansen went from saying that it was already too late to saying we had decades. link

Reg Nelson

@ Nick Stokes “why James Hansen has changed his tune so abruptly”
There is no change of tune there. Hansen predicted in 1988 how temperatures would rise. And that has been well borne out. What he is saying, and has been saying, is that that trend isn’t going to stop easily. And that we need to take action now to have an effect in the future.
But Hansen’s predictions were not borne out. His estimates for the Best Case scenario were wildly inaccurate.
Predicting temperature will rise (some what) coming out of an Inter glacial period is not Science — predicting how much, when, and why is Science.

Willis Eschenbach

Nick Stokes December 14, 2016 at 2:16 pm Edit

“why James Hansen has changed his tune so abruptly”

There is no change of tune there. Hansen predicted in 1988 how temperatures would rise. And that has been well borne out.

“Well borne out”? Get real. It has NOT been “well borne out” in any sense of the word. The only one of his 1988 predictions that is even near reality is the one where we stopped emitting any CO2 at all, and I don’t recall us doing that … you can piss on my boots, Nick, but you can’t convince me it’s raining.
w.

Willis,
Here (from my post here) is a plot showing GISS Ts (met stations only) and GISS Land/Ocean superimposed on Hansen’s original plot. They are annual averages, with 2016 average to October. GISS Ts was the index that Hansen used for comparison; he had published it the year before (there were no indices with SST then).
comment image
“The only one of his 1988 predictions that is even near reality is the one where we stopped emitting any CO2 at all”
I’ve dealt with the issue of which scenario here. Scenarios are adopted to cover variables that the scientists have no way of predicting – here, what gases will get into the atmosphere from humans. The way they are intended for use is that you can see what numbers went into the GCM then, and what actually happened. The scenario that applied is the one that matches the numbers. In fact, in 2015 (latest year with all GHG data), CO2 matched scenario B, as did N2O. CH4 and the CFcs matched scenario C. Here’s the table:comment image
In the second post, I noted a 2008 series of threads at Climate Audit in which you participated. Here was Steve McIntyre’s view:

As to how Hansen’s model is faring, I need to do some more analysis. But it looks to me like forcings are coming in below even Scenario B projections. Thus, if Hansen’s projections over-state what we’re experiencing in 2005-2010, then this does not per se invalidate Hansen’s model, as some people are too quick to conclude. To the extent that the differences lie in lower than projected forcings, I’m not prepared to place fault on the model for those defects. Whether the forcings account for the defects is a different matter and it would be interesting to run the 1988 model with actual GHG concentration changes – an experiment that’s long overdue and which would end much speculation about the merit or lack of merit of Hansen’s 1988 projections.

“Dr. Hansen went from saying that it was already too late to saying we had decades.”
Two different things. The first is saying that we must begin negative emissions – ie sequestration. That certainly doesn’t mean that total emissions will go negative at a single stroke. That will take decades. And then, some time later, one can hope that the actual amount (in the air) will start to rediuce.

Ok, Nick, you included GISTEMP LOTI gl mean. I include HadCRUt3 gl (-0.064K from 1998 to 2013), red curve:comment image
GISTEMP LOTI is the upper (brown) curve.

Chimp

Kristian
December 15, 2016 at 1:19 pm
The cooked books are now available in extra crispy.
Why? Because nature wasn’t cooperating with alarmists, so adjustments needed to be well done, not just medium well.

“I include HadCRUt3 gl”
An obsolete dataset that was replaced because of its lack of Arctic coverage.

george e. smith

“””””….. I thought the IPCC agreed that doubling CO2, all other things being the same, …..”””””
It is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to double CO2 and insist that EVERYTHING ELSE remain the same. That is a physical impossibility.
G

Pop Piasa

Yes.
Astute observation.
Exactly what makes the lab demonstration of CO2 invalid in nature

JohnWho

@commieBob –
I believe the IPCC didn’t say “doubling will” or “doubling does”, it said something more like “doubling may” or “doubling might” exhibiting a noticeable level of uncertainty.

lee

‘ as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence),’
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

“I’m baffled.
I thought the IPCC agreed that doubling CO2, all other things being the same, would yield about a 1.5 C increase in temperature. “
My comment:
That’s not correct, some IPCC documents recognize the saturation effect which results in smaller and smaller increments of temperature for each doubling of CO2. That’s due to the spectrum overlap of carbon monoxide and dihydrogen monoxide vapour, so the total rise is limited to IIRC a couple of degrees or so.
(Some people describe it as an asymptotic increase to a limit, some say exponential, but IIRC arithmetically it is the sum of steps of half as much for every doubling as for the doubling before it – the individual steps quickly get very small in that progression.
“The increased temperature would increase evaporation and the resulting water vapour would then trap more heat resulting in more downwelling longwave IR resulting in CAGW. In other word, positive feedback.”
Keep in mind that water also precipitates out of the atmosphere, Willis has observed that for thunderstorms in the tropics where warm air already evaporates much water (look for his articles in this blog). (That may also be what I’ve observed in Edmonton AB where there are many fields to evaporate from, and near Harrison Lake BC where thunderstorms form over the dry hills east of the sizeable lake. In both cases thunderstorms form out of clear air many afternoons – beware if boating. Edmonton gets tornados occasionally, as well as windshear hazards at the airport, though not as often as Denver.)
Alarmists claim a few degrees of temperature rise will cause runaway warming, but that did not happen in the Medieval Warm Period when Vikings farmed southwest Greenland. Reality has proved alarmist theorists wrong.

Good
Tell them.
there is no AGW
actually
at least it is not global

Pop Piasa

Yes, concentrate on urban heating as a warming force and learn to minimize it or harvest it, depending upon the season and location, if ergonomic intervention is required. The planet has shrunken in our minds as a result of the very devices which allow us to blog as a world community or model our present reality.

Bill Illis

Awesome stuff. Now we are really measuring what is really happening rather than just making it up.
This has always been my position with respect to the global warming proposition. Measure it rather than model it and theorize about it.
Congrats.

kim

Nice work, but you fell into the attribution trap. Your ‘key finding’ ain’t.
==============

kim

On second thought, you are not so trapped as I first thought. The problem is with “with little corresponding change in temperature”. You can’t say much about anything without knowing what natural variability would have done to temperature in the absence of man.
This does make it extraordinarily difficult to get a real handle on ‘sensitivity’. So there’s that.
============

kim

Nonetheless, this is useful work, suggesting either that sensitivity is low, or that absent man the globe would have been cooling.
===========

Correct. The key is attribution. But their paper enables a robust general conclusion. If WVF went up significantly and temperature didn’t, then all the various radiative GHEs are less important than warmunists have claimed, and there are significant overlooked non GHE influences on observed climate that must be comsidered. Translation, all the IPCC stuf is fundamentally wrong because the attribution is specifically to AGW via GHE.

kim

Thanks, Rud. This is scary work. What’s going to keep us warm?
============

PiperPaul

all the IPCC stuff is fundamentally wrong
Russian hackers did it!

Kim, fossil fuels already keep us warm. The horror!

kim

Horrors indeed. I’m so glad that we have a never ending supply.
============

Bingo Kim!
Yes, it is scary work.

mkelly

If CO2 has increased enough to cause the global temperature to also increase there should be a corresponding change to the specific heat of air. It should be lower.
No such change in specific heat of air has been noted. If you are going to heat a mass of something the energy to do it must be same no matter how you calculate it.

Still the the total mass and volume of the atmosphere would increase, and NASA insists the volume is decreasing due to reduced upper atmospheric temperature, complicating their orbital decay calculations. So then we would need an increase in sea level atmospheric pressure, compensating for the lighter air, but hard to measure I suppose. –AGF

Pop Piasa

I think you might be referring to the missing heat in the upper troposphere. another thing that confounds the CO2 theory.

More like ionosphere. –AGF

Peter Miller

If the IPCC’s theory of Thermageddon, as a result of rising CO2 levels, was correct we would see it in the geological record, where it is conspicuous by its absence.
If it were true, then life as we know it today, would simply not be possible, as it would never had the opportunity to evolve in a world of frequently (geologically speaking) occurring climate catastrophes.
I suppose this is why so few private sector geologists, like myself, buy into the CAGW concept.

Is there a web source for the raw TPW data you can quote?
Also, The last paragraph of column 1 that reads:

To show the close relationship between variations in the atmospheric absorption of the surface radiation, and the total water vapor seen in Figure 1.

seems to trail off without finishing? Shouldn’t it continue with something like “refer to the scatter plot in Figure 3.”?
Remarkable correlation. R^2 at .98? Wow. It’s pretty much a direct relation. I assume the natural log is a characteristic of the radiative behavior of the molecule and rather than the TPW data itself having a lognormal distribution? It would be nice to see the underlying distributions of the two data sets.
If 98% of the variability in absorption is described by water, that doesn’t leave much room for anything else to have a significant effect does it?

Sorry, R^ at .95 and “95% of the variability”. I had to zoom the chart to read it, my eyes aren’t what they once were.

Thanks Aphan!

jsuther2013

Griff? Griff? Where are you Griff? Darn. Did someone say ‘Climate Otter?’

Pop Piasa

I somehow missed the connection between Griff (the virtual trolling motor) and Climate Otter. Can you fill me in?

Chimp

CO showed how easy it would have been for the Grifter to have found the professional scientific qualifications of polar bear expert Dr. Susan Crockford, rather than just asserting without checking that she had none.

Schrodinger's Cat

Carbon dioxide is not a fully fledged GHG like water vapour. It is a linear molecule. Sure, the two oxygens can vibrate and rotate, but without a dipole. It is only the bending mode that has a dipole and even then, only when bent.

urederra

Oh, somebody who knows his physical chemistry. Well put.

Willis Eschenbach

Schrodinger’s Cat December 14, 2016 at 11:01 am

Carbon dioxide is not a fully fledged GHG like water vapour.

A “fully fledged GHG”? Every molecule is different, not sure what you’d call “fully fledged”. Is CH4 more “fully fledged” than CO2? How about clorofluorocarbons? And more to the point, what units are used to quantify fledgitude? I vote for P cm-2, or pinions per square centimetre, but YMMV …

Sure, the two oxygens can vibrate and rotate, but without a dipole. It is only the bending mode that has a dipole and even then, only when bent.

Mmmm … not quite. The short version is that CO2 has four vibrational modes, of which three are IR active. Water only has three vibrational modes, of which, like CO2, three are IR active. Each has 3 IR active modes. Which is more fledged?
There’s an excellent explanation of the question here. I note in passing that unlike almost all solids and gases, argon has no IR active modes of any kind. It is totally transparent to IR.
My best to all,
w.

The climate is controlled by the sun which will drive the terrestrial items which control the climate into either a warming mode or cooling mode. In addition changes in solar radiation especially at UV wavelengths or less play a significant role in the climate, by again impacting the terrestrial items which govern the climate.
Co2 and the entire greenhouse effect including water vapor changes are in response to the environment and the climate, it is not the other way around.
The terrestrial items which govern the climate and response to extreme low solar activity are:
atmospheric circulation patterns -related to solar EUV light which changes ozone distribution
sea surface temperatures –related to solar UV light
global sea ice- related to surface sea temperatures and
major volcanic activity – related to ap index and galactic cosmic rays
global snow coverage- related to the atmospheric circulation
global cloud coverage – related to galactic cosmic rays related to solar wind speed.
surface radiation received – related to change in solar irradiance and overall albedo which is related to many of the terrestrial items mentioned in the above.
All of these will impact the albedo of the earth and or incoming radiation and thus the climate.
The climate is now at a cross road because low solar is now in play which I say will drive global temperatures in a downward trend which is the case thus far(from this past summer to now) versus the GHG effect which is suppose to drive the climate into a warmer trend.
Much of the initial cooling was due to El Nino , and what happens from this point on will be revealing in my opinion.
One last note are the three pillars of AGW theory have not materialized .
+ AO evolving
Lower tropospheric hot spot
OLR in a definitive down trend.
I would say all OLR changes have been tied to changes in ENSO which up to now have been the factor governing global temperatures.

Alas, a large poster of an impressive curriculum vitae with names of “consensus”-science college presidents behind all credentialed academic letters (Ph.D, B.S., etc) is a first requirement to get many viewers’ attention.
In lieu of that, … porno flicks.
Speaking of porno, how degrading it is becoming to be associated with climate data these days. Maybe the prominent data sources need to be accompanied by sleazy music [bow-chick-a-bow-wow]
Seriously, though, I look forward to seeing the outcome of the presentation.

I myself don’t like if the clear sky is presented as whole atmosperic thing. About 70% of the sky is cloudy at every moment. What is intresting, under a cloudy sky there may be is no CO2-efect of radiation from sky to ground. At least not in MODTRAN model.
Temperature change from 1988 to 2015 in atmosphere has happened in about 70% cloudy conditions. So conclusion from the clear sky observations to the total atmosphere temperature change is difficult to make etc.
Sorry I just try to make my best counter critics. No hard feelings.

mschillingxl

70% seems high to me. Why would the earth appear blue, and not white, from space?

Cloud cover % depends optical depth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover
It is 68% if you use optical depth 0.1 and not count cirrus clouds.

Greg

The clear sky is just what is says and provides information about cloudless conditions. It does not imply anything about whether the amount of cloud is increasing or decreasing.

Ristoi, the clear sky measurements allow separating pure radiative GHE from all the other atuff like albedo and clouds. Comparison of clear sky to all sky allows a first approximation of all the other stuff. Dessler’s 2010 paper did that to find statistically (contrary to his conclusion) that all the other stuff is about net zero, but with large variations over time and space.

Willis Eschenbach

ristoi December 14, 2016 at 11:12 am

Sorry I just try to make my best counter critics. No hard feelings.

I take two things from that. You do well in English, it is perfectly understandable. And there are no hard feelings, scientific criticism is always welcome.

I myself don’t like if the clear sky is presented as whole atmosperic thing. About 70% of the sky is cloudy at every moment.

I am using the clear-sky data for the same reason that Ramanathan used the clear-sky data—to isolate the radiative effect of the water vapor itself from the other effects.

What is intresting, under a cloudy sky there may be is no CO2-efect of radiation from sky to ground. At least not in MODTRAN model.

I’ve used MODTRAN a lot. I don’t know anywhere that it says that there is no downwelling longwave radiation.

Temperature change from 1988 to 2015 in atmosphere has happened in about 70% cloudy conditions. So conclusion from the clear sky observations to the total atmosphere temperature change is difficult to make etc.

I’m just looking at the change in radiation due to water vapor.
Thank you for the comments,
w.

Greg

I’ve used MODTRAN a lot. I don’t know anywhere that it says that there is no downwelling longwave radiation.

Have you looked ?
MODTRAN will give you the net flux and that will always be upward. You could argue that this is the non GHG upward minus “downwelling” radiation. I think the two are equivalent was of looking at the same thing.
GHG reduce the net outward flux.

MODTRAN will give you the net flux

The use of MODTRAN with an average atmosphere is the worse way to use it, the results are garbage, no one that I’ve heard mentioned has done a full nights dynamic modtran run, morons the conditions change, and will modtran ever gives is junk.
This is a key problem of simulators, they let you do nonsense, and the user thinks it has meaning.
I professionally supported about a dozen simulators for 17 years, the way modtran is being used is nonsense.

Resourceguy

Relocate the AGU conference to alternate between Fargo and Point Barrow, permanently.

Larry Barden

The Key Finding on the pdf of the poster reads:
“Key finding: This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.”
Yet in his blog posting Anthony says the Key Finding reads:
“Key finding: The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.”
Did someone edit the pdf?
Larry

Larry,
Forcings can be positive or negative-
“Radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. … A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it.” wiki
A larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750….with little corresponding change in temperature. That larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 was greater than changes in forcing from all other forcings since 1750! And all that additional downwelling radiation since 1988, according to all the IPCC’s theories SHOULD have created a large POSITIVE forcing…warming the system. But it didn’t.
The key finding on page one is only part of the whole key finding-and the press release contains the most important part.

Hivemind

I have never liked that “forcings” terminology. What exactly is a forcing? What are it’s units? If, as I understand, it is W/m2, then we would be talking about an energy transfer per unit time and area. Isn’t there already a perfectly suitable term for that in the thermodynamics field?

dp

Given the essential important and necessary roll of GHGs in radiating energy to space why wouldn’t more be better?

Aphan

Anthony,
You and Willis should grab some lab coats and a couple of signs and start your presentation with:
“We are here today to stand up for science….by presenting some actual science”….
🙂
I hope the room is packed with slack jawed, unblinking, completely puzzled faces when you’re done. (Or cheering, clapping fans….either would make me happy)
Way to go both of you!

Jeff L

Looking forward to hearing the feedback you get from alarmists in the crowd

The level of TPW seems to differ a lot from other humidity data sets. Both NCEP/NCAR reanalysis and NVAP-M show the average value of about 24 kg/m2 and the RSS data shows the average value of 28.7 kg/m2. What could be the reason for this big difference? Another thing is that the two data sets , what I refer, show practically no trend at all: a slight trend downwards during 1979 – 2004 and a slight trend upward from 2004 onward.

Anthony posted this three hours ago and his stalker has yet to even mention it…she’d probably looking up words like “observational” and “measurement”. I’m hoping to be able to observationally measure the concussive wave of her head exploding from here.

Mike the Morlock

Aphan December 14, 2016 at 12:10 pm
“Anthony posted this three hours ago and his stalker has yet to even mention it”
Hi Aphan Time zones perhaps?
As for head exploding ,, wet firecracker. But modern acoustics should allow you to hear it.
michael 😀

Quicksilver Sulfide

While I find the results interesting, and certainly believe the climate sensitivity is overstated by the IPCC, I have a hard time with the use of the 29.0 kg/m2 “average” TPW value to produce a slope. Given the logarithmic relationship, you need to do an area-weighted average of slopes since the slope varies from almost 10 at the left of the scatter plot to a little more than 1 on the right.
It’s also unclear from Figure 4 where exactly the increase is happening. If the extra 1.5kg/m2 is occurring at the poles (corresponding to the left side of the scatterplot) it will have a much larger forcing effect than it would in the tropics, given the logarithmic nature. In general, unless great care is taken to properly area-weight everything – including deltas over time – it is very difficult to get anything sensical out of averages and trends in temporospatial data that behaves non-linearly.

Greg

Key finding:
The finding of an observationally measured increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3W/m2 since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature, calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”.

“as calculated by the IPCC,” , no they don’t ‘calculate’ anything anymore. They fiddle with model parameters to try to get reasonable fit to the late 20th c. warming , more or less ignoring the rest of the record.
It is pretty much like doing a multivariate linear regression by hand: do a few model run ; tweak a few poorly constrained params; do a few more and compare mean square errors over the fitting period.
The whole method is very unscientific and little or nothing is done to ensure that the process converges to the ( mathematically ) global minimum error and not a local minimum. It is necessarily heavy prone to the expectations, preconceptions and biases of the modellers doing the work.
An example of how this is an abandonment of calculated forcing is how volcanic forcing was calculated at around 30 * AOD by Lacis et al in 1992 using observational data then dropped to about 23 * AOD when the emphasis moved to reconciling model output by parameter tweaking.
One of the things that got tweaked was the volcanic forcing. Down by about 30%.
Discussion with full refs here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

josh

This is hilarious. The actual poster doesn’t mention temperature or climate sensitivity and the key finding on it is : “This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750.” Which is to say, they have once again confirmed the water vapor feedback effect (although they wrongly label it a forcing.)
For those who don’t know, the poster session at a scientific conference is basically for those who
weren’t given a slot to talk and is usually primarily for students.

Well, actually at the scientific conferences I go to poster sessions are in addition to talks, and may be either (a) condensations of a talk, (b) different material from a talk presenter, or (c) material from a non-presenter. In this case, Josh, it is (a). Your attempted insult just backfired. You just got Climate Ottered. Although Griff’s polar bear ottering was one for the ages.

Clyde Spencer

Yes, I think that Griff deserves some sort of award as a special recognition for his efforts and abject failure.

Frequently poster sessions are for work in progress in the early stage, helps you establish priority etc.

Resourceguy

The conferences with poster sessions I go to are like that too, not all students by any means.

Caligula Jones

The unfortunate part about such bullgriff is that he moved on from “what are her qualifications?” to “I went to this site and got this information and it says she’s not qualified”. Truly, its like whack a mole if the mole was a particularly uneducated one.
This has even bled over to Bishop Hill’s blog, where the resident Smear King has jumped on board.

josh

Well, actually, I can’t find any indication of Watts giving a talk in the oral sessions, much less a keynote lecture and surely he would have shouted it from the rafters if he had acquired such a slot. So in this case it still seems to be (c), as I said before. Poster sessions generally involve a mass of simultaneous presentations where people wander around to whatever interests them for a few minutes. (Watts kindly shows us that his is #226.) In this case they don’t even have their own timeslot but are parallel to the oral sessions.
Now, since you seem confused by what I’m saying: Poster sessions often have lots of good work represented! Like I said, students often use them as experience interacting with the broader community, and it’s certainly not unheard of for more senior people to have them. The point though, is that they are minimally selective. Watts is a paid-up member of the AGU so they can’t kick him out. And hey, as far as I know the material on the poster is legit. Which brings us back to the point everyone here is loudly avoiding while they try to tell me what an important scientist Watts is: The poster doesn’t say what this blog post claims it does. Far from slaying the dragon of climate consensus, Watts instead stood next to a poster in a room of hundreds and confirmed that water vapor behaves as a greenhouse gas and has increased in the atmosphere, consistent with it’s known feedback role.

My poster paper was used as the proof of concept for what has became your lcd TV and Monitor.

Crispin in Waterloo

Tonyb
I must add my voice to the others, in correction:
“Because without CO2 there can be no increase in WV content. It cannot increase unless there is a temp increase.”
This is completely untrue. The claim violates several fundamentals of well established physics of gases and vapour pressure.
Water vapour concentration rises and falls all the time whether the air is hot or cold.

Josh,
I’m sure the meant the following as an insult:
“For those who don’t know, the poster session at a scientific conference is basically for those who
weren’t given a slot to talk and is usually primarily for students.”
But from this we can conclude a myriad of things including some hilariously positive ones:
1. Students, and other non-expert/non important/non climate celebrity types who deem “poster sessions” to be a waste of their precious time, will be the FIRST to know about this, instead of the LAST. They get to be the ones who say in the future “Dude….I was THERE in the room when the whole AGW went sideways…”
2. For those who don’t know (and those who don’t want to bring it up because it might ruin their insult) are provided for papers that were finished after the conference schedule was determined and announced, but before the actual conference takes place, so that the newest research doesn’t have to wait until the following year to be given a “talk slot”.
3. So….based upon #2, IF Anthony and Willis DID finish their research and paper in time to request a talk slot, but were refused for whatever reason, the people scheduling the AGU Conference missed the boat and perhaps the biggest reveal in “climate science” since it was discovered that Mickey Mann inserted his data series results upside down.
4. We get to see just how scientifically technical, and mistaken, you are:
“Which is to say, they have once again confirmed the water vapor feedback effect (although they wrongly label it a forcing.)”
A-They confirmed that the “effect of water vapor feedback” is very, very small, by actually MEASURING the difference between the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere from 1988 to 2015 to see if the corresponding temperature change expected by the IPCC and other “experts” (due to water vapor feedback) had occurred. NOPE!
B-The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 report defines radiative forcings as:
“Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2).”
Since part of their key findings don’t actually show on the poster PDF due to technical issues, let’s consider both the limited poster wording and the press release wording together.
Radiative FORCING values are expressed in W/m2 right? And we find that they expressed the radiative forcing value for changes relative to conditions defined at 1988 in watts per square meter. 3.3W/m2 to be exact.
You see “The term “forcing” means a change which may “push” the climate system in the direction of warming or cooling.[3] An example of a climate forcing is increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases” wiki
Since there was an increase atmospheric concentration of water vapor (a greenhouse gas), or a change that may “push” the climate system….that increase is labeled a climate forcing.
“Feedback in general is the process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback amplifies the change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it.” wiki
Feedback here then would be the process in which rising temperatures in the ATMOSPHERE (the 1st quantity) changes a second quantity (causes water vapor to increase in the atmosphere) which then in turn changes the first (causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise further) and on and on.
A change in the temperature of Earth, which then increases the amount of water vapor in the air, which then changes the amount of long wave radiation being returned to earth, which then DOES NOT CHANGE the temperature of Earth is not a feedback. See how that works?

josh

Hi Aphan,
I’m going to assume you are amenable to revising your opinions so let me explain where you go wrong in your thinking.
1.,2.) As I explained elsewhere (to ristvan), I’m not insulting poster sessions, just pointing out that they are usually the least selective/prestigious way to present at a conference. That’s why it’s funny that Watts bolded up a “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” line and makes a big deal about this in the blog. Hold the Presses! Anthony Watts just volunteered himself for a poster session! It’s clear some of the people here don’t have a lot of experience with the scientific community so it’s worth pointing out what he actually did. Important new results are usually given a slot to talk and your theory that this was a last minute completion that they just couldn’t make room for (they would if it were important) has no evidence. Do you see any chatter among scientific climate blogs that a poster has overturned global warming? No.
3.) This is all predicated on your belief that this is a “big reveal” in climatology. It ain’t. As I’ve already pointed out, the poster doesn’t even mention temperature or climate sensitivity. It just estimates the water vapor feedback effect and appears to be in line with previous results. Also, FYI, the “upside down” data thing had no impact whatsoever on the field. Last I heard it didn’t even affect the results of that particular paper because the particular algorithm used didn’t assume a correlation orientation to start with. But, regardless, climate science doesn’t depend on a single paper or a single dataset.
4A) Again, the poster says nothing about feedback being small. They find an increase in water vapor and a corresponding increase in downwelling radiation of 3.3 W/m^2. That can be compared to the change in CO2 direct forcing which is less that 1 W/m^2 over the same time period. So WV and CO2 both have a greenhouse effect and WV is significantly larger, as has been known for a long time. Here’s what the poster says: “We note that this is experimental validation of the IPCC’s statement about the underlying physics, of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere…”
4B) You’re right that radiation intensity is measured in W/m^2 and that can be attributed to downward radiation from CO2 and from WV. However, they are not both termed “forcings”. I’m just gonna quote wikipedia here: “In the context of climate change, the term “forcing” is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, no surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and no dynamically induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms).” Forcings are external, like human released CO2, while feedbacks are a response of the system, like WV. If you could take the extra CO2 out the extra WV would quickly drop out as well and wouldn’t by itself cause additional greenhouse effect. This is just a terminology thing and it’s probably not perfect, but it helps to compare correctly with what most climate scientists are using. If humans were pumping a ton of extra WV into the air directly it would be a forcing, but they aren’t compared to the feedback from CO2 and other forcings.
Finally, we get to perhaps your fundamental misconception: the idea that there has been no warming. That’s simply wrong, we continue to see warming in line with the trend over the last few decades. 2016 will be the hottest year on record after all, following the previous hottest year… 2015. If we’re measuring this extra downwelling radiation how on earth would you not expect the planet not to warm up? So what we see is CO2 increases, water vapor increases, downward radiation increases, temperature increases- all consistent with
the standard picture of global warming. Now they don’t all march in lockstep because there are other factors in the system, like ocean cycles that exchange heat with the atmosphere, but the underlying trends are clear and consistent with theory.

Josh,
I hope you are amenable to me differentiating between facts and logical fallacies, and how one’s opinions are often misconceptions due the misuse of both. 🙂
“1,2 :I’m not insulting poster sessions, just pointing out that they are usually the least selective/prestigious way to present at a conference. That’s why it’s funny that Watts bolded up a “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” line and makes a big deal about this in the blog. Hold the Presses! Anthony Watts just volunteered himself for a poster session!”
Your statement that poster sessions are the “least selective/prestigious way to present at a conference” is without corroborative evidence, and as such, is regarded as your personal opinion. Your opinion that using bold lettering is somehow universally “funny” and that he “makes a big deal about this” in the blog equates with nothing more than an appeal to motives, or an inability to accurately express you personal opinions as such.
“Do you see any chatter among scientific climate blogs that a poster has overturned global warming? No.”
Considering that his announcement was made BEFORE the poster session itself even occurred, this is a highly illogical question to even pose.
3. “As I’ve already pointed out, the poster doesn’t even mention temperature or climate sensitivity. It just estimates the water vapor feedback effect and appears to be in line with previous results.”
It doesn’t HAVE to mention temperature or climate sensitivity. Anyone involved in the debate about AGW knows that the results affect the IPCC’s calculations of BOTH automatically. (Hint-it’s why the title of this post is called “Challenging Climate Sensitivity”. Do you not know this or are you just ignoring it because you know it undermines your argument?)
“But, regardless, climate science doesn’t depend on a single paper or a single dataset.”
I never said it did. Appeal to ridicule. Logical fallacy.
“Finally, we get to perhaps your fundamental misconception: the idea that there has been no warming.”
I don’t believe that there has been no warming, thus I would never state such a thing. So my “fundamental misconception” is nothing more than your personal, and incorrect, assumption.
Anthony and Willis, as far as I know, have also never stated that there has been no warming. Their study doesn’t say that either. They are saying that water vapor has increased in the atmosphere, but a fundamental part of the IPCC’s theory on AGW is that a MEASURABLE increase in water vapor-like the one measured by Anthony and Willis (supposedly caused by an increase in CO2 causing the temps to rise and increase evaporation) SHOULD cause BOTH a measurable increase in down welling radiation (measured by Watts and Willis) AND a measurable amount of additional warming (attributable only to that increased water vapor IF increased water vapor IS A “FEEDBACK”!
They found the increased water vapor. They found the increased down welling radiation. But….the point you keep ignoring/forgetting/missing and NOT discussing….they did NOT find a measurable amount of additional warming. Your propensity to post logically flawed statements as if they are actual facts is something, I personally, find funny.

They may have confirmed the WV feedback (perhaps again, perhaps for the first time, plenty just say its there without having the backup) but I thought the main take aways were
1) that it is measured to be much less than the overhyped IPCC value (citation given for that, so it doesn’t need to have been mentioned earlier in the piece)
and
2) despite getting a good handle of the value, the measured temperatures for the same time frame don’t seem to have moved in sympathy with the increase in downwelling radiation. i.e. there’s been a notable increase in a component of downwelling radiation, one that accounts for more than half of the total increases in radiation since the 1750’s and nothings happened; the theorised temperature gains have not materialised.
When theory diverges from observation you need to stand back and take a look at both your experiment and your theory. One of them is wrong. I would start by trying to pick holes in the experiment, then the processing of data as I think they are probably the easier places to start. Plenty of people about who are expert on experimental methods and data analysis who also aren’t necessarily involved in climate science.
If the experimental method is sound then you can turn on the theory….. but that seems to be something that just doesn’t seem to happen in climate science. They never seem to question the original (and so far unproven) theory of “its man made CO2 wot dunnit”, they just come up with increasingly wild additions to explain why the theory hasn’t crystallised.
Besides a lot of climate science stuff seems to fall apart on dubious statistical processing and computer modelling. I know plenty of people who do climate science, most are geography department types. Their idea of statistical analysis is bunging numbers in SPSS and taking the result as golden without any concern for what happened in the middle. But it always gets a pass because the people reviewing it haven’t a clue either.

PaulS

‘1) that it is measured to be much less than the overhyped IPCC value (citation given for that, so it doesn’t need to have been mentioned earlier in the piece)’
Where are you getting that from? There is no comparison figure given relating to IPCC water vapor feedback. AR5 states that water feedback amounts to +1.1 (+0.9 to +1.3) W m−2/°C. So, the IPCC expected water vapor “forcing” due to observed warming (0.5C) from 1988 to present is +0.55W/m-2. If, as they are arguing, the downwelling IR figure of 3.3W/m-2 is equivalent to radiative forcing then what they have found is actually a much much stronger water vapor feedback than suggested by the IPCC.
‘When theory diverges from observation you need to stand back and take a look at both your experiment and your theory.’
First you need to actually establish that theory is diverging from observation. There is no data provided here indicating what theory suggests for relevant values.

ThinkingScientist

Josh says:

For those who don’t know, the poster session at a scientific conference is basically for those who weren’t given a slot to talk and is usually primarily for students.

That sentence tells me you don’t know much about scientific conferences. Your comment is a pathetic attempt to insult poster presenters. At all the scientific conferences I attend the organisers go to great lengths to stress that poster and oral presentations have the same status. Your comment is shows your ignorance and is a feeble attempt at an insult.
Often there are too many requests for oral presentations, posters can actually be more efficient, so the overflow may end up as posters. Nothing to do with quality, only capacity.

Greg

BTW, simple clear and concise. Good contribution by Willis.

Yes, I agree. Well written.

Schrodinger's Cat

If I understand this poster from just a quick read, it means that water vapour has increased and so has down welling radiation. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the level of radiative warming is more than explained by the increase in water vapour.
Have I got this correct? If so, and Anthony and Willis have got it correct too, then this is devastating for the alarmist community.
It does, however, pose questions too. If water vapour has increased this century, then why? Normally, we would argue that warmer air can hold more water vapour, but there has been a temperature pause. But then, water vapour is not uniformly mixed, far from it.
Another possibility is a change in the balance between cloud formation and water vapour. Is it an equilibrium or does it vary according to other variables?
Such matters become very complicated very quickly. Who said the science was settled?

1sky1

Indeed, the balance between cloud formation and water vapor is critical; it depends, inter alia, upon the presence of condensation nuclei, not just upon the dew point temperature alone. Obviously, clouds strongly modulate local insolation in ways that water vapor can not.
That the hydrological cycle is the dominant “control knob” of climatic temperatures has been apparent since at least the.1970s, when evaporative heat transfer from the ocean surface was found to exceed that due to all other mechanisms combined. What is not clear in the present study is whether TPW as measured by RSS is due to water vapor alone, as assumed, or whether it includes the condensed droplets in clouds. In other words, is albedo an unaccounted factor?

The one thing you can say about climate(and hence climate variables) is that it is NEVER in equilibrium. That in itself calls into question such terms such as Total Climate Response and Equilibrium Climate Sensitvity.

Richard M

I don’t think so. All that was measured was an increased in water vapor (TPW). Remember this is from a satellite. You can’t measure the downwelling IR from space. The IR in this exercise is a computation of the theoretical increase that should occur with the TPW increase based on climate science assumptions. In fact, the value does not agree with other measurements.

Willis, Anthony,
Can you provide a bit more detail on the source of the surface emissions data?

If you blow up the poster the labels to the two global images give the source data. TPW is from RSS, and LWR is from Ceres.

Neither of those are from the surface, correct?

Correct. Both remorse sensing satellites.

Remorse sensing? Lol I hope they both pass over the AGU conference tonight collecting data. :p

I went back and reread the paper, and I’m convinced the active regulation I see from the surface is the cause of the log atmosphere absorption seen from space, as it regulates to dew point which tracks TPW.
Anthony, Willis this would be a good compliment to your work, and together it proves CO2 does not regulate cooling at all.
It would be the end of all of this nonsense, at least the scientific argument, and make it what it really is the Luddites against people who think cheap reliable power is the best general invention of mankind, as it allows use to do so much more with power to augment our muscles.

Downwelling radiation is nonsense as it is cancelled by equal upwelling radiation. Only the radiation due to the (Th**4-TC**4) term has any effect in transferring energy.

“as it is cancelled by equal upwelling radiation”
Probably. But the only way upwelling radiation increases is if the surface is warmer.

Schrodinger's Cat

Looking at the internet feedback more generally, there are some people out there who believe the science is settled. However, they state it in such obnoxious terms that they do the AGU and science in general, a massive disservice.

Michael D Nelson

This conference should be very interesting. My studies show that water vapor in the Troposphere completely dominates long-wave infrared absorption over CO2 in that sphere. I have found that using “changes” over absolute values can lead to confusion and be misleading, particularly when entropy and thermodynamic issues are involved.

Brett Keane

@ Michael D Nelson
December 14, 2016 at 1:07 pm: Yes Michael. One of our ‘posting colleagues’, of Polish extraction and skilled in radiative physics, has posited that all other energy transfers are swamped by the day/night cycle of atmospheric water. That is, cloud/mist/fog to and from vapour phase changing and energy absorption/emission. It should be quite overwhelming in scale. I suspect that might be what we are looking at in this Poster.

has posited that all other energy transfers are swamped by the day/night cycle of atmospheric water. That is, cloud/mist/fog to and from vapour phase changing and energy absorption/emission. It should be quite overwhelming in scale. I suspect that might be what we are looking at in this Poster.

From the ground, that is the process this shows on 3 consecutive clear nights.comment image
I’m not sure if the paper is the satellite view or not. The graph is from the surface, and the entire global min/max changes support the view that cooling has not been reduced at night, at least at a detectable level.

“since 1988, in addition to the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature”
Trends since 1988:
HADCRUT 1.76 °C/Cen
GISS 1.82°C/Cen
NOAA 1.73°C/Cen
Not so small.

stevekeohane

Care to share the sigmas for those trends?

Toneb

Would Willis and Anthony?

“Care to share the sigmas for those trends?”
σ=0.18°C/Cen for NOAA; others similar.
But the thing is, as Willis and Anhtony find, wv is up, with corresponding forcing. And temperatures are rising. That is a fairly consistent picture.

stevekeohane

Thanks Nick, they’re smaller than I expected.

Greg

The last panel of fig4 looks a lot like TLT or maybe ( non Karlised ) SST. That should allow a similar scatter plot and a fixed relationship if the two are a similar as it appears by eye.
That should give a simialr W/m^2/K figure for the WV feedback.
It would be interesting to see what this relationship tells us about the constancy of rel. humidity.

Greg

Just tried to download Willis’ code and got this. Maybe he could provide an alternative source.
“This account’s links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled! “

“Just tried to download Willis’ code and got this. Maybe he could provide an alternative source.
“This account’s links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled! “
ROFL…I’ll BET! He’s a tad bit busy at the moment Greg. I’m sure you’ll get it as soon as he gets to it. 🙂

It would be interesting to see what this relationship tells us about the constancy of rel. humidity.

Just so happens I put a rel humidity/dew point global chart together.

Helps if I post the likecomment image

Greg

thanks Mike, interesting.
No one here got Willis’ file before dropbox dropped out?

PaulS

I suspect the suggestion they’re trying to promote, though this is a very unclear presentation, is that S = T/F means S is very small if water vapor influence on surface downwelling IR is treated as an additional forcing. Something like S = (0.5/4)*3.7 = 0.5K TCR.
The obvious error is that surface downwelling IR is not equivalent to TOA forcing. By comparison the CMIP5 mean increase in downwelling IR from 1860-2016 is about 8W/m2, with temperature increase about 1K. So treating downwelling IR as forcing makes CMIP5 mean TCR also = 0.5K.
Even if this weren’t an error I’m still not sure why any of what they present ‘calls into question the applicability of the concept of “climate sensitivity”’. Very confusing stuff.

chris y

PaulS-
Agreed.
Hadcrut4 shows 0.42 C rise from 1988 to 2015, which gives S = 0.42 / 4 = 0.11 C/W/m^2.
Pretty close to what you get by looking at surface temperature differential winter to summer divided by surface TSI differential winter to summer, at the same location.

chris y

And if you look just at oceans, then surface temp rise 1988 – 2015 is 0.30 C.
HadCRUT4 = 0.43 C
CRUTEM4 (land) = 0.7 C
HadCRUT4 = 0.33*CRUTEM4 (land) + 0.67*(Oceans)
Oceans = 0.30 C between 1988 and 2015.
That gives a sensitivity of S = 0.3/4 = 0.075 C/W/m^2.

sailboarder

Could you subtract out the natural variation? Lets see.. 1910 to 1940 at 0.15C per decade.. that is 1.5 C/Cen.
That leaves .26 C, 0.32C, .23C over 100 years due to us humans. Hmmm.. very small!

Brett Keane

@ Nick Stokes
December 14, 2016 at 1:12 pm: Strangely enough, that period is the ‘flood tide’ and peak of the main ocean warming cycles, though still pretty inconsequential when one stops pretending there is a centennial trend proven ie multiplied several-fold..

Bill Illis

It might also be worth noting that RSS Water Vapor numbers are already down considerably from the end of the graph shown in the poster at between 0.5 Kg/m2 to 0.6 Kg/m2. In the next 3 months, it is going to fall into negative territory.
I really don’t know what one would say the water vapor feedback or forcing is when it is back to average in Jan/Feb 2017. I guess zero.

bill hunter

Well if I am not mistaken the results Willis and Anthony are presenting is roughly what was expected from the “worse than we expected” upper end models in the IPCC group of models.
Of course, the AGU scientists are probably aware of this. So the focus has been on a wide variety of things to explain it, like errors in the temperature observation record, aerosols and ocean heat absorption, basically everything except examining the link between CO2 and water vapor forcing which I have been led to believe is based on actual warming.
We need to thank Willis and Anthony for taking the time to spoon feed their junk science back to them yet again.

Kasuha

I always thought water vapor is considered one of feedbacks rather than one of forcings. The linear relationship makes sense – it’s more a measure of atmosphere’s thermal conductivity than of its microwave transparency. But it seems to me the linear relationship is actually worse than a logarithmic in terms of the feedback action, isn’t it?

Thin Air

The recent sudden drop (and prior rise) in average land temperatures after the El Nino should provide a good test of many theories Global Warming & Cooling. What is the mechanism that affects global temperatures, if we assume the El Nino heat source is relatively local. (Or is El Nino actually a global mechanism, that just happens to manifest itself mostly in the Eastern Pacific).
If we don’t understand El Nino, we have no hope of understanding the effects CO2 or much else on our climate, (except the sun).
Water Vapor is clearly a “greenhouse gas”. But without the understanding the combined effect of changing cloud cover and cloud types, then we do not understand what H2O in its various forms really does. That seems like the important unanswered question, along with the relative power H2O-driven convection in Cumulonimbus clouds, which rises above >90% (??) of the ambient H2O vapor, others clouds and all that pesky CO2.

Pop Piasa

“(Or is El Nino actually a global mechanism, that just happens to manifest itself mostly in the Eastern Pacific).”
From what I am learning, ENSO is a hemispheric phenomenon which can influence global temperatures . Am I in error?

Thin Air

Other cooling mechanisms due to Cumulonimbus clouds (and hence water vapor) is ice created after the release of the latent heat in the water vapor (which adds to IR radiation at high-altitudes), then the ice falling into the warmer atmosphere below (where it melts usually) before or after it hits the ground, which cools the lower atmosphere.
Plus the lightning that is created from the convection in these clouds, which emit huge amounts of energy as ultraviolet and visible light, much of which (>40% ??) escapes to outer space directly.
But I have NOT read anything which quantifies either of these mechanisms in terms of “Watts per Average Thunderstorm per Second” (removed from the lower Troposphere and sent to Stratosphere & beyond ). It would be nice to know.

But without the understanding the combined effect of changing cloud cover and cloud types, then we do not understand what H2O in its various forms really does.

What it does is temperature regulate clear sky cooling based on dew point temperature.

Bill Illis

I would think of this as step 1 on what this is about. Now we have a real “forcing” formula for water vapor. Where have you seen that before. Nowhere, that’s where. That is a huge achievement by itself.
But there is a Step 2 in this process and that would be to see how the water vapor levels (or the forcing levels) change with the temperature change.
Then one can actually use the Stefan Botzmann equations to calculate a total temperature increase expected.
And then one could add in the cloud forcing feedback which Willis has also put together already.
And then we have a REAL CO2 sensitivity based on the what the real Earth(tm) actually does.
It is the NEXT step in climate science which the scientists themselves have not been able to understand because they are too caught up in propaganda.
Since day 1, everything has been based on these simple little assumptions about how temperatures go up and then feedbacks kick in and viola, always 3.0C per doubling. But they have never actually done the work to show it actually works. Everything is based on 3.7 W/m2/CO2doubling * 0.81C/W/m2 = 3.0C/CO2 doubling. That is the sum total of climate science today and the sum total of what it was 35 years ago. There has been no progress, just more propaganda.
This process that Willis and Anthony started on can actually answer the climate science questions in a Real way. Several more steps required yet and each one might need to be a paper on its own. The final paper will be hard to publish, but it will be the best answer put forward so far.

Chimp

So taxpayers can replace the IPCC with WUWT?
Good news. I’ll let The Donald know.

Bill Illis

That is exactly what I just wrote.

kim

Heh, ‘have replaced’, and the taxpayers were voluntary donors to the tip jar.
============

Greg

Water vapour is usually regarded as a postive feedback to other radiative forcings which affect temperature.
The similarity of fig 4 to the various “global mean temperature” indices seems to support that view of things. For this to be a ‘forcing’ rather than a feedback, it would seem that there needs to be an independent cause of the change in TPW other than temperature, otherwise it is just a +ve feedback to other radiative ‘forcings’.

old construction worker

Water Vapor is clearly a “greenhouse gas”. Our Atmosphere acts just like a swamp cooler regardless of the amount of Co2.

Greg

A static greenhouse gas is rather different from a greenhouse gas which is itself a function of temperature.
That is what makes is feedback instead of a ‘forcing’.

So many are blind to the change that is now taken place in the climate.
So many just can’t break away from the notion of AGW and the slight warming that took place last century which has thrown the whole climatic discussion into discussions like this which are way off the mark when trying to figure out why /how the climate changes.
If the global temperatures keep going down I wonder if the discussions about why /how the climate changes might change.
AGW theory nonsense has sucked the wind out of any meaningful discussions and research as to why/how the climate changes, except for a few of us.
So much time being devoted to this asinine theory whose basic premises it is base on all have failed to materialize ,not to mention this period of time in the history of the climate is in no way unique ,not to mention CO2 the agent that is always talked about always follows the temperature never leads it.
In addition if one looks at the climate changes over the last 20 or 30 years a clear relationship can be seen between these natural governing climatic factors and the climate those being, ENSO, VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, ATOMSPHERIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS, OCEAN HEAT CONTENT ,all this against a back ground of pretty high solar activity and global cloud coverage in general decreasing.
This is changing,(weakening magnetic fields) things do change believe it or not and calling the turn in the change is paramount and I have the confidence to call it and further stand by it sink or swim.
If wrong I will admit it, if evidence comes in my favor I wonder how the other side will react?

tony mcleod

“If the global temperatures keep going down”.
Which planet are you referring to?

https://www.iceagenow.info/record-drop-global-temperatures-2/
Tony they have been trending down the question is how will it evolve from this point on.

The study, using satellite measured water vapor data obtained from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, CA, suggests that the global climate sensitivity to increased carbon dioxide, and the potential feedback mechanism of increased water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere, is actually far less than postulated by the IPCC
RIGHT ON WILLIS AND ANTHONY.

Pop Piasa

“If wrong I will admit it”
When has Sou ever said that?

ST

Video: Tom Messner gives a timeline for the dangerously cold weather coming. 12.14.16
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/12/global-warming-update-prepare-for.html

Robert W Turner

So then we’re left with changes over land, the IPCC bias error, and clouds.

Pop Piasa

Yes… clouds, and whether CR levels influence their propagation (among other factors) in the CCN scenario. It all complicates the propaganda of eternal CO2 temperature rise to the point of disposal.

Bubba Cow