Study undermines “science is settled” claims

water vapour

Water vapour more significant than CO2?

A study released last year reveals water vapour has an important role in global warming and more research is needed. When water vapour declines it seems to lead to global cooling, preventing overheating.

The story was covered in The Guardian on 29 January, 2010:

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals

Experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, but call for ‘closer examination’ of the way computer models consider water vapour.

Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes, according to a new study that could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change.

The research, led by one of the world’s top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add.

The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for “closer examination” of the way climate computer models consider water vapour…

The new research, led by Susan Solomon, at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who co-chaired the 2007 IPCC report on the science of global warming, is published today in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world.

Solomon said the new finding does not challenge the conclusion that human activity drives climate change. “Not to my mind it doesn’t,” she said. “It shows that we shouldn’t over-interpret the results from a few years one way or another”…

“What I will say, is that this [new study] shows there are climate scientists round the world who are trying very hard to understand and to explain to people openly and honestly what has happened over the last decade.”

The new study analysed water vapour in the stratosphere, about 10 miles up, where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas and traps heat at the Earth’s surface…

“These findings show that stratospheric water vapour represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change,” the scientists say. They say it should lead to a “closer examination of the representation of stratospheric water vapour changes in climate models”.

Solomon said it was not clear why the water vapour levels had swung up and down, but suggested it could be down to changes in sea surface temperature, which drives convection currents and can move air around in the high atmosphere.

She said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift, or if it was a consequence of a warming world. If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.

Read whole article.

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldAndyThe IlkThe Bilk Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
val majkus
Guest
val majkus

I received this tip from John O’Sullivan today:

Dr. Tim Ball has published a devastating debunk of the IPCC exposing how they reject irradiance as a cause of temperature change since 1950 plus clouds, albedo, sunspots, etc.

http://drtimball.com/2011/reflected-sunlight-shines-on-ipcc-deceptions-and-gross-inadequacies/

John
Guest
John

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkO8ORJWh9E

Check out this global warming protest song

Australis
Guest
Australis

Susan Solomon’s ranking in the world of climate alarm seems to exceed those of even Phil Jones and Jim Hansen. As co-chair of IPCC Science, and top researcher at NOAA, she qualifies as “the world’s most senior spokesperson on CAGW”. Especially when speaking as lead author of multi-disciplinary research described in a peer-reviewed paper published in “Science”. The research found that: “almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases”. It isn’t yet known what drives the changes in stratospheric H2O: If driven by global warming, then it is a massive negative feedback which destroys the assumption the IPCC models that net feedbacks are positive. In turn, that demolishes the IPCC future projections and the entire CAGW hypothesis – and the accompanying policies and industries. If driven by unknown “natural shifts”, then future changes are wholly unpredictable. Dr Solomon seems to accept that the post-2000 shift has offset all the effects of AGW this century. Nobody knows when the next shift may occur or whether it will drive temperatures downwards or upwards. It all… Read more »

val majkus
Guest
val majkus

John thanks for that link; great, loved the baby’s face at the end;

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Yes, amazing, isn’t it? The study was released last year, but it should still be leading the news! This quite dissolves “humanity’s greatest challenge“, yet who has heard of it? Environmental organisations, “carbon footprint” consultants, governments and international improvers of the planet appear normal — as though on a real and valid mission. Clearly, even if the revelations from this paper mean something to them, they’re not blinking! I’d like to have more information about this paper and its aftermath. Maybe Real Climate…

The Bilk
Guest
The Bilk

I can’t relate to this

The Ilk
Guest
The Ilk

But……..you said you were – “an active scientist who works in the climate change arena”

The Bilk
Guest
The Bilk

Climate change is real, it’s happening, it’s alarming.and it could be catastrophic.

We need billions of dollars to relocate millions of climate refugees that we’ve convinced will have their homelands inundated by rapidly rising rising sea levels any day now and if we don’t de-industrialize the entire developed world our grandchildren will be subject to unbearable heat and they will all frizzle up and die.

The Ilk
Guest
The Ilk

It’s cooling………your science is shonkey.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hans von Storch ( via Gosselin) reports a similar dialogue

http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/04/hans-von-strorch-science-has-failed-to-answer-legitimate-questions-warmists-have-responded-with-a-stroppy-reply/

On the loss of credibility, climate science itself is to blame. The science has stirred up scientifically unfounded expectations, says von Storch. The demand that the public has to rapidly accept instructions on how to act in order to save the planet has blurred the boundaries between policy and science. As a result, science has not become something that has to do with “curiosity”, but rather gives the impression that it’s all about pushing a pre-conceived value-based agenda: “As scientists we have become political tools who are to deliver sought arguments to get citizens to do the right thing

HvS seems to be treading a line between the Ilk and the Bilk.

The Bilk
Guest
The Bilk

I can’t relate to this.

Climate change IS real, it IS happening, it IS alarming, it really COULD be catastrophic AND it causes extreme weather, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes……trust me – I’m a scientist, our modeled projections are unequivocal.

We need trillions of dollars in punitive taxes from wealthy countries so we can redistribute it to people in poor countries because this is the only way to stop the looming catastrophe.

The Ilk
Guest
The Ilk

Now you’re just making it up……………you’re nuts.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The WV situation needs to be kept front-of-mind at NZ govt climate change HQ and I have not forgotten this challenge in respect to Sir Peter Gluckman:- (not so) Silent says: April 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm “Why dont you guys team up and draft up a precis and send it to him? Include references etc” Okay, the contact page of the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee is here:- http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/contacts/ Sir Peter is Chief Science Advisor Accordingly, I have sent an email an attachment to the PMSAC office addressed to Sir Peter. The email:- —————————————————————————————————————————— Sir Peter, Your role as Chief Science Adviser requires you to be conversant with the latest science relevant to public policy. This approach is in respect to climate science and atmospheric water vapour trends. The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is wholly reliant on the amplification of water vapour levels by increasing carbon dioxide levels (the positive feedback). Are you aware of recent science showing a declining water vapour trend and that critical global water vapour data has not been released for over a decade? I urge you to read the attached brief with reference… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The attachment —————————————————————————————————————————— To Sir Peter Gluckman, The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming relies entirely on the notion that increases in the minor greenhouse gas CO2 result in increases of the major greenhouse gas water vapor, thereby supposedly increasing global warming to alarming levels of 2-5C per doubling of CO2 levels. Without this assumed and unproven positive feedback from water vapor, there is no basis for alarm. The IPCC states in their 2007 report:- “The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.” The 2005 paper “Water vapor trends and variability from the global NVAP dataset” by Thomas. H. Vonder Haar, John M. Forsythe, Johnny Luo, David L. Randel and Shannon Woo based on the NASA water vapor data set [called NVAP] showed that water vapor levels had instead declined (with 95% confidence) between 1988-1999. The paper states, “By examining the 12 year record [1988-1999], a decrease of TPW [total precipitable water vapor] at a rate of -0.29 mm / decade is… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I would suggest that questions of science may be a bit lost on Prof G. He seems quite keen on Roger Pielke jr in his latest paper (several references to “The Honest Broker”)

Maybe some choice quotes from “The Climate Fix”, a more recent publication from the same author, might help the cause.

Even though RP Jnr bases his policy on “consensus” science, his solutions are very much grounded in reality.

It is my intention to write to Prof G on these matters…

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Response from PMSAC

Dear Richard

Many thanks for your email which I have forwarded to Sir Peter for his information.

Regards

Megan

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Science questions might be lost on Sir Peter, but he knows where to get advice on them and should make some kind of response, so well done, Richard! Something will come of this. Please keep us informed.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Why is Water Vapour, the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored? by Dr. Tim Ball on May 4, 2011 [Snip] A Positive Feedback That Is Actually Negative There’s a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2 will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated with respect to CO2′s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat of paint will block almost all the light, and is like the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little more light, just as doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a human increase in CO2 would create significant warming. It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend totally on increased water vapor. It is known as a positive feedback and is… Read more »

Post Navigation