Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

[makattak]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

January 28, 2010

A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.

Water vapor is a highly variable gas and has long been recognized as an important player in the cocktail of greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and others—that affect climate.

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

The stratosphere is a region of the atmosphere from about eight to 30 miles above the Earth’s surface. Water vapor enters the stratosphere mainly as air rises in the tropics. Previous studies suggested that stratospheric water vapor might contribute significantly to climate change. The new study is the first to relate water vapor in the stratosphere to the specific variations in warming of the past few decades.

Authors of the study are Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

(Emphasis added.)

Hmm... seems those "comprehensive climate models" can't explain something that's affecting the climate.

[Hawkmoon]

Oh, the irony:

“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

...

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

So if NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, why is this new factor not understood and why did NOAA not predict it?

[Brad Johnson]

I predict there will be future predictions.

Brad

[MechAg94]

I predict there will be future predictions.

Brad

But Al Gore will still think he is right regardless.

[MechAg94]

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

I guess this really means that all that warming everyone was so up in arms about from the 90's was caused primarily by water vapor after all and not CO2? 

Kind of underlines the idea that the climate alarmists don't know everything they think they know.

[dm1333]

I guess this really means that all that warming everyone was so up in arms about from the 90's was caused primarily by water vapor after all and not CO2? 

Kind of underlines the idea that the climate alarmists don't know everything they think they know.

Does it underline the fact that we don't know enough about the relationship between "green house" gases and "global warming/cooling/climate change"?  Yes.  Does this mean that any warming was actually caused by water vapor and not CO2 and there's nothing at all to worry about?  Not so much. 

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on whether or not we have released enough CO2 or anything else into the atmosphere to cause the earth to warm but I do believe the earth is warming.  Despite the CRU scandal there is plenty of reason to believe that the earth is getting warmer.  Polar ice and retreating glaciers are pretty good indicators of that.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There was a story last week about Global Warming-induced Himalayan glacier problems being completely false.

It seems we don't even know how to measure most of these quantities (global average temperature, sea levels, glacial mass, etc), and yet we're told that the experts know what's going to happen 100 years in the future.  They can't even get right what's happening now.

[MrRezister]

Maybe now with this new information they can FINALLY go back and revise past models to tell us that Global Warming REALLY WILL KILL US ALL IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS FOR REAL THIS TIME!!!!!

 

[Standing Wolf]

It seems we don't even know how to measure most of these quantities (global average temperature, sea levels, glacial mass, etc), and yet we're told that the experts know what's going to happen 100 years in the future.  They can't even get right what's happening now.

Leftist extremists care infinitely more about credibility than factuality. Always have. Always will.

[dm1333]

There was a story last week about Global Warming-induced Himalayan glacier problems being completely false.

It seems we don't even know how to measure most of these quantities (global average temperature, sea levels, glacial mass, etc), and yet we're told that the experts know what's going to happen 100 years in the future.  They can't even get right what's happening now.

Didn't read the article because it seemed like more MSM drivel.  Reatreating polar ice caps are a reality though.  Oil companies are moving into areas that used to be covered by ice, the Coast Guard is making plans to move north and establish a presence in areas with increased commerce and shipping.  People were getting all excited because satellite pictures were showing that the shrinking ice fields had reversed and were growing again, until a Candian ice breaker found that the ice was thin and rotten.

One thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Kierkegaard was on to something!

[Hawkmoon]

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on whether or not we have released enough CO2 or anything else into the atmosphere to cause the earth to warm but I do believe the earth is warming.  Despite the CRU scandal there is plenty of reason to believe that the earth is getting warmer.  Polar ice and retreating glaciers are pretty good indicators of that.

Or not. Not all glaciers are retreating -- some are advancing.

But ... even if we are in a warming trend, why is it viewed as catastrophic? Why is it not accepted as cyclical -- which is what it is? I saw an article recently reporting that receding ice on the coast of Greenland has exposed the remnants of an old Viking farming community.

[MicroBalrog]

Reatreating polar ice caps are a reality though.

The South Polar ice is not retreating AFAIK.

[p12]

A quick search turned up this tidbit about the benefits of global warming.

An excerpt below:

"Global warming has exposed artifacts from the ice that has kept them preserved for hundreds and even thousands of years," he said. "So there is some urgency to our search for these artifacts, because once exposed they decompose or are destroyed quickly."

linky thingy http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20031014.093338&time=1034PDT&year=2003&public=1
Wonder what caused the previous ice melt?

[p12]

Those search thingys are really cool.

While Canada's ''iceman,'' an Indian, was dated by radiocarbon last week to around A.D. 1450, the tools and weapons emerging from ancient alpine caribou hunting grounds date as far back as 6,800 years. In an area of acidic soils, where archeologists have historically relied on stone artifacts, the glaciers are now yielding rare bounties of frozen organic material: wood, bone and even feathers.

linky http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/05/science/lost-worlds-rediscovered-as-canadian-glaciers-melt.html?pagewanted=1

[dm1333]

But ... even if we are in a warming trend, why is it viewed as catastrophic? Why is it not accepted as cyclical -- which is what it is? I saw an article recently reporting that receding ice on the coast of Greenland has exposed the remnants of an old Viking farming community.

I'm not saying that arctic ice melting is either good or bad.  Just that it is.  If you read news articles about El Nino they always seems to concentrate on storms, damage to property, etc. Nobody talks about how much less heating fuel was used because of the mild winter temperatures.  Same thing with melting arctic ice.  Shorter shipping routes and easier access for oil extraction are two benefits.

This was the first article I found on a quick search on Antarctic ice.  An increased rate of melting due to higher ocean water temperatures. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2040532.stm

[BryanP]

Leftist extremists care infinitely more about credibility than factuality. Always have. Always will.

Which puts them in good company with right wing extremists.

[RoadKingLarry]

But Al Gore will still think he is right regardless.

I seriously doubt the validity of the science has ever been a consideration of his.

[MechAg94]

Which puts them in good company with right wing extremists.

Exactly who are you referring to?  Is it something to do with AGW or just a rant?

[MechAg94]

I'm not saying that arctic ice melting is either good or bad.  Just that it is.  If you read news articles about El Nino they always seems to concentrate on storms, damage to property, etc. Nobody talks about how much less heating fuel was used because of the mild winter temperatures.  Same thing with melting arctic ice.  Shorter shipping routes and easier access for oil extraction are two benefits.

This was the first article I found on a quick search on Antarctic ice.  An increased rate of melting due to higher ocean water temperatures. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2040532.stm

At the end, the article points out that the jury is still out on this.  They also aren't looking at ice on land.

[MechAg94]

Does it underline the fact that we don't know enough about the relationship between "green house" gases and "global warming/cooling/climate change"?  Yes.  Does this mean that any warming was actually caused by water vapor and not CO2 and there's nothing at all to worry about?  Not so much. 

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on whether or not we have released enough CO2 or anything else into the atmosphere to cause the earth to warm but I do believe the earth is warming.  Despite the CRU scandal there is plenty of reason to believe that the earth is getting warmer.  Polar ice and retreating glaciers are pretty good indicators of that.

Actually, it certainly could indicate that a lot of the previously reported warming could be caused by water vapor.  This article simply shows they don't know.  Between stuff like this and all the fraudulent data, everything they have claimed about global warming is automatically suspect.  The simple fact that many of these guys resorted to rigging the numbers shows they can't prove what they want to prove. 

As I have said before, I have no problem with further research.  I like it.  However, I won't favor any legislation CO2 control. 

[BryanP]

Exactly who are you referring to?  Is it something to do with AGW or just a rant?

A bit of both.  What it comes down to now with GW is that if you're on the left you automatically assume that GW is real, giving greater credence to all of the arguments/evidence in favor of man-caused climate change and giving short shrift to any arguments or evidence detracting from the theory.

For people on the right the reaction seems to be exactly the obvious.  They come at it from the viewpoint of "This is what the left believes, and it would cost us a lot of money, therefore they must be wrong." 

Yeah, I get a bit tired of it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Being tired of it is something else entirely from accusing us of being extremists with no facts.

 

[BryanP]

Being tired of it is something else entirely from accusing us of being extremists with no facts.

 

a)  That's not what I'm saying.

b)  You have plenty of facts.  It's the presumption by both sides that any facts which support the conclusion they want to believe are correct, and any facts which run counter to what they want to believe are to be viewed with the most suspicion that drives me up the wall.

[makattak]

a)  That's not what I'm saying.

b)  You have plenty of facts.  It's the presumption by both sides that any facts which support the conclusion they want to believe are correct, and any facts which run counter to what they want to believe are to be viewed with the most suspicion that drives me up the wall.

b) That's human nature.

However, here's the difference. I don't have to believe that global warming is a conspiracy in order to suggest my policy positions.

All I need to believe is that the science isn't as complete as we are lead to believe. More and more proof of the uncertainty of the "global warming" position is coming to light.

My opinion has been that climate scientists did a version of economists' mistake about inflation and unemployment in the 70s. I.e. ceteris paribus, more cabon dioxide causes warming. THUS, more carbon dioxide in a complex system MUST be causing warming.

I always doubted how well they understood that complex system. Admissions like what I just posted tend to support my opinion.

[BryanP]

b) That's human nature.

It may be human nature, but it's not science.