Just another factor in understanding how the climate works, "Stratospheric Water Vapor" maybe an important factor.

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:10am

Science and Tech

A new report Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming raises new questions on the current climate models. That is, IPCC's carbon dioxide centric climate models probably need some work.

Increased stratospheric water vapor acts to cool the stratosphere but it warms the underlying troposphere. Unsurprisingly, the reverse is true for stratospheric water vapor decreases, the stratosphere warms but temperatures near the Earth's surface cool. Previous studies have suggested that stratospheric water vapor may contribute significantly to climate change, the question is by how much.

I look fwd to the answer.

I love these diaries

(#205182)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 4:42pm.

because invariably Manish will show up, write a well reasoned and comprehensive critique of why it doesn't mean what Timmy thinks it means, then the diary goes dead and Timmy comes back in another diary a month or two later with another fake issue. For bonus points, Timmy will usually write up the exact same issue in a diary or comment a year or so later and Manish will link to his earlier response, causing that diary to be abandoned as well.

I blame it all on the Internet

Actually the points raised by Solomon's paper

(#205209)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 9:06pm.

are enormously interesting, and have been intensely discussed for a few days now; Timmy's done well to bring it to light here, although I wouldn't necessarily have used his link. This is NOAA's link - its NOAA research btw

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

I haven't posted on this yet, because there's considerable discussion going on as to why the water vapour is changing (the accuracy and reproducibility of stratospheric radiosonde recordings need to be justified too), and as to whether this is one of the signs of increased methane leak from the permafrost, complexes etc - heralded but not yet documented AFAIK to interfere with the current GCMs. Also water vapour has, so far, been regarded as a responder, not a driver.

just another interesting twist on water vapor as a driver

(#205223)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:21am.

although in this scenario, it isn't cooling but heating things up.

NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming

An increase in atmospheric water vapor is responsible for at least a third of the average temperature increase since the early 1990s, say scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Susan Soloman, the respected climate scientist who lead the research, says that this finding does not undermine man-made global warming theories.

I was going to update the diary but I didn't want to confuse Harley, Hank or Blaise.

I'm just waiting for NOAA/NASA to release data (an analysis) from the Argos Program.

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H

Figure from Solomon's paper.

(#205446)

Submitted by mmghosh on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 9:48pm.

And further analysis.

I Also Love Them

(#205183)

Submitted by Harley on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 4:43pm.

But props where props are due. This one had a really long title.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

You could learn from that as well

(#205185)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 5:05pm.

I always thought "A Real Number That is Less Than and Does Not Include Zero" would have been a much catchier title.

I blame it all on the Internet

Limited, of course, by register width.

(#205194)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 5:46pm.

and the sign bit.

How does this affect CO2 climate theory i.e.

(#205147)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:04pm.

what's the driver for stratospheric H2O changes, would be the question.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

This a good point.

(#205146)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:58am.

You now agree that the climate's changed, right?

And that the elevated temperature anomaly is a real finding, not a result of a conspiracy?

Now, we should look for reasons, if we've found a point of agreement.

Oh, so trusting. Timbo is

(#205148)

Submitted by heet on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:09pm.

Oh, so trusting. Timbo is not constrained by liberal notions such as "consistency". Anything is acceptable in the fight against the DFHs.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

I'll answer all three, with one response

(#205150)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:21pm.

relying on a one trick poney model to fcst the future of a complex system is folly.

Lets go step by step. Are we agreed that the global temperature

(#205207)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 8:38pm.

anomaly is rising?

Because that is fundamental. If we don't agree that that observation is correct in the main, and not a result of deliberate data manipulation by a global climate conspiracy, then the next step can't be taken.

I fully agree that the understanding of why this is happening is fiendishly complicated.

[crickets] nt

(#205211)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 9:44pm.

I blame it all on the Internet

where

(#205228)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:18am.

I would take issue with respect to "anomaly" but I concur that the issue is complex; it is a point I have been making for some time.

The GCM is extremely complex

(#205197)

Submitted by tomsyl on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 6:21pm.

to the point where it takes days of supercomputer time to run a single iteration. I tried to understand the details but the math was beyond me; all I can say is that none of the various versions floating around are accurately predictive (though they might be after, say, another twenty years of correlating them with past climate data), none conclusively proves or disproves GCC, and certainly none can be invalidated by the removal of a single variable like you seem to be suggesting.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Well, that level of uncertainty...

(#205252)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 2:11pm.

...certainly braces me for the idea that we should do an uncontrolled experiment on my home and the homes of all those I care about.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You missed the entire point of my post.

(#205256)

Submitted by tomsyl on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 3:07pm.

which was a disagreement with a premise of this diary insofar as it claims that introduction of a new variable invalidates existing models. But I'll humor you: do the homes of you and those of everyone you care about lie within 0.4 meters AMSL and do they plan to live there until 2050?

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Carbon dioxide centric climate model(s) is exactly what the

(#205286)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:45pm.

IPCC has been selling. climate models have failed for a variety of reasons as they continue to leave things out. Further to the point, the concept of "settled science" rested on the linear corrlation of an increase in CO2 levels resulted in the warming of the globe.

From the report, water vapor appeared to have played a role in both climate warming and cooling; complex system seems to be in play.

"I look fwd to the answer."

(#205126)

Submitted by catchy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:21am.

Do you?

But then you couldn't raise the question anymore, and that seems like what you enjoy most.

I do but it isn't the only question I have.

(#205130)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:26am.

Another key issue is, why isn't the data from the Argos program being released.

Argos data is available here.

(#205219)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:49pm.

http://www.argos-system.org/manual/

It is raw, though. And you have to pay for it, I believe. Which is OK, isn't it - or do you think it should be available for free?

ArgosWeb, www.argos-system.org, is a secure website that allows users to consult their locations in map format or download all collected data.

ArgosServer

ArgosServer allows users to remotely access their Argos data with TELNET.

ArgosDirect

ArgosDirect automatically delivers data to users by e-mail, FTP or CD-ROM.

ArgosShare

ArgosShare allows users to share data with their colleagues and collaborators.

ArgosMonitor

ArgosMonitor monitors platform state, position, and sensor data values, alerting users of any change in state by e-mail, SMS or fax.

Timmy actually got the name wrong, I think

(#205238)

Submitted by boneless on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 6:40am.

Argos (ancient Greek giant with 1,000 eyes) is a network of satellites for collecting data from field transmitters.

Argo (ancient Greek boat) are buoys that measure ocean temperature and use Argos to transmit the data. The Argo data gets posted here or here in chart form.

One might wonder, given what it measures,

(#205224)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:03am.

that NOAA hasn't used the information to provide some background (analysis) on the subject, the warming/cooling of the oceans.

Are you sure you want that one answered either?

(#205134)

Submitted by catchy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:32am.

Wasn't it a disappointment in the past when your questions got answered and there was no longer any pt. in tossing them around?

I'd hate to see you get disappointed all over again.

I do and on this particular subject, recently more questions

(#205137)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 11:35am.

have been raised than answered. That is, what was settled is now open to questions. How do you feel about that?

I don't have any feelings about it

(#205202)

Submitted by catchy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 7:36pm.

I don't know climate science from a rototiller.

But I have to tease you a little for constantly throwing things against the wall to see what sticks with no end in sight.

Especially since, from where I'm sitting, you keep expecting what hasn't stuck in past to stick in future.

It ain't about the

(#205149)

Submitted by heet on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:11pm.

It ain't about the "questions". Quit pretending there are any answers whatsoever that will satisfy.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

enough answers, will provide the basis for understanding

(#205151)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:22pm.

what is going on as well as what the key drivers are.

how many answers?

(#205157)

Submitted by heet on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:44pm.

how many answers?

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

n+1,

(#205163)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 1:39pm.

where "n" is the number of answers currently available.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

no, "n" is the number of

(#205208)

Submitted by heet on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 8:42pm.

no, "n" is the number of answers Timmy has goaded and tricked you into spending your time typing out.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

leading or lagging, wouldn't be a bad place to start nt

(#205158)

Submitted by Timmy on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 12:48pm.

Leading or lagging what?

(#205220)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 01/30/2010 - 10:56pm.

You mean "leading or lagging" a change in temperature?

Which leads to my original question - does this mean that you now agree that temperature has changed in the past, and that it is possible for us to know this with current techniques?

Or do you think the temperature observations are part of a global conspiracy?

of this I'm absolutely sure, the temperature has changed in the

(#205226)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:08am.

the past. the question is one of correlation with respect to the level of CO2. That is, is CO2 a leading or lagging indicator?

If there is a conspiracy, it would be has someone been holding back information (analysis) on what was suppose to be settled.

One step at a time.

(#205230)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:27am.

We've agreed

1. That the available techniques of temperature measurements of past and present times are believable and reliable.

2. There is no global conspiracy to subvert these measurements.

3. The temperature of the planet has changed significantly in the past.

Next step, we have to agree that temperature changes happened as a result of a hypothetical process (in the past, definitely natural, today could be either natural or as a result of human activity). This is otherwise called climate sensitivity.

This is important. Many people in the sceptic camp, e.g. Lord Monckton, Mr Watts, vinteuil and so on do not believe statements 1, 2 and 3. In other words, they do not think either paleoclimatology or modern climatology can come up with reliable temperature measurements and that there is a specific global conspiracy amongst the world's climatologists to manipulate temperature data to demonstrate the fact that temperatures have changed so that they can continue to get multimillion dollar grants.

just to clarify

(#205231)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 12:39am.

1. As I have previously mentioned, I'm looking fwd to an analysis on the Argos data. This simply reflects the size of the oceans with respect to the overall measurements.

2. The concept of "settled science" by its very nature subverts the give and take which should have taken place, but didn't.

3. Agreed

First, my position has been reasonably clear on the subject. A linear relationship with one driver is insufficient to model a complex system. And that is exactly what has happened over the last decade which I have roundly rejected.

Second and related, parties have conspired to limit the skeptics. Sound science requires material probing of stated preferences. And there have been material efforts to curtail that effort.

You can't agree to 3 without agreeing to 1.

(#205244)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:42am.

I'm not talking about settled science.

Do you think the temperature measurement methods and data from mid 19th century is reliable or not?

If you do not agree that past temperature measurement methods are accurate, you obviously do not believe the historical temperature record.

Which is OK, but then you really are not in a position to question anything since you object to the entire subject on first principles (much as Monckton does).

actually, since each statement didn't end with an "and"

(#205287)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:51pm.

I can.

Which methods and which data? But if you are asking has the earth warmed since the mid 19th century, I would concur.

Next question.

Ok, thats reasonable.

(#205291)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:09pm.

I was talking about standard mercury thermometers and electronic thermometers in land and ocean based metereology stations.

So we are agreed on that.

Do we agree that this graph from data from NCDC/NOAA is a reasonable demonstration of the state of temperature monitoring?

Clearly you do not understand complex systems

(#205239)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:15am.

Nor are you on solid ground in your doubts. You betray the weakness of your position with this idiotic business about linear analysis. Perturbing a complex system does not produce linear results.

Let's make it even simpler: let's take it back to Newtonian physics, since you demand a "linear relationship with a single driver". Touch a revolving system and it will attempt to recover. Nutation and precession become ever-larger factors as conservation of angular momentum decays.

The very premise of asking for some correlation is rather like betting on a roulette wheel, for the principles are exactly the same. You stick to what you know and leave the complex systems to the modellers, who are in uniform agreement on one thing: we cannot screw with the planet without consequences. What the modellers are predicting is not any one outcome, but a set of unpleasant and unpredictable outcomes.

the concept of a linear correlation was introduced by Al Gore

(#205290)

Submitted by Timmy on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 11:06pm.

I've always held the opinion that climate is dynamic and the models have to rely on a number of variables. That is focusing on one driver (CO2 in this case) is counterproductive.

Maybe you should suggest to the modelers (I'm not sure what a modeller is) is that they read up on the Newtonian concept of equilibrium.

The models are beyond what you describe, as you know B

(#205271)

Submitted by tomsyl on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 5:36pm.

One of the fascinating things about modeling nonlinear systems is the unpredictability of the output with small changes, or seemingly unrelated changes, in input samples. That is true at the simplest level with feedback in an amplifier through a frequency-dependent network; it is raised by several orders of magnitude when you are dealing with extremely complex interrelated FEAs (hah) that attempt to model global temps and circulation patterns over the next century or more. Only the Crays can deal with this stuff.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

God bless you, Tomsyl. It's always been a pleasure debating you

(#205284)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 8:32pm.

I'm now in a desultory mode of long-term analysis, contemplating analog computers. I'm playing with a set of equations related to the earth's core, moon and the tides.

Turns out, as far as I can work it out, this planet's moon is a tremendously stabilizing force. Despite our iron core, sloshing about, creating the magnetic field which insulates us from the worst of the sun's deleterious radiation, the core tends to conserve angular momentum, though not always.

Sometimes the core flips. We see it switching as Atlantic Ocean expands, in the core samples. There seems to be no discernible periodicity to it, and we may be approaching another flip: the North Pole is not only moving, it's speeding up. Furthermore, the earth's magnetic field is weaking.

And we don't have a clue why.

Indeed,

(#205276)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 5:47pm.

it is this basic truth which means that if an economist presents you with a complicated model of an economy or any portion thereof, the proper response is an extended middle finger.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.