STRATOSPHERIC DRYING: Less water vapor in the stratosphere may have slowed global warming in recent years.
Image: ©iStockphoto.com
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Earth's stratosphere is a cold, dry place, above the troposphere—the bottom layer of the atmosphere we breathe on a daily basis. Ruled by winds and hosting everything from bacteria to long-distance jet travel, about the only way that water gets into this high-altitude layer 10 kilometers above the Earth's surface is when it billows up from the humid tropics, rising from the troposphere via the atmospheric interface known as the tropopause. But since 2001 there has been less water vapor in a narrow, lower band of the stratosphere thanks to cooler temperatures in the tropopause, and that may just be holding back global warming at ground level, according to new research published online in Science on January 28.
"We found that there was a surface temperature impact due to changes in water vapor in a fairly narrow region of the stratosphere," explains research meteorologist Karen Rosenlof of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Aeronomy Laboratory, one of the authors of the study. "The reason for the water vapor change is the temperature drop at the interface between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the tropics. What we don't know is why the temperature dropped."
That temperature does seem to correlate, however, to sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that, of course, follow El Niño–La Niña cycles, along with other trends. A new El Niño cycle—warmer surface waters—began last summer, which may mean that stratospheric water levels could change again. So this effect could either be the result of natural variability in Earth's climate, or yet another effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like water vapor trapping more heat and thus warming sea-surface temperatures.
All told, stratospheric water vapor declined by 10 percent since 2000, based on satellite and balloon measurements, yet that was enough to appreciably affect temperatures at ground level according to climate models. "Reduce the water vapor and you have less long-wave radiation coming back down to warm the troposphere," Rosenlof says. Conversely, an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming.
Of course, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also affected by another potent greenhouse gas—methane—which has unexpectedly failed to increase in recent years. "The other influence is methane, which breaks down into two water molecules and CO2 in the stratosphere," explains climate scientist Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). "Methane's growth rate has dropped, so it'll have become a weaker source of stratospheric water, but we don't fully understand why its concentrations have not increased as rapidly in recent years as they did for the previous several decades."
In fact, the more than 100 percent increase in overall methane since the 18th century has made the stratosphere a wetter place, notes GISS climate modeler Gavin Schmidt. "What might have caused this effect? I can think of two factors: The 1997–98 El Niño might have moistened the lower stratosphere more than usual, and thus there has been a trend toward drying since then," he says. "A second idea might be related to changes in aerosol emissions from Asia, which have affected temperature profiles in the tropics and the properties of clouds."
And there remains little doubt that average temperatures are getting warmer at ground level; data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reveals that the last decade was the warmest since record-keeping began. More monitoring of the entire atmosphere as well as the whole panoply of greenhouse gases over the long term will be required to determine what's behind the lower stratospheric dry out—a set of observations imperiled by the current dearth of Earth observation satellites operated by the U.S. space program.
But one thing remains clear: More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere equals more warming. "It doesn't say that CO2 warming isn't going on," Rosenlof adds. A drier lower stratosphere may simply have slowed the warming caused by the thickening greenhouse gas blanket.
See what we're tweeting about
101 Comments
Add CommentOf course, we deniers have been saying forever that water vapor is overwhelmingly the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas. Methane can probably trump all other climate factors when enough of it gets loose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust shut up already about the carbon footprint of my old full size Ford pickup. Such vehicles are a miniscule component of any change going on, as in tiny, tiny, tiny.
And having pronounced all that, the true direction of climate appears to be towards a New Little Ice Age (NLIA). Those much-predicted solar sun spots simply aren't showing up yet and even if they do the big climate driver forcing NLIA may be something else entirely that none of the global warming have considered.
My God... it never ends.. every time a global warming theory is debunked, or is found to be made up by "scientists" to support this theory, they come up with another "cause".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of printing every possibility or postulating on the next gotcha.. perhaps some real scientific research should be done and not some 1 year study. How about 50,000 year trending coupled with sun activity?
If the scientific community could see just how stupid and lame they look with this constant reaching for why we aren't heating up and actually challenged their own data and theories perhaps they could win an argument. Right now it stands I have more faith in meteorologists who are global warming skeptics. They have been more correct lately and actually back their skepticism with raw data.
The science community has diminished their standing in the wake of junk science reporting. Perhaps a "reboot" is in order, with (real) scientists who are skeptics, challenging the data and coming up with a more concise result.
Well I can say that the pan evaporative rate around the world is slowing. This is a simple measurement that farmers have been doing for about 100 years. They just fill a pan of water up and measure how much evaporated that day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not easy to ignore 100+ years of that data pointing to slower and slower rates.
Global warming, Global Dimming, Atmospheric water vapor levels, and fine particle pollution may all be playing a very complex game together. That would make one theory to explain all of the data very open to holes.
I think one thing that everyone can agree on is something is happening, be it natural or man made or a combination, something is definitely changing in our environment.
It almost makes one thing that the climate is not yet completely understood…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething is always changing in our environment. We live on a living planet, it's constantly in flux.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery graph I have seen related to global warming/greenhouse gases has been filled with dips and spikes, but there is usually an overall trend to the measurements. Understanding what causes an unexpected dip or spike helps us improve our models. But it is not the dip or the spike that causes greatest concern, it is the overall trend. And the trend is toward more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than we presetly have, localized dips notwithstanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for explaining to the public the physics and chemisty links between the temporary, varying changing stratospheric water vapor levels and changes in decadal tropospheric temperature trends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are the only public source, literally, that I have found so far to have done this. Thanks for the public service. You are to be congratulated.
Instead of attacking one another, we need to support the process of refining the picture and developing models, critique the models based on available data and simulation, and set goals toward the benefits to humanity, not just to the benefit of ideology, clan, political party, national origin, or race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfergit global warming... have ya checked your power bill lately? mines doubled cause the heater runs so much
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfergit global warming... have ya checked your power bill lately? mines doubled cause the heater runs so much
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually for the past 10 years the trend has been down, hence the NLIA that is being touted in some circles. The fact of the matter is the "Concensus" was wrong and is being perpetuated for political and (in the case of people like Al Gore) monetary gain. Scientists are still pressured to support Climate change (Nice shift in billing from Global Warming eh?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater vapor is a green house gas, i.e. it reflects and absorbs infrared radiation. If there is less water vapor in tropopause, then maybe this is why it is colder? It there any reason to believe that this is not the cause and effect going on, as opposed to the cooler temperatures drying the water vapor out of the tropopause?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMike Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is not as long lived in the atmosphere as CO2. Methane-CH4 also does not last as long in the atmosphere as Co2. Co2 overwhelmingly trumps all other greenhouse gases, becasue it lasts for centuries in the atmosphere. Also, a NLIA would be considered climate change.
Skeptics are uninspired and raised zero passion, I once said in disdain. Now I wish for a little more of that. These passionate comments, seem so angry, and full of deceptive ideological passion. Science is a refuge for reason, it is nice to see that in some of these comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had heard the debate was over on the subject of global warming. Am I wrong or is there something else going on?Could someone with a PHD please explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd consider lower jet traffic as the source of drying as their exhaust is a major source of water.
Those who deny GHG GW are ignorant on purpose and don't want to know they truth, just want to bash those who they don't like, people that think.
Obviously if a planet raises it's input energy or energy release, the water should start to rise, absorbing some of this energy and appearing to cool the planet along certain levels. But more disturbing is the question, "Is this a precursor to the loss of water into space? Will the earth become a comet and spiral away from the sun?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would expect this phenomenon to lag behind the dangerous rise in temperature, however. Once we reach such a level the outcome would be catastrophic and probably unpredictable.
rufus
"just want to bash those who they don't like, people that think"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...because YOU obviously aren't trying to bash people, huh?
I don't attack people, I attack ideas. Sorry if myself and many like me have broken the mold you tried to shove us into. Sure, there are plenty of idiots BUT they're on both sides of this equation..not just one as you would like everyone to believe.
Wow, I can't believe the willful ignorance. The evidence for global warming is quite overwhelming. My colleague has been studying this for a decade now and it's pretty irrefutable
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould someone please direct me to a site that has the actual data of the global temperature measurements from the last century?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomebody mentioned particulate pollution and I really think that dust and soot should get a lot more scrutiny as the major cause of Arctic Ice meltback and the recession of some Northern Hemisphere glaciers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, if you look at the extremities of the summer Arctic ice cap meltback, you see that the vast majority of it occurs in the drop zone of the prevailing winds that carry dust from the Gobi, dust from the drought-stressed agricultural areas of Mongolia and NW China, and dust and soot from the accelerating industrial activities of China, South Korea, and Japan. All this airborne material head to the Arctic where it makes the Bering Sea one of the world's richest fisheries through fertilizing plankton.
All this grime from the sky falls on the ice cap where when the sun returns in the summer it will greatly aid solar energy in melting the ice more efficiently. I think the effect of the trace gas carbon dioxide has been getting all the blame for something it didn't do. The greenhouse gases undoubtedly add something, but if we are amazed in coming years because the ice melt in the north continues but Arctic cold keeps on being amazingly cold in the winter, it is because dust and soot are much more significant as climate drivers than CO2.
The Chinese will continue promising much more than they actually do in relation to Copenhagen deals, no doubt because China and Mongolia have been really cold this winter.
All this brings up another subtle point. A New Little Ice Age (NLIA) is likely to make much of the world a drier place, which will really confuse the public because global warmers have been touting drought as a major threat on a hotter world. The NLIA is going to force news media to actually do serious homework before just amplifying far and wide whatever ridiculous study some warmer looking for a political promotion has put out there.
Something IS happening. The trend now is "up" since 1650, but not as a straight line. We have an oscillation up: 31 years and then down 31 yerars. IPCC uses the latest up 1975-2001 as a"proof" for global warming. What shall they do during the "down" period 2002-2033? Well, we already hav an idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2-fans avoid the (statistical) true but come up wiht more and more explanations on why whether does not behave as they predict. I would be easier (and more honest) to find out why their PREDICTIONS does not work. Because dogma does not work in science.
You talk about "greenhouse gases". I talk about temerature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTemp has been rising since 1650, it had nothing to do with
AGW then and there is no reason to blelive it has now.
Both the statistical trend and the flux is the same as at least
1880, I don´t have exact enough data to calculate furhter back.
You ar right. Lets do it: Temp has risen since 1650, not 1975
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas IPCC tells us. The main idea critizising IPCC "science" is -
what do you think? Of course thet it is NOT sciense.
There is no idea developing this "available" science.
Your ambition is good - but how do you alchemy?
Anyway, there is little reason to "titleing" people in the discussin but there is no reason to held back critcism of the so called science. We know much more about that than we know about earths climate and why it behavies as it does.
There is this another change: Predictions are not predictions any mor but (plaussibal) "scenarios"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo and yes. There is no reason to believe anything at the moment. Science does not know, more research, thinking has to be done. Only CO2-fantatics know already. Because... I dont have to tell more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one problem envolved in your thinking. You are right, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a longer time than watervapour. But it does not matter at all if one molecule H2O goes out and is replaced of one other (or two). The amount is the same. That is many many many times more than CO2. So what you tell is plain and pure bullshit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont answer your "fact-part" but what you say about people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have learnt that the only people that call other people "ignorant - are the ignorant ones.
Don´t worry. The water does not disappear to the space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the oxygen does not either, nor carbondioxide.
Evarybody know the sciense is settled and so on . The problem is not the science but the nature. The nature obviously does not know about the settled science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can study alchemy for decades (as Newton did), still not
knowing anything. This is the actual state of climate-science.
IPCC and CO-fans are not a bad thing par se. It is their will to convince non-believers at any cost. We can accept bad science but only when it is open for criticism - which is the sing of good science.
There are only data from one city that covers the whole 1900-th century - if that is what you ask. Or do you ask data for the 20:th century?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne or both,I just want to see the data for my self.Instead of the endless hearsay with no proof.It would be nice to see the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jack123
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly AGW advocates say the debate is over. That's crap. They don't know what they're talking about. Read 'Climate of Belief' by Dr. Patrick Frank in Skeptic magazine (skeptic.com) The errors in climate models are 2,000% to 4,000%. It's hilarous the Warmers talk of AGW with certainty.
You can look at global temp. data 1900-1999 in the NOAA website. I have analyzed these data. There's warming and cooling, not straightforward warming. But here's the catch and Warmers do not say this (or maybe they don't even know it), the margin of error in the data is bigger than the warming effect. In other words, the data are inconclusive. We cannot even say with certainty if the world warmed or cooled at least until 1990. I have the scientific paper on the uncertainty in temp. records if you want to read it.
No... NO!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is only one God and CO2 is His name....
And his prophets are Gore, Mann, Hansen, Jones,and Rachpauri
You heathens who believe otherwise and post demonic messages denying the one true religion will burn.
Regards,
Osama Bin Laden
Hi Jack,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html
Actually, there are many, many other sites that cover this information as well.
Jarmo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, you are saying that the relative humidity (a measurement of the amount of water vapor molecules in air) around the planet and in all levels of the atmosphere is a CONSTANT. Have you any data to support this assertion? Cloud cover reflects sunlight and reduces atmospheric warming. Is cloud cover high levesl of H2O in the atmosphere or lower levels?
Jarmo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you please SHOW even one example of "bad science" that has been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal? Better yet, would you tell us your anlysis of it that demonstrates that it is bad science. I am very interested in your opinion
You just cannot run an interesting article about climatology anymore without a load of non-science peddlers showing up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least we've studied the effects of the relentless stream of misinformation. You can use these blogs to add another measurement.
I propose that we also measure the quantity of Stupid Hysterical Imbecile Text (S.H.I.T) on the web versus, say, factual based discussions that apply logic to problems. My hypothesis is that homes that allow to much S.H.I.T. to come on their screens may corrupt the minds of young children leading them to fail in school and do drugs.
Viewers of Pat Robertson or listeners of Rush Limbaugh can be tested against a population of ordinary people to see how S.H.I.T, once it enters the brain and mind of the victim, effects them.
When we have enough information, we may be able to find a cure.
Unexpected non-increase in methane gas...humm so is the cooling in the 70's unexplained by "climatologists". Maybe they still don't know what's going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that the 'hide the decline' scam has been exposed, some kind of rational sounding explanation had to come. How do we know this is right? I don' t trust these IPCC guys - hiding data, balling dissenting views, Himalayan glacier scam - this is not science it is pushing an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem is that there's too many scientists doing too many studies. The more people involved and the more research done, the more flawed studies will be produced, it's inevitable. The skeptics don't care that the number of studies found to be flawed are disproportionate tiny compared to the studies still thought to be sound. Once it gets to the press, if there were a total of 5 studies done and 2 of them were flawed, people would be more likely to believe the research than if it was 5 flawed studies out of 1,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem is that there's too many scientists doing too many studies. The more people involved and the more research done, the more flawed studies will be produced, it's inevitable. The skeptics don't care that the number of studies found to be flawed are disproportionate tiny compared to the studies still thought to be sound. Once it gets to the press, if there were a total of 5 studies done and 2 of them were flawed, people would be more likely to believe the research than if it was 5 flawed studies out of 1,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual the earth's ecosystem's complex diverisity is staging various control measures and reactive responces to the ever changing status of our atmospheric mixture of chemicals dumped by nature and man. Earth is a very big place for such tiny critters like mankind. While our contributions to this planet over the last 6 or so millanias is barely dectictable overall when compared with the age of this rock it would be wise to be more earth friendly and monitor how the chemicals are having influance in the way earth responds to interactive effects with our presence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"mines doubled cause the heater runs so much" - BushWhacker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must be sending all your money up to the arctic where ice extent is 1.2 million square kilometers smaller than the recent historical average. and a half million square kilometers lower than the 2 years ago when summer ice extent was the lowest ever recorded.
"I thought the debate was over. Could someone with a PHD please explain?" - Jack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure.
You are right, the debate is completely over regarding the driver of the currently observed change in temp being CO2, and the rate of currently observed warming.
What will always be debated at the fringes of the science is what causes each little squigglie diversion from the warming trend.
In asking for an explanation you have shown yourself incapable of distinguishing between first, second and third order effects.
There is no debate on the first order drivers. Co2, Methane, Solar etc.
There is less and less debate over what are the second order drivers, Volcanism, biological feedbacks, deep ocean currents etc.
As to the third order drivers, they will always be essentially random due to their relationship to weather.
"Actually for the past 10 years the trend has been down" - Telrunya
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally?
Here is the data...
1999 14.33 **********===o
2000 14.33 **********====o
2001 14.48 ***************o*****
2002 14.56 ****************o*********
2003 14.55 *****************o*******
2004 14.49 ******************o**
2005 14.62 *******************o**********
2006 14.54 ********************o****
2007 14.56 *********************o*****
2008 14.44 ******************====o
2009 14.57 ***********************o***
---------------------------> Temperature
Looks to me like those temps are going up.
Maybe you don't know how to read a graph.
"There is only one God and CO2 is His name...." - Shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTinfoil.. Tinfoil.... Where is the damn tinfoil?????????
"CO2-fans avoid the (statistical) true but come up wiht more and more explanations on why whether does not behave as they predict." - Jarmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate scientists don't make weather predictions Jarmo. Hence no climate predictions of the last decade were made, because climate changes on multi decadal scales, not yearly
ones.
The predictive failure is with your expectations and comprehension.
"There is one problem envolved in your thinking. You are right, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a longer time than watervapour. But it does not matter at all if one molecule H2O goes out and is replaced of one other (or two)." - Jarmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe observation that CO2 has a longer lifetime in the atmosphere relates not to the speed with which molecules are exhanged, but with the rate at which the bulk of the gas can be removed.
Cool the atmosphere and you will get rain nearly immediately. Warm it and there will be more evaporation.
The atmosphere's water content is in near equilibrium for any given temperature.
On the other hand, there time needed to reach equilibrium for CO2 is on the order of hundreds of years.
And that is what puts CO2 in the drivers seat. Once it's up there, you can't readly remove it. Hence you can't readily remove it's warming effect.
A warming effect that is enhanced by the increase in the water vapour content of the atmosphere.
"Don´t worry. The water does not disappear to the space." - Jarmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, actually it does. It photodisassociates in the upper atmosphere, and is blown off into space.
We feel sad for you Jarmo.
"My God... it never ends.. every time a global warming theory is debunked" - Keith
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat warming theory do you think has been debunked? oh clueless one.
Good article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Earth and its atmosphere are a very complex system. Many factors affect the climate. I am truly grateful to the many scientists who devote their lives to studying this difficult subject. Global warming is a fact. ascertaining the various causes and counter influences is difficult. Certainly the increase in Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere contribute. And yes, even a gallon of extra petroleum burned adds to the problem.
Those of us who care about the future of this fragile planet do our best to minimize our footprint. But with 6+ billion people, most of whom don't care, it is difficult.
It is a shame that ignorant people make silly critical comments about this serious problem.
I am starting to think that SCIAM should make people take an aptitude test before being allowed to post on this site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one more person posts a common referring to the non-existent cooling trend we are experiencing I am going to scream.
Jack, what vendicar9 won't tell you is that water vapor and clouds aren't understood by catastrophic AGW GCM'ers, and they just assume they'll respond as a positive feedback loop. He'd prefer to play the chicken little card to ensure his funding rather than show the least bit of modesty or humility. GCM's don't make "predictions", the create "climate scenarios". This allows them infinite upside and zero downside. You should read some from Dr. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Roger Pielke SR. They give unbiased views on climate science. Forget about Scientific? American when it comes to this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes AGW theory is sensible and entirely plausible. But look at the hard data to test how good it is in explaining global temperature trend. Temperature records prior to 1940s have a margin of error 0.1-0.2 C so they are not very reliable. Look at the temperature data 1940-1999 and compare it with atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same period. I have done a statistical analysis on this and determine their correlation (R^2).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 can explain about half of the observed variability in global temperature. The other half may be attributed to unknown variables, confounding variables or inherent variability. This does not debunk AGW but it also shows that there are other factors influencing global temperature that cannot be ignored. We cannot say with certainty that CO2, especially anthropogenic CO2 which is a small part of atmospheric CO2, is the main driver of global temperature. Yes it may have a significant influence, though correlation is not causation, but that is not the whole story.
And there's a problem here. The margin of error in global temperature records makes statistical analyses for or against AGW theory inconclusive. The laws of physics support the atmospheric greenhouse effect which is the physical mechanism of AGW. But this only means AGW is possible, it does not establish a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and global temperature because the laws of physics also support other man-made and natural phenomena that influence global temperature. Climate science is far from settled.
"Waiting certainly is a valid option when related some of the ideas being purposed." - polkerplayer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists propose that mankind turn the steering wheel to prevent our vehicle from crashing into the side of a bridge.
Conservative Denilists insist that we must wait for the crash before we can be sure if turning is the right course of action.
We may need to throw them from the speeding car in order to save the rest of the passengers.
Perhaps a the first few bloodies, and dismembered bodies that will be left on the road will convince the other denialists that this is serious business.
"The belief that AGW is "proven science" based upon solid, undisputed data.......this has been pretty much debunked" - QuackFart Denialist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly in the QuackFart Conservative press and in the QuackFart Conservative Corporate bloggs who feed them their disinformation.
"Jack, what vendicar9 won't tell you is that water vapor and clouds aren't understood by catastrophic AGW GCM'ers, and they just assume they'll respond as a positive feedback loop. " - Conservative QuackFart #2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been known for a long time that high level stratospheric clouds cause warming and those in the troposphere and low-level stratiform clouds, cooling, and for the last deacde the global climate models have been doing a reasonable job of simulating both.
However one need not rely on computer models, but rely on direct observations of what is going on, and direct obsrevation shows that clouds in the low-level stratophere are disappating - thus adding to the increase in the earth's temperature.
"The agreement we found between the surface-based observations and the satellite data was almost shocking," - Amy Clement - professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami
"He'd prefer to play the chicken little card to ensure his funding rather than show the least bit of modesty or humility" - QuackFart Denialist #2
And those 20,000 Euopeans who died in Europe's heat wave of 1995 are just figmants of my imagination.
The real chicken littles of course are those who claim that reducing CO2 emission rates are going to destroy the global economy.
We heard your garbage before when the same denialists claimed in the 80's that Banning CFC refrigerants was going to kill 2/3rds of the worlds population and cost 100 trillion dollars and surpirse, surprise, destroy the global economy.
Conservative Denialist liers never change their chicken little toon.
vendicar- you seem extremely prejudiced and unwilling to consider modifying your thoughts based upon new information. Clearly, some of the data relating to AGW has been inaccurate, and more current, accurate information leads reasonable people to realize the the impending disaster ZEALOTS like you predict is not just 10 years away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar- please make 1 measureable prediction of the disasterous conditions you predict for 10 to 15 years from now???
"vendicar- you seem extremely prejudiced and unwilling to consider modifying your thoughts based upon new information." - Capt. Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a honest and rational person I always do so. My training in science demands it.
As a fantasy character of a poor science fiction series, you clearly have no such guidance, and scant connection to reality.
"Clearly, some of the data relating to AGW has been inaccurate"- Capt. Sisko
In what area of scientific invesitgation is that not the case?
Demanding perfection is another sign of a detachment from reality.
"vendicar- please make 1 measureable prediction of the disasterous conditions you predict for 10 to 15 years from now???" - Capt. Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry QuackFart. I don't make weather predictions.
I wish the UK Meteorogical Office showed that skeptic view - they seem to be 'pushing' and 'proving' GW most of the time on our news channels and national press - or is that just the press office side of the Met Office and its CEO?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar -- Try, just try to be rational. You can do it occasionally, for at least short periods if you try hard enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote: "The belief that AGW is "proven science" based upon solid, undisputed data.......this has been pretty much debunked"...In response you wrote:
In what area of scientific invesitgation is that not the case?
Can you point out any other area of scientific investigation where data has been faked with the intention of leading people to a conclusion. This was the case in those trying to make people believe AGW is an immediate crisis demanding immediate public action.
Demanding perfection is another sign of a detachment from reality.
Perfection can not be reached......but lying and putting out opinions as stating that it is hard data is something totally different.
As a supporter of the concept that AGW will lead to some type of near term human disaster........please point out just one bad thing that is going to happen to the planet in the next 15 years. Not a weather prediction
Vendick
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre people still bothering responding to you? They must have you mistaken for a non-pompous, informed, thinking individual.
Their mistake. But not mine...
Thanx for responding Shoshin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I wish the UK Meteorogical Office showed that skeptic view - they seem to be 'pushing' and 'proving' GW most of the time on our news channels and national press" - QuackFart
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa, it's called truth. A concept that the Denialists simply can not comprehend.
"Can you point out any other area of scientific investigation where data has been faked with the intention of leading people to a conclusion." - QuackFart #2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you provide any proof that any peer reviewed climate science has been faked?
Lying is a way of life for you and your Denialist brethren.
"Perfection can not be reached......but lying and putting out opinions as stating that it is hard data is something totally different. " - Capt. Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when can we expect to see your public repentence for your issuance of that non stop stream of lies of yours?
You misquoted there. vendicar9 made no response to the AGW proven science line. I presume that was because it is utter crap and nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat he responded to was "Clearly, some of the data relating to AGW has been inaccurate"- Capt. Sisko
If you're going to try carrying a debate, at least pretend you care enough to keep track of your notes.
Jack, if you've read vendicar's responses you'll have seen the perjoratives, the appeals to authority, the cowardice regarding predictions of weather (or any prediction at all), and more chicken little "AGW is killing people!!!" anecdotes. They speak for themselves. Good day Jack!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Jack, if you've read vendicar's responses you'll have seen the perjoratives, the appeals to authority" - Denialist QuackFart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no crime in calling a liar a liar, no matter how strongly the liar complains about it.
"cowardice regarding predictions of weather." - Ahahahahahahahahah
Sorry QuackFart. We are talking about Climate change, not weather. And the request that I predict the weather 15 years hence is just a further illustration of your near complete detachment from reality.
My God, the world would be a better place if you denialist inferiors were wished into a corn field.
vendicar--your responses unfortunately do nothing to add to any discussion and Shoshin is probably correct....you should simply be ignored. I will respond to your last message since you again wrongly stated something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote- Sorry QuackFart. We are talking about Climate change, not weather. And the request that I predict the weather 15 years hence is just a further illustration of your near complete detachment from reality.
You were not requested to "predict weather" - I wrote: "please point out just one bad thing that is going to happen to the planet in the next 15 years. Not a weather prediction"
BTW- My screen sign on is not based upon a television series, but upon my dog's name........ not that it matters. It is another example of how you seem to take a limited amount of data, and then leap to an inaccurate conclusion......sounds similar to how you approach AGW and climate change in general.
Sisko: What is the difference between The Borg and Vendicar9?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Borg doesn't live in his Mom's basement and use her computer while she's at work.
"Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated" - Vendicar9
Vendicar, you are hilarious. I can hardly wait until you show up on "The Simpsons" or maybe you, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Satan can belt out some showtunes on "South Park". I'd pay money to see that.
Way too funny. Thanks for brightening up my cold dreary, non-Globally Warmed day!
"You were not requested to "predict weather" - I wrote: "please point out just one bad thing that is going to happen to the planet in the next 15 years. Not a weather prediction" - Capt. Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the topic of this discussion is the atmosphere and the worlds climatological system, and specifically global warming, your question was constrained to that area.
Or is your defense tht you were mindlessly demanding something that was not the topic of discussion for no rational reason?
"My screen sign on is not based upon a television series, but upon my dog's name........ not that it matters." - Capt. Sisko
Which is based upon the name of a bad scifi series character.
I'm wondering now if there are any racial overtones to your choice of name for your pet.
Shoshin writes - nothing rational.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile 2009 is now recorded as tied with the second warmest year on record.
Here is the temperature record for the last 11 years.
1999 14.33 **********===o
2000 14.33 **********====o
2001 14.48 ***************o*****
2002 14.56 ****************o*********
2003 14.55 *****************o*******
2004 14.49 ******************o**
2005 14.62 *******************o**********
2006 14.54 ********************o****
2007 14.56 *********************o*****
2008 14.44 ******************====o
2009 14.57 ***********************o***
Looks like the earth is getting hotter, and QuackFarts like Shoshin are getting more and more desparate and less and less honest.
Possibly the highest temp. was 22C 550 million yrs ago when atmospheric CO2 was 7000 ppmv 2o times higher than current level. At the rate temp. records are being broken, we might surpass this geologic record with just 700 ppmv CO2 in the next 40 yrs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf
A bedtime story of temperature records. I suspend my disbelief.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
vendicar9,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an interesting lecture by Dr. Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
It is titled "The American Denial of Global Warming", and is quite revealing as to the techniques employed. It takes about an hour.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Yes, it is an excellent talk. First watched it two or three years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Very solid.
vendicar9,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's also an excellent lecture on the impact of CO2 on climate by Dr. Alley.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Vendicar9, thank you for your very amusing, and rational, responses to the idiots on here. Personally, I couldn't be bothered getting involved. Their "logic" is too painfully convoluted. I'm constantly amazed at the ability for average idiots to convince themselves that they know better than the scientists. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlan P,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting how you view as enlightened somone who's role models include Osama Bin Laden.
Shoshin, I must admit you've got me there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming MUST be a conspiracy, because some dumb ass (yes, that's you) manufactured a link between an anonymous contributor to an online discussion of climate science and... *drum roll please*... tada! Osama Bin Laden!
I think we better leave it there, because it seems that's about as rational as you're likely to get anytime in the near future.
Thanks for coming.
On January 9/10, Lawrence Solomon posted an excellent article in the Financial Post; The Ozone Hole Did It, detailing a paper in Physics Reports by Professor Lu of Waterloo University, which relates temperature changes to changes in CFCs. and disputes CO2 as the primary temperature driver. Obviously, climate science is a very complex study still in its infancy, with numerous possible temperature drivers. Scientists who claim that only their favorite theory is the right one and that all others are DENIERS, are suffering delusions of grandeur, or just keeping their paymasters happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Keith, P. Eng.
For another interesting theory on climate drivers, check Physics Reports for an article by Professor Lu, whose analysis indicates that changes in CFCs, not CO2, are a much more important contributor to climate change. The paper was reviewed by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post in January 9/10. So much for "the science is settled" bullshit!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter Keith, P. Eng.
"Lawrence Solomon posted an excellent article in the Financial Post"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- see, there's your problem right there. Anyone spot the mistake? hmm... let's see... "Financial Post"?
You're looking at a financial publication to get your information about climate science?
Sorry to tell you this, but the scientific, peer reviewed, publications actually do know more about this stuff than your favourite rag which tells you which stocks to put your money into.
I suppose you'll be telling us that the bag lady at the supermarket told you it's all bunkem next...
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou realize don't you, that while Osama Bin Laden is an evil man, he may be quite correct about other issues?
Criticizing vendicar9 for what may be a correct assessment about climate change by Osama Bin Laden is a non sequitur.
That's a very good lecture by Richard Alley. CO2 drives temperature throughout earth's 4.6 billion yr history. Man started contributing atmospheric CO2 only in the last 100 yrs. Nature is perfectly capable of changing the climate without man's help. But of course we should not make it worse. Curiously he did not mention water vapor which is a more significant greenhouse gas. There 30 times more H2O molecules in the air than CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's an obvious reason why CO2 should track temperature closely. There are more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere. Rising temp. releases the CO2 from the oceans into the atmosphere and starts a positive feedback loop. And this correlation between CO2 and temp. will show whether or not other factors have more significant impact on climate.
Btw, Dr. Alley is also the one who proposed the Big Freeze theory. He observed that in the geologic past, there were drastic climate changes 10C or more drop in temp. in 10-20 yr periods. (I'm not sure this is caused by CO2) He proposed that rising temp. could melt the natural glacial dams and bring fresh water into the oceans and shut down the "ocean thermal conveyor." This will bring the next ice age very soon.
"Sorry to tell you this, but the scientific, peer reviewed, publications actually do know more about this stuff than your favourite rag which tells you which stocks to put your money into." - Alan P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd their economists and economic models didn't even predict the ongoing crash of the U.S. economy.
I have monitored a discussion on the Wall Street Journal in which several scientists responded to comments made by whack job denialists regarding the reduction in stratispheric water concentration.
All responses were curious and scientifically accurate - explaining radiative equilibrium, illustrating the use of modeling, why the variance is a variance abot a trend, etc.
Those responses were one by one deleted over time by the editorial staff, leaving only QuackFart nonsense behind.
I take this as evidence of an active campign amongst the WSJ to silence Science.
"Interesting how you view as enlightened somone who's role models include Osama Bin Laden." - Shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go... Lying again....
I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. Like George Bush, Shoshin is no exception to that observation.
"On January 9/10, Lawrence Solomon posted an excellent article in the Financial Post; The Ozone Hole Did It, detailing a paper in Physics Reports by Professor Lu of Waterloo University, which relates temperature changes to changes in CFCs. and disputes CO2 as the primary temperature driver." - Peter Keith
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the paper in question hasn't been published. Second, it is not about global warming but a <new and revolutionary theory of ozone depletion> - snicker - and Lu's comments about potential global stratospheric cooling (not global cooling), are simply speculation.
The Financial Post - like the National Post, is a Conservative Canadian Rag that is bankrupt. And as they say about the National post.... "If you read it in the national post, you know it's a lie."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestern North Carolina had over two feet of snow this winter. How muich did the artic ice pack get? I assume tht two feet of snow each year would build up the artic ice pack. Could the evidenace of global arming be the effect of changes in the jet stream.
"Western North Carolina had over two feet of snow this winter. How muich did the artic ice pack get" - whatever
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, lets put it this way... The northern Ice cap extent is about 1 million square kilometers under the historical average for this time of year.
You can check here...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
BTW, is 2 feet a lot for your area? We have virtually nothing here.
We should be concentrating on how to mitigate whatever climate changes are occurring rather than attempting to prevent any changes (a, currently, impossible dream).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we are in a cooling trend, how do we ascertain that enough foods will be produced to prevent massive starvation, and how can me make inexpensive but reliable sources of heating available to those who may not have needed them before, etc.? If we are in a warming trend, we need to mitigate any potentially dangerous results of that warming. There are better uses of our money and science than trying to alter the inevitable.
Here are global temperatures for the last 11 years...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat cooling trend are you referring to?
1999 14.33 **********===o
2000 14.33 **********====o
2001 14.48 ***************o*****
2002 14.56 ****************o*********
2003 14.55 *****************o*******
2004 14.49 ******************o**
2005 14.62 *******************o**********
2006 14.54 ********************o****
2007 14.56 *********************o*****
2008 14.44 ******************====o
2009 14.57 ***********************o***
---------------------------> Temperature
And as to prep for the warming....
If you perterb a chaotic system it becomes more chaotic. In a climate system that means that weather changes more dramatically. And this means a less stable climate for growing crops. More harsh temperatures, more drouts, more heavy rains, etc.
Finally, there is also a moral obligation to protect more than just ourselves from the ongoing effects of warming, and biosphere degredation in general.
And that is why Denialists are pure filth. They lack the balls, the brainpower, and the morality to take responsibility for thier own actions.
Just like War Criminal, and ingoramus, Georgie Bush did when he was in the white house.
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Curiously he did not mention water vapor which is a more significant greenhouse gas."
Water vapor is usually considered a feedback. Carbon dioxide is usually considered a forcing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
"This will bring the next ice age very soon."
Very few of the climate change scenarios include an ice age.
mike cook:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And having pronounced all that, the true direction of climate appears to be towards a New Little Ice Age (NLIA). Those much-predicted solar sun spots simply aren't showing up yet..."
------------------------
Hey mikey....better take a look at head denialist, roy spencer's page, where after a couple of "global cooling" rants, he has finally posted the temperature anomaly of 0.72 degrees C for January 2010 on his graph, about equal to the el Nino spike year of 1998.
NASA Aqua Sea Surface Temperatures Support a Very Warm January, 2010
February 4th, 2010
When I saw the record warmth of our UAH global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product (warmest January in the 32-year satellite record), I figured I was in for a flurry of e-mails.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Oooh...and don't look now, but solar cycle 24 is finally showing some sunspots and our sun is awakening, and solar irradiance is surely to increase over the next few years!
the Start - SOLARCYCLE 24.com
Update - With the new Sunspot outburst, Friday marked 17 days in a row with ...
solarcycle24.com/index2.htm
Azheera:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If we are in a cooling trend..."
-----------------------------
State of the Climate, Global Analysis by NOAA
Annual 2009
Global Highlights
Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record, at 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average.
The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).
Ocean surface temperatures (through December) tied with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest on record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average.
Land surface temperatures through December tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report
Or better yet mikey, check this out by lead denialist roy spencer, and his "latest global temperature graph."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
WOW!....2010 is already starting out with an el Nino warming and now sunspots appearing as Cycle 24 gets rolling!
I wouldn't bet on that "global cooling" nonsense!
As El Nino warms the sea, it will gas off dissolved CO2, causing an enhanced greenhouse effect in a closed vicious cycle, causing El Nino to grow still stronger. Only when dissolved CO2 reaches a minimum will the phenomenon recede.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Dr. Strangelove and Skbarry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Biello makes a error when he writes: "...about the only way that water gets into this high-altitude layer 10 kilometers above the Earth's surface is when it billows up from the humid tropics...", and he does so right after naming a very significant contributor to stratospheric h2o - high flying jets. In general, for every thirteen molecules of co2 in jet exhaust, there are 14 molecules of h2o. Hence, jet exhaust, in both the stratosphere and troposphere, contributes NEW water to the hydrologic cycle and may well act as a forcing, and may be altering the cycle such that h20 accumulates and persists in new volumes and rythyms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this