Awesome Amounts of New Snow

[BethesdaWX]

No Andrew,

Tropospheric water vapor data is not "notoriously poor", you can make up any "study" to assert otherwise, but thats not the point. There is uncertainty with it, definitely, but NOAA even states it can be used for trend analysis. If you do not believe me, search NOAA ESRL and find out for yourself.

AGW is supposed to increase Specific Humidity, and it hasn't (in the Troposphere, where its supposed to). Relative Humidity is expected to show little change, as you said, but not specific Humidity.

NOAA Data ESRL

[nzucker]

Also the expectation that scientists are going to give lessons on west vs east enso, the QBO, solar flares, the PDO etc. before arguing for an effect of AGW is absurd. People are sensibly concerned about how AGW will change climate .. they're not so concerned about how the QBO or solar flares affect their weather. \

None of these events has been definitively linked to climate change, though. There's much more evidence for the influence of the west-based Nino etc...so why shouldn't climatologists talk about phenomena backed by evidence? Novel concept to tell the truth in science, Andrew?

[Clifford]

I just went skiing again this weekend.

It was a great weekend to be out on the snow.

[skierinvermont]

The graphs you posted above are completely incorrect. They are not climate quality data. We have been over this before. NOAA specifically says that their reconstruction of humidity is not accurate for long-term trends. It is incredibly misleading to be posting such misleading data on this forum, especially when water vapor is so central not only our understanding of AGW, but of atmospheric physics in general. If water vapor had not increased over the last 60 years it would turn everything we know about the atmosphere upside down (IE Clausian-Clapeyron relationship which has nothing to do with AGW and was developed in the early 1800s).

The actual data looks like this

[Isotherm]

The graphs you posted above are completely incorrect. They are not climate quality data.

Why are they not climate quality data? Because the source isn't the IPCC, the holy grail of truth (*sarcasm*)?

[Isotherm]

Below is a graph of total colum water vapor, depicting a slight increase in the 80s/90s, but right now, we're actually a bit lower than the early 80s (the beginning of the time period):

And here's another interesting graph denoting RH trends at various levels of the troposphere.

[Isotherm]

Per the IPCC; here are some claims that they've made:

Re - specific humidity and water vapor increase

"To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable

trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there

is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric

specific humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent

with the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and

the absence of any change in relative humidity. (Chap 3 sect 3.4 p40)"

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. {3.4}

Similar upward trends in upper-tropospheric specific humidity, which considerably enhance the greenhouse effect, have also been

detected from 1982 to 2004. (Chapter 3 p4)"

Below if a graph of specific humidity - actual water vapor content - at the 400mb level of the atmosphere. Note it's been decreasing, not going up as per the IPCC:

So in reality, RH has been decreasing, specific humidity is decreasing, and total column water vapor is either steady or decreasing slightly. There appears to be a disconnect between what's being said by the IPCC and actual observations.

[Isotherm]

While we're on the subject, a critical error of the GCM's is that they assume relative humidity to be constant going forward. As depicted in the graphs posted, RH has been decreasing.

This error in specific humidity is about 20-40% too high, resulting in a positive overall feedback (which, if corrected, should result in a negative feedback).

[BethesdaWX]

The graphs you posted above are completely incorrect. They are not climate quality data. We have been over this before. NOAA specifically says that their reconstruction of humidity is not accurate for long-term trends. It is incredibly misleading to be posting such misleading data on this forum, especially when water vapor is so central not only our understanding of AGW, but of atmospheric physics in general. If water vapor had not increased over the last 60 years it would turn everything we know about the atmosphere upside down (IE Clausian-Clapeyron relationship which has nothing to do with AGW and was developed in the early 1800s).

The actual data looks like this

Andrew:

Your Study is UNLRELATED. Why?

1) The Ocean Surface Mean is not the Global Tropospheric Reading, try going up 850-150HPA globally using SM's.. .. And it uses GISS, knowing surface humidity is not GTLT in the least bit.

2) Is your study Relative humidity or Specific Humidity?

3) This has nothing to do with ISCCP.

4) The data can be used for long term trends, because Satellite data is in agreement

All measurements by All satellites show decreasing humidity overall in the tropopause. I don't care what BS is invented to attempt to discredit the satellites, it doesn't matter.

EDIT: I see Messiah Denier Andrew resorting to making things up yet again..... NOAA does not say the data is poor for Long term trends..... for cryin aloud Its the only Tropospheric WV data we have....and is verified by Satellites. "Ocean mean" is surface humidity over the Oceans...

Andrew, you're confusing ISCCP's Huge error potential on GCC data, with LT WV data, which is measured the same way CO2 is measured...

[skierinvermont]

Why are they not climate quality data? Because the source isn't the IPCC, the holy grail of truth (*sarcasm*)?

No because the creator of the data (NOAA) specifically says that it is not and was not designed for that purpose. But if you want to use data that NOBODY believes is accurate and was not created for the purpose you are using it for, go right ahead. This is precisely why deniers are not taken seriously.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler10.pdf

[skierinvermont]

No Bethesda, the NOAA reanalysis data does not come from satellite data. The NOAA reanalysis data (and the graphs of it you posted) begins in 1948 when satellites did not exist. The reanalysis uses and continues to use radiosonde data which subsequent studies have shown there to be large uncorrected biases in.

How exactly do you propose that they have satellite data back to 1948 when the first satellites remotely designed for this purpose weren't put into orbit until 1979?

The data derived from these satellites shows strongly rising specific humidity and nearly constant RH, as predicted by theoretical physics since the early 1800s (Clausian-Clapeyron).

In addition, radiosonde data that has been corrected, or more modern reanalysis products such as ECMWF, MERRA, JRA all show increasing specific humidity, as predicted. NCEP/NCAR is the only reanalysis which doesn't, because it continues to use the uncorrected radiosonde data.

And finally, the idea that specific humidity has not risen violates our most basic understanding of the atmosphere. Given the strong warming that has occurred, if specific humidity had not also risen, then the world would be rapidly transitioning to a barren desert.

[skierinvermont]

I look forward to 12am when your post allotment is up and you can explain which secret satellites NOAA is using to produce satellite data from 1948-1979 in the graph you posted.

[WeatherRusty]

While we're on the subject, a critical error of the GCM's is that they assume relative humidity to be constant going forward. As depicted in the graphs posted, RH has been decreasing.

This error in specific humidity is about 20-40% too high, resulting in a positive overall feedback (which, if corrected, should result in a negative feedback).

Near constant relative humidity is a universal product of climate models, not an assumption fed into them.

If as temperatures rise specific humidity were to decrease or remain constant, then so would cloud amount decrease as cloudiness is dependent on relative humidity. This would actually become a very powerful positive feedback to rising temperatures.

[tacoman25]

No because the creator of the data (NOAA) specifically says that it is not and was not designed for that purpose. But if you want to use data that NOBODY believes is accurate and was not created for the purpose you are using it for, go right ahead. This is precisely why deniers are not taken seriously.

http://geotest.tamu....6/Dessler10.pdf

Can you please explain why this is?

[skierinvermont]

Can you please explain why this is?

From the paper I linked:

The five reanalyses analyzed here (the older NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 reanalyses, and the more modern MERRA, JMA and ECMWF-interim).... all of the other reanalyses [besides NCEP] show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity. We conclude from this that it is doubtful that these negative long-term trends in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis are realistic for several reasons. First, the newer reanalyses include improvements specifically designed to increase the fidelity of long-term trends in their parameters, so the positive trends found there should be more reliable than in the older reanalyses. Second, all of the reanalyses except the NCEP/NCAR assimilate satellite radiances rather than being solely dependent on radisonde humidity measurements to constrain upper tropospheric humidity. Third, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis exhibits a large bias in tropical upper tropospheric specific humidity. And finally, we point out that there exists no theoretical support for having a positive short-term water vapor feedback and a negative long-term one.

To summarize:

1. The newer reanalyses are specifically designed to maintain the fidelity of long-term parameters, NCEP is not.

2. NCEP is the only reanalyses that doesn't show an increase.

3. NCEP is the only one that doesn't include satellite data

4. NCEP disagrees with the satellite data

5. A decline in water vapor violates the most basic understanding of the atmosphere (Clausian-Clapeyron). Warmer air will hold more water.

[skierinvermont]

And indeed satellite WV temperature trends do reflect the upwards trend in WV, which is why all the reanalyses based upon the satellite data (IE ECMWF-interim, JRA, MERRA) all show increasing WV.

[BethesdaWX]

And I explained that you had mis-interpreted my comment, and thats really the end of it, no use continuing off-topic banter.

So, again back to our Water-Vapor Discrepancy...

1) Again WV measurements are not Biased Low with the #2 dataset in TLTH, there is simply just a large error potential.

2) You're confusing cause and effect, that perhaps changing water vapor levels are what cause temperature changes, and not the other way around. More GCC correlates to more WV, But if less GCC & More WV is the result (like you are arguing) would imply 100% solar influence and not GHG increase. You need to think a second dude.

Yet Another Study Released a few days ago, Peer Reviewed and Published In a Well Known Journal: http://science.au.dk...aber-skydaekke/

[skierinvermont]

You are changing the topic. The argument is very simple. Is water vapor decreasing or increasing?

There is no peer-reviewed study that says it is decreasing and numerous studies which conclude it is increasing. End of story.

[BethesdaWX]

You are changing the topic. The argument is very simple. Is water vapor decreasing or increasing?

There is no peer-reviewed study that says it is decreasing and numerous studies which conclude it is increasing. End of story.

Slow down dude! You're getting irrational. Surface Humidity... yeah, there are peer reviewed studies showing it increasing...satellites show that as well... but thats not the point.

For the entire troposphere, all we have are satellites, and all of them show decreasing humidity. The EP estimation of 30-40% in 2001 is lower now, but its still there and very large. Point is, the only data we have for the entire Troposphere shows decreasing humidity.

Now, if humidity were to increase we'd see an increase in evaporation rate... and thus GCC would increase in the Low levels where humidity will increase more. So that is a negtative feedback right there If you believe CO2 is the cause of the warming... and that in itself is hypothesis.

Lower GCC at the low levels would warm the surface, and allow for higher Specific Humidity at the surface. In this case, we'd see more humidity increase at the surface than in the Troposphere (less increase the higher you go)... same goes for temperature.

That is exactly what is happening.

[skierinvermont]

For the entire troposphere, all we have are satellites, and all of them show decreasing humidity.

Wrong. There is no peer-reviewed study of satellite data which says tropospheric specific humidity is decreasing. They all say it is increasing but the data is poor. As do the reanalyses (ECMWF-interim, MERRA, JRA) based off that satellite data.

Satellite SSM/I water vapor data (link)