All things Solar

[cmc0605]

The problem with assuming a positive water vapor feedback, CMC, is that even though with more water vapor would occur with warming, and warm the troposphere, there would also be more precipitation to reduce the impact of the increased water vapor. Most of the models that have the positive water vapor feedback also have a negative lapse rate feedback. So this would mean that if the lapse rate feedback is positive, that means that the water vapor feedback is close to none or even slightly negative.

My above reply was to the post you deleted...

This is wrong too. The precipitation is a red herring for this discussion. In fact, precipitation goes up much less rapidly than the water vapor content of the atmsophere, and with entirely different governing physics.

The lapse rate feedback is probably not positive, but in any case there are ways to get a positive lapse rate feedback without impacting the water vapor argument too much (e.g., in the Poles, by reducing the surface albedo and amplifying the surface relative to the upper troposphere).

[Snow_Miser]

This is wrong too. The precipitation is a red herring for this discussion. In fact, precipitation goes up much less rapidly than the water vapor content of the atmsophere, and with entirely different governing physics.

The lapse rate feedback is probably not positive, but in any case there are ways to get a positive lapse rate feedback without impacting the water vapor argument too much (e.g., in the Poles, by reducing the surface albedo and amplifying the surface relative to the upper troposphere).

No, I'm just saying that it is wrong to assume that the water vapor feedback is positive, because precipitation acts to reduce the impacts of increased water vapor. A positive lapse rate feedback also indicates that the water vapor feedback is also negative.

This is also why Ban-Weiss et. al 2011 find a strong negative feedback in the system.

Land use and land cover changes affect the partitioning of latent and sensible heat, which impacts the broader climate system. Increased latent heat flux to the atmosphere has a local cooling influence known as 'evaporative cooling', but this energy will be released back to the atmosphere wherever the water condenses. However, the extent to which local evaporative cooling provides a global cooling influence has not been well characterized. Here, we perform a highly idealized set of climate model simulations aimed at understanding the effects that changes in the balance between surface sensible and latent heating have on the global climate system. We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m ^{− 2} source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m ^{− 2} sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.

The "increased evaporation" part of this paper is key.

[cmc0605]

No, I'm just saying that it is wrong to assume that the water vapor feedback is positive, because precipitation acts to reduce the impacts of increased water vapor. A positive lapse rate feedback also indicates that the water vapor feedback is also negative.

There is no "assumption" here. All you need for a water vapor feedback is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This has been observed!! The precipitation argument is a distraction.

And who is saying that the lapse rate feedback is postive? I was exploring a hypothetical case in which it was less negative but still negative to neutral, a case which I don't believe is really real. In any case, you can still get an enhanced water vapor feedback from this.

[Snow_Miser]

There is no "assumption" here. All you need for a water vapor feedback is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This has been observed!! The precipitation argument is a distraction.

And who is saying that the lapse rate feedback is postive? I was exploring a hypothetical case in which it was less negative but still negative to neutral, a case which I don't believe is really real. In any case, you can still get an enhanced water vapor feedback from this.

The data and observations suggest that the lapse rate is positive, and that water vapor feedback is negative.

Relative atmospheric humidity (%) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: May 2012. Last diagram update: 10 June 2012.

Specific atmospheric humidity (g/kg) at three different altitudes in the lower part of the atmosphere (the Troposphere) since January 1948 (Kalnay et al. 1996). The thin blue lines shows monthly values, while the thick blue lines show the running 37 month average (about 3 years). Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA). Pre-1973 data from the United States is not homogeneous according to Elliot and Gaffen (1991). See also data description by Kalnay et al. (1996). Last month shown: May 2012. Last diagram update: 10 June 2012.

Sensitivity to changes in water vapor in the middle to upper troposphere is high, as seen with Spencer and Braswell 1997, as the more dry the atmosphere is, the more sensitive the climate is to changes in atmospheric water vapor. Decreases in the middle to upper tropospheric water vapor, where water vapor concentrations are low, have a profound negative feedback on the climate system.

Increased precipitation also acts to cancel out the positive water vapor feedback in the lower troposphere.

You are oversimplifying the water vapor feedback by trying to ignore the impact that precipitation changes have on the climate.

The fact that temperature trends have not been the highest in the middle to upper troposphere in the tropics, also points to a negative water vapor feedback, since a positive lapse rate feedback should be associated with a negative water vapor feedback in the models.

[cmc0605]

No, I'm just saying that it is wrong to assume that the water vapor feedback is positive, because precipitation acts to reduce the impacts of increased water vapor. A positive lapse rate feedback also indicates that the water vapor feedback is also negative.

This is also why Ban-Weiss et. al 2011find a strong negative feedback in the system.

Land use and land cover changes affect the partitioning of latent and sensible heat, which impacts the broader climate system. Increased latent heat flux to the atmosphere has a local cooling influence known as 'evaporative cooling', but this energy will be released back to the atmosphere wherever the water condenses. However, the extent to which local evaporative cooling provides a global cooling influence has not been well characterized. Here, we perform a highly idealized set of climate model simulations aimed at understanding the effects that changes in the balance between surface sensible and latent heating have on the global climate system. We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m ^{− 2} source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m ^{− 2} sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. Thus, our model results indicate that, on average, when latent heating replaces sensible heating, global, and not merely local, surface temperatures decrease.

The "increased evaporation" part of this paper is key.

Look, please stick to a single point, and not just reference every paper you've seen before on whatever scattered thought comes to your mind.

This is a hypothetical experiment not necessarily tied to the real world global warming problem. But in fact, they confirm my argument is that water vapor feedback is decoupled from the precipitation/evaporation. There's very little in that paper that is surprising, though it would be easy to modify their "feedback" by affecting the high clouds too, something which also changes in a warming climate.

It is well known that evaporation (and thus precipitation) increases in a warming world. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

[cmc0605]

what did I say before abour re-analysis products? This is not an "observation."

[Snow_Miser]

It is well known that evaporation (and thus precipitation) increases in a warming world. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Precipitation can act to cancel out the warming impact from increased lower tropospheric water vapor.

Decreased upper tropospheric and middle tropospheric water vapor is also an indicator that water vapor feedback is negative, since the sensitivity to upper and middle tropospheric water vapor is high, since the concentration is low, and decreases in the concentrations of water vapor at these altitudes will cause a large negative water vapor feedback.

The lack of a negative lapse rate feedback as seen with observations may be an indicator that water vapor feedback is negative, since in the models, a strong negative lapse rate feedback is associated with a positive water vapor feedback.

[cmc0605]

Right, and repeating the same thing over and over won't suddenly make it right.

[Snow_Miser]

Right, and repeating the same thing over and over won't suddenly make it right.

The lapse rate feedback is positive, because the OBSERVATIONS show that there has been no warming in the middle to upper troposphere.

Temperature change at 200hPa (c. 12 km height) between 20^oN and 20^oS since 1979, according to HadAT. The thin blue line shows the monthly values, while the thick blue line represents the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The stippled red line shows the linear fit for the period shown, with basic statistics shown in the upper left corner of the diagram. The data were normalised by setting the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988 = 0. Last month shown: March 2012. Last diagram update: 14 June 2012.

From the HadAT website:

HadAT consists of temperature anomaly timeseries on 9 standard reporting pressure levels (850hPa to 30hPa). The data is also available as equivalent measures to the broad MSU satellite weighting functions. The gridded product is derived from 676 individual radiosonde stations with long-term records. Because of the criteria of data longevity the resulting dataset is limited to land areas and primarily Northern Hemisphere locations. Radiosondes are single launch instruments and there have been many changes in instruments andobserving practices with time. HadAT has used a neighbour-based approach to attempt to adjust for these effects and produce a homogeneous product suitable for climate applications.

This data comes from RADIOSONDE data, which is actual OBSERVATIONAL data. The lack of a negative lapse rate feedback is an indicator that the water vapor feedback is negative, since a negative lapse rate feedback is associated with a positive water vapor feedback, thus the reanalysis data is in line with the observational data, suggesting that a strong negative water vapor feedback exists.

[cmc0605]

At 200 hPa I would expect little trend or contribution from stratospheric cooling in the above signal...see Thorne et al 2005 and 2011

[PhillipS]

The lapse rate feedback is positive, because the OBSERVATIONS show that there has been no warming in the middle to upper troposphere.

.

Just FYI, Snow - posting crap from Climate4you does nothing good for your credibility. That is a junk science site masquerading as a legitimate science site. It is the creation of Ole Humlum and is not associated with any university or research organization. It is a denialist fringe website, similar to Skydragons, just this side of barking at the moon lunacy. But it has lots of pretty charts and impressive sounding verbiage so it does fool those too ignorant or simple-minded to see through its nonsense.

One way you can judge a website is by who provides links to it. Of course RealClimate and SkepticalScience don't liink to it. But, as you can check, Dr Judith Curry who's website Climate Etc is considered 'lukewarm' does not provide a link to Climate4you on her blogroll either. Even more telling is that Anthony Watts of WUWT doesn't include Climate4you on his blogroll. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Watts sets the bar pretty low and Humlum still doesn't make the cut.

That should tell you just how far off into the weeds Humlum is. Posting anything from him is a clear signal to the readers here that you are either so gullible you believe him - or that your goal, like his, is to deceive.

[Snow_Miser]

Just FYI, Snow - posting crap from Climate4you does nothing good for your credibility. That is a junk science site masquerading as a legitimate science site. It is the creation of Ole Humlum and is not associated with any university or research organization. It is a denialist fringe website, similar to Skydragons, just this side of barking at the moon lunacy. But it has lots of pretty charts and impressive sounding verbiage so it does fool those too ignorant or simple-minded to see through its nonsense.

One way you can judge a website is by who provides links to it. Of course RealClimate and SkepticalScience don't liink to it. But, as you can check, Dr Judith Curry who's website Climate Etc is considered 'lukewarm' does not provide a link to Climate4you on her blogroll either. Even more telling is that Anthony Watts of WUWT doesn't include Climate4you on his blogroll. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Watts sets the bar pretty low and Humlum still doesn't make the cut.

That should tell you just how far off into the weeds Humlum is. Posting anything from him is a clear signal to the readers here that you are either so gullible you believe him - or that your goal, like his, is to deceive.

So because Dr. Curry and Anthony Watts do not list Climate4you in their list of recommended lists, means it is not credible? Judith Curry does not list Skeptical Science, Think Progress, or De Smog Blog as recommended links. Does that mean that they are not credible either?

The author simply takes the data from credible governemnt organizations and plots the data onto charts that are updated monthly. He ALWAYS gives the SOURCE where the data comes from, or even the raw data, so if you do not believe his graphs, you can graph it for yourself and see if your chart matches up with his.

The point of the matter is, is that the data is inconvienient for the AGW Hypothesis, so you will try and lash out at any website that presents the observational evidence that essentially debunks that most of climate change is anthropogenic, and that the climate is a sensitive climate system.

[Snow_Miser]

At 200 hPa I would expect little trend or contribution from stratospheric cooling in the above signal...see Thorne et al 2005 and 2011

At 200 hPa is where the models had the greatest warming trend in the tropics from the negative lapse rate feedback associated with the positive water vapor feedback, so we should be observing the greatest amount of warming in this altitude, if the models/positive water vapor feedback/negative lapse rate feedback theory is to have any merit.

I'm glad you brought up the stratospheric cooling issue though.

The sun can cause stratospheric cooling, because solar storms deplete ozone. This is because during large solar proton storms, the particles interact with the atmosphere to produce chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, creating stratospheric cooling.

Source: Rodger 2008

During the great geomagnetic storm of 1989, there was a large amount of NOx produced in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion corresponded relatively well to the NOx produced during the solar geomagnetic storm.

Source: http://www.sotere.un...eldreversal.pdf

Winkler et. al 2007

“With decreasing magnetic field strength the impacts on the ozone are found to significantly increase especially in the Southern Hemisphere”

The quote from Winkler et. al 2007 suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field also modulates the amount of solar protons in addition to the level of solar activity. If there is a profound impact being observed on ozone with the Earth's Magnetic Field decreasing, it indicates that the sun's protons have a major role to play in the depletion of ozone, and stratospheric cooling, since the Earth's magnetic field is modulating them, and a major impact is found between the intensity of the magnetic field and ozone depletion.

The AP Index correlates to the amount of NOx produced, and this relationship is quite strong. As shown above, NOx has a very nice correlation to ozone depletion, suggesting a solar mechanism for ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling, not anthropogenic.

Source: http://www.atmosp.ph...l/day3_Hood.pdf

http://www.scienceda...10802080620.htm

"Solar proton events help us test our models," Jackman said. "This is an instance where we have a huge natural variance. You have to first be able to separate the natural effects on ozone, before you can tease out human-kind's impacts."

http://www.nature.co...ll/449382a.html

The rapid photolysis of Cl₂O₂ is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago² (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Could this unknown mechanism be the solar impacts on ozone?

[PhillipS]

So because Dr. Curry and Anthony Watts do not list Climate4you in their list of recommended lists, means it is not credible? Judith Curry does not list Skeptical Science, Think Progress, or De Smog Blog as recommended links. Does that mean that they are not credible either?

The author simply takes the data from credible governemnt organizations and plots the data onto charts that are updated monthly. He ALWAYS gives the SOURCE where the data comes from, or even the raw data, so if you do not believe his graphs, you can graph it for yourself and see if your chart matches up with his.

The point of the matter is, is that the data is inconvienient for the AGW Hypothesis, so you will try and lash out at any website that presents the observational evidence that essentially debunks that most of climate change is anthropogenic, and that the climate is a sensitive climate system.

Climate4you is a junk science site no matter how much you like it. If it had any credibility the 'skeptical' sites would be featuring Humlum's work. But in reality, which anybody reading this can easily verify, is they don't want to be associated with that crap because they know the stink will stick to them too.

So rant and fulminate all you want, and post as much drivel as you want, you aren't convincing anybody with your sad and desperate posting of debunked nonsense..

[cmc0605]

It may very well be that the maximum warming in the obs is displaced vertically (maybe by 100 hPa) from the models. Figure 8 in http://www.arl.noaa....l.WIREs2010.pdf shows this well, but it's subtle, and depends on which observational analysis you look at and the timeframe involved.

I may look at the vertical differences more next week, but unfortunately I have a lot of research work I need to get done, and by your tone (and selection of references) I'm convinced you really don't care about getting an answer as much as scoring points. ( From casual inspection of the figure though, it seems that the one dataset you are showing above has the smallest warming at that pressure level amongst many different products). My guess is "climate4you" didn't show you the rest, nor did they get into the analyses which show some model consistency or highlight the large uncertainty in the observational record.

The paper above discusses in much more detail the biases in the observational record, and the differences between the MSU products, and between the MSU products and radiosondes. Obviously it's an unsettled question but the lack of obvious disagreement between models and obs (including the uncertainties) precludes cherry-picking which record you like the best and selling it as the final nail in the coffin.

It's even worse when you can't even get the physics right. Discrepancy in lapse rate or not, none of this implies a negative water vapor feedback at all. Zero. Nilch. That's my final reply on the feedback stuff, which I think I've explained thoroughly to you.

[Snow_Miser]

It may very well be that the maximum warming in the obs is displaced vertically (maybe by 100 hPa) from the models. Figure 8 in http://www.arl.noaa....l.WIREs2010.pdf shows this well, but it's subtle, and depends on which observational analysis you look at and the timeframe involved.

I may look at the vertical differences more next week, but unfortunately I have a lot of research work I need to get done, and by your tone (and selection of references) I'm convinced you really don't care about getting an answer as much as scoring points. ( From casual inspection of the figure though, it seems that the one dataset you are showing above has the smallest warming at that pressure level amongst many different products). My guess is "climate4you" didn't show you the rest, nor did they get into the analyses which show some model consistency or highlight the large uncertainty in the observational record.

The paper above discusses in much more detail the biases in the observational record, and the differences between the MSU products, and between the MSU products and radiosondes. Obviously it's an unsettled question but the lack of obvious disagreement between models and obs (including the uncertainties) precludes cherry-picking which record you like the best and selling it as the final nail in the coffin.

It's even worse when you can't even get the physics right. Discrepancy in lapse rate or not, none of this implies a negative water vapor feedback at all. Zero. Nilch. That's my final reply on the feedback stuff, which I think I've explained thoroughly to you.

Looking at Figure 8 in the paper, we can see that some indicate that the greatest warming should be at 200-300 hPa. Once again, according to observations, we can see that there is a serious discrepency between the models and the observations at various locations in the upper troposphere.

If you think that Climate4you.com is cherry picking by selecting the HatAT dataset, look at Douglass et. al 2007, which has 3 MORE datasets that show that there is a serious discrepency between modeled and observational temperatures in the Tropical Troposphere.

The figure, from Douglass et. al 2007 shows that the models were predicting a negative lapse rate feedback, which is seen with the higher temperature trend in the middle to upper troposphere than at the surface. Observations do not show any of this. They show that the lapse rate is positive, and that the surface is warming faster than the upper troposphere, consistent with a positive lapse rate feedback. The strongest negative lapse rate feedbacks in the IPCC GCMs were constantly associated with a the strongest positive water vapor feedbacks. The relationship between the two appears to be robust, so the lack of a negative lapse rate indicates that the water vapor feedback might not be positive, and even negative.

You're going to have to explain then why models CONSTANTLY had a negative lapse rate feedback when the water vapor feedback was positive, and if there was a stronger negative lapse rate feedback there was CONSTANTLY a stronger positive water vapor feedback. You have to explain this if there is no relation between the two.

[Snow_Miser]

Climate4you is a junk science site no matter how much you like it. If it had any credibility the 'skeptical' sites would be featuring Humlum's work. But in reality, which anybody reading this can easily verify, is they don't want to be associated with that crap because they know the stink will stick to them too.

So rant and fulminate all you want, and post as much drivel as you want, you aren't convincing anybody with your sad and desperate posting of debunked nonsense..

So are you going to reply to any of my earlier posts addressed to you or not?

[PhillipS]

So are you going to reply to any of my earlier posts addressed to you or not?

Since you are only on this forum to troll and derail the discussion - you are simply not worth responding to. There is no signal in your posts, just noise.

[Snow_Miser]

Since you are only on this forum to troll and derail the discussion - you are simply not worth responding to. There is no signal in your posts, just noise.

No, I am here to participate in the discussion, just like you are, and have posted about my ideas, and it seems like no one thus far has able to successfully refuted any of my posts about the sun, the stratospheric cooling, and the negative feedbacks.

Or maybe I am not worth responding to because you can't debunk any of the issues I raised in my previous posts.

[Snow_Miser]

It should be also noted that there is an assumption in the models that Relative Humidity should be kept constant as temperatures increase. This quote is from the IPCC's AR4 Chapter 8 on page 632:

The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1). Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere.

With the Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA) showing us that in their products, we have not observed an increase in Relative Humidity in the middle to the upper part of the troposphere, and have seen a decrease. The climate is sensitive to changes in water where there isn't that much water, so the decrease in water vapor at these altitudes would have an impact on the temperatures, and result in a negative water vapor feedback.

[cmc0605]

No, I am here to participate in the discussion, just like you are, and have posted about my ideas, and it seems like no one thus far has able to successfully refuted any of my posts about the sun, the stratospheric cooling, and the negative feedbacks.

Or maybe I am not worth responding to because you can't debunk any of my issues I raised in my previous posts.

All of your substance has been thoroughly addressed, whether or not you like to admit or recognize that. And I'm sure not on here to "debunk" you; maybe your only purpose is to argue, but I'd rather get to the essential physics of how climate works... and to the extent that the real-world deviates from our understanding, to determine why.

As a last comment to you, and only for a summary to other readers:

1) Snowlover does not understand anything about the water vapor feedback. The physics controlling the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is largely decoupled from the physics that governs the fluxes (i.e., evaporation/precipitation). Most estimates have water vapor going up about 7%/deg K and evap/precip going up about 2%/deg K. Moreover, the lapse rate feedback and water vapor feedback are highly correlated in models because of very well-understood basic thermodynamical principles. But I do not agree that a positive lapse rate feedback would lead to a negative water vapor feedback. It doesn't follow whatsoever. I could accept that it would lead to a weaker water vapor feedback (it very likely would, since the water vapor in the upper troposphere dominates the feedback, and one would expect less of an increase in these regions if there was less warming). But even with a positive lapse rate feedback, there is still waring of the troposphere at every level, and on this basis alone there will be a positive feedback. This is why I think it is useful to separate the water vapor feedback into a component that is determined by a uniform warming, and a residual component determined by the vertical profile of where the warming is amplified. (I'd also point out that it is possible to have a positive water vapor feedback if relative humidity is decreasing, something he doesn't understand from above posts either).

2) However, there is no indication that there is or ever will be a positive lapse rate feedback, especially in the tropics. In fact, sustaining such a scenario would be extraordinarily difficult, since the whole troposphere would be destabilized to convection. While this would have huge implications for tropical meteorology, no one in that field that I know of really believes this to be the case, and indirect measures of trends in convective thresholds suggests it is not the case.

3) Snowlover relies on papers which are very much in the minority view of things. Citing them is not inherently a bad thing...after all they are science and they have been submitted to journals. In reality however, science is a stepping stone process, one that builds in very small increments on previous work. When 10 studies are performed and 5 show one thing and 5 show the other thing, it is not honest to show just one study and pretend that this is the "final answer." In some cases, the situation here is more extreme. If 1/10 papers showed what he wanted, Snowlover would kindly pick that one, even when that paper has been addressed in the literature. The Paltridge and Douglass paper are examples, where each has been replied to, and where there are subsequent observations that reach opposite conclusions. It is intellectual dishonestly to ignore these. While it is impressive to have lots of colorful posts with graphs from the studies that support your ideas, Snowlover is either too lazy to do a wider literature review, or is assuming the readers here are. Either way, this is not a fair or honest way to discuss the issues.

The case with the "tropical hotspot" is not as settled as the positive water vapor feedback issue, largely due to big uncertainties in the observations, but I suggest the review by Thorne et al linked above. As a review I think this is a pretty representative piece of the current science, even to this day in 2012. It is possible that the models are missing something key going on here, but it's not obvious at this point that there is a discrepancy to begin with, and it's certainly not obvious what the implications would be.

4) The rest of his "space-related" stuff is borderline astrology and tin-foil hat stuff. I think I was more than generous addressing the cosmic ray stuff. His mechanism for "stratospheric cooling" is even more humorous. If someone else wants to entertain his pet theories, then go ahead, but I'm not interested.

[Snow_Miser]

All of your substance has been thoroughly addressed, whether or not you like to admit or recognize that. And I'm sure not on here to "debunk" you; maybe your only purpose is to argue, but I'd rather get to the essential physics of how climate works... and to the extent that the real-world deviates from our understanding, to determine why.

Actually little of it has, only a snippet of the water vapor feedback has been adequately addressed by yourself, and that is it so far. The rest you have carelessly dismissed and have not even bothered to discuss about.

Moreover, the lapse rate feedback and water vapor feedback are highly correlated in models because of very well-understood basic thermodynamical principles. But I do not agree that a positive lapse rate feedback would lead to a negative water vapor feedback.

I'm glad you have finally come to terms that they are well correlated in the models.

So now I will ask you another question. Why can't a positive lapse rate feedback lead to a neutral to even negative water vapor feedback, if the stronger the negative lapse rate feedback was, the stronger the positive water vapor feedback was in the models?

You have been consistently evading this point, and have not given an acceptable answer as to why this can not be.

But even with a positive lapse rate feedback, there is still waring of the troposphere at every level, and on this basis alone there will be a positive feedback.

Yes there was warming in the troposphere. That does not prove anything about how sensitive the climate system is, and whether the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks are positive and negative.

However, there is no indication that there is or ever will be a positive lapse rate feedback, especially in the tropics.

Observations from radiosondes point to a positive lapse rate feedback, with the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere.

Snowlover relies on papers which are very much in the minority view of things. Citing them is not inherently a bad thing...after all they are science and they have been submitted to journals. In reality however, science is a stepping stone process, one that builds in very small increments on previous work. When 10 studies are performed and 5 show one thing and 5 show the other thing, it is not honest to show just one study and pretend that this is the "final answer." In some cases, the situation here is more extreme. If 1/10 papers showed what he wanted, Snowlover would kindly pick that one, even when that paper has been addressed in the literature. The Paltridge and Douglass paper are examples, where each has been replied to, and where there are subsequent observations that reach opposite conclusions. It is intellectual dishonestly to ignore these. While it is impressive to have lots of colorful posts with graphs from the studies that support your ideas, Snowlover is either too lazy to do a wider literature review, or is assuming the readers here are. Either way, this is not a fair or honest way to discuss the issues.

I am assuming that this is supposed to be an alleged rebuttal to Douglass et. al and Paltridge et. al?

This does not address anything the papers brought up, and can be named as a red herring.

The case with the "tropical hotspot" is not as settled as the positive water vapor feedback issue, largely due to big uncertainties in the observations,

BINGO!

With multiple analyses of feedback showing negative feedback, it is more likely than not that the datasets showing a positive lapse rate are correct, as this would mean that water vapor would not have much of an impact with warming, or even a strong negative feedback, if the NCEP reanalyses are to be correct with decreasing water vapour, SH and RH at 400-850 mb, as the climate is sensitive to water concentration changes at these altitudes.

And again, if there are strong negative feedbacks, (and it is very likely that there are) then CO2 could not possibly have caused the warming that has been observed.

4) The rest of his "space-related" stuff is borderline astrology and tin-foil hat stuff. I think I was more than generous addressing the cosmic ray stuff. His mechanism for "stratospheric cooling" is even more humorous. If someone else wants to entertain his pet theories, then go ahead, but I'm not interested.

Another red herring.

You have not addressed the evidence that shows that the AP Magnetic Index is correlated strongly to the amount of NOx produced, which is highly correlated to ozone depletion, a KNOWN factor of stratospheric cooling.

You also have not addressed any of the evidence and literature that I have posted that points to a large solar influence on climate.

Allow me to add even more evidence to support a solar driver of climate.

(Figure 2) From Figure 2 of Neff et. al 2001

The authors note that

The similarity between the smoothed d18O and D14C

time series, both in their general patterns and in the number of

peaks, is extremely strong. Even millennial-scale trends and relative

amplitudes correspond. Furthermore, the high-resolution interval

between 7.9 and 8.3 kyr BP also reveals a close correspondence

between the two curves. The parallel evolution of d18O and D14C

seems very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Rather, the high

correlation provides solid evidence that both signals are responding

to the same forcing. Variations of D14C were attributed to changes in

the production rate in the stratosphere, induced by solar wind

modulation of the cosmic ray ¯ux. Maxima of 10Be concentrations

in polar ice cores that are synchronous with maxima in D14C further

reinforce this interpretation6,7,21.The high resolution and dating precision of the d18Orecord of H5

make it possible to perform a reliable frequency analysis. Spectral

analyses of the untuned d18O record are given in Fig. 4a and b. The

d18O results show statistically signi®cant periodicities centred on

1,018, 226, 28, 10.7 and 9 years. Two broader sets of cycles are

centred between 101±90 years and 35±26 years. These cycles are

close to the periodicities of the tree-ring D14C record (206, 148, 126,

89, 26 and 10.4 years), which are assigned to solar modulation7.

http://www.maik.ru/a...g1_3p124abs.htm

The data series of the Wolf numbers and surface air temperature over Irkutsk and the entire globe

from 1882 to date has been analyzed. The trends of the local (Irkutsk) and global (the entire Earth) temperatures

follow the trend of solar activity. A global fall of the surface temperature in the coming 25 years is predicted

based on close solar–terrestrial relations and on an anticipated decrease in solar activity by 2025.

http://www.springerl...v1736814024327/

The results of studying the cosmic ray fluxes in the Earth’s atmosphere and their influence on the atmospheric electricity, as well as the effect of cosmic dust entering the terrestrial atmosphere from the interplanetary space on the Earth’s climate are briefly discussed. A forecast of the climate cooling in the forthcoming 50 years is given.

http://ppg.sagepub.c.../2/181.abstract

Current concern over ‘greenhouse’ warming and possible human influence upon global climate has been countered by claims that recent advances in solar theory demonstrate a greater role than previously thought for solar forcing in recent climate change. This is still disputed for this century, but new evidence from a range of palaeoenvironmental indicators lends strong support to the notion that not only the long-term (10⁵ to 10³ years) climate changes of the Pleistocene but also short-term (10¹ to 10² years) climate changes in the Holocene may derive in large or small part from solar variability. Evidence from recent research into proxy climate records is reviewed and set in the context of recent advances elsewhere in studies of late Quaternary palaeoenvironments and in solar science.

http://www.agu.org/p...2EO000336.shtml

From the frequencies of sunspot and aurora sightings, abundance of carbon-14 in the rings of long-lived trees, and beryllium-10 in the annual ice layers of polar ice cores, we have reconstructed the history of a variable Sun. In the last 1,800 years, the Sun has gone through nine cycles of changes in brightness. While these long-term variations account for less than 1%of the total irradiance, there is clear evidence that they affect the Earth's climate.

http://www.springerl...17j5021/?MUD=MP

A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO₂ concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO₂ concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO₂ concentration remains constant at present, the CO₂ greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO₂ greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

The reason why I post these peer reviewed papers is to show that there is a large amount of paleoclimatological evidence and evidence during this recent warming trend, that the sun is the driver of these climatic changes.

Unfortunately, you have yet to provide a shred of observational evidence that shows that most of the climate change observed is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

[Snow_Miser]

More evidence:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011PA002184.shtml

This study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream. We focus on the last 10,000 years (10 ka) to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and discuss the centennial to millennial time scale variability. We observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. We interpret the temperature and salinity changes in both regions as co-variation of activities of the subtropical and subpolar gyres. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, positive salinity anomalies are reconstructed off Cape Hatteras. We demonstrate, for the 5.2–3.5 ka period, that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north. A northward displacement of the Gulf Stream, blocking the southbound low-salinity flow, concomitant to a reduced Meridional Overturning Circulation is the most likely scenario. Finally, wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the δ¹⁸O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016038.shtml

A series of satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) observations can be combined in a precise solar magnetic cycle length composite TSI database by determining the relationship between two non-overlapping components: ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. [ Willson and Hudson, 1991 ; Willson, 1994 ] An ACRIM composite TSI time series using the Nimbus7/ERB results [ Hoyt et al., 1992 ] to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 demonstrates a secular upward trend of 0.05 percent-per-decade between consecutive solar activity minima. [ Willson, 1997 ] A PMOD TSI composite using ERBS [ Lee et al., 1995 ] comparisons to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 [ Fröhlich and Lean, 1998 ] differs from the ACRIM composite in two significant respects: a negligible trend between solar minima and lower TSI at solar maxima. Our findings indicate the lower PMOD trend and lower PMOD TSI at the maxima of solar cycles 22 and 23 are artifacts of ERBS degradation. Lower PMOD TSI during the maximum of cycle 21 results from modifications of Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 published results that produces better agreement with a TSI/solar proxy model [ Foukal and Lean, 1988 ; Lean et al., 1995 ; Fröhlich and Lean, 1998 ].

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2n447034x15v087/

Spacecraft measurements of the sun's total irradiance since 1980 have revealed a long-term variation that is roughly in phase with the 11-year solar cycle. Its origin is uncertain, but may be related to the overall level of solar magnetic activity as well as to the concurrent activity on the visible disk. A low-pass Gaussian filtered time series of the annual sunspot number has been developed as a suitable proxy for solar magnetic activity that contains a long-term component related to the average level of activity as well as a short-term component related to the current phase of the 11-year cycle. This time series is also assumed to be a proxy for solar total irradiance, and the irradiance is reconstructed for the period since 1617 based on the estimate from climatic evidence that global temperatures during the Maunder Minimum of solar activity, which coincided with one of the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age, were about 1 °C colder than modern temperatures. This irradiance variation is used as the variable radiative forcing function in a one-dimensional ocean–climate model, leading to a reconstruction of global temperatures over the same period, and to a suggestion that solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955. The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies.

[Snow_Miser]

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DouglassClader_GRL.pdf

The climate is sensitive to changes in the sun's output, because cloud changes from a change in GCRs help to amplify the sun's warming. The sun has so many amplifying mechanisms, and there are SO many ways that the sun can impact climate, that it is simply absurd to claim that it is not the dominant influence for climate change.

Scafetta and Willson 2009 used Kirvova et. al 2007's magnetic proxy model to bridge the ACRIM Gap, a period where there were no observations from the ACRIM satellites. The ACRIM Gap persisted for 2 years. Lower quality satellites, like NIMBUS7/ERB, and ERBS/ERBE had to be used to "bridge" this gap. There is a controversy about which to use, since both of them face degredation issues. Scafetta and Willson used Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model to bridge the gap. When this model is substituted into the ACRIM Gap for both the PMOD and ACRIM datasets, both display a secular and statistically significant upward trend between the SC 21 and 22 minimas, with the model's output during the gap matching more with NIMBUS7/ERB than ERBE/ERBS possibly suggesting that the NIMBUS7/ERB satellites are better to use during this gap than ERBE/ERBS. It also shows that Kirvova, Solanki, and Wenzler's model goes against their own conclusions of little solar warming past 1975.

Quoting Paper:

The relative difference between Nimbus7/ERB and

KBS07 during the ACRIM gap (Figure 2a) changed by

0.023 % (+0.31 W/m2) across the gap, significantly less

than the 0.063 % (0.86 W/m2) assessed by Fro¨hlich in the

PMOD composite. Additionally there is a virtually insignificant

ERB-KBS07 TSI difference of 0.006 % (+0.08 W/m2)

for the one year intervals before and after the 29th of

September 1989, the date of Fro¨hlich’s proposed Nimbus7/

ERB ‘glitch’. Clearly Fro¨hlich’s step function sensitivity

shift of 0.034 % (±0.47 W/m

2) that day is not supported by

the KBS07 proxy model.

[19] We can apply the KBS07 model as an independent

test of ERBS/ERBE uncorrected degradation during the

ACRIM gap [Willson, 1997; Willson and Mordvinov,

2003]. The ERBE-KBS07 ratio changes by 0.034 %

(0.47 W/m2) between the pre- and post ACRIM gap

comparisons (Figure 2b). This is approximately equal to

the trend difference between ACRIM and PMOD composites

during solar cycles 21–23, within computational

certainty, and clearly supports the contention of uncorrected

ERBE degradation during the ACRIM gap.

[20] The ERB and ERBE comparisons with KBS07

provide strong, independent evidence contradicting the

claims of Lee et al. [1995], Fro¨hlich [2004, 2006] and

Fro¨hlich and Lean

[1998] that (1) ERBS/ERBE is the most

reliable comparison database during the ACRIM gap; (2) that

Nimbus7/ERB experienced a large increase of sensitivity

during the ACRIM-Gap and (3) that Lean’s proxy reconstruction

can faithfully reconstruct the TSI.

The image above shows that with Krivova's magnetic proxy model used to bridge the gap, the PMOD dataset suddenly looks like the ACRIM dataset with a secular trend between SC 21 and 22 minimas.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v14nq055046v20u8/

Historical geomagnetic and climate records were analyzed to study long-term trends and relationships with solar activity. Wavelet technique and recurrence plot analysis are applied to the data to find their coherence and similarities at different times and time-scales. It is shown that the solar cycle signal is more pronounced in climatic data during the last 60 years.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d78522x2qw55544t/

The effect of changes in the total solar irradiance and intensity of galactic cosmic rays on the increase in the global temperature of the Earth over the last 120 years was investigated using a one-dimensional energy-balance climate model. It is shown that the joint effect of solar and cosmic factors during this periodcan lead to an increase in the average temperature of the northern hemisphere by 0.25–0.35°C. It is concluded that the solar luminosity and the cosmic-ray flux can make a significant contribution to the global warming of the last century.

Ogurtsov et. al 2010

. A century scale connection between the ¹³C/¹²C record and solar activity is most evident. These results based on stable isotope records support previous evidences of a centennial solar-climatic link obtained for northern Finland using tree ring data.

[WeatherRusty]

Sitting on the sidelines during this rather high level discussion provides me the opportunity to assess the relative weight of your arguments in a dispassionate manner.

You have stated that constant RH as the climate warms is an assumed parameter entered into GCMs. The reality is that relatively constant RH is an emergent characteristic of all models. It is an atmospheric feature output by the models rather than a biased presumptive factor. The real world demonstrates this well, everywhere open water is available for evaporation, the warmer the conditions the more water vapor in the air. Why this relationship should change just because the world becomes slightly warmer is a confounding question. The physics of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation shouldn't be expected to fail just at the temperature induced by AGW.

From your post #380:

The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1). Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere.

You said:

Precipitation can act to cancel out the warming impact from increased lower tropospheric water vapor.

Yes, with regard to latent heat flux. The warming of the upper troposphere as water condenses amounts to net zero cycle, with the same latent heat energy lost from the upper air by radiation to space as is lost from the surface through evaporation.

The water vapor feedback is to the radiative impact on the energy balance, rather than the latent heat flux.

__________________

You're posts citing studies supporting a solar connection with climate change are not particularly controversial. They demonstrate a correlation well enough, which is not surprising since there is no doubt that solar variability plays a role in climate variability. The question is when and by how much. Standard science favors attributing about 10% of 20th century warming to solar variability with all of that occurring in the first half century. Uncertainty involving feedback could bring that estimate to 20% or more, but based on radiative forcing, the effect of changing greenhouse effect has become the dominant factor.

[Snow_Miser]

You have stated that constant RH as the climate warms is an assumed parameter entered into GCMs. The reality is that relatively constant RH is an emergent characteristic of all models. It is an atmospheric feature output by the models rather than a biased presumptive factor. The real world demonstrates this well, everywhere open water is available for evaporation, the warmer the conditions the more water vapor in the air. Why this relationship should change just because the world becomes slightly warmer is a confounding question. The physics of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation shouldn't be expected to fail just at the temperature induced by AGW.

The models had constant RH no matter how you look at it, and there has been a decrease in RH that has been observed in the middle to upper troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where the climate is most sensitive to water concentration changes, since there is little water to begin with at these altitudes. This may be associated with the positive lapse rate feedback.

There is no way around that.

Yes, with regard to latent heat flux. The warming of the upper troposphere as water condenses amounts to net zero cycle, with the same latent heat energy lost from the upper air by radiation to space as is lost from the surface through evaporation.

Precipitation helps to take the water out of the atmosphere. With more evaporation, you get more precipitation, and the positive boundary layer humidification would be at least be reduced.

Your posts citing studies supporting a solar connection with climate change are not particularly controversial. They demonstrate a correlation well enough, which is not surprising since there is no doubt that solar variability plays a role in climate variability. The question is when and by how much. Standard science favors attributing about 10% of 20th century warming to solar variability with all of that occurring in the first half century. Uncertainty involving feedback could bring that estimate to 20% or more, but based on radiative forcing, the effect of changing greenhouse effect has become the dominant factor.

The studies I posted call into question about whether the recent warming was mostly due to Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions. With an insensitive climate system, as has been observed, the level CO2 contributes is low.

[WeatherRusty]

The models had constant RH no matter how you look at it, and there has been a decrease in RH that has been observed in the middle to upper troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where the climate is most sensitive to water concentration changes, since there is little water to begin with at these altitudes. This may be associated with the positive lapse rate feedback.

There is no way around that.

Precipitation helps to take the water out of the atmosphere. With more evaporation, you get more precipitation, and the positive boundary layer humidification would be at least be reduced.

The studies I posted call into question about whether the recent warming was mostly due to Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions. With an insensitive climate system, as has been observed, the level CO2 contributes is low.

I place my bet on fundamental physics before I will accept observations which seemingly defy those physics. Observations which run counter to understood physics require some profound explanation.

If RH is measured to be declining with warming I would tend first to investigate the possibility that something is wrong with the observations.

In terms of water vapor, what goes up must come down. The average atmospheric life time of a water molecule is about 11 days. So, on average as much water precipitates out as what evaporates into the atmosphere in 11 days. RH should remain near constant as warmth and specific humidity increase. Why would the physics of vapor pressure change with just a few degrees of warming?

As for the studies, the way I read them, they document the fingerprint of past climate change due to solar variation. That's great science, but they do not call into question the role of CO2 at all. Just because previous Holocene climate change was the result of natural variability, including solar variability, says nothing about what is happening now. You are jumping to conclusions which where not the intent of the studies.

[Snow_Miser]

I place my bet on fundamental physics before I will accept observations which seemingly defy those physics. Observations which run counter to understood physics require some profound explanation.

If RH is measured to be declining with warming I would tend first to investigate the possibility that something is wrong with the observations.

In terms of water vapor, what goes up must come down. The average atmospheric life time of a water molecule is about 11 days. So, on average as much water precipitates out as what evaporates into the atmosphere in 11 days. RH should remain near constant as warmth and specific humidity increase. Why would the physics of vapor pressure change with just a few degrees of warming?

I would not be as ready to throw out these observations as you are, WeatherRusty, because there is a theory that involves Relative Humidity to decrease to cancel out some of the warming impact from CO2.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

Over one-quarter billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948–2010 were studied. The water vapor pressure was determined and seasonal averages were computed. Data were first examined for inhomogeneities using a statistical test to determine whether the data were fit better to a straight line or a straight line plus an abrupt step, which may arise from changes in instruments and/or procedure. Trends were then found for data not having discontinuities. Statistically significant warming trends affecting the Midwestern United States, Canadian prairies, and the western Arctic are evident in winter and to a lesser extent in spring while statistically significant increases in water vapor pressure occur primarily in summer for some stations in the eastern half of the United States. The temperature (water vapor pressure) trends averaged over all stations were 0.30 (0.07), 0.24 (0.06), 0.13 (0.11), 0.11 (0.07) °C decade⁻¹ (hPa decade⁻¹) in the winter, spring, summer, and autumn seasons, respectively. The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20°C decade⁻¹ and 0.07 hPa decade⁻¹, which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g kg⁻¹ decade⁻¹ and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5% decade⁻¹.

WUWT has a nice definition for Relative Humidity:

Relative humidity (RH) is the ratio of the actual amount of water vapor in the air to the amount it could hold when saturated expressed as a percentage OR the ratio of the actual vapor pressure to the saturation vapor pressure expressed as a percentage.

So a decline in RH may result in a slightly drier atmosphere, and a negative feedback.

This may confirm Dr. Miskolczi's theory of a saturated Greenhouse Effect. To what extent this would reduce or even cancel the CO2 induced warming, is still up for question.

I don't think the feedback is strong enough to cancel it out, and may only cancel out the increase in specific humidity, resulting in only a slight negative water vapor feedback.

As for the studies, the way I read them, they document the fingerprint of past climate change due to solar variation. That's great science, but they do not call into question the role of CO2 at all. Just because previous Holocene climate change was the result of natural variability, including solar variability, says nothing about what is happening now. You are jumping to conclusions which where not the intent of the studies.

Many of them do call into question CO2's role in recent climate change. I posted some that show a solar imprint on past paleoclimatological changes to show that the sun, not CO2 has been the driver of past climate variations during the Holocene, and to show that the Climate's Sensitivity to solar changes is high.

[cmc0605]

WeatherRusty,

Actually the physics of relative humidity constraints is more complicated than you make it out to be, especially in the upper troposphere. Keep in mind that Clausius-Clapeyron only provides an upper bound on water vapor (i.e., the saturation vapor pressure) but it really says nothing about the degree to which the atmosphere can remain unsaturated. That inevitably involves fluid dynamics and consideration of the large-scale circulation. There are more developed theories that lead to convincing justification that RH won't change a whole lot on a global scale (Paul O'Gorman and Tapio Schneider have some good papers on this, Pierrehumbert et al. 2007 on Relative Humidity is a must-read, and there are others). Any developed theory must consider water vapor transport and its interaction with convection (see also, Sherwood, S.C., Roca, R., Weckwerth, T.M. and Andronova, N.G. 2010. Tropospheric water vapor, convection, and climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG2001). There's no good reason RH can't increase or decrease a bit, especially over a broader range of parameter space than is relevant for 21st century global warming, but these changes are typically quite small relative to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Thus, even if RH is decreasing, the water vapor feedback is strongly positive. Note that the above paper by Snowlover is only for one region (North America) and is talking about a half a percent relative humidity decline per decade....that is fairly small (I've also only looked at the abstract, so I don't know what heights they are looking at, but I have little faith anyone can reliably capture trends over this time period in the upper troposphere with radiosondes. Even lower down radiosondes aren't very good for water vapor trends). Your skepticism toward the observations is well-justified, which is why the better studies of upper level water vapor trends are satellite based. Other radiosonde-based studies show results not consistent with the Paltridge piece (e.g., McCarthy, Mark P., P. W. Thorne, H. A. Titchner, 2009: An Analysis of Tropospheric Humidity Trends from Radiosondes. J. Climate, 22, 5820–5838). Other observational analyses of the inter-annual variation in water vapor (e.g., Dessler et al. 2008; Dessler and Wong 2009) and satellites (Gettelman and Fu 2008), in additon to the longer time-frame Soden et al (2005) paper supports the notion that the models are behaving well in approximately conserving relative humidity on a global scale.

In short, the conclusions by Snowlover are untenable and have no basis in physics or observed reality. He is now appealing to out of the park wingnut papers like Miskolczi, and showing his failure to grasp elementary logic (the sun caused climate change in the past! Therefore, these studies show it isn't CO2 now! This all means he is being spoon-fed from WUWT and similar sources).

[GaWx]

Impressive discussions! Well, based on everything I've read at this forum and other places as well as using my own judgement, I certainly can't eliminate the possibility that the sun's longterm energy output has played a significant role %wise in the ups and downs of avg. global temperatures. IF it truly has been significant, then I sincerely feel the globe could cool off pretty significantly over the next 20 years or so IF a grand solar minimum actually does continue to get established regardless of the level of warming caused by AGW. A lot of my feelings on this potential were renewed recently when I examined the ~0.5 C cooling of 1880-1910, whose years were dominated by a longterm solar minimum that had started ~1875-6. To this point, there has been no explanation regarding the likely major influence on the 1880-1910 cooling outside of solar influences. IF a grand min. does dominate, we'll certainly know a lot more by 2030 based on what global temp.'s actually do. If they only barely cool, don't cool, or warm up, it could probably then be concluded that the sun's influence is relatively small. However, if the globe were to cool down between now and ~2030 in a similar fashion to the ~0.5 C cooldown of 1880-1910, especially if volcanic activity weren't extremely high, then more eyes are likely going to be aimed toward the sun as far as cyclical global temp. influences are concerned.

If the globe doesn't cool nontrivially between now and, say, ~2017-18, then my suspicion about the sun possibly being a major influence would likely diminish rather significantly being that the current quietness really got going back around 2008-9. Whereas the idea of a lag seems quite plausible, especially when considering the length of time it takes the oceans to warm and cool (also there appears to have been about a five year lag during the 1875-1880 period from the start of that longterm solar minimum and the peak of global temp.'s), I would think that significant cooling would likely start by no later than the 8-10 year point after the start of the longterm solar min. if there truly is a big solar impact. Until, then, may the great discussions continue!

Here's a repost of that chart showing the ~0.5 C 1880-1910 cooldown:

As could be seen in the chart above, there was pretty steady cooling from 1880 to 1910...nearly 1 F (~0.5C). During the period 1875-1915, the sun was fairly quiet sunspotwise vs. the post-Dalton 1835-1875 years as well as the years immediately following this period. Could the period of global cooling from 1880 through 1910 have largely been an infuence of the then quieter sun?

Here is a repost of a graph of monthly sunspot activity since 1750 (note the quieter 1880-1910 period vs. both earlier and later):