Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming

[Still Waters]

Climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.

American researchers have discovered that the amount of water high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.

Although the findings do not challenge the theory of man-made global warming, they help explain why temperatures can rise and fall so dramatically from decade to decade.

The study, published in the journal Science, says a 10 per cent drop in humidity 10 miles above the Earth's surface explains why global temperatures have been stable since the start of the century, despite the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And a rise in water vapour in the 1980s and 90s may also explain why temperatures shot up so quickly in the previous two decades, they say.

Read more...

[Admiral Danger]

i'd like to see what mattshark has to say about this

[Mattshark]

i'd like to see what mattshark has to say about this

This is pretty well known already. It is not new stuff.

It is just not relevant to present change as there has been no major shift in atmospheric water vapour in the past 150 years.

[Caesar]

I have brought up this on another discussion with mattshark about this. it appers that the EPA tried to hid this information some time ago source

[Mattshark]

I have brought up this on another discussion with mattshark about this. it appers that the EPA tried to hid this information some time ago source

I think that is kind of meaningless in all sense's though as it is known and listed on other sources such as NASA. I don't think anyone has denied water vapour as a greenhouse gas, just that it is not driving current change according to available evidence.

[Caesar]

I think that is kind of meaningless in all sense's though as it is known and listed on other sources such as NASA. I don't think anyone has denied water vapour as a greenhouse gas, just that it is not driving current change according to available evidence.

Then why did they try and stop an unbiased source about water vapors and how it effects our climate.

[Mattshark]

Then why did they try and stop an unbiased source about water vapors and how it effects our climate.

The dismissal of Carlin's work may have been rude and foolish (although, Carlin was not the department that looks at climate at all so I find the comments "anonymous" strange since he is neither a scientist, nor working in science and he certainly is not unbaised), but that is about it, but Carlin was never reprimanded or muzzled and according to the New York Times, Carlin himself says his work was poor scholarship and rushed, ever considered that it just wasn't very good.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Mattshark

[Caesar]

The dismissal of Carlin's work may have been rude and foolish (although, Carlin was not the department that looks at climate at all so I find the comments "anonymous" strange since he is neither a scientist, nor working in science and he certainly is not unbaised), but that is about it, but Carlin was never reprimanded or muzzled and according to the New York Times, Carlin himself says his work was poor scholarship and rushed, ever considered that it just wasn't very good.

You don't have to be a scientists to see how the EPA hid this information from the public.

[Mattshark]

You don't have to be a scientists to see how the EPA hid this information from the public.

Well considering the author himself says it is not good enough, there is not much of a case to argue that it was hidden.

[IamsSon]

Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers — most notably NOAA and NASA — conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered, by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. An in-depth report, co-authored by myself and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), compiles some of the initial alarming findings with case studies included from scientists around the world.

We don’t dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.

However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.

There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.

A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed.

The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors, such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting.

There are also uncertainties in ocean temperatures. This is no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface.

These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggests that global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends, or rankings, or to validate model forecasts. Consequently, such surface data should be ignored for political decision-making.

Prior to the release of this paper, KUSI’s John Coleman — founder of The Weather Channel — aired a one hour prime-time special: Global Warming: The Other Side. The special was so successfully received that KUSI will be doing another special in February.

NOAA has already responded to the preliminary paper supporting John Coleman’s special through the Yale Climate Forum:

The accuracy of the surface temperature record can be independently validated against satellite records. Over the period from 1979 to present where satellite lower-tropospheric temperature data is available, satellite and surface temperatures track quite well.

Actually Klotzbach et al. (2009) found that when the satellites were first launched, their temperature readings were in relatively good agreement with the surface station data. There has been increasing divergence over time (exceeding 0.4C now), but the divergence does not arise from satellite errors. Further, they found that the divergence between surface and lower-tropospheric measurements, which has probably continued, is consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

Full article

[Mattshark]

Full article

One: Pajamasmedia is a political media mouthpiece for oil sponsored presure group.

Two: Much to Mr Watts Annoyance, the data from his surface stations fit the current trend.

Three: SPPI are worthless as a source for science.

Four: I plotted UAH's sat data and found it STILL shows a rise up till 2007.

[Eldorado]

UM is an appropriate forum for hot air......

[IamsSon]

One: Pajamasmedia is a political media mouthpiece for oil sponsored presure group.

Two: Much to Mr Watts Annoyance, the data from his surface stations fit the current trend.

Three: SPPI are worthless as a source for science.

Four: I plotted UAH's sat data and found it STILL shows a rise up till 2007.

I'm pretty sure you've admitted you're not a climate scientist, so by the standards that you measure others, you are not a reliable source.

Edited January 30, 2010 by IamsSon

[Mattshark]

I'm pretty sure you've admitted you're not a climate scientist, so by the standards that you measure others, you are not a reliable source.

Yes but I post papers to back up what I say rather than articles from a political pressure group, it is more than a small difference in evidence standard.

[IamsSon]

Yes but I post papers to back up what I say rather than articles from a political pressure group, it is more than a small difference in evidence standard.

But you're not a climate scientist, therefore, you can't really know what you're talking about. I mean that's your criteria for dismissing the AGW skeptics.

[Mattshark]

But you're not a climate scientist, therefore, you can't really know what you're talking about. I mean that's your criteria for dismissing the AGW skeptics.

Actually, no it isn't.

[J.B.]

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.

Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.

[Caesar]

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.

Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.

Both sides are political. its hard to believe the IPCC with all its claims only to be corrected down the road. its strange how most of the errors seem to help them.

[Mattshark]

Both sides are political. its hard to believe the IPCC with all its claims only to be corrected down the road. its strange how most of the errors seem to help them.

To be fair, that I feel is more a perception scenario as they are, unlike many sources used on here, genuinely in the media spotlight.

[Guest]

The skeptics are as politically motivated as they're claiming the IPCC to be.

Don't know that they're right about the IPCC, but they certainly are political. There really hasn't been a single AGW sceptic who was both loud enough to be a source in our UM arguments on the subject who wasn't in politics to some degree.

Well said.

The IPCC is a political pressure organisation - it is doing fairly much what it was set up to do. It is also an administrative organisation and not as such a body of scientific research. It has a valuable role because this is one area of science which can only be actioned through the political domain.

The same can be said of the vast majority of politically/business motivated sceptical mouthpieces which have proliferated on the internet. The major difference though is that almost none of them have a foundation in scientific papers to support their case (unlike the IPCC). They have a specific business motivated agenda to create disinformation in order to diminish pressure for action changes to policy which will effect their bottom line. They are almost all pure unsupported PR dressed up as science.

The one body which I feel cannot be accused of been politically motivated are the scientists doing the raw research, and this is why Mattshark always insists on refering to the unmediated scientific papers. In the science forum, at least, I feel this should be the yardstick by which we judge the issue.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 1, 2010 by Guest

[cerberusxp]

AAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh lets see here, didn't I say that last year in here? OH YEA I did! Matty it is not CO2. The major driver for climate change is the SUN period. Man is Not causing climate change. Man has had little influence on climate. Sure in the steam engine era there was some change that was caused by man. and there have been localized areas of changes, but over all climate change world wide NO.

[Mattshark]

AAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh lets see here, didn't I say that last year in here? OH YEA I did! Matty it is not CO2. The major driver for climate change is the SUN period. Man is Not causing climate change. Man has had little influence on climate. Sure in the steam engine era there was some change that was caused by man. and there have been localized areas of changes, but over all climate change world wide NO.

Well yeah, if you ignore declining solar activity with increasing temperature!

But hey I have posted papers showing this, clearly though I should just accept your say so!

Oh and you wanna know how much effect we can have on climate? Look up nuclear winter.

Also, feel free to explain a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution (and yes it is a proven greenhouse gas).

Edited February 2, 2010 by Mattshark

[Professor Buzzkill]

Well yeah, if you ignore declining solar activity with increasing temperature!

But hey I have posted papers showing this, clearly though I should just accept your say so!

Oh and you wanna know how much effect we can have on climate? Look up nuclear winter.

Also, feel free to explain a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution (and yes it is a proven greenhouse gas).

All gases are "greenhouse gases", some better then others. But CO2 isn't a major driving force in climate change. As both of us know CO2 has been 20 times higher then they are today with no run away "venus-like" conditions. And although you have said the number of sunspots are down, I have a feeling that the radiation from space has actually increased. Here is a link. My link

Edited February 2, 2010 by Professor GlenBoy

[MichaelW]

I think he might have a point. Radiation doesn't always have to originate from our sun. There are plenty of bigger and much more active suns close to the solar system we are in. Radiation from a sun ten times bigger than our own millions of miles away can still have an effect on our climate.

On another note, why is is that people who believe that GW say that their opinion is fact based? I've never known an opinion to have facts. In my view, there is no fact based opinion but opinion based fact.

[Mattshark]

All gases are "greenhouse gases", some better then others. But CO2 isn't a major driving force in climate change. As both of us know CO2 has been 20 times higher then they are today with no run away "venus-like" conditions. And although you have said the number of sunspots are down, I have a feeling that the radiation from space has actually increased. Here is a link. My link

That is because Venus has other factors. You think this planet will be the same with an average temperature of 22°c? It wouldn't, most life on the planet would die and we would lose both ice caps and see a large rise in sea level. Your argument is only acknowledging one fact and ignoring all the others, nor does it off an actually explanation for the continued warming and that includes cosmic rays.