Search Results for “"water vapor"”

2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcanic eruption injected 165 million tons of water vapor & acidic gases into stratosphere & affected the ozone layer

October 21, 2023

The 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption injected 165 million tons of water along with acidic gases into the stratosphere. This event affected the ozone layer, per this new study. https://t.co/enNtKnJ54F Although the see-no-evil researchers avoid the issue for obvious reasons, the… pic.twitter.com/cJSWsSxB4V — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) October 20, 2023 https://phys.org/news/2023-10-hunga-tonga-hunga-haapai-eruption-depleted-ozone.html New study shows Hunga-Tonga Hunga-Ha’apai eruption depleted ozone layer A large team of atmospheric specialists has found that when the Hunga-Tonga Hunga-Ha’apai volcano erupted last year, it took part of the ozone layer with it. Their findings are published in the journal Science. Prior research has shown that the Hunga-Tonga Hunga-Ha’apai eruption was one of the more powerful explosions ever recorded. It was also unique in that instead of spewing just volcanic material, dirt and rocks, it also sent a very large amount of ocean water into the atmosphere. In this new effort, the research team have found that all that saltwater reacting with other chemicals in the atmosphere, resulted in breaking down O3 in the ozone layer. To learn more about the impact of the eruption, the researchers sent balloons with sensors into the atmosphere from nearby Réunion Island just five days after the volcano erupted. In studying the data from the sensors, the researchers found that ozone levels in the plume were approximately 30% below normal levels. As the balloons continued to monitor the plume as it floated across the Indian and then Pacific Ocean, they found depletion totals of approximately 5%. The depletion, they found was due to ocean water reacting with molecules in the atmosphere that contained chlorine, leading to a breakdown of ozone—in amounts that had never been seen before in such a short time. The research team from Université de La Réunion, working with colleagues from the NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, the University of Colorado, St. Edward’s University, the University of Houston, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and California Institute of Technology, notes that a 5% reduction in the ozone layer is not alarming both because it was localized and because in real-world terms, it was not that much. They note that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica sees a 60% depletion toward the end of every year.

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: ‘Solving the mystery of global temperature’ – ‘Volcanic eruption…sent immense amounts of water vapor into the air’

October 17, 2023

https://www.cfact.org/2023/10/17/solving-the-mystery-of-global-temperature/ By Joe Bastardi There is nothing mysterious about it unless you are totally blind to the natural forcing that supplies the reason. It should at least raise questions. Water Vapor (WV) is by far a more important “heat-trapping ” gas than CO2. While we take great delight in measuring CO2 increase, no one on the other side of the issue says boo about water vapor. They adapt the Casablanca Louis Renault attitude ( they probably don’t know who that is). “ I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” I stated long ago this warming was their San Jacinto, that it was the trap set to destroy the phony climate war missive. And now they are trying to scramble by saying it is “mysterious”. So, I will review it again. Co2 has been on a steady rise since 1950. The deceptive and despicable practice of making PARTS PER MILLION equal axis to years makes one think this is going through the roof. Imagine if the years were on a scale of millions, not decades. You would not even see it. That realization alone should make one stop to think about the agenda. They simply ignore Le Chetilier’s principle in this matter. If CO2 was doing this, why was there no appreciable change in Sea Surface Temperature (SST) from 1950 to 1990? ( SST being the prime source of water vapor and hence the input). As for “heat-trapping gas, CO2 is too tiny to do that. Both have radiative properties, but CO2’s bands are saturated. So the argument that 1.8 ppm/yr of CO2 is “trapping” heat is non-provable. Water vapor would be a more likely candidate. But there is no real quantification. All we get is the temperature and CO2. That should make anyone suspicious. But no change in SST. But when increased input from underwater sources started, the increase in SST was almost a perfect match since oceans tend to lag a bit, and the increases PRECEDED THE RISE. There is a cumulative build-up of heat in the oceans and then the air-forced responses. The increase in WV warmed the planet disproportionately, leading to a La Nina base state in the actual reaction as seen in the Multivariate ENSO index (MEI), a far more accurate measurement of the ENSO and its reaction in the atmosphere. Another largely ignored metric. Since the Super Nino of 97-98, the La Nina has dominated. This is due to increased easterlies in the tropical Pacific. The only place water will cool is in the eastern Pacific off South America due to upwelling from the change in the Global Wind Oscillation. Do you see what I am doing here? UNLESS YOU HAVE A BOTTOM LINE WHERE YOU FORECAST GLOBALLY AND DO IT WITH THE RISK OF GETTING PAID, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN LOOK AT THIS? In fact, if it countered your missive, it was threatening your belief and economic system, and you would try to hide it. I have written on this a bunch of times. It’s discouraging that many meteorologists are all agog at the El Nino without understanding the environment around it may not be having the same effect as others. How can we tell? By this time in 1997 and 2015, the MEI was already at almost record-high levels. This year, it is barely to an El Nino. The weaker MEIs are the colder winters. So that is a hint as to what kind of winter we are likely to have, which we actually have been showing since last winter ended on Weatherbell.com. However, the Oceanic Nino index does indicate Water Vapor input is stronger. Again, the hypothesis is that the build-up of warmth in the oceans supplies a steady state increase in WV, but when reactionary Oceanic Nino El Ninos go off, the input OF WV IS HIGHER. Hence, the step-up function of warming. Now, what happens when you have a warmed ocean all over and then a strong warming in the ENSO areas takes place? Look at that difference from last year! There has to be a marked increase in WV, and another step-up function starts. So why is it not showing up in the MEI? Well, look at the difference in the warmth in the western and northern Pacific vs the last time the Oceanic Nino Index was this strong. There is much more cool in the western Pacific, and so the reactions are different. By being warm all over, the reaction is different in the Atmosphere. Again crucial to winter forecasting. Also, the nature of these El Ninos is they don’t last more than a year. Consequently, a flip to the La Nina comes right back next year, and the result is likely to be a hurricane season from hell. But all this has nothing to do with CO2. Finally, the great volcanic eruption last year, which was underwater-based, actually should wake people up to what is going on that they can not see. We saw this one, and unlike the great above-water eruptions, this sent immense amounts of water vapor into the air. So we had the perfect storm of cumulative buildup, El Nino response, and then the reaction of excess water vapor. Mystery solved unless you refuse to look.

What NASA & Science Admit but the Media are Failing to Report About Summer 2023 – Volcano injected ‘enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere’

August 10, 2023

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere, enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

Massive Water and Cloud Boost From Tonga Eruption Could Explain Recent Weather Patterns

Physicists’ study: CO2 & water vapor are ‘saturated’ – Adding more CO2 or water molecules will bring modest warming that will benefit plant

November 27, 2020

https://townhall.com/columnists/davidwojick/2020/11/27/slight-beneficial-warming-from-more-carbon-dioxide-n2580718 Slight, Beneficial Warming From More Carbon Dioxide! David Wojick | Nov 27, 2020 12:01 AM Precision research by physicists William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden has determined that the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are “saturated.” In radiation physics that means adding more CO2 or water molecules will bring modest warming that will benefit plant growth, and thus all life on Earth. More CO2 and H2O will not cause dangerous warming. null From this point forward, emissions from burning fossil fuels will bring little additional global warming, and what does occur will improve forests, grasslands, and agriculture. There is no climate emergency. This finding is astounding, paradigm-shattering, contrary to what alarmist scientists have told us for decades. Scientifically, it resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century: How should saturation be measured, and what is its extent regarding the primary greenhouse gases? Just as “the greenhouse effect” is nothing akin to how greenhouses work, in radiation physics “saturation” is nothing like the simple, everyday concept of saturation. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. Greenhouse gases are saturated when adding more water, methane, or carbon dioxide molecules has few or no further effects on planetary warming and climate. Dr. Happer is probably best known as a leading skeptic of “dangerous human-caused climate change.” He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and served on the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world-class radiation physicist at Princeton, where Dr. van Wijngaarden teaches and conducts research in pure and applied physics. Happer’s numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers. null In their study, Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) analyzed saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint, “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases,” goes far beyond any work done previously on this complex problem. To begin with, standard studies examine the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy. H&W goes far beyond this, to analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, that make up these bands. Their detailed line-by-line approach is an emerging field that often yields dramatically new results – and here contradicts prevailing climate theory. Moreover, H&W does not look only at absorption. As Dr. Happer explained to me: First, the thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Second, how the atmosphere’s temperature varies with altitude is just as important as its concentration of greenhouse gases. The two physicists, therefore, looked hard, not just at absorption, but also at emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is far more complex than I, most non-physicist scientists, and certainly, most citizens and politicians can understand. However, the conclusions are simple and dramatically clear. Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this: For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations. (Forcing power means effects on atmospheric temperature.) null Their graphs are especially compelling: Figure 9 and Tables 2 and 4 show that, at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, mean the per-molecule forcing is weakened by a factor of 10,000. The other greenhouse gases analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane. These are also nearly saturated, but not as completely as water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also even less significant components of the atmosphere than CO2 (0.0415% or 415 ppm), which in turn is tiny compared to H2O (3% or less). At just 0.00019% methane truly has a minuscule influence on climate. The climate science community clearly needs to consider this work very carefully. This may not be easy since three major physics journals have refused to publish it. Their reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, instead of thoughtful, science-based or helpful. Climate alarmism seems to control these journals, and they tend to censor contrary findings. That’s why H&W released the preprint version. Undaunted, H&W is now extending its analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science bases its “dangerous manmade” global warming, not on the CO2 increase alone, but also on incorporating positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks: emphasizing heat-trapping properties of clouds, while largely ignoring the degree to which clouds also block or reflect incoming solar radiation. Because carbon dioxide and water vapor are both saturated, it is highly unlikely that any positive cloud feedbacks can do much damage. However further careful analysis is needed to know this for sure. Stay tuned.

Study suggests no more CO2 warming – ‘CO2 & water vapor are almost completely saturated… adding more molecules will not cause more warming’

October 26, 2020

https://www.cfact.org/2020/10/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/ By David Wojick Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming. In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect. This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases? In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests. Happer is probably best known to our readers as a leading skeptical scientist. He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and recently served on the staff of the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world class radiation physicist at Princeton. His numerous peer reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers. In this study Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) have worked through the saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint is titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases“. They have gone far beyond the work done to date on this complex problem. To begin with, while the standard studies treat the absorption of radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy, H&W analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, which make up these bands. This line by line approach has been an emerging field of analysis, often giving dramatically new results. Nor do they just look at absorption. Here is how Professor Happer put it to me: “You would do our community a big favor by getting across two important points that few understand. Firstly: Thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Secondly: How the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude is as important as the concentration of greenhouse gases.” So they looked hard, not just at absorption but also including emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is exceedingly complex but the conclusions are dramatically clear. Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this: “For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations…” Their graphical conclusions are especially telling: “Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude…” The other three greenhouse gases they analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also saturated but not extremely so like water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also relatively minor in abundance compared to CO2, which in turn is small compared to H2O. Clearly this is work that the climate science community needs to carefully consider. This may not be easy given that three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful. Alarmism is in control of the journals, censoring contrary findings, hence the preprint version. Undaunted, H&W are now extending their analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science gets dangerous global warming, not from the CO2 increase alone, but also using positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks. Given that carbon dioxide and water vapor are both extremely saturated, it is highly unlikely that cloud feedbacks alone can do much damage, but it requires careful analysis to know this for sure. Stay tuned. In the meantime the present work needs to be front and center as we strive for rational climate science. Professors William Happer and William van Wijngaarden are to be congratulated for an elegant and timely breakthrough.

6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO – Even Water Vapor + Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

May 17, 2018

http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/17/6-new-papers-climate-models-are-literally-worth-zero-even-water-vapor-feedback-does-not-exist/ By Kenneth Richard on 17. May 2018 The abysmal track record of computer models in simulating climate trends has increasingly been highlighted in the scientific literature. Recently published papers indicate that in some cases climate models actually get it right zero percent of the time (Luo et al., 2018; Hanna et al., 2018), or that hydrological models are off by a factor of 8 and 4 of 5 simulate trends opposite to real-world observations (Scanlon et al., 2018). Even the model-based assumption that positive water vapor feedback accompanies and amplifies CO2-forced temperature change is not supported by observations, with CO2 climate sensitivity overestimated by 200% (Ollila, 2018). Simply put, climate modeling is increasingly being recognized in the scientific literature as lacking scientific merit. ZERO Of The 126 Models Reproduce Recent Pacific Ocean Cooling Luo et al., 2018 “Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation…. Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific [1981-2010] cooling and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade).” ZERO Of 36 Models Capture Greenland’s Recent Blocking/Climatological Changes Hanna et al., 2018 Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models “Recent studies note a signiﬁcant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We ﬁnd that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modelled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deﬁciency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models.” IPCC’s CO2 Climate Forcing Values 200% ‘Too Sensitive’, Water Vapor Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’ Ollila, 2018 “The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).” “The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.” “The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years.” “The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.” Observations Have ‘Factor Of Two’ Less Warming Than Modeled Projections Christy et al., 2018 “All datasets produce high correlations of anomalies versus independent observations from radiosondes (balloons), but differ somewhat in the metric of most interest, the linear trend beginning in 1979. The trend is an indicator of the response of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings, and so is critical to understanding the climate. The satellite results indicate a range of near-global (+0.07 to +0.13°C decade−1) […] trends (1979–2016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 1990–2001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets.” “Comparisons with radiosonde datasets independently adjusted for inhomogeneities and Reanalyses suggest the actual tropical (20°S-20°N) trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. This tropical result is over a factor of two less than the trend projected from the average of the IPCC climate model simulations for this same period (+0.27°C decade−1). … Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.” Climate Models Are Conceptual And We Don’t Understand The Mechanisms Collins et al., 2018 “Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.” Hydrological Modeling Off By A Factor Of 8, With 4 Of 5 M0dels Yielding Opposite Trends Vs. Observations Scanlon et al., 2018 “The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends(1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of ∼8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends).” “Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei. … Subtracting the modeled human intervention contribution from the total land water storage contribution from GRACE results in an estimated climate-driven contribution of −0.44 to −0.38 mm/y. Therefore, the magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign. While many previous studies emphasize the large contribution of human intervention to GMSL [global mean sea level], it has been more than counteracted by climate-driven storage increase on land over the past decade.” “GRACE-positive TWSA trends (71 km3/y) contribute negatively (−0.2 mm/y) to GMSL, slowing the rate of rise of GMSL, whereas models contribute positively to GMSL, increasing the rate of rise of GMSL“

Imagine That, Temperature Match Water Vapor NOT CO2

February 11, 2018

Analysis: Temperature Matches Water Vapor – NOT CO2 https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/imagine-that-temperature-match-water-vapor-not-co2/ CO2 evenly blankets the globe in a 400 ppm blanket. In scientific language, the δCO2 between hemisphere, altitude up to 70km and over short time periods is 0. Differential equations don’t work with CO2 over the short run because it doesn’t change on a material basis. It is a blanket, it is a CONSTANT. You can’t have a δTemperature if you don’t have a δCO2 in a causal relationship. NASA publishes a time series graphic that simply destroys the myth that CO2 alters temperature. The time series video clearly shows global temperatures having large variations, and those variations are highly correlated with water vapor. There is 0.00% correlation between CO2 and temperatures because once again δCO2 = 0. Anyone seeking the truth as to what is causing climate change and global temperatures is graphically detailed in NASA’s video. You will note that NASA chose to compare temperatures to water vapor, not CO2. Often you can learn more from what people don’t say than what they do. Link to Page Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment — gReader Pro

Study: Solar activity, oceans cycles, & water vapor explain 98% of climate change since 1900 — NOT CO2

December 20, 2016

Solar activity, oceans cycles, & water vapor explain 98% of climate change since 1900, NOT CO2! Climate Change Drivers by Dan Pangburn, MSME Summary Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles, sunspot number anomaly time-integral and increased atmospheric water vapor. Introduction The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated. The word ‘trend’ is used here for temperatures in two different contexts. To differentiate, α-trend is an approximation of the net of ocean surface temperature oscillations after averaging-out the year-to-year fluctuations in reported average global temperatures. The term β-trend applies to the slower average energy change of the planet which is associated with change to the average temperature of the bulk volume of the material (mostly ocean water) involved. Some ocean cycles have been named according to the particular area of the oceans where they occur. Names such as PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), ENSO (el Nino Southern Oscillation), and AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) might be familiar. They report the temperature of the water near the surface. The average temperature of the bulk water that is participating in these oscillations cannot significantly change so quickly because of high thermal capacitance [1]. This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations which have been reported, from being a result of any credible forcing. According to one assessment [1], the time constant is about 5 years. A likely explanation for the reported year-to-year fluctuations is that they are stochastic phenomena in the over-all process that has been used to determine AGT. A simple calculation shows the standard deviation of the reported annual average measurements to be about ±0.09 K with respect to the trend. The temperature fluctuations of the bulk volume near the surface of the planet are more closely represented by the fluctuations in the trend. The trend is a better indicator of the change in global energy; which is the difference between energy received and energy radiated. The kinetic theory of gases, some thermodynamics and the rudiments of quantum mechanics provide a rational explanation of what happens when ghg absorb photons of terrestrial thermal radiation. Refutation of significant influence from CO2 There is multiple evidence (most identified earlier [2] ) that CO2 has no significant effect on climate: In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2level [3]. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2leveland AGT [3, 4]. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2trend [2]. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2trend has been only up. [2] Since about 2001, the measured atmospheric CO2trend has continued to rise while the AGT trend has been essentially flat. [21, 13]

Cold water in vast Western Pacific, record water vapor, clouds, rain — super big El Nino things going on

March 17, 2016

New Evidence Regarding Tropical Water Vapor Feedback, Lindzens Iris Effect, and the Missing Hotspot

August 17, 2015

New Evidence Regarding Tropical Water Vapor Feedback, Lindzen’s Iris Effect, and the Missing Hotspot http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/new-evidence-regarding-tropical-water-vapor-feedback-lindzens-iris-effect-and-the-missing-hotspot/ As part of a DOE grant we are testing climate models against satellite observations, particularly regarding the missing “hotspot” in the tropics, that is, the expected region of enhanced warming in the tropical mid- and upper troposphere as the surface warms. Since 1979 (the satellite period of record), it appears that warming in those upper layers has been almost non-existent, despite some surface warming and increases in low-level humidity. For years I have claimed that the missing hotspot could be evidence of neutral or even negative water vapor feedback, which would also help explain weaker than expected surface warming. Climate modelers are all but certain that water vapor feedback is positive. I have discussed elsewhere (e.g. here) how that might not be the case, even as lower atmospheric water vapor increases, and it’s related to how precipitation efficiency might change with warming leading to drying of the troposphere above the boundary layer. This is also part of Lindzen’s “Iris Effect”. While water vapor at the lowest altitudes over the ocean is strongly tied to surface temperature, free-tropospheric humidity is controlled by precipitation microphysics, and we little information on how that changes with warming. So, I’ll get right to the subject of this post. We have analyzed 11 years of water vapor channel (183.3 GHz) data from the AMSU-B instrument on the NOAA-18 satellite, and compared it to the mid-tropospheric temperature data from AMSU channel 5 (the “MT” channel). Specifically, we computed monthly gridpoint anomalies in all channels over the 11 year period, and regressed the 183.3 GHz brightness temperature (Tb) anomalies against the channel 5 Tb anomalies. This should give information on how much the free troposphere moistens or dries when it changes temperature. The following image shows the gridpoint regression coefficients for the monthly anomalies during June 2005 through May 2015: Fig. 1. Gridpoint regression coefficients between the NOAA-18 AMSU-b 183.3 GHz channels Tb and AMSU-A channel 5 Tb during June 2005 through May 2015. Ch. 18 is 183.3+/-1 GHz, generally peaking in the upper troposphere; ch. 19 is 183.3+/-3 GHz peaking in the upper-mid troposphere, and ch. 20 is 183.3 +/-7 GHz peaking in the lower mid-troposphere. Yellow to red colors are where absolute humidity decreases with warming; green is humidity increasing to roughly maintain constant RH, and blue is where humidity increases even more than constant RH. The signal of El Nino/La Nina is clear over the Pacific Ocean, where the features represent a regional rearrangement of deep convection (upward motion) and subsidence (sinking motion) patterns. But what really matters for water vapor feedback is the net effect of these patterns…how they average together. The following graph (left panel) shows latitude band averages of the gridpoint regression coefficients in the above imagery, while the right panel shows the same computations from 15 years (2006-2020) from the GFDL ESM2M climate model: Fig. 2. Zonal averages of the patterns seen in Fig. 1 (left panel), and similar computations made from the GFDL ESM2M climate model (right panel). The vertical dashed lines in Fig. 2 are based upon computations made from the AFGL tropical and mid-latitude radiosonde profile data; values of about 0.2 correspond to constant relative humidity (RH) with warming, while values of ~1.2 correspond to constant specific humidity, q (no water vapor increase). Values over 1.2 would be water vapor (q) actually decreasing with warming, and potentially indicative of negative water vapor feedback. Note that in the tropical observations portion of the left panel in Fig. 2, all three 183.3 GHz channels (corresponding to different free-tropospheric layers) suggest decreasing water vapor with warming. (I don’t know how cirrus clouds might also be affected, but Lindzen has argued as part of his Iris Effect hypothesis that vapor and cirrus cloud cover should change together, and the 183.3 GHz data are affected somewhat by thick cirrus). The mid-latitudes seem to be mostly in the realm of positive water vapor feedback, although maybe not constant RH (which is what the models tend to do). It would take more work to determine just what these extratropical humidity channel changes really mean in terms of broadband infrared radiative feedback. Comparison of these same metrics to CMIP5 climate model data has been slow, since the necessary humidity and temperature profile data have been unavailable from the CMIP5 archive for months. Nevertheless, we were able to download data for two GFDL models (from the GFDL website), and I’m showing one of those in the right panel above, where we used a radiative transfer model to compute the same satellite microwave channels from the model temperature and humidity profiles. Note that in the tropics (say, 25N to 25S) the model tends to keep approximately constant RH when all those latitude bands are taken together. This is pretty typical behavior for climate models, which are tuned to act this way. The models don’t actually contain the necessary precipitation microphysics, something even their convective parameterizations can’t fix because we really don’t know how detrainment from convection changes with warming anyway. In other words, you can’t parameterize something that you don’t even understand and can’t measure. One curious clue from the above plots of models versus observations is how the three 183.3 GHz channel curves separate in the tropical observations, but not in the model. This would occur if convection detrains at higher altitudes with warming, with the mid-tropospheric humidity getting depressed even more as that very dry air descends from aloft, while mid-tropospheric detrainment and mixing from convection into the surrounding environmental air decreases. Presumably, the primary source of variability in the observations is El Nino/La Nina (ENSO), which many climate models do not mimic very well. But the GFDL model we chose to compare to in Fig. 2 also produces very strong ENSO activity, so we think this is a pretty valid comparison between a model and observations. This is all very preliminary, and we await the CMIP5 archive coming back online again late this month so that we can analyze more models. But if this discrepancy between models and observations holds across most or all models, we might have some important insight into how the models might not be accounting for increasing precipitation efficiency during warming, and in turn why the hotspot hasn’t developed and why global warming in general is weaker than programmed into the climate models. — gReader Pro

Search Results for: "water vapor"