tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post457787014024656273..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Hot Water and AirEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44730446239291372582010-06-25T22:14:37.126-04:002010-06-25T22:14:37.126-04:00It is generally assumed that most of the water vap...It is generally assumed that most of the water vapor found in the stratosphere passes through the tropical tropopause which is the coldest point of the troposphere, into the stratosphere.breast engorgementhttp://www.breastengorgement.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34189515506366348522010-06-23T22:21:07.128-04:002010-06-23T22:21:07.128-04:00Everyone is aware that it cools as you rise higher...Everyone is aware that it cools as you rise higher in the atmosphere and as a consequence it has to become dryer.antique hand toolshttp://www.automotive-hand-tools.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42384336821875986742010-06-16T12:36:54.889-04:002010-06-16T12:36:54.889-04:00These articles are fantastic; the information you ...These articles are fantastic; the information you show us is interesting for everybody and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it...: Great investment opportunity in Costa RicaCheap Lots in Samara Costa Ricahttp://www.lots-in-costarica.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57970518796347516862010-02-18T07:58:13.980-05:002010-02-18T07:58:13.980-05:00The interesting thing is, in my opinion, that peop...The interesting thing is, in my opinion, that people that tend to suggest that climate is not sensitive enough to GHG forcing (CO2 forcing is negligible, in their wording) cling to a -0.2 W/m2 forcing now to discredit IPCC's work. I can't understand why they say this forcing is important (and I think it is) but the forcing associated to GHGs is not (and I think it is too).<br /><br />So ... the climate has different sensitivities to radiative forcings depending whether the infrared photon arriving to surface was emitted by WV or by CO2?<br /><br />Curious positionUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948981634382888036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47445541277798014472010-02-17T14:32:56.695-05:002010-02-17T14:32:56.695-05:00Hi Eli,
Excellent translation.
Just one comment: ...Hi Eli,<br /><br />Excellent translation.<br />Just one comment: You translated Klimaschmock as climate shock.<br />I'm not sure whether the word schmock is a proper English word. It could be translated as a hack.<br /><br />Georg anoints one every month and at the end of the year there is a poll to elect the climate schmock of the year.<br /><br />PS Now you're a godfather, can you make Senator Inhofe an offer he cannot refuse?Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7148943600163067822010-02-12T22:50:29.015-05:002010-02-12T22:50:29.015-05:00Splitting hares as a dissembling tactic notwithsta...Splitting hares as a dissembling tactic notwithstanding, let's just say back in the day if we were forecasting that shift and saw that vortmax coming our way, we'd be wagering on precip totals and wind speed advisory maxes. <br /><br />I did a shift in Europe where we had something like that coming (way before Internets and our data weren't that good, alas), and we had aircraft tip over on our airfield. I think it was before Chernobyl so it didn't do any good at clearing out the cancer from our area...<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4205124118056948412010-02-12T16:33:06.018-05:002010-02-12T16:33:06.018-05:00I also thought that discussion was a mess. If a ...I also thought that discussion was a mess. If a correlation changes sign over time, is it really a "correlation"?carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76726692941691830142010-02-12T16:26:50.817-05:002010-02-12T16:26:50.817-05:00Mapleleaf,
I totally agree that the paper is writ...Mapleleaf,<br /><br />I totally agree that the paper is written very nebulously and loosely . I have a great deal of difficulty with Figure 1c. The SST axis is flipped (although it doesn’t mention this anywhere I can find), and so are the SST/water vapor correlations negative or positive? It is described in the text as:<br /><br />"As discussed above, recent observations have suggested a correlation of the post-2000 stratospheric water vapor decrease to sea surface temperature changes near the tropical warm pool region and associated cooling of the cold point that governs water vapor input to the stratosphere in the tropics (Fig. 1C). However, the relationship between SSTs in the warm pool region and stratospheric water vapor changes character (from negative to positive short-term correlations) from 1980–2009, suggesting that other processes may also be important, or that the correlation may be a transient feature linked to the specific pattern of SSTs at a given time rather than to the average warming of SSTs around the globe."<br /><br />It changes character from when to when (Figure 1C doesn’t depict water vapor back to 1980). What is “short-term”? 2 years, 8 years, 15 years? Are the correlations different at different timescales? Is there any analysis to back this up? This is all OK for *Science* magazine? I have no problems with a paper published that describes a potentially important effect but that can’t fully describe why it is happening, but in this case, it is *very* difficult to even understand the description of why the authors don’t understand!<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74148601429728353832010-02-12T15:44:13.146-05:002010-02-12T15:44:13.146-05:00Carrot, others have also pointed out that some of ...Carrot, others have also pointed out that some of the statements made in the paper have not been written terribly clearly, thereby making them open to misinterpretation, especially by the denialati.<br /><br />MapleleafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79126896640799890112010-02-12T15:30:40.626-05:002010-02-12T15:30:40.626-05:00That's probably fair, so long as it keeps boun...That's probably fair, so long as it keeps bouncing around 4 ppm. I wish we had a longer observational record of it.<br /><br />I do think some of the statements in the paper are not well justified by the results, and I don't like how Fig 3B (Fig 5 above) is constructed. I wonder if their dotted line and blue line would both fit within the envelope of possible outcomes in a coupled GCM.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12969533882538495322010-02-12T15:13:01.523-05:002010-02-12T15:13:01.523-05:00Thanks for pointing that out carrot-- good points....Thanks for pointing that out carrot-- good points. I did not read the text that went with the table correctly. Regardless, 0.25 is still about 33% of the instantaneous (?) GHG forcing. <br /><br />The point is that while the variation of SWV may be of note on short time scales, just as internal climate modes can be, in the long term it is not of significance. And, ultimately, that is what we are concerned with when it comes to AGW, the long term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42953490890765781572010-02-12T14:55:34.521-05:002010-02-12T14:55:34.521-05:00Following up, you can see the relative significanc...Following up, you can see the relative significance more clearly in Fig 3A and then Fig 3B of the paper. It's still minor, I'd say.<br /><br />Well, more clearly if I could figure out what the hell it was showing; I'm a bit confused by how the red line is calculated, or exactly what it represents.<br /><br />The impact on the temperature trend doesn't really seem that important, if you look at the figure. On these time scales, you might not observe the difference, anyway; there is too much noise. <br /> <br />If the stratospheric water content just fluctuates around 4 ppm like that, it really would not matter at all in the long run. Given the lags in the climate system, it'd just wash itself out.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46679823709178859742010-02-12T14:38:11.599-05:002010-02-12T14:38:11.599-05:00MapleLeaf:
Be careful.
There are bookkeeping iss...MapleLeaf:<br /><br />Be careful.<br /><br />There are bookkeeping issues here, and one must keep them straight.<br /><br />Your 2.7 W/m^2 RF for greenhouse gases is for 2008 relative to 1750. <br /><br />Solomon's 0.24 W/m^2 for stratospheric water is for 2000, relative to 1980. I think. If I'm wrong on that, then this entire comment is wrong.<br /><br />If you compute total greenhouse gases in 2000 relative to 1980, you get 0.726 W/m^2.<br /><br />Put that way, the stratospheric water vapor looks like it can be fairly significant on these times scales.<br /><br />But we're again left with a matter of bookkeeping - what is this variation in stratospheric water? Is it forcing, feedback or a result of internal variability? This question is critical to understanding how important this work is.<br /><br />To the extent that stratospheric water comes from methane oxidation, stratospheric water is already included in the models as a forcing. In GISS E, that's good for 0.06 W/m^2 in 2000, relative to 1750. But this paper is about water transported up from the troposphere. I haven't had time to see how much that varies in the models. <br /><br />But now, I do appreciate that miniscule changes in strat water are worth looking at. Eyeballing from the graph, it went from 3.5 to 4.something back to 4 ppmv. That doesn't sound very important, but one must always do the sums to check.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21418192911961599022010-02-12T14:11:18.258-05:002010-02-12T14:11:18.258-05:00NewReader, based on the quantitative scale analysi...NewReader, based on the quantitative scale analysis in my post @10:27 am. Had you read my post properly, you would have seen that it is a qualified statement.<br /><br />Eli and others in the know concur.<br /><br />MapleLeafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34643536358248770982010-02-12T13:58:34.173-05:002010-02-12T13:58:34.173-05:00"Is it a major or significant player? No.&quo..."Is it a major or significant player? No."<br /><br />That seems rather categorical and unqualified. On what do you base it?<br /><br />NewReaderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41530152359855350452010-02-12T13:34:08.680-05:002010-02-12T13:34:08.680-05:00MarkeyMouse says: "This paper appeared at exa...MarkeyMouse says: <i>"This paper appeared at exactly the right moment for me. I was looking for the right punch line for a proposal which revolves around water vapor and satellite observations, and here it was. It arrived with a strong climate effect for the stratospheric water vapor..."</i> Hello in La La land, why do you think she concocted it?<br /><br /><i>"Does the observed variability of stratospheric water vapor have something to do with greenhouse gases and global warming, or is it simply a natural decadal variability?"</i> Water vapour always increases with warming, it is part of the self regulating temperature mechanism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38184898869434964332010-02-12T13:27:23.203-05:002010-02-12T13:27:23.203-05:00Chip,
Regarding the models, you are splitting hai...Chip,<br /><br />Regarding the models, you are splitting hairs. I think Eli's point is that they do model the process in question, albeit imperfectly. They most certainly do not ignore those processes. Just b/c they are imperfect that does not nullify their value.<br /><br />You use words like "significant" and "fairly large" to describe the relative impact of SWV on the net forcing. A simple scale analysis shows otherwise. In 2008 the estimated radiative forcing of GHGs was 2.74 W m-2, see:<br /><br />http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/<br /><br />In contrast, the forcing from SWV was estimated by Solomon et al's model to be at most 0.25 Wm-2. There is an order of magnitude difference. Additionally, about 6-7 years of for the forcing from GHGs to exceed that forcing modeled by Solomon et al.. It is thus not surprising that the long term trend in Fig. 3 is positive.<br /><br />IMHO, this finding by Solomon et al. has no bearing on climate sensitivity estimates to doubling CO of ~+3C. Those sensitivity estimates are based primarily on paleo climate data which quantify the net forcing for the entire system/biosphere. That is, they implicitly take into account factors such as forcing from SWV. <br /><br />Can we ignore the forcing from SWV? No. Is it a major or significant player? No.<br /><br />The real interest in Solomon's work is what caused the drop off in SWV circa 2001. Is this natural or somehow related to anthro activities? My suspecion is that it is decadal variability, the record is unfortunately too short to make any definitive statements.<br /><br />MapleleafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22573629170781130312010-02-12T12:19:51.482-05:002010-02-12T12:19:51.482-05:00Hmm.
Hoffmann writes “Did Solomon say that the cl...Hmm.<br /><br />Hoffmann writes “Did Solomon say that the climate models neglected water vapor? Sure and Roger Federer neglects his forehand.”<br /><br />Well as to water vapor in the stratosphere, Solomon et al wrote: “current global models are limited in their representations of key processes that control the distribution and variability of water within the stratosphere” and “[c]urrent global climate models simulate lower stratospheric temperature trends poorly.” I think Federer has more than a “limited” handle on his not-so-“poor” forehand.<br /><br />Anyway, Solomon et al. showed that stratospheric water vapor variability in the stratosphere is currently not well understood (or modeled) and may have a fairly large impact on multi-decadal surface warming trends. As such the IPCC et al. should perhaps be a bit more careful is assigning their likelihood descriptor to recent warming trends. In other words, that significant influences on the surface temperature trends are still being uncovered should temper the IPCC et al.’s enthusiasm for the certainty of the attribution of particular values. See <a href="http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming" rel="nofollow"> here </a> for how they can quickly get in trouble.<br /><br />-Chip KnappenbergerChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52818161889231248432010-02-12T10:49:20.952-05:002010-02-12T10:49:20.952-05:00Little Mouse finds the tropopause fascinating. It ...Little Mouse finds the tropopause fascinating. It is not that the temperature changes abruptly, but that the rate of temperature change, changes abruptly. <br /><br />Although in the graphs of actual temperatures Little Mouse has seen there are two discontinuities. Like an aircraft with the tip of the nose missing. <br /><br />Could the tropopause be a layer in its own right? Or was that a once off and the Mouse has seen the same graph again and again.<br /><br />Curious how nothing just a blip in the rate of temperature change provides such an effective barrier. that needs a big event to pass through. (Best not to do that at exactly the speed of sound.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54002741882263021212010-02-12T07:08:31.284-05:002010-02-12T07:08:31.284-05:00DeWitt: Why would it be required? There's n...DeWitt: Why would it be required? There's no ocean up there that's in local equilibrium with the air. There isn't 100% relative humidity, or anything close to it in the stratosphere. Thermodynamically, the RH can be whatever it wants, upto 100%.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60547372170010006162010-02-12T00:22:42.750-05:002010-02-12T00:22:42.750-05:00Given that the temperature in the stratosphere inc...Given that the temperature in the stratosphere increases with altitude, doesn't the physics of water vapor/liquid equilibrium not merely allow, but require the water vapor concentration to increase with altitude? It certainly increases with altitude over the ice caps in winter when there's a temperature inversion.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75850817362281834972010-02-11T20:52:05.023-05:002010-02-11T20:52:05.023-05:00Thnaks, I found this quite helpful.
But there rem...Thnaks, I found this quite helpful.<br /><br />But there remains the reminder for paleoclimatology that the Eemian interglacial was about 2--3 K warmer, so any imputed negative feedback has to be small indeed.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75128367096313566662010-02-11T19:58:17.374-05:002010-02-11T19:58:17.374-05:00I was going to snark that this commentary was long...I was going to snark that this commentary was longer than the paper itself, but then I found it was worth reading. But what I was really hoping for was some thoughts on the open questions as to the nature of this variability.<br /><br />You've been promoted from old hare to Godfather, I see.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5713429095990699462010-02-11T19:21:04.882-05:002010-02-11T19:21:04.882-05:00I look forward to reading this in more detail Eli,...I look forward to reading this in more detail Eli, glad to see that you have tropospheric folding in there!<br /><br />MapleLeafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com