http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html#Water_vapour

Also the Water Vapout page at Global Warming Science (compiled by Alan Cheetham)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm

Best plots I think are at Climate4you (select Greenhouse gasses on left hand side – atm WV at top of page)

http://climate4you.com/

Thanks Richard, that’s the thing that I find the most interesting & I think it’s what the AGW proponents fear the most. I have to smile when I see them clutch at straws on their way down on this point – they rush off to scepticalscience.conjob & then run in circles panicking when they see there’s no evidence for AGW.

Problem there is that although WV levels have risen at lower troposphere in the last couple of decades after a fall prior, levels at mid and upper troposphere have fallen.

There’s still the necessity for a heat source (or wind conditions) other than solar to really crank up the heat. There’s a good example of that in Victoria AU a the moment. If you look at the SST anomaly http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif the Great Australian Bight is warmer than normal. There was a similar situation last year near Perth WA when there was a very warm pool offshore (gone now).

Then there’s the question of how long the WV stays in the atmosphere before it precipitates out. Last I heard the average is about 9 days but the hydrological cycle modulates by speeding up and slowing down. Seems to be cycling fast this summer where I live.

The chain of events there being that the 100 – 200 hPa pressure zone (roughly) is the last intercept before outgoing radiation can escape unhindered to space. The posit being that the zone immediately below that (200 – 400 hPa) should exhibit a warming trend due to heating by the re-emitted radiation back down from the zone above due to rising CO2 levels.

In the lower troposphere it’s cloud rather than WV that’s the fly in the ointment for the IPCC, The AR4 climate models don’t resolve low cloud in detail so absorption/re-emission and albedo reflection aren’t modeled as they should be in radiative terms (Not heat terms, heat isn’t reflected by cloud albedo effect but dissipates toward cold space by convection. Heat terms would be a better diagnosis but nuther story).

Lower troposphere (or lower atmosphere) temperature is near-surface satellite (but not at-surface like Stevensons Screens note) and directly comparable to land-based thermometer series (also termed “near-surface”) taken from the Stevensons Screens. The trends of both should be near identical and any positive divergence should be by the satellite series but it’s the land-based series that are diverging positively from the satellite series hence the finger pointing at UHIE (and Hansens tweaking in the case of GISTEMP). Nicol 08 http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc describes how CO2 is densest near the surface and also where the major radiative power absorption by CO2 takes place but convection and conduction provides rapid removal of heat from the land surface so satellites should be detecting a rising trend near-surface (faster than at-surface Stevensons Screens) due to accumulating CO2 if the theory holds and the measurements are true (they’re measuring heat and heat rises but supposedly then “trapped” by GHGs).

Unfortunately it’s all haywire and land-based series reading warmer and accelerating positively away from the satellite series can be seen in the updates at JunkScience.com http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

The worst case is RSS and UAH MSU vs GISTEMP as can be seen in this comparison http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsGISTEMP.html

Hopefully I’ve got this right and haven’t put you crook because it’s a tricky concept to describe. Standby for lurker input if I’ve got it wrong.

There’s another perspective that looks at both satellite and land-based series but without the familiar linear regressed trends on this page at Global Warming Science (including hot-spot down page, also recurrent cycles and PDO/AMO-temp correlation vs CO2-temp) http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm

Scroll down to:-

The Satellite Era
The following figure shows global average temperature from five data sets since the start of the satellite temperature data era in 1979 (RSS MSU and UAH MSU are satellite data, HadCRUT3, NCDC and GISS are surface station data sets – graph from http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm). From 1979 to 1997 there was no warming trend. The major El Nino then resulted in a residual warming of about 0.3 degrees. Since the 1998 end of the El Nino there has also been no warming trend – all of the warming in the last 30 years occurred in a single year. And yet this is the era that the IPCC says the warming is caused by CO2 – and alarmists are still saying that it’s getting worse, etc.

‘Climate Shift’ sums that up well I think (not a term we hear much of thanks to in vogue ‘Climate Change’).

cyruspinkerton 1 hour ago

James Taylor wrote:

“Surface temperature measurements, however, indicate more rapid warming at the surface of the earth than in the lower troposphere.”

But this isn’t true according to a report (“Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences) co-authored by some guy named John Christy. Let’s see what the report says on this subject:

“Since the late 1950s, all radiosonde data sets show that the low and mid troposphere have warmed at a rate slightly faster than the rate of warming at the surface. These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative forcing agents on the climate system …”

And this:

“For observations during the satellite era (1979 onwards), the most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. The majority of these data sets show warming at the surface that is greater than in the troposphere. Some of these data sets, however, show the opposite – tropospheric warming that is greater than that at the surface. Thus, due to the considerable disagreements between tropospheric data sets, it is not clear whether the troposphere has warmed more than or less than the surface.”

Oh no! The statements in the cited paper (John Christy, co-author) directly contradict James Taylor’s assertion! In other words, James Taylor is wrong (AGAIN!) unless you believe the scientific expertise of James Taylor (lawyer and PR agent for the fossil fuel industry) is greater than that of the 7 climate scientists (including John Christy) who are the lead authors on the paper.

So there you have it, folks. You can choose to believe James Taylor (lawyer and fossil fuel company PR man, without a science degree) or seven independent climate scientist experts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/12/28/climate-science-reaches-a-landmark-that-chills-global-warming-alarmists/#comment-2294

cyruspinkerton thinks he’s got it wired but there’s more to that paper if Vincent Gray’s commentary on it is anything to go by:-

TEMPERATURE TRENDS IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE

A new publication on this subject by the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), is now available in full (9.2MB) or in part, from
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

The full title is “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”

Its authors include T.R.Karl, T.M.Wigley, J.R.Christy, T.C. Peterson, F.J.Wentz, K.Y.Vinnikov, .R.W.Spencer, R.S.Vose, R.W. Reynolds, B.D.Santer, P.W. Thorne, C.K. Folland and D. Parker. This includes most of the people working on temperature records, with the notable exceptions of P.D. Jones and J.E.Hansen

CONCLUSION
This study does not remove discrepancies between surface and lower troposphere temperature records, but, instead, confirms them. It shows that for temperature sequences comparatively free from the interference of natural influences there is no detectable warming in the lower troposphere, the place where the enhanced greenhouse effect is claimed to be evident. For six out of the seven the lower troposphere temperature records there is no influence of greenhouse forcing for a period of nineteen years, and even the seventh one shows no warming for ten of those years.. The warming evident on the surface for these periods cannot be due to greenhouse forcing, but must therefore have a different cause. Evidence that surface records are biased from urban influences, as shown by Gray (2001) and by McKitrick and Michaels seems the most likely explanation.

Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C.
Climate Consultant

http://www.pensee-unique.fr/TemperatureTrendsVGray.pdf

So yes, dropping the “GW” from AGW is a natural progression now that the “W” has eased off somewhat (AGC?). Besides, EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS in the here and now is an easier narrative to run with (and much more scary too).

I see this contribution in comments under the Forbes article ‘Climate Science Reaches a Landmark That Chills Global Warming Alarmists’:-

carahernandez5 3 days ago

@GM

We share one point of agreement: you have a serious problem separating fact from fiction.

This may be the source of your confusion about climate science. You don’t have sufficient knowledge to distinguish sound scientific research from hogwash. I imagine this is the reason you were touting the misinformation about carbon dioxide flux as measured by GOSAT. Instead of using common sense and relying on scientific principles, you accepted as truth a fraud perpetrated by John O’Sullivan.

Please try to learn from your mistakes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/12/28/climate-science-reaches-a-landmark-that-chills-global-warming-alarmists/#comment-2294

Also a cameo (and familiar refrain) from dana1981 (Page 4 of comments):-

dana1981 4 days ago

It’s really infuriating that somebody can say so many stupid, blatantly wrong things and get it published in a mainstream media source like Forbes.

For those interested in factual reality (unlike James Taylor), here is a scientifically accurate article on this same subject:

http://skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part2.html

That article must have ruffled some feathers going by the reactions.

Personally I think that’s the main issue regarding AGW, everything else is a distraction to obscure the scientific truth that the hypothesis proposed by the IPCC is an impossibility without the positive feedback.

For example, what is your response (given that you are so focused on CO2) to these responses to an article in The Australian “Cherry-picking contrarian geologists tend to obscure scientific truth” by MIKE Sandiford:-

Climate change a slogging match of claim v claim

* by: TALKING POINT
* From: The Australian
* January 02, 2012 12:00AM

1)a) It is the trend that matters and both data sets indicate that the rapid global warming of the 1970s and 80s has ceased. Sandiford seems convinced of the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a physicist I am sceptical for the reason that convection, not radiation, controls lower atmosphere temperature.

1)b) I would have thought active submarine volcanoes recently discovered along the Gakkel ridge near the North Pole provide a more convincing explanation of Arctic warming. Perhaps geologists are unaware that submarine tectonic heating is never included in climate models.

2)a) The issue is not that the climate has warmed or that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased. Both of these facts are acknowledged by sceptics and warmers alike. The issue is what proportion of that increase is attributable to ACO2 and why.

2)b) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports the largest single driver of global warming is not ACO2 but the consequent water vapour. Cloud cover and solar radiation remain significant uncertainties.

3)a) MIKE Sandiford does not mention that CO2 has no correlation with temperature on any time scale except for the last quarter of last century, and then only if the sun’s likely effect on cosmic rays and clouds is ignored.

3)b) Changes in CO2 do not match temperature for the last decade, century, millennium or on million-year time scales. There have been periods of the past when CO2 was low and temperatures were much higher than the present, as well as periods when CO2 was a lot higher than today with temperatures much lower

4)a) With ocean thermal expansion also at negligible levels and 4)b) the CERN experiments likely to confirm the link between solar activity and clouds in the near future, the climate alarmist house of cards is starting to crumble.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-a-slogging-match-of-claim-v-claim/story-fn558imw-1226234419567

Or is this not your area of expertise?

What you have presented in your last comment is a clear indication of the miniscule contribution of ACO2 vs natural CO2 fluxes and even those we know are in turn of negligible effect in terms of atmospheric heating because it is water vapour (and the hydrological cycle) that is the greatest modulator of climate.

If CO2 was as effective as AGW proponents theorize, the atmosphere should be heating at a faster rate than the earth’s surface but the 33 years of satellite observations that we now have show that the opposite is the case – where does that leave the AGW hypothesis?

Perhaps after this we can move on to the neglect by climate science of the heating effect on geologic material by downwelling long-wave radiation from GHGs?

In answer to your first question, the data I posted for Africa and South America corresponds to calendar year 2009 (just as with the data posted for North America and Europe). The net carbon dioxide flux quantities I posted for Africa are based on a simple sum of the net carbon dioxide flux for Southern Africa and Northern Africa using the CarbonTracker (CT2010) Flux Time Series:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=Northern_Africa#imagetable

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=Southern_Africa#imagetable

The calculated values of total carbon dioxide flux for 2009 for Northern Africa and Southern Africa are shown in the Results Summary Tables (PgC yr-1) as 0.05 and 0.09, respectively, giving a total of 0.14 PgC yr-1 for Africa in 2009.

Similarly the net carbon dioxide flux quantities I posted for South America are based on a simple sum of the net carbon dioxide flux for Temperate South America and Tropical South America using the relevant CarbonTracker (CT2010) Flux Time Series:.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=South_American_Temperate#imagetable

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=South_American_Tropical#imagetable

The calculated values of total carbon dioxide flux for 2009 for Temperate South America and Tropical South America are shown in the Results Summary Tables (PgC yr-1) as 0.19 and 0.01, respectively, giving a total of 0.20 PgC yr-1 for South America in 2009.

I hope the source of these values for carbon dioxide flux for 2009 is now clear.

Regarding the long-term mean flux maps for North America that you reference, you write:

“I see predominantly net negative fluxes in excess of -40 gC/m^2/yr which is at odds with the Time Series guessed by NOAA.”

I assume you’re looking at the CarbonTracker 1°x1° land fluxes map, which represents the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 of the land biosphere averaged over the time period 2001-2009. Please remember though that this does not include carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions: “This NEE represents land-to-atmosphere carbon exchange from photosynthesis and respiration in terrestrial ecosystems, and a contribution from fires. It does not include fossil fuel emissions.”

In fact, if you look at the summary results for North America, this information is consistent–carbon dioxide flux without accounting for fossil fuel emissions is negative (-0.60 PgC yr-1), but the net carbon dioxide flux (“total flux” from the table) is positive (1.25 PgC yr-1) when the contribution from fossil fuels is included (1.85 PgC yr-1). Therefore I find no inconsistency in the NOAA CarbonTracker data.

Regarding the carbon dioxide flux for North Africa, it’s important to look at the details. First and most importantly, although the total carbon dioxide flux for North Africa is consistently positive, it’s also consistently small compared to North American flux. Second, please note the large role regional fires play in determining total flux. For example, the fossil fuel contribution is relatively small (0.13-0.18 PgC yr-1) while the contribution from regional fires is consistently large (0.36-0.71 PgC yr-1). Given that the mean total carbon dioxide flux for the period 2001-2009 for North Africa is 0.18 PgC yr-1, it’s readily seen that the contribution from regional fires is significant.

With respect to your observations about the seasonal maps included in the JAXA release, I’m not in position to comment on the details of seasonal factors that affect specific regional flux contributions. I don’t have knowledge of the seasonal fire patterns in Africa, for example, and based on the data mentioned in the preceding paragraph, understanding the seasonal variations in fire patterns in Africa is necessary to explain the seasonal variations in carbon dioxide flux for the region.

Finally, in response to your closing comments, I disagree that the NOAA lacks understanding of carbon dioxide flux data. Moreover, when the JAXA press release is studied carefully, it’s painfully clear that John O’Sullivan misrepresented the data presented therein, and that his conclusions based on this misrepresentation are incorrect. Data from NOAA’s CarbonTracker confirms that Mr. O’Sullivan’s analysis is blatantly wrong.

Richard C, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate your effort to research the issue more deeply and to engage in this conversation.