Heliogenic Climate Change

“1.  INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper tropospheric water vapor rise. This initial water vapor enhancement has been hypothesized and programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall and water vapor increase. This causes an extra blockage of IR energy to space (a positive feedback warming mechanism). This additional rainfall and IR blockage is modeled to be approximately twice as large as the additional rainfall needed to balance the increased CO2 by itself. The reality of this additional warming and extra IR blockage has been questioned by many of us. This study analyzes a wide variety of infrared (IR) radiation differences which are associated with rainfall differences on different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which the positive rainfall feedbacks as are included in the climate model simulations are realistic.  …

This analysis shows they are not realistic.  …

2.  FINDINGS

a)
The albedo increase occurring over the top of strong precipitation and cloudy regions rises at a greater rate than does the rate of decrease of IR within these rainy and cloudy areas. Rainy and cloudy areas are local places of enhanced net radiation to space (Tables 1 and 2 and in idealized form in Figure 3). We have many other areas of rain differences which give similar results. In almost all rain and cloud areas we find that albedo energy flux rises at a greater rate than IR energy flux is reduced.  …

3.  IMPLICATIONS OF THESE OBSERVATIONS

The above measurements are at odds with the Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations of precipitation increase associated with rising CO2 amounts. Models show large tropical upper tropospheric temperature and water vapor increases to be associated with increased rates of precipitation (due to CO2 increases) that are similar to increased rates of precipitation that this study measures. We do not observe such upper tropospheric temperature and moisture increases for rainfall enhancements as do the modelers.  …

The climate modelers have assumed that as CO2 increases it will cause a progressive blockage of IR energy to space and, in addition, a further blockage of IR energy to space will occur from the original increase in upper-level water vapor. Increased IR blockage brings about a gradual increase in global temperature.  …

Our observations do not agree with these GCM scenarios. Our observations indicate that tropical RH [relative humidity] and moisture (q) rather than rising with enhanced precipitation do the opposite and actually go down as precipitation rates increase.  …

We find that there is not a positive water vapor feedback as the modelers have assumed. In fact we see the opposite. As rainfall increases upper-level water vapor contents are weakly reduced.  …

8. CONCLUSION

We find that as rainfall increases that there is not a reduction of global net radiation to space as most of the climate models have assumed. There is a weak enhancement of radiation to space with increased rainfall. We find no positive water vapor feedback.  …

A reduction of upper level RH of about 4 percent to go along with a lowering of the emission level of 7 mb would allow a doubling of CO2 to proceed with no warming (Figure 20). We estimate the extra precipitation from a doubling of CO2 to cause a negative (not positive) temperature feedback of about minus 0.6oC.”  “THE ASSOCIATION OF OUTGOING RADIATION WITH VARIATIONS OF PRECIPITATION – IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING“  h/t Climate Realists

“Abstract: The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.”  “Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data“

As Miklos Zigoni notes (previous post), “During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.” This is empirical evidence that Miskolczi’s theory is correct.

He further notes, “Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value.”

This prediction offers a simple further test of Miskolczi’s theory: if absolute humidity continues to decrease as atmospheric CO2 increases, keeping the greenhouse effect constant, that would be strong evidence for the correctness of the theory.
-

“Here is the picture. The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –

constant, not increasing;
equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.

During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.

Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.

Surface warming is possible only if the available energy increases. This may happen through changes in the activity of the Sun, or through variations of our planet’s orbital parameters, or through long-term fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere.

There are also some man-made sources. Air-pollution by aerosols (soot, black carbon, dust, smog etc.), and large-scale surface modifications according to urbanization and land-use change may—and probably do—alter the amount of absorbed and reflected shortwave energy, and can hence lead to change in the long-term energy balance.

These terms are all involved in the “available energy”. They can all modify the “effective temperature” of the Earth – i.e. the temperature of a planet with the Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) at the Earth’s current distance from the Sun, without the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. The effective temperature is now 255 Kelvin, or –18 °C.

Miskolczi asserts that the surplus temperature from the greenhouse gases (about 33 C°, bringing global mean surface temperature up from –18 °C to 15 °C) is constant, maximized, and cannot be increased by our CO2 emissions, because it is the greenhouse effect’s theoretical equilibrium value.

It is possible that in the 21st century the effective temperature may change a little, just as it has changed in previous centuries. But the additional (greenhouse) temperature will be 33 C°, within a variation of about 0.1 C° of recent decades. Physically, it cannot increase (as the UN IPCC has predicted it will increase) to 35-38 C° to produce a 2-5 C° warming.

The conclusion is that, since the Earth’s temperature does not depend on our CO2 emissions in any way, trying to limit our emissions is bound to be entirely ineffective in protecting the climate from warming.” “CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”“
-

“”[NASA's] AIRS [satellite] temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated — in fact, more than doubled — by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.” “NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research“

“We find that on a small space scale where rainfall is occurring OLR [outgoing longwave radiation] is greatly suppressed. But on the larger regional to global scales, OLR rises with increasing precipitation. This is due to increased return flow subsidence in the surrounding cloud free and partly cloudy areas. Globally, we are finding that net OLR increases with net increased amounts of global precipitation. This is the opposite of what most GCMs [general circulation models] have programmed into their models and, if I’m interpreting the new NASA announcement correctly, opposite to what they are currently reporting to the media.” “Is “several degrees” of warming “virtually certain” as NASA claims?“
-

“Reference
Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology: 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.

Background
The authors write that “water vapor feedback in climate models is large and positive,” and that “the various model representations and parameterizations of convection, turbulent transfer, and deposition of latent heat generally maintain a more-or-less constant relative humidity (i.e., an increasing specific humidity q) at all levels in the troposphere as the planet warms,” and they say that this “increasing q amplifies the response of surface temperature to increasing CO2 by a factor or 2 or more.” Consequently, knowledge of how q responds to atmospheric warming is of paramount importance to the task of correctly predicting how air temperatures respond to increasing CO2 concentrations.

What was done
Paltridge et al. explored this important subject by determining trends in relative and specific humidity at various levels in the atmosphere based on reanalysis data of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) for the period 1973-2007.

What was learned
The three researchers report that “the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes.”

What it means
Paltridge et al. conclude that “negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative – that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.” The ultimate outcome of this dilemma must therefore await a thorough study of the reliability of the pertinent NCEP data, in order to establish, in the words of the three scientists, “what (if any) aspects of the observed [humidity] trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks” that collected the globe-spanning data that comprise the NCEP reanalysis archive. And until such an examination is completed, it would foolish in the extreme to forge ahead with any type of “cap and trade” legislation, such as is currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, or with any international treaties designed to limit anthropogenic CO2 emissions, because the findings of Paltridge et al. suggest that the future warming predicted by today’s climate models may well be far greater than what could actually occur in the real world.” “Tropospheric Humidity and CO2-Induced Global Warming“
-

“At the Heartland Institute’s Second International Conference on Climate Change (March 2009), Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University presented satellite-based research that may explain the low climate sensitivity the Lindzen team infers from the ERBE data.

The IPCC climate models assume that CO2-induced warming significantly increases upper troposphere clouds and water vapor, trapping still more OLR that would otherwise escape to space. Most of the projected warming in the models comes from this positive water vapor/cloud feedback, not from the CO2. Satellite observations do not support this hypothesis, Gray contends:

Observations of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the National Centers of Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) reanalysis data and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data show that upper tropospheric water vapor appears to undergo a small decrease while Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) undergoes a small increase. This is the opposite of what has been programmed into the GCMs [General Circulation Models] due to water vapor feedback.

The figure [above] comes from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis of upper troposphere water vapor and OLR.” “Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for mankind)“

“Dr Miskolczi’s discovery arose from his regular work for NASA, examining the data measured by radiosonde balloons. Studied and analyzed under the microscope of the radiative transfer computer program that he had written, the large data set turned out to be a previously only partly tapped reservoir of a wealth of physical facts. From the reservoir of numerical data, Dr Miskolczi abstracted mathematical formulae that expressed new physical understanding. …

Miskolczi did not set out to make his discovery of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect, but it turned up as something that he accidentally noticed in the course of his regular work for NASA. In this respect his discovery is like the fundamental discovery made by Australian Garth Paltridge, who ‘accidentally’ noticed in his examination of climate data that the facts are described by a principle of maximum rate of entropy production. …

This kind of fortuitous observation of empirical fact is at the heart of many of the historical radical advances in natural science. It is a kind of ‘accident’ that happens only to the prepared mind. Like Professor Paltridge, Dr Miskolczi had a prepared mind. …

The overall effect is to keep a constant ratio of solar energetic driving to long term climate temperature. We might call this the climatic response ratio, but let us here refer to it just as ‘the ratio’. The ratio is independent of CO2 emissions, which therefore cannot increase the long term climate temperature. Only increased solar energetic driving can increase the long term climate temperature. Changes in solar energetic driving can be caused only by changes in the heat radiated from the sun and by changes in the earth’s distance from the sun. Other extraterrestrial solar system external drivers of the climate process can perturb it, but not alter the long term climate temperature. Such perturbations include many various and diverse mechanisms, such as increased admission of galactic cosmic rays …

Why is the climatic response ratio constant?

It is because water dominates the climate dynamics. …

The ratio is stable and constant because it is governed by the principle of maximum rate of entropy production, as determined by the presence of the watery ocean and the sun’s heat radiation. … Miskolczi has given us more detail about how this happens. …

The climate system has historically maintained the maximum dynamically stable amount of water vapour in the clear-sky troposphere. …

How does the climatic response ratio stay constant when there is CO2 emission into the atmosphere? By increased … rain, increased low cloud formation, and increased upper tropospheric production of dried air.

Addition of CO2 to the system simply displaces a small amount of water vapour without altering the total effective amount of greenhouse gas present in the clear-sky troposphere, so as to very closely nullify the temperature effect of the addition. …

Such cycles of convection of atmospheric gases are known to be universally typical of the kind of dynamic organization that develops under the governance of the principle of maximum entropy production. …

The above account is a mere qualitative sketch, but Dr Miskolczi’s work itself is a quantitative analysis of empirical measurements on the atmosphere.

Dr Miskolczi has thus shown us why at present a runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. …

Dr Miskolczi presented his studies of the climatically saturated greenhouse effect as an empirical analysis with theoretical consequences that he demonstrated, but his publications include also various loose analogies, and his studies need theoretical development.” “The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect“

Jennifer Morohasy has written a very readable brief summary of Miskolczi’s atmospheric model. A few quotes below but you should go to her blog and read the whole thing:

“In essence Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, and central to the current paradigm, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczi’s theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content. …

Meanwhile, another Hungarian physicist, Miklos Zagoni, has provided the following summary of the new controversial theory:

As it happens, these new relations supply a profound new understanding of the old, well-known set of energy balance conditions. Substituting them into the old equations, Miskolczi recognized that a new overall global energetic constraint applies to the atmosphere. …

That is to say, the Earth’s atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions, regardless of any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past ten thousand years. Miskolczi’s dynamic constraint keeps the greenhouse effect “climatically saturated”: emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the normalized greenhouse factor g because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor (moisture) in the atmosphere. …

According to this [NOAA global average] database, the atmosphere’s moisture content during 61 years from 1948 to 2008 in global average decreased by about 1%. This amount was the climate process’s automatic dynamic response and was enough to counter the impact of any CO2 and methane increase. …

But, remarkably and surprisingly, these results say that the ratio of the surface temperature to the sum of the incoming energies is fixed at a critical value; the ratio cannot be altered by adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2. The climate temperature is fully sensitive to real changes in the external drivers [solar and albedo changes] that increase the energy input. But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere.”

“The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1)“

“Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four is delivering a lecture in Mount Gambier on May 23 about how Greenhouse gases cannot cause climate change.

On 4th May, Dr Zagoni will appear in front of a Committee set up by the NZ Government to revise their emissions trading scheme.

“I am not sceptic at all”, he said, “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong. New developments in the physics of greenhouse effect and radiative transfer show that the accepted theory leads to largely exaggerated global warming projections”.

The new results were achieved and published in peer-reviewed periodicals by his fellow Hungarian physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who has been [was] principal research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in the U.S. for years.

Dr. Zagoni says, “The new results of Dr. Miskolczi prove that the accepted theory contradicts fundamental physical principles. The Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect by strict energetic constraints. Runaway global warming seems physically impossible. We accept that the climate has warmed during the last centuries. What we challenge is the cause: our results show that it cannot be the increase of atmospheric GHG composition.”

“If we are right, extra CO2 cannot enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Powerful energetic feedbacks drive it back to its equilibrium state. Fluctuations are possible in the stochastic system of the climate, and time-scales are to be thoroughly examined, but the average surface temperature is clearly limited by the global energy balance. Incoming energy of the sun, planetary albedo, water vapor cycle and the partial cloud cover may be the main players on the scene,” he said.

“According Dr. Miskolczi’s calculation on the NOAA 60-years global average database, during these decades the Earth’s greenhouse effect remained constant. The atmosphere equated the increase of CO2 with minor modifications in the hydrological cycle. Here are the data, here are the equations and the computations. Please come and falsify us. All are welcome.”

Dr. Zagoni’s website, with all the relevant publications and other information: http://miskolczi.webs.com.” “Climate challenge“

William Gray has an important new paper out. The first part of the paper shows how the assumptions programmed into AGW climate models lead to model output of increased water vapor in the mid and upper troposphere, decreased outgoing long wave radiation (positive feedback), a mid troposphere hot spot, and enhanced global warming. Actual data show that water vapor in the mid and upper troposphere has decreased (negative feedback), not increased, which explains why there is no mid troposphere hot spot and why the enhanced global warming output of climate models is unphysical.

The second part of the paper deals with the meridional overturning circulation of the oceans. From the abstract of the paper:

“This paper discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and deep water Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) can be the primary cause of climate change. (MOC = THC + SAS) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution (~1850) and for the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1998 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades.”

h/t Icecap
-

“Recent conversations at ClimateAudit about the observations of a steady fall in water vapor in the upper atmosphere have been the subject of some controversy, as contrary to the [AGW] climate models, they appear to show a strong negative feedback from water vapor as greenhouse gases increase. Climate liberals argue the data are so flawed they should not even be discussed. Climate conservatives argue that the whatever information is there should not be wasted simply because it does not agree with the models.

Andrew sends in a much more sensible approach, asking, along the lines of Douglass et al. 2007 and their study of upper tropical tropospheric temperatures: “Are the models and data ‘consistent’.”

[Andrew compares the models to the data and concludes] “If the trends in the data are to be believed, the models are completely qualitatively wrong. Now, the humidity data have their problems, but that they could be so far off seems unlikely.“” “Are Changes in Water Vapor Consistent with the Models“

Prior posts here and here.
-

Read Garth Paltridge’s account of why the Journal of Climate refused to publish this paper because a reviewer opined that “the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range”:

“The upper-level negative trends in q [specific humidity] are inconsistent with climate-model calculations … Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. …

Climate models (for various obscure reasons) tend to maintain constant relative humidity at each atmospheric level, and therefore have an increasing absolute humidity at each level as the surface and atmospheric temperatures increase. This behaviour in the upper levels of the models produces a positive feedback which more than doubles the temperature rise calculated to be the consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2.

The bottom line is that, if (repeat if) one could believe the NCEP data ‘as is’, water vapour feedback over the last 35 years has been negative. And if the pattern were to continue into the future, one would expect water vapour feedback in the climate system to halve rather than double the temperature rise due to increasing CO2.” “A Peek behind the Curtain“

“In response to a warming or cooling influence, the LW [longwave] feedback is mostly controlled by changes in water vapor and high clouds…Dessler et al. addressed the water vapor part, and got indications of positive water vapor feedback (specific humidity increasing with warming).

And guess what? Using the CERES radiation budget data from Aqua during 2002 through 2007 I get about the same result as they did. In fact, I got an infrared feedback parameter right in the middle of the range of all of the IPCC models. (Note that CERES includes the effect of both cirrus clouds and water vapor, so at face value this would suggest the Infrared Iris effect was not operating during this time…but see “Cause or Effect?” below for another interpretation.)

The Rest of the Story: Shortwave Feedback

The other half of the feedback story which Dessler et al did not address is the reflected solar component. This feedback is mostly controlled by changes in low cloud cover with warming. The IPCC admits that feedbacks associated with low clouds are the most uncertain of all feedbacks, with positive or negative feedback possible…although most, if not all, IPCC models currently have positive SW feedbacks.

But I found from the CERES data a strongly negative SW feedback during 2002-2007. When added to the LW feedback, this resulted in a total (SW+LW) feedback that is strongly negative.

Is my work published? No…at least not yet…although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m^-2 K^-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence.” “What About the Clouds, Andy?“

“Abstract: Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences. …

Discussion and conclusions: In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. …

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation … [and] a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.

Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming.” “Oceanic influences on recent continental warming“

h/t World Climate Report

Prior posts here, here, here, and here.
-

““This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.” …

“We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”" “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change“

Only one problem: humidity in the mid-troposphere, where the AGW fingerprint is supposed to be but isn’t, and where outgoing long wave radiation originates, is decreasing (see graph above, source).

The only place where humidity is increasing is at and near the surface and is caused by the Sun heating the surface, not CO2.

The outrageous thing about the economic suicide of the West in the name of “fighting anthropogenic global warming” is that the whole greenhouse gas theory is based on an erroneous mathematical model.

The standard greenhouse gas model is based on the solution of Eddington’s differential equations (1916) describing radiation equilibrium in an infinite radiating and absorbing medium (derived by Eddington for the Sun). The standard model yields a temperature discontinuity at the Earth’s surface between the ground and atmosphere which does not exist. The real atmospheric temperature is in equilibrium with the ground temperature and the real atmosphere has finite height and and is semi-transparent to infrared.

Miskolczi solved the Eddington equations with the real boundary conditions (amazingly this had never been done before) and showed that the Earth’s surface temperature can only change with changes in insolation (incoming radiation from the Sun) or albedo (cloud cover, modulated by cosmic rays). “Runaway” greenhouse warming is impossible: an increase in CO2 leads to a decrease in water vapor and a restoration of equilibrium; the total greenhouse effect remains constant unless insolation or albedo changes.

Decreasing humidity does correlate inversely with increasing CO2. As long as the Earth has oceans it can’t have “runaway” greenhouse warming. A negative water vapor feedback mechanism, not a positive feedback as in the standard model, operates. The Sun, not CO2, drives climate change.

Miskolczi shows that warming due to a doubling of CO2 (which would be compensated by cooling due to a decrease in water vapor, leading to a zero net temperature change) would be only 0.24 degrees.

The best website to explore Miskolczi’s model is David Stockwell’s site (search for Miskolczi). You physicists out there need to read about it. Some references:

Miskolczi paper

Stockwell review

Stockwell series

Ken Gregory review

Noor van Andel review

Miklos Zagoni review

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities have increased the proportion of the atmosphere occupied by carbon dioxide by one-ten-thousandth part since 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004, updated). This minuscule perturbation may cause a small, harmless, and beneficial warming (Monckton, 2008). Greenhouse gases also include water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas because of its volume, and methane, of which the atmospheric concentration ceased to increase in 2000 and is now declining (IPCC, 2007). Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, but occur naturally in quantities greater than those emitted from fossil fuel combustion and industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: global cooling is occurring (GISStemp, HadCRU, RSS, UAH, NCDC). Though a natural warming trend of ~0.5 °C per century began in 1700, long before humankind could possibly have had any significant effect on global temperature (Akasofu, 2008), there has been no new record year for global temperature since 1998 and, since late 2001, there has been a downtrend. The cooling between January 2007 and January 2008 was the sharpest since records began in 1880.

Therefore no action need be taken to mitigate “global warming”, for there is no evidence in the instrumental record that humankind has caused any significant increase in the 300-year-long natural warming rate, and no theoretical reason why future greenhouse-gas emissions should prove harmful.” “A scientifically accurate revision of the APS’ “National Policy” on “Climate Change”“

Yes, you read correctly: “So no one should be surprised that it is they, Friends of the Earth, who have petitioned EPA to regulate aircraft emissions, including water vapor, as air pollutants.” “Water vapor, nukes, and the EPA“

Will the madness ever end?