Natural global warming

[swansont]

The trend does not matter, since we aren't discussing the slope, and correcting a bias in the data is not a natural source of temperature variation. This is all a non-sequitur.

[JohnB]

While the trend is more outside the point, I have to disagree about correcting the bias.

 

cypress is deconstructing the temperature rise. If we consider the temperature to have risen by .7 degrees, then it is just as valid to show that .2 degrees of that warming was due to bias as to any other factor.

 

What makes up the .7 degrees?

Factor A =.z degrees

Factor B =.y degrees and so on.

 

Since the bias was used to arrive at the .7 degrees total, then its removal must be germane. For the simple reason that the warming becomes .5 degrees and not .7 if for no other reason.

[swansont]

The correction to the bias only affects the graph from ~1940-195x. That point does not appear to be in contention. Since it does not affect the endpoints, it has no effect on the total amount of warming between 1800 and today. You remove a ~.3 degree drop from one part of the graph, as shown in post #23. You have to account for less warming after 1950, but more warming (or rather, less of a cooling off period) leading up to 1950. The value drops out of the total.

 

We've agreed on the starting point, which is that graph. Instrument bias is not a source of warming, period, much less natural warming. cypress has to come up with 0.4 - 0.6 degrees of natural warming sources.

[cypress]

The correction to the bias only affects the graph from ~1940-195x. That point does not appear to be in contention. Since it does not affect the endpoints, it has no effect on the total amount of warming between 1800 and today. You remove a ~.3 degree drop from one part of the graph, as shown in post #23. You have to account for less warming after 1950, but more warming (or rather, less of a cooling off period) leading up to 1950. The value drops out of the total.

 

We've agreed on the starting point, which is that graph. Instrument bias is not a source of warming, period, much less natural warming. cypress has to come up with 0.4 - 0.6 degrees of natural warming sources.

 

Fair enough 0.4-0.6 of natural warming, 0.2-0.4 unaccounted for, I agree this adjustment will be subtracted back in the end but since this is based on the skeptics argument, it will be easier to follow the entire argument, end to end. Since this is a midpoint correction and is well supported is it fair to say you don't take issue with it?

[swansont]

No, no problem.

[cypress]

Next, from Susan Solomon et al is a report in Science Magazine from January. They show how variations in the water vapor content in the lower stratosphere influence global temperature rates of change for periods longer than a decade. In the paper they make the point that these changes are unrelated to GHG's.

 

they show that from the beginning of the data set in 1980 through 2009, the overall increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere has been responsible for 15% of the temperature increase. Since they don't have satellite data prior to 1979 it is not possible to predict what happened between 1950 and 1980 so with no other guidance we shall treat is as zero for that time period.

 

The warming Knappenberger has now is shown in Figure 3.

 

The overall total rise is now 0.486°C. Any issues?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Next, from Susan Solomon et al is a report in Science Magazine from January. They show how variations in the water vapor content in the lower stratosphere influence global temperature rates of change for periods longer than a decade. In the paper they make the point that these changes are unrelated to GHG's.

 

they show that from the beginning of the data set in 1980 through 2009, the overall increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere has been responsible for 15% of the temperature increase. Since they don't have satellite data prior to 1979 it is not possible to predict what happened between 1950 and 1980 so with no other guidance we shall treat is as zero for that time period.

 

The warming Knappenberger has now is shown in Figure 3.

 

The overall total rise is now 0.486°C. Any issues?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I see this in the paper. Here's what I see in the discussion about figure 3:

 

Figure 3 shows the added forcing and estimated warming corresponding to an adopted linear increase of stratospheric water vapor forcing ranging from 0 to +0.24 W m–2 from 1980 to 2000 based on the analysis in the previous section. This range brackets the large uncertainty in water vapor trends before 2000. The figure also shows the effect of the observed post-2000 decrease, for which there is much higher confidence as discussed above. Figure 3 shows that the reduced forcing associated with the drop in stratospheric water vapor after 2000 decreased the rate of warming as compared to what would have been expected for well-mixed greenhouse gases alone by about 25% (from about 0.14°C per decade to 0.10°C per decade for this particular model or about a –0.04°C per decade change). Figure 3 also shows that an increase in global stratospheric water vapor at the upper end of the range suggested by the balloon measurements should be expected to have steepened the rate of global warming from 1990 to 2000 by about 30% as compared to a case neglecting stratospheric water changes. Figure 3 thus shows that the decline in stratospheric water vapor after 2000 should be expected to have significantly contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend in the past decade, and stratospheric water increases may also have acted to steepen the observed warming trend in the 1990s.

 

The paper supports the idea that stratospheric water vapor was increasing until the year 2000; however, it has since declined, resulting in increased warming. The paper also points out that the pre-1990 dataset was based off of balloon measurements in Colorado, and does not necessarily represent a global mean. Finally, the authors caution against using their work to make evaluations of global climate change:

 

However, the relation between SSTs in the warm pool region and stratospheric water vapor changes character (from negative to positive short-term correlations) from 1980 to 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. It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability.

 

I'm not sure if this work represents a demonstration of altered global rates of climate change or merely shorter-term variability, as the authors state. Certainly it's something that should be paid closer attention to in future research.

[swansont]

Next, from Susan Solomon et al is a report in Science Magazine from January. They show how variations in the water vapor content in the lower stratosphere influence global temperature rates of change for periods longer than a decade. In the paper they make the point that these changes are unrelated to GHG's.

 

 

They make no such point.

 

"It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability."

 

If it's a feedback effect, then it is not a natural source — it's a feedback from other sources, e.g. greenhouse gases. If it is a decadal variability, doesn't that imply that there is cooling associated with it as well? Wouldn't these merely cancel out over longer periods of time? The paper notes this effect as a possible reason for the flattening of recent data and for extra warming prior to that and presumably this has happened repeatedly over time. You don't get to include only half of the effect and take credit for the warming while ignoring the cooling. You have to show that the overall effect over long periods of time is that of warming.

[cypress]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I see this in the paper. Here's what I see in the discussion about figure 3:

 

figure 3 from Knappenberger's article.

 

My link

 

The paper supports the idea that stratospheric water vapor was increasing until the year 2000; however, it has since declined, resulting in increased warming.

 

Right the average rate of warming as a result was about 10% in the 80's, 30% in the 90's and slightly negative in the 2000's for an average of 15% over the entire period.

 

The paper also points out that the pre-1990 dataset was based off of balloon measurements in Colorado, and does not necessarily represent a global mean. Finally, the authors caution against using their work to make evaluations of global climate change:

 

Information on climate is incomplete. We work with what we have on all sides of the issue. The information available suggests that it is a global, the physics implies that it should be global, there is no indication that it should be localized. If you have information of any kind that it should be localized let's have it so we can rework the estimate.

 

Likewise, the authors don't find any evidence to suggest that it is related to CO2 increases. The trends follow warming patterns well but do not follow CO2 concentration trends in any way. The correlation to CO2 is very very poor and so there is no apparent reason to connect this pattern with human activity. CO2 has increased steadily through this entire period but this effect does not. It has been flat and negative as you noted in the past several years. CO2 continues to rise.

 

Can you show me how the two events are connected and how I missed describing the correlation between this pattern and GHG's? If so I will be happy to assign it to human causes.

[JohnB]

The correction to the bias only affects the graph from ~1940-195x. That point does not appear to be in contention. Since it does not affect the endpoints, it has no effect on the total amount of warming between 1800 and today.

I must learn to read better. For some reason I was thinking "from 1960" which made an endpoint change.

 

I'll shut up now.

[cypress]

They make no such point.

 

We will have to disagree on this apparently subjective assessment.

 

"It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability."

 

If it's a feedback effect, then it is not a natural source — it's a feedback from other sources, e.g. greenhouse gases.

 

You are now defining causation awfully restrictively. I was not this precise in my original claim. We defined warming as the apparent increase as described in the HADCRUT3. This means that even errors in the data set count in the total. Every cause counts, feedback or error or not, it has to go in one one of the only two categories I offered, to put warming. If it is accounted for and it is not attributable to AGW then it must go into the accounted bucket that I gave the improper label "natural". If the warming is unknown or AGW caused it goes in the other bucket. There is no third bucket.

 

I have not seen a case where feedback or direct effects don't correlate with the causal agent. In this paper they make it very clear that it is not feedback from AGW when they state that from 2000 to 2009 diminished water vapor levels in the upper atmosphere depressed global warming by about 25% compared to what would have occurred due to increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

 

If it is a decadal variability, doesn't that imply that there is cooling associated with it as well?

 

Thus the term variability. What should the assumed behavior be when we lack data?

 

Wouldn't these merely cancel out over longer periods of time?

 

If we extend the time period long enough I would think so, but how long should the minimum be assigned before we can be sure it cancels? If a 30 year period shows an average increase of 15%, it seems to imply this minimum time could easily be several hundreds of years. Since we don't have enough data to identify a valid number, it seems unreasonable to speculate in the short term where data is not available. More reasonable would be to assume the long term trend which you and I agree should be zero.

 

The paper notes this effect as a possible reason for the flattening of recent data and for extra warming prior to that and presumably this has happened repeatedly over time. You don't get to include only half of the effect and take credit for the warming while ignoring the cooling.

 

I did not ignore the cooling observed where data exists. It is worked into the numbers and the graphic.

 

You have to show that the overall effect over long periods of time is that of warming.

 

I don't see how this is the case. The peer reviewed paper was silent about the long run likely because speculating about it would not meet peer muster. For the time period where we have data, an adjustment is not only reasonable, it is justified. Where we lack data, the presumed long term trend seems like the only option and a reasonable choice would be to take the expected long term average effect which is very likely zero. This is what Knappenberger seems to have assumed and done.

 

Anything else?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Information on climate is incomplete. We work with what we have on all sides of the issue. The information available suggests that it is a global, the physics implies that it should be global, there is no indication that it should be localized. If you have information of any kind that it should be localized let's have it so we can rework the estimate.

 

Likewise, the authors don't find any evidence to suggest that it is related to CO2 increases. The trends follow warming patterns well but do not follow CO2 concentration trends in any way. The correlation to CO2 is very very poor and so there is no apparent reason to connect this pattern with human activity. CO2 has increased steadily through this entire period but this effect does not. It has been flat and negative as you noted in the past several years. CO2 continues to rise.

 

Can you show me how the two events are connected and how I missed describing the correlation between this pattern and GHG's? If so I will be happy to assign it to human causes.

 

I didn't suggest there was a GHG connection.

 

Thanks for pointing at the right figure 3; I was mixed up. However, I see an issue. Knappenberger is comparing 1950 to 2009; the 2009 figure has been corrected for atmospheric water vapor, whereas the 1950 figure has not been. If the water vapor fluctuations are a decadal variation as Solomon suggests -- and limited data means we cannot draw a valid conclusion about that -- it's possible that the "corrected" 1950 would be warmer or cooler than the value in the chart.

 

Comparing uncorrected data to corrected data is apples and oranges; I wouldn't trust the numbers to be very accurate one way or the other.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong -- perhaps water vapor changes have accounted for some of the warming since 1950. But since we have good data for only a third of that time period, we can only speak of the trend over that last third, rather than the trend over the entire period. Particularly if it appears the data may fluctuate on short scales, and that the effect can reverse, as the authors suggested.

 

So: water vapor is an issue that needs research. But I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet.

 

(Also, how did Knappenberger arrive at 15%? I don't see a specific calculation in Solomon's paper.)

[swansont]

We will have to disagree on this apparently subjective assessment.

 

I don't see how "it is not clear" could be interpreted to mean precisely the opposite.

 

You are now defining causation awfully restrictively. I was not this precise in my original claim. We defined warming as the apparent increase as described in the HADCRUT3. This means that even errors in the data set count in the total. Every cause counts, feedback or error or not, it has to go in one one of the only two categories I offered, to put warming. If it is accounted for and it is not attributable to AGW then it must go into the accounted bucket that I gave the improper label "natural". If the warming is unknown or AGW caused it goes in the other bucket. There is no third bucket.

 

It is well-known that warmer air can hold more water. If the air gets warmer because of GHG effects, and as a result has more water in it and that causes further warming, ALL of that is an anthropogenic effect. (That's why it is treated as a feedback term) It would not have been present otherwise.

 

Thus the term variability. What should the assumed behavior be when we lack data?

 

Your claim. Your burden of proof.

[cypress]

I didn't suggest there was a GHG connection.

 

Thanks for pointing at the right figure 3; I was mixed up. However, I see an issue. Knappenberger is comparing 1950 to 2009; the 2009 figure has been corrected for atmospheric water vapor, whereas the 1950 figure has not been. If the water vapor fluctuations are a decadal variation as Solomon suggests -- and limited data means we cannot draw a valid conclusion about that -- it's possible that the "corrected" 1950 would be warmer or cooler than the value in the chart.

 

The Solomon et. al. data set, their statistical analysis of the data and resulting conclusions provide the basis to allow Knappenberger to account for 0.066C of the total estimated increase between 1980 and 2009. Unlike the first step, we are not making a correction, here we are accounting for net warming between 1980 and 2009 since the information allows. We make no account for the trend between 1950 and 1980 for this since we have no information one way or another. We account for as much of the apparent 0.702 C warming as possible, and we leave alone what we cannot account. At this stage the warming from 1950 through 2009 that is unaccounted for is now 0.486C.

 

Comparing uncorrected data to corrected data is apples and oranges; I wouldn't trust the numbers to be very accurate one way or the other.

 

There is no correction being made in this step. No comparison is taking place. We accounted for warming where the data allowed us to make an accounting so that the unaccounted warming is adjusted downward.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong -- perhaps water vapor changes have accounted for some of the warming since 1950. But since we have good data for only a third of that time period, we can only speak of the trend over that last third, rather than the trend over the entire period.

 

I see your statement as partially correct. First off the data covers half the time period not 1/3, but you are correct that we can only make an accounting of net warming where data is available. For the time period that this data is not available no account of net warming can be made by this stratospheric water vapor trends and so warming from 1950 through 1980 has no percentage that is accounted for by this effect.

 

Particularly if it appears the data may fluctuate on short scales, and that the effect can reverse, as the authors suggested.

 

So: water vapor is an issue that needs research. But I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet.

 

I agree that we cannot make any conclusions beyond the 1980-2009 time period.

 

(Also, how did Knappenberger arrive at 15%? I don't see a specific calculation in Solomon's paper.)

 

Solomon did not provide this number. Knappenberger applied the decade level adjustments and then took the cumulative adjustment to calculate the average adjustment at 15%

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Since Knappenberger is accounting for warming from 1950 to the present... supposing water vapor conditions in 1950 were such that Earth was much warmer than it would have been with only GHGs?

 

This would imply that the warming purely due to GHGs is much larger than expected, rather than smaller. This is why it's unwise to reach any conclusions based on data from only the past few decades.

 

(Also, the "correction" I speak of is "correcting" the total warming due to GHGs)

 

Also, of course:

 

It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability.

 

If water vapor change is a feedback to global climate change, it is caused by whatever drives global climate change -- such as GHGs. So the water vapor effects may merely be an extension of the GHG effects. We simply do not yet know.

[cypress]

Since Knappenberger is accounting for warming from 1950 to the present... supposing water vapor conditions in 1950 were such that Earth was much warmer than it would have been with only GHGs?

 

This would imply that the warming purely due to GHGs is much larger than expected, rather than smaller. This is why it's unwise to reach any conclusions based on data from only the past few decades.

 

Agreed and that is why Knappenberger does not attempt to make any conclusions about 1950-1980. Instead he takes a justified adjustment where data exists that allows for an adjustment. He says the following: "It is impossible from Solomon et al.’s analysis to know what went on prior to 1980, so, for lack of any other guidance, I’ll assume that no changes took place (or, that the net change was zero) from 1950 to 1980."

 

If water vapor change is a feedback to global climate change, it is caused by whatever drives global climate change -- such as GHGs. So the water vapor effects may merely be an extension of the GHG effects. We simply do not yet know.

 

So you and swansont have suggested that this effect might be due to feedback of climate change. Climate change being the change in global average surface temperature, correct? If it is feedback then it would correlate with but lag the influencer/driver of the feedback. Do you and swansont agree?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Agreed and that is why Knappenberger does not attempt to make any conclusions about 1950-1980. Instead he takes a justified adjustment where data exists that allows for an adjustment. He says the following: "It is impossible from Solomon et al.'s analysis to know what went on prior to 1980, so, for lack of any other guidance, I'll assume that no changes took place (or, that the net change was zero) from 1950 to 1980."

There could have been zero net change, but there also may not have been. Knappenberger uses the data to make conclusions about warming from 1950 to the present, so what was happening in 1950 is clearly relevant; with unknown effects on the 1950 data, there is a large margin of error on Knappenberger's conclusions about warming from 1950-present. It is possible that the GHG warming from 1950-present is greater than Knappenberger estimates, or less than. With no data, we simply do not know. It is silly to pretend otherwise.

 

So you and swansont have suggested that this effect might be due to feedback of climate change. Climate change being the change in global average surface temperature, correct? If it is feedback then it would correlate with but lag the influencer/driver of the feedback. Do you and swansont agree?

No, I do not agree with this. Solomon's paper points out that the effect of water vapor appears to have reversed in relation to global surface temperatures, implying a complex relationship involving outside factors. There would not necessarily be a simple cause/effect relationship between GHGs and water vapor, and one could not expect to draw a simple graph and see immediate correlation.

 

Again, from Solomon:

 

Because of these limitations in prognostic climate model simulations, here we impose observed stratospheric water vapor changes diagnostically as a forcing for the purpose of evaluation and comparison to other climate change agents. However, in the real world, the contributions of changes in stratospheric water vapor to global climate change may be a source of unforced decadal variability, or they may be a feedback coupled to climate change, as discussed further below.

 

The computations Solomon makes of the effects of water vapor are "diagnostic" and assume it is a forcing, whereas it may also be a feedback or other combination of factors.

[cypress]

There could have been zero net change, but there also may not have been. Knappenberger uses the data to make conclusions about warming from 1950 to the present, so what was happening in 1950 is clearly relevant; with unknown effects on the 1950 data, there is a large margin of error on Knappenberger's conclusions about warming from 1950-present. It is possible that the GHG warming from 1950-present is greater than Knappenberger estimates, or less than. With no data, we simply do not know. It is silly to pretend otherwise.

 

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree that we don't know what happened between 1950-1980 wrt high altitude water vapor. Thus the trend from 1950-1980 remains unadjusted and the trend stays in unaccounted for that period. Lack of knowledge of the past should not prevent making an adjustment for what we do know. I have reviewed my liturature for experimental and statistical analysis and don't find any precident for the action you suggest, perhaps you can provide some liturature on this.

 

 

No, I do not agree with this. Solomon's paper points out that the effect of water vapor appears to have reversed in relation to global surface temperatures, implying a complex relationship involving outside factors. There would not necessarily be a simple cause/effect relationship between GHGs and water vapor, and one could not expect to draw a simple graph and see immediate correlation.

 

The computations Solomon makes of the effects of water vapor are "diagnostic" and assume it is a forcing, whereas it may also be a feedback or other combination of factors.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. We are now speaking of the possibility that this is feedback not of GHG's per se, but of the global surface temperature. Are you suggesting that there could be other feedback mechanisms in play? If so can you help me to understand what they might be so I can get some information about them?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree that we don't know what happened between 1950-1980 wrt high altitude water vapor. Thus the trend from 1950-1980 remains unadjusted and the trend stays in unaccounted for that period. Lack of knowledge of the past should not prevent making an adjustment for what we do know. I have reviewed my liturature for experimental and statistical analysis and don't find any precident for the action you suggest, perhaps you can provide some liturature on this.

It's simple. The goal of Knappenberger's article -- and your purpose in this thread, according to the quote in the OP -- is to account for much of the warming trend with causes other than man-made GHGs. For example, if giant space mirrors were burning the Earth with focused sunlight, that clearly wouldn't be a manmade problem. (Unless we did something to piss off the aliens.)

 

Now, suppose we're focusing on warming from 1950-the present. Suppose the temperature in 1950 was depressed due to non-anthropogenic forcings. For example, suppose aliens spent all of 1950 lobbing gigantic chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean. If we wish to determine anthropogenic climate change over Earth's history, we must account for non-anthropogenic forcings. If we account for non-anthropogenic forcings and determine that the temperature in 1950 would have been cooler, the anthropogenic warming since then would be larger.

 

Likewise, if we account for non-anthropogenic forcings and determine that the temperature in 2010 would have been cooling, the anthropogenic warming must have been smaller than previously expected.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. We are now speaking of the possibility that this is feedback not of GHG's per se, but of the global surface temperature. Are you suggesting that there could be other feedback mechanisms in play? If so can you help me to understand what they might be so I can get some information about them?

My objection applies regardless of whether water vapor is a feedback of GHGs, global mean surface temperature, or the average penguin density in North American zoos.

 

It is not I that suggest that there may be other feedback mechanisms, it is Solomon:

 

However, the relation between SSTs in the warm pool region and stratospheric water vapor changes character (from negative to positive short-term correlations) from 1980 to 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. It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability.

 

I am simply pointing out what Solomon pointed out. Perhaps you should contact Solomon.

[swansont]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree that we don't know what happened between 1950-1980 wrt high altitude water vapor. Thus the trend from 1950-1980 remains unadjusted and the trend stays in unaccounted for that period. Lack of knowledge of the past should not prevent making an adjustment for what we do know. I have reviewed my liturature for experimental and statistical analysis and don't find any precident for the action you suggest, perhaps you can provide some liturature on this.

 

 

Which means it's quite possible that there has been an adjustment in one direction, and a countering adjustment — bringing the net effect to zero — is being left out.

 

It's simple. The goal of Knappenberger's article -- and your purpose in this thread, according to the quote in the OP -- is to account for much of the warming trend with causes other than man-made GHGs.

 

The actual claim was that natural sources accounted for much of the warming we see. Manmade influences other than GHGs do not count as natural influences, i.e. the goal of Knappenberg's article does not exactly mirror the claim that instigated this thread.

[cypress]

Which means it's quite possible that there has been an adjustment in one direction, and a countering adjustment — bringing the net effect to zero — is being left out.

 

I am following standard accepted practice for the scientific method and statistical approach for experimental data. The guidance provides for accounting for known impacts when information is available to justify the accounting and cautions against speculating when data is unavailable.

 

By your logic one should not make any correction for a discovered error on the grounds that it is possible that other remaining unknown errors, that would counter the correction, are being left out and thus the erroneous data should be left untouched. One could argue they are justified in this argument by noting that errors over time tend to balance out.

 

Have I or Knappenberger misapplied these principles?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am following standard accepted practice for the scientific method and statistical approach for experimental data. The guidance provides for accounting for known impacts when information is available to justify the accounting and cautions against speculating when data is unavailable.

 

By your logic one should not make any correction for a discovered error on the grounds that it is possible that other remaining unknown errors, that would counter the correction, are being left out and thus the erroneous data should be left untouched. One could argue they are justified in this argument by noting that errors over time tend to balance out.

 

Have I or Knappenberger misapplied these principles?

 

No, you've misapplied swansont's argument. You don't seem to understand what we're saying.

 

We are not arguing against making a correction or adjustment to data when it is shown that one is necessary. We are arguing that if you correct/adjust one piece of data, but do not adjust the other, you will get the wrong answer when you compare the two.

 

Polish your apples all you want, but don't go comparing them to oranges.

[cypress]

 

It is not I that suggest that there may be other feedback mechanisms, it is Solomon:

 

I am simply pointing out what Solomon pointed out. Perhaps you should contact Solomon.

 

The researchers noted that there are two primary mechanisms for water vapor changes in the stratosphere. Earlier research also confirms these observations. One is transport of water vapor from the troposphere which occurs mostly as warm air masses rise in the tropics. The other is oxidation of methane which occurs in the upper stratosphere.

 

One of the researches and authors of the study, Karen Rosenlof of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Aeronomy Laboratory made the following statement on these points: "We found that there was a surface temperature impact due to changes in water vapor in a fairly narrow region of the stratosphere. The reason for the water vapor change is the temperature drop at the interface between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the tropics. What we don't know is why the temperature dropped."

 

Also,

 

“This is such a sudden decrease, we can’t explain what’s behind it." She then goes on to exclude one possible sources when she explains that one large source of water vapor in the stratosphere is the oxidation of methane. But the decline in concentration of that gas detected by the researchers seems to be limited to a layer 2 kilometers thick in the lower stratosphere, while methane is found throughout the stratosphere. And even though scientists have discerned a leveling off in atmospheric methane in recent years, that trend doesn’t seem to be directly linked to the drop in the concentrations of stratospheric water vapor.

 

So, most of the change in water vapor occurs in the lower stratosphere in the vicinity of regions affected by the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Furthermore the temperature does have strong correlation to sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that, of course, follow El Niño–La Niña cycles, along with other tropical sea trends.

 

Here is what other researchers said:

 

The researchers speculate that the amount of water vapor gradually rising into the stratosphere at tropical latitudes has decreased, possibly due to a shift in global patterns of sea-surface temperatures that influence rates of evaporation and water vapor movement.

 

The new findings “are a nice demonstration of the sensitivity of the climate to water vapor concentrations in the lower stratosphere,” says Andrew Gettelman, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

 

Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station says he thinks the team has identified a new source of short-term variability in climate, one different from long-term drivers such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

I don't find any researchers who are attributing the effect to GHG feedback or anything other than tropical region ocean oscillations.

 

No, you've misapplied swansont's argument. You don't seem to understand what we're saying.

 

We are not arguing against making a correction or adjustment to data when it is shown that one is necessary. We are arguing that if you correct/adjust one piece of data, but do not adjust the other, you will get the wrong answer when you compare the two.

 

Polish your apples all you want, but don't go comparing them to oranges.

 

You seem to be claiming that 1950 is an orange but you have no data to demonstrate this. Since we have no reason to suspect it is an orange, by statistical methods we must treat it as an apple.

Edited August 20, 2010 by cypress

[swansont]

 

You seem to be claiming that 1950 is an orange but you have no data to demonstrate this. Since we have no reason to suspect it is an orange, by statistical methods we must treat it as an apple.

 

Argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is upon you to show it is an apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[cypress]

Argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is upon you to show it is an apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

It's a misapplication, you take advantage of my loose and imprecise prose. To accept your argument, one could never back out any identified error in any data set on the basis that there may be unknown compensating errors that remain.