Advertisement

Science Friday
Water vapor slowed recent global warming trend
Temperatures linked to unexplained decline in stratospheric moisture
font_down font_up Text Size

A sudden and unexplained drop in the amount of water vapor present high in the atmosphere almost a decade ago has substantially slowed the rate of warming at Earth’s surface in recent years, scientists say.

In late 2000 and early 2001, concentrations of water vapor in a narrow slice of the lower stratosphere dropped by 0.5 parts per million, or about 10 percent, and have remained relatively stable since then. Because the decline was noted by several types of instruments, including some on satellites and others lofted on balloons, the sharp decrease is presumed to be real, says Karen Rosenlof, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

And because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, the decline has slowed the increase of global temperatures, Rosenlof, Susan Solomon, also of NOAA in Boulder, and their colleagues report online January 28 and in an upcoming Science.

“This is such a sudden decrease, we can’t explain what’s behind it,” Rosenlof says. One large source of water vapor in the stratosphere is the oxidation of methane, she notes. 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, she says.

Regardless of the cause of the decline, the team’s modeling suggests that the decrease in water vapor concentrations in the lower stratosphere has slowed down average global warming. The rate of increase in the average global surface temperature from 2000 to 2009 was about 25 percent lower than it otherwise would have been, the researchers report. The team’s analyses using a climate model suggest that average global surface temperatures rose only 0.1 degrees Celsius during that period, rather than the 0.14 degree increase expected because of increases in other greenhouse gases.

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. And even though the effect seems to be substantial, the decrease in water vapor may be temporary.

What’s more, Dessler says, humans can’t depend on a continued decline in water vapor in the lower stratosphere to slow surface warming further in the long term. “Water vapor is scarce in the lower stratosphere already, and you can’t drop below zero,” he notes. “This is not going to save our bacon.”


Found in: Climate Change, Earth, Earth Science and Environment

Comments 31
  • My Oh My, Global warming is dead, and the clever scientists who kept warning us about it have found the secret of why. They are so brilliant. It looks like Nature turned the hockey stick upside down. There are more things in heaven and Earth than are drempt of in their philosophy.
    John Ackerman John Ackerman
    Jan. 29, 2010 at 10:47am
  • If the article says it's still warming and the effect appears short-term, meaning temporary, how can one fairly conclude that global warming is dead? To make good decisions people must fully absorb then carefully weigh new evidence, not just cherry pick points and conclusions to support pre-existing biases, while belittling the hard, honest work of others.
    Julian Hunt Julian Hunt
    Jan. 29, 2010 at 12:17pm
  • I love that global warming hockey stick graph, Instead of CO2, maybe it also matches de-forestation? Human population growth? Urban sprawl? Growth of heat islands around weather stations as cities surround them? New York Yankees series wins? All of the above? Global warming may be real, but there is no proof that CO2 is responsible.
    Potatoe Potatoe
    Jan. 29, 2010 at 10:31pm
  • Dear researchers. I'm sorry to tell you this, but your findings must be faulty because all the variables that affect climate have already been accounted for and included in the present climate models. I mean, where have you been...? In a coma...? Don't you know that the science is settled...? For heaven's sake, there is a consensus on this matter!
    Carol May Carol May
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 2:45am
  • Potatoe: You are right that correlation does not imply causation. But the fact they you haven't read the research giving the evidence for the role of CO2 in climate change does not mean it is not there. The evidence is in basic physics, climate models and studies of past climates. Recent data fits this work. The correlation of cigarette smoking and lung cancer does not prove the former causes the latter. But many medical studies have shown this link.

    Carol: The consensus is that human emissions of CO2 and other GHG are and will drive up average global temperature over time. Nothing in this work contradicts that. Everyone knows there are other factors we don't understand yet. Look, if I see a rock flying toward my head, I could say well maybe a gust of wind will blow it off course and save me. But I think it would be wiser to duck.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 4:05pm
  • "it would be wiser to duck" But which way? There is an increasingly strong case that 20-30 years of cooling is coming our way, with significant drawdowns in the next century or two, based on solar interactions. That would represent a prompt threat in terms of food, energy and even wars without blowing several trillion a year going in the wrong direction and massively abrogating civil rights for some fantasy or statist power grab.

    When your star dies down, both cyclical and anthropogenic global warming fears may be nonstarters.
    ba nonymous ba nonymous
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 5:47pm
  • ba nonymous: Your facts are simply wrong. You may have heard some misinterpretation of work by Mojib Latif. I found this: "Even well-meaning and thoughtful commentators and reporters have misinterpreted the recent comments and work of Mojib Latif, the Kiel University climate scientist whose remarks at a session on prediction at the World Climate Conference in Geneva set off the latest furor. Somehow those writers have managed to overlook the fact that Latif, despite projecting less near-term warming than most climate modellers, is still looking for warming close to 0.2 deg. C in the coming decade." [deepclimate]

    You can use Google to find the source URL since we can't post links here.

    Your comments on protected solar activity are utterly without foundation.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 7:37pm
  • You devout CAGW believers need to do some reading, the two entries on exageration and lying about Himalyan glacier melt. The AR-4 is riddled with that junk. CRU, Hadley NOAA, NASA, they have all cooked the books. You have no idea what the global temp. history is, because all the claims are bogus.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Jan. 31, 2010 at 12:43am
  • ART DAY: Yes, and Obama was born oversees and the moon landings where all faked, well at least the first two for sure. The CRU e-mails prove that back in the 1980's all the scientists faked the temp. data to make it cooler so that now, 30 years later, it would just look like this decade was warmer. They did this because they knew, back then, that the global cooling thing would be exposed by right-wing talk show hosts. This was all reviled by Nostradamus!
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Jan. 31, 2010 at 10:36pm
  • Hang in there Mike, but take some time to think about what you will believe in when the CAGW fraud dissolves. By the way, the records show that NASA GISS did lower past temps. along with inflating recent temps. that is how books are cooked.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Jan. 31, 2010 at 11:20pm
  • Yes, Mike Sullivan it is basic physics temperature is not equal to energy. Yet, we measure the amount of energy stored by CO2 using temperature alone. And, the computer models are not even close to being accurate. Read the artical on the dead salmon that had brain activity when measured by a computer model of MRI results. This is no different. Michael Mann used bogus data and a computer model that when random data was put into it still always came out in a hockey stick shape. But, we are supposed to believe even though ALL the orignal data used to generate the first hockey graph was wrong, Mann actually nailed it. Or, the more likely scenario is scientist following him tweaked the data so it matched Mann's results. Check out climateaudit org to find the source data.
    argonaut argonaut
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 5:52am
  • It is an acknowledged fact that water is a much stronger green-house gas than CO2. How come potential changes in water vapor in the lower stratosphere were not included in these mathematical models. There will never be a modal that predicts climate because there are more variables than are even known. One reason that its now getting colder (both North America and Europe are currently freezing) and will continue to do so, is that there have been no sunspots in the last year or two. These cause so-called Coronal Mass Ejections that heat the Earth. The last time this happened, it continued for seventy-five years and created the 'little ice age.' Google that or 'Maunder Minimum.' This is one example of an UNPREDICTABLE variable which no model can anticipate. Another example are the house-sized comets discovered by Barney Frank falling into the atmosphere at the rate of dozens per day. They supply the water vapor that is in the stratosphere yet the modelers don't even acknowledge their presence. Every time some scientist says he has a mathematical model, people assume that its conclusions are correct. The truth is that anyone dreaming up such a model can tweak it to give whatever results they desire. Global warming is now the vogue - so the models will give that prediction. If any academic comes up with a cooling model, he will be kicked right out of the university.
    John Ackerman John Ackerman
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 10:29am
  • Mike: You show no inkling of what I am talking about. The long range weather forecasts based on solar related phenomena, have a much better predictive record than the incomplete models for the current years. We are talking years and decades ahead on the current COLD season predictions. Incomplete means that general energy equation (that starts out with the del^2, along with mass and momentum) has significant solar related terms (plural) mismodeled (e.g. as constants), incorrectly ignored, zeroed out as insignificant. The solar related area is complex and has been almost neglected, and ad hom attacked, by the current generation of pseudoscientific modelers and politico grant queens with amazing misbehaviors.

    I am still waiting, 25+ years, to see a consistent *physics* CAGW case that avoids Feynman's definition of "cargo cult science".
    ba nonymous ba nonymous
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 12:01pm
  • The reality of our situation is that it doesn't matter if global climate change is happening or not. As long as society is dependent on finite and polluting fossil fuels, it is an unsustainable future. We've already lost 30 years and green jobs are still jobs!!! The question remains...Can we react in time to survive our own folly?
    Nacramancer Nacramancer
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 2:47pm
  • Argonaut: MRIs are not used in climate modeling. But note that MRI machines are still very useful in medicine. If your point is that scientists are not perfect, you are correct. But, no one has shown that Mann faked his data. Climateaudit is run by an amateur scientist who is in over his head. Go you realclimate and read Mann for yourself.

    John Ackerman: See “The wisdom of Solomon” on realclimate. Solomon’s work improves earlier climate models but does not invalidate them. On sun spot activity you are right. There is an 11 year sun spot cycle that is understood, but longer term variations are not. We could base our plans on the off chance that sun spot activity will abate over the next few decades. But this seems foolish. Even if this happened, if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we will really be screwed when sun spot activity picks up again.

    Water from comets precipitate. It won't build up in the atmosphere. Are you sure you have the name "Barney Frank" right? Maybe you are making a joke about the speaker of the House.

    We academics have tenure. Even biologists who advocate ID who have tenure keep their jobs. Most scientists are pretty tick skinned!

    ba nonymous: I do not know what you are talking about and doubt you do either. Just because you saw del^2 in a textbook 25 years ago does not mean you can do solar physics. You can’t just say you have some formula and so you must be right. Where is your work published?

    -----

    Some people will go to doctor after doctor until they hear what they want. If the first nine doctors tell you to lose weight, eat better and get more exercise but the tenth one says not to worry, it is tempting to go with the tenth doctor, but this is not wise.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 6:31pm
  • The general equations of energy, momentum and mass are THE fundamental mathematical starting point to building a "scientific" model. ALL the individual E=... laws that you may have (or not) learned, go into that equation as an additional term. Most of those terms are then treated as constants, simplified equations or often zeroed out for specialized real world problems to produce a tractable answer from t=0, some known initial condition for a dynamic system. In the "all world" models, it is becoming crystal clear to even technically strong outsiders just how deficient these models are in producing straight, predictive answers after multiple strikes and denials.

    My point about CAGW as "cargo cult science" was that Feynman emphasized the need to bend over backwards to address critics concerns. The CAGW "scientists" have been established to repeatedly hide from intelligent questions, legitimate inquiries, and to deny valid identifcation of errors for protracted times. That is what makes them "cargo cult scientists".

    ba nonymous ba nonymous
    Feb. 1, 2010 at 10:24pm
  • I won't respond to be nonymous directly. I'll just note that his/her refusal to provide a reference is a red flag for nonsense.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 9:05am
  • My bet is that none of you are qualified to even talk about this subject, and you are all following pre-existing biases. Perhaps you should let the experts decide. I don't tell you how to do your job, please do the same for me (and others).
    Dylan C Dylan C
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 7:13pm
  • Mike, would you like those references from WWF or Greenpeace?
    I am clear that we have a strong instinctive revulsion to accepting that we have been lied to and that we have been had. But the simple truth is that you have been lied to and you have been had by people who would care nothing if you and the rest of us were reduced to the living standards of pre-earthquake Haiti as long as they got to be the new wealthy power elite. You need to voluntarily enter one of those de-programming facilities that help those who have escaped from religious cults.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 7:18pm
  • Mike Sullivan, I reference a serious article from this magazine and the best response you can come up with is "MRIs are not used in climate modeling. But note that MRI machines are still very useful in medicine." Did you have to look that up? You set up strawmen and knock them over, but have not actually rebutted any of my points. Yes, Mann's data has been shown to be fake. And the "amateur" scientist is the same one who found that NASA's program had a Y2K bug that changed the data after Y2K. He did this w/o working at NASA. He has found multiple errors with these "experts" work. Something, the much vaunted "peer reviewed" seems incapable of doing.
    Please, explain how Mann did everything wrong but managed to get the correct answer? For anyone who is serious about Mann's work read the Wegman report. Or, Wegman's testimony to congress on Mann's report.
    From the testimony
    "We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway."

    "It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”

    Realclimate is ran by the same people who brought us climate gate, per their own emails.

    argonaut argonaut
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 8:13pm
  • Dylan C: As much as I disagree with the deniers I disagree with you even more. In a democracy all these people have a right to express their views. Much of the climate research was done with their taxes dollars and the results have implications for our economic and environmental policies. I may get testy or impatient at times, but I respect their rights.

    As for my background, I am not a climatologist. I do have a Ph.D. in mathematics from U.T. Austin and work in something called topological dynamical systems, aka chaos theory.

    Argonaut: You did not make your point well. The problems with MRI research do not invalidate their use in medicine: don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. You agree, correct? Well, the few errors that have been found in the IPCC report have no bearing on the climate forecasts.

    I have read climateaudit. If you have concerns about Mann’s work you should at least read his response to these accusations. They can be found at realclimate.

    How do you explain that the Chinese, Brazilian, Russian and Indian academics of science all agree that humans are causing climate change? Did Phil Jones threaten to beat them up? (Google, “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change”.)

    Look, we have to make some difficult decisions and there are risks and uncertainties in every direction. If we have a C&T scheme in place, and the climate proves to be stable, we can raise the cap. If the models are wrong and we have a few more decades before the it hits the fan, we will have a system in place to deal wit it. But, if the models are right, as most scientists in this area think, and we keep pumping out the CO2 we are screwed. Let’s minimize our risk.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 9:18pm
  • I am shocked and disappointed by the low level of intellectual development displayed by the first comment recorded here. Cannot our discussions in a scientific magazine be at least intellectually honest?
    Conrad Seitz Conrad Seitz
    Feb. 2, 2010 at 10:05pm
  • Regarding offtopic politicking, C&T is revolutionary and really bad economics, also proven highly susceptible to more AGW (e.g. Al Gore's warnings) & tax fraud. A number of people think that such schemes may lead to economic collapse, severe backlash and/or hot revolution, thereby maximizing risk to the environment and the population's wellbeing on top of risks suggested by multiple outsiders planetary solar-models suggesting cooling periods ahead.(Inside, NASA's dirty dozen+ solar models where "their" predicted sunspot level should have looked like measles the last 1-2 years, completely missed outsiders' earlier forecasts of much lower sunspot activity ca 2007-2030.)

    It is interesting to see any article showing water vapor as a mechanism forestalling GW. Since water vapor is the purported AGW mechanism for the extraordinary additional order of magnitude claimed beyond primary energy absorption by CO2, and so little cloud modeling is used in the circulation models, more research interest in anything water cycling is appreciated, however modest.
    ba nonymous ba nonymous
    Feb. 3, 2010 at 4:39pm
  • I won't respond to be nonymous directly. I'll just note that his/her refusal to provide a reference is a red flag for nonsense.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Feb. 3, 2010 at 5:03pm
  • Mike: My reference is topical in an embryonic investigational area that is correlational in nature and complex. The solar correlations are physically speculative but simple models still have had a number of better long range predictions than the general circulation models (GCM), including the recent years' paucity of sunspots and cooling.

    The solar energy inputs and interactions are multifactorial with the earth. Figure a dozen possible terms with perhaps 3-4 being significant, each term with its own time dependent phasing and spatial distribution. Large parts of careers or lifetimes have been spent to partially address any single term, e.g. the sunspot-cosmic ray-cloud angle, despite vitriolic adversarial and ad hominem attacks, as well as a lack of adequate, acute academic investigation in the area. In this case (of neglect), NASA's poorly performed job, so far, or a job for non-ossified universities.

    By various lights, the GCMs' achilles heel in energy equation formulation appears to be in the clouds, water handling and solar related terms. My discussion has tried to achieve some broad perspective to place this article accordingly.

    Further demonstration is left to the analytic, google savvy reader.
    ba nonymous ba nonymous
    Feb. 4, 2010 at 6:42am
  • For those who might be reading these comments to evaluate the validity of global warming, I'd encourage you to look at the types of arguments each is making. One side continues to bring up research (science), while the other side resoundingly rejects the vast majority of those who conduct research beyond what Google offers.

    Who will you believe?
    S Gruhn S Gruhn
    Feb. 4, 2010 at 5:37pm
  • Note Mannheim, Germany January 4 U.S. military helicopter crashed in the Rhine region and the recent weather related disasters and earthquakes. Downstream from the Rhine (Netherlands) to the upstream (Switzerland including the Northern Italy), the recent air crash, and Spain, the UK earthquake in the Straits are in this sense.
    Strasbourg, France in 1992 after the crash occurred in Cologne with the earthquakes and floods, the French.
    The recent earthquake in Haiti as well.
    www shaodl com
    shao donglin shao donglin
    Feb. 4, 2010 at 9:53pm
  • Mike, I disagree. If you had read the MRI article you would see what I was referring to. And you would realize that COMPUTER MODELS referenced in those reports ARE invalid for medicine. Your point about MRI being valid for medicine is like saying that thermometers are still useful for measuring temperature when some is talking about computer models of temperatures predicting global warming. It is completely and utterly illrelevant. And, yet you still have not addressed a single point I have made. Mann's saying, well I had a foot note saying that graph was really two data sets merged into one. Does not cut it. It should have been two graphs. Even I can see that.
    The Indians just withdrew from the IPCC. No, Jones did not threaten to beat them up. (nice straw man though) He just reveiwed their papers and rejected them. Or, maybe they where afraid the head of the IPCC would accuse them of "voodoo science". That is his direct quoute when talking about a paper that questioned the now debunked IPCC report on Himalayan(sp?) glaciers. Even after climategate he still says that! No wonder anyone was afraid to question the IPCC before climate gate.
    To directly answer you question again "How do you explain that the Chinese, Brazilian, Russian and Indian academics of science all agree that humans are causing climate change?"
    As the Wegman report states "It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.” That is why they all agree.
    I am intrically aware of what MRI's can do. My child has cancer. MRI's are wonderful. I wish we had twice as many. So, trying to make it look like I am against MRI's will be a waste of your time.
    argonaut argonaut
    Feb. 6, 2010 at 5:30am
  • INteresting. I remember the study done right after 911 attack that showed COM(sp) trails were responsible for blocking a significant amount of light, thereby cooling the planet. Pretty sure it was something significant, like 1.4C, but of course temps. were only taken for about 4 days. I'm supposing H2O vapor in the stratosphere isn't thick enough to produce clouds and therefor isn't blocking light? Now I've got to google stratus clouds...
    Bailey Pontius Bailey Pontius
    Feb. 6, 2010 at 3:44pm
  • argonant: India is not withdrawing from the IPCC. The Daily Telegraph had a misleading title to its story about India forming a national climate body. But, now the blog-sphere will spread the distortion among gullible.

    You can read an interview with Pachauri in Economist. I can't post the URL.


    I don’t agree with everything he says. I think conflict of interest procedures should be in place and a system for publishing corrections established. But Pachauri is being demonized by a lot of know-nothings. It may be that he should step down, but whoever heads the IPCC will be attacked.

    Wegman’s statement was about 12 papers, not the positions of many different national academies of science. Wegman is a respected statistician whose views should be taken into consideration. But you also need to read the responses to him. Since you are unable to do your own research on the Wegman hearing I’ll do it for you, but I can't post the URLs. (SN: You need to change this!)

    Go to realclimate and look for "The missing piece at the Wegman hearing" and "Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings".

    Saying that errors in MRI computer software means climate model are wrong is just bizarre.

    Best wishes on your child’s recovery.
    Mike Sullivan Mike Sullivan
    Feb. 8, 2010 at 8:41pm
  • I am so tired of this global warming scam, the game is up. Yes, the globe is warming, it has been much warmer in the past, we'll be OK.
    j k j k
    Feb. 12, 2010 at 2:24pm
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.

Advertisement
Suggested Reading :
seperator
  • Cunningham, A. 2007. Emissions tied to global warming are on the rise. Science News 171(May 19):318. Available to subscribers: [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2001. Is there a vent in the global greenhouse? Science News 159(March 10):150. Available to subscribers: [Go to]
Citations & References :
seperator
  • Solomon, S., K. Rosenlof, et al. In press. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Science.
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator