- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
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

- 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]
- Solomon, S., K. Rosenlof, et al. In press. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Science.
- New data suggest a lighter Higgs
- Two is the magic number
- Researchers create global map of tree height
- Hole from on high
- Taming time travel



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.
When your star dies down, both cyclical and anthropogenic global warming fears may be nonstarters.
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.
I am still waiting, 25+ years, to see a consistent *physics* CAGW case that avoids Feynman's definition of "cargo cult science".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who will you believe?
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
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.
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.
Please login or register to participate.