G
gcnp58
Guest
http://enso.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/conference/Minnis.SPIE.05.pdf
This paper was cited by an atmospheric physicist here as a source for showing water vapor/cloud data from the Aqua satellite suggests that increased water vapor leads to a negative feedback for radiative forcing. I can't find it in the paper, it seems to me to be a discussion of how multilayer clouds are retrieved from the sensors on Aqua. The closest I can find to this is the Spencer et al. paper from last summer, but Spencer used data from Terra, not Aqua, and the negative feedback trend found by Spencer et al. is mainly due to data from a few months towards the end of his time series.
So, does anyone know where Minnis et al in the paper above discuss feedbacks and forcings? Alternatively, where is a real source showing data from Aqua indicate a negative forcing due to increase in water vapor?
Thanks Ken, but those are DOE/ARM papers, using surface observations, and don't use NASA/Aqua data. I want to know, specifically, what Aqua dataset shows the feedback from water vapor is a negative forcing.
Eric: That is the uncorrected tropospheric temperature records. We've been through this ad nauseum, that you don't feel there is a problem with the raw satellite data is irrelevant as far as mainstream, peer-reviewed science is concerned. Christy is the lead author of an NAS report detailing how the raw mid-trop temperature records need to be corrected for stratospheric cooling. In any event, that is not Aqua data in that paper.
The bottom line is that as far as Aqua is concerned, the above reference cited as showing a problem, doesn't, and should not be used as such.
Eric: Here is an analysis from the guys at RealClimate.org on the Douglass et al paper. I know you don't believe a word they say, but they are better at this climate stuff and radiative forcing than Christy. Christy is just a satellite weenie who gets paid to dispute climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#more-509
Also, from the RealClimate article, a different peer-reviewed paper from different climate guys who are also smarter than Christy who find a conclusion opposite to Douglas et al.:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml
When the smoke has settled, the Douglas et al. results will be buried scientifically because they are wrong.
This paper was cited by an atmospheric physicist here as a source for showing water vapor/cloud data from the Aqua satellite suggests that increased water vapor leads to a negative feedback for radiative forcing. I can't find it in the paper, it seems to me to be a discussion of how multilayer clouds are retrieved from the sensors on Aqua. The closest I can find to this is the Spencer et al. paper from last summer, but Spencer used data from Terra, not Aqua, and the negative feedback trend found by Spencer et al. is mainly due to data from a few months towards the end of his time series.
So, does anyone know where Minnis et al in the paper above discuss feedbacks and forcings? Alternatively, where is a real source showing data from Aqua indicate a negative forcing due to increase in water vapor?
Thanks Ken, but those are DOE/ARM papers, using surface observations, and don't use NASA/Aqua data. I want to know, specifically, what Aqua dataset shows the feedback from water vapor is a negative forcing.
Eric: That is the uncorrected tropospheric temperature records. We've been through this ad nauseum, that you don't feel there is a problem with the raw satellite data is irrelevant as far as mainstream, peer-reviewed science is concerned. Christy is the lead author of an NAS report detailing how the raw mid-trop temperature records need to be corrected for stratospheric cooling. In any event, that is not Aqua data in that paper.
The bottom line is that as far as Aqua is concerned, the above reference cited as showing a problem, doesn't, and should not be used as such.
Eric: Here is an analysis from the guys at RealClimate.org on the Douglass et al paper. I know you don't believe a word they say, but they are better at this climate stuff and radiative forcing than Christy. Christy is just a satellite weenie who gets paid to dispute climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#more-509
Also, from the RealClimate article, a different peer-reviewed paper from different climate guys who are also smarter than Christy who find a conclusion opposite to Douglas et al.:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029875.shtml
When the smoke has settled, the Douglas et al. results will be buried scientifically because they are wrong.