Hegglin et al. Nature Geoscience 7 (2014)

In the lower stratosphere, water vapour concentrations largely follow tropical tropopause temperatures. Lower and mid-stratospheric long-term trends are negative. In the upper stratosphere record shows positive long-term trends. The altitudinal differences in the trends are explained by methane oxidation together with a strengthened lower-stratospheric and a weakened upper-stratospheric circulation.

Our results call into question previous estimates of surface radiative forcing based on presumed global long-term increases in water vapour concentrations in the lower stratosphere.

!!!!???

I am happy that every commentator has ignored the real climate crap

Apologies, I messed up my links and omitted to make it clear that the Trenberth paper was 'further reading'. The Dessler paper, which rebuts the claim that 'the water vapour feedback has not been observed' is here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035333/abstract

Although Trenberth also found 'a significant positive feedback between water vapor and net radiation is revealed globally with 0.87 W m−2 less OLR to space per millimeter of total column water vapor.' 

I am not sure of the relevance of that the fact you cannot derive a climate sensitivity from these observations, the main point was to quantify the size of the water vapour feedback, rather more informative than denying it had been observed at all.

I would like to know the answer but shills like ATTP tell me one thing without any evidence, and others tell me other things with evidence not approved by IPCC. Who knows

The major point is that Phil Clarke can easily make an ass of himself, without prompting. He just needs to do it for the cause.

Hegglin et al. Nature Geoscience 7 (2014)

Our results call into question previous estimates of surface radiative forcing based on presumed global long-term increases in water vapour concentrations in the lower stratosphere.

Note '' ESTIMATES of PRESUMED global long term increases in Water vapour concentration in the lower stratosphere"

Does not sound like "settled science" to me.

Note '' ESTIMATES of PRESUMED global long term increases in Water vapour concentration in the lower stratosphere"

I do think that the lower stratosphere is crucial here. Most of what we've been discussing refers to water vapour in the troposphere which - I think - is not the same as the "lower stratosphere".

ATTP: I do think that the lower stratosphere is crucial here

Also note this about the measurements: 'Lower and mid-stratospheric long-term trends are negative, and the trends from Boulder are shown not to be globally representative'

A little scepticism is in order.

Micky,
Now you really are just making stuff up. The average sea level rise for the 20th century is around 1.2mm/yr. The current is over 3mm/yr. That's an acceleration as far as I can tell. Also, a reasonable fraction of sea level rise is associated with ice melt, not thermal expansion. Ocean heat content has also risen and is consistent with a planetary energy imbalance of around 0.6W/m^2. If you think that this is wrong (i.e., the planetary energy imbalance is much less than 0.6W/m^2), you're going to have to explain which part of the climate system has a sufficient heat capacity to be losing enough energy to counter the rise of OHC.

By attributing to a change in ocean heat content it contradicts CO2 forcing theory.

Either I misunderstand what you're getting at here, or you really don't understand this topic well at all.

Why have there been no releases of results from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory since the first release which showed in general that CO2 emissions were not arising from where they were expected. to be coming from?

Loeb et al (Nature Geoscience 2012 - DOI: 10.1038/NEO1375) show that satellite data cannot resolve any significant imbalance and as such they use ocean heat content as a proxy

Huh? Here's the abstract in full; I am not sure your precis is 100% accurate, it is more an attempt to close the energy budget, ie find Trenberth's notorious 'missing heat'.

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

But the problem is that ocean heat content has not shown any change nor has sea level rise shown acceleration.

Hmmm. Yesterday 'the problem' was that the water vapour feedback had not been observed (only it has), I wonder what the problem will be tomorrow? The Loeb et al paper cited earlier concluded

'Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.'.

The standard work on OHC is Levitus et al, which finds that from 1955 to 2010 'The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 +/-1.9 x10^22 Joules. '

The NOAA update Levitus regularly and post the data here http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Rahmsdorf and Vermeer (2011) found

A recent article published in the Journal of Coastal Research analysed a number of different sea-level records and reported that they found no acceleration of sea-level rise. We show that this is due to their focusing on records that are either too short or only regional in character, and on their specific focus on acceleration since the year 1930, which represents a unique minimum in the acceleration curve. We find that global sea-level rise is accelerating in a way strongly correlated with global temperature. This correlation also explains the acceleration minimum for time periods starting around 1930; it is due to the mid-twentieth-century plateau in global temperature

So water vapour feedback has been observed, ocean heat content is increasing and sea level rise is accelerating.

Always best to check

Ramsdorf et al : http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_vermeer_2011.pdf

Levitus: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf

Beaten to it by ATTP! We need to improve our conspiracy skills.

First off, sea level rise has not changed according to NOAA - they put it at 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year. Satellite altimetry says upwards of 3 mm/year and there is a discrepancy between the two. Strange also is that addition of 0.3 mm/year theoretical change due to rise of the sea floor (a theoretical addition). So even if we take the middle ground we see 2.4 mm/year and with no acceleration.

It is only by trying to curve fit at the end do you get this accelerated sea level rise. For example using NOAA data:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level and say 1955 to 2005 we see we get less than 100 mm change - hardly 3 mm/year now is it. The conservative estimate rather than the Skeptical Science attempt is no significant sea level change.

Phil, I'm sorry you don't know how to read a paper or the bit where it says:

To provide a more observation-based representation of changes in net TOA flux during the past decade, CERES net TOA radiation record is anchored to an estimated Earth heat uptake for July 2005 to June 2010 of 0.58 ± 0.38W m-2, by combining the Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (PMEL/JPL/JIMAR; ref 14. see Methods0 Argo only estimate from 0 to 1800m with estimates of smaller heat uptake terms from warming of the deep ocean, land and atmosphere, as well as melting ice

So that sounds a lot like they use heat uptake on the surface to try and come up with a TOA value? Hmm isn't that just what I said.

As for the positive feedback of water vapour, the net change of radiation should be 3 times larger if you read the papers. This is an ongoing discrepancy. So it suggest either very weakly positive (I'll give you that) neutral or negative feedback. Certainly not the significantly positive feedback as per models.

So as for conspiracy lads, sorry,

First off, sea level rise has not changed according to NOAA - they put it at 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year. Satellite altimetry says upwards of 3 mm/year and there is a discrepancy between the two.

Why not Illustrate your scientific chops and show where this comes from? I've just done a quick search for NOAA sea level rise and their estimate for the last couple of decades seems consistent with the satellite measurements (maybe because it is from satellites).

As for the positive feedback of water vapour, the net change of radiation should be 3 times larger if you read the papers.

Okay, sorry, but you really just don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, go and talk to some experts and try and inform yourself about this.

It is only by trying to curve fit at the end do you get this accelerated sea level rise. For example using NOAA data: (link) 1955 to 2005 we see we get less than 100 mm change - hardly 3 mm/year now is it. 

Was it during your doctorate that you learned to calculate a trend in noisy data by taking two arbitrary (or not) points and subtracting them? Why stop in 2005 when there are another 11 years of data, with an anomaly of +59.26 in 2016, -33.81 in 1986 and -90.01 in 1956. Giving a 60 year trend of 2.48mm/yr and a 30 year trend of 3.1 mm / yr.

You'll notice that one of these numbers is larger than the other.

That's no way to get a trend estimate, however, presumably the authors used a regression of some sort to conclude that

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades and
Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year

The source given to refute sea level rise acceleration states in black and white that sea level rise is accelerating. Sheesh.

ATTP is right, too many just demonstrably wrong statements. Try the Dessler paper I cited above:

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035333/abstract

This is like talking to religious nuts. The NOAA data from the page I linked has an interactive graph. You can see sea level rise. In the very recent measurements we suddenly see the uptick to upwards of 3 mm based off satellite data which is interesting.

CO2 forcing effects are not evident at all until we suddenly change measurement technique itself. It suggests there is something going on either it has always been above 3 mm/yr or the sea level measurements previously that have been taken over the last century and more are correct.

And again you ignore the review by the very guys who are tasked with AIRS . They find that models over estimate moist bias especially in the tropics and that this is consistent across all 16 models in CMIP5.

As for Dessler did you actually read the paper? They use a Delta Ts (change in surface temperature) of 0.44 C from 2003 to 2008 not to mention that you need to take a modelled theoretical radiative flux from Soden 2008 and multiply this by actual measurements relative to temperature change to calculate lambda.

So one of the key components is a radiative kernel model that is then multiplied into actual data to produce what they say is a real measured result. I could understand if they used the kernel model to work out uncertainties in data but it is starting to sound a little circular don't you think?

This is like talking to religious nuts.

You really should stop promoting that you have a PhD. Would be better to pretend that you didn't. Then at least you'd have an excuse for being thinking that you do know something about this topic, when you very obviously do not. Of course, having a PhD doesn't mean that one knows what one is talking about, as you are so eloquently illustrating.

Ken

How about you just address the issues rather than shift the focus? The idea of large positive water vapour feedback and larger radiative imbalance are speculative and require extra assumptions to make the hypothesis work. Models often are used as input to more models and in cases as I've shown above surface heat changes are used as a substitute for radiative imbalance, which unfortunately creates a circular argument when saying that ice melting and surface temperature changes are the result of radiative imbalance.

The long term discrepancy between models and what is observed continues to downplay the idea that AGW is as severe as it appears. And as I've just said a moment ago when you take the guys who are charge of the satellite and who run a rigorous comparison with humidity estimates from models, they find in the tropics zone that there is a persistent problem over all model runs.

Which means caution should be applied, shouldn't it?

All models, by definition, are wrong. This is hardly news. It is important to quantify the uncertainties and confidence intervals. BTW the CMIP5 models were running hot over recent years ('the Pause'), even as observations remained within the 95% spread, the remarkable rise (well remarkable nearly everywhere else) over recent months mean that observations and models are now within spitting distance.

This paper examined one of the biases identified by Tian et al, the 'double ITCZ' and found it was negatively correlated with equilibrium climate sensitivity.

This indicates that the double-ITCZ bias is a new emergent constraint for ECS based on which ECS might be in the higher end of its range (~4.0°C) and most models might have underestimated ECS. 

The ECS range in the models is 2-4C, The IPCC 'likely' range is 1.5-4.5C, the bias identified would seem to me to make higher values more likely, but still within the IPCC range.

This string is once again degenerating into some sort of chaos. If I may I would like to offer the perspective of someone who is interested and, I hope most people would judge me to be , reasonably intelligent, but without the specialized knowledge nor the mathematical acumen to follow the scientific disputes currently happening here. I observe different people (or groups) battering each other with facts, references, opinions and ultimately insults. Neither side fully addresses points made by the other. Consequently someone like me finds it difficult to cope. If we ask simple questions we are sometimes met with abuse (as I have just been on another discussion thread).

I suspect what is going on here is symptomatic of the wider scientifically literate community (and perhaps even some of the less literate). Faced with the intractable problem of deciding between two plausible alternatives, Joe Public with throw his hands up in the air and plump for whoever is making the biggest noise, who has the most support ( consensus science) or who has the most institutional support. Unfortunately for the anti-CAGW brigade, that isn't us.

If we ask simple questions we are sometimes met with abuse (as I have just been on another discussion thread).

I presume you're refering to me. If so, I fail to see how anything I said to you on that other thread qualifies as "abuse" and I find it ironic (after your response) to me that you would have the gall to lecture other on resorting to insults. Jeez! You also appear to have failed to read my response to you in which you claim I didn't answer your question. Try reading it again!