please explain this

Of course. But most of the mass extinctions of the planet were due to spikes. If we (humans) can affect the height and width of the upcoming potential spike making things worse (pollution) or better (sustainability) why wouldn't we? Answer - Ignorance of the consequences of our actions.

Let me recount a similar situation. The Northwest Atlantic Cod fisheries were extremely productive supporting a huge Canadian and American fishing industry. Proponents of regulating the catches were opposed because they had no "science" supporting regulations. The politicians agreed. The fisheries had always sustained the fishing...till the way arrived when the stocks were completely and totally destroyed. They remain so to this day. Sadly, it would not have taken much to have a very different ending. One thing for sure. Science was not the problem. Ignorance was.

 

Don't get lost in a label. It is just a way to identify a group of individualists sharing two characteristics: (1) volume, and (2) selective understanding. Still, I can call some of them 'neighbor', 'uncle' and 'brother.' Let me think on this as there may be a way to get what you asked for so we can get back to discussing the facts and data.

Bob Wilson

 

Ice age denial involved 'old-school' geologists that could not accept recurrent changes of this magnitude. Later there were tectonics deniers. Main thing is that such disputes were among practitioners in the field. I think evolution denial was the was the first one that roped in the public.

I think that the graph freindly-jacek posted earlier on stratos WV is the most compelling source available.Decreasing throughout the record, not by much, annual cycle, tiny amount compared to troposphere.

When atmospheric methane is decomposed by hydroxyl radical, the products are water and CO2. This is at the parts per billion range. As this is such a tiny fraction of atmos WV, I am not sure what friendly-jacek is driving at @135

Mostly I wish to know how else to increase atmos WV, as asked previously. See, with no other mechanism than by temperature, it is a feedback not forcing.

Edit: to be clear, methane is now on the order of 2 parts per million. Half life is 4 years or thereabouts, so every year, several hundreds of parts per billion get converted to CO2 and water

 

Thank you! At last we have a nail:

Abstract:

[1] We analyze the relation between atmospheric temperature and water vapor—a fundamental component of the global climate system—for stratospheric water vapor (SWV). We compare measurements of SWV (and methane where available) over the period 1980–2011 from NOAA balloon-borne frostpoint hygrometer (NOAA-FPH), SAGE II, Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)/Aura, and Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) to model predictions based on troposphere-to-stratosphere transport from ERA-Interim, and temperatures from ERA-Interim, Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis (MERRA), Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC), HadAT2, and RICHv1.5. All model predictions are dry biased. The interannual anomalies of the model predictions show periods of fairly regular oscillations, alternating with more quiescent periods and a few large-amplitude oscillations. They all agree well (correlation coefficients 0.9 and larger) with observations for higher-frequency variations (periods up to 2–3 years). Differences between SWV observations, and temperature data, respectively, render analysis of the model minus observation residual difficult. However, we find fairly well-defined periods of drifts in the residuals. For the 1980s, model predictions differ most, and only the calculation with ERA-Interim temperatures is roughly within observational uncertainties. All model predictions show a drying relative to HALOE in the 1990s, followed by a moistening in the early 2000s. Drifts to NOAA-FPH are similar (but stronger), whereas no drift is present against SAGE II. As a result, the model calculations have a less pronounced drop in SWV in 2000 than HALOE. From the mid-2000s onward, models and observations agree reasonably, and some differences can be traced to problems in the temperature data. These results indicate that both SWV and temperature data may still suffer from artifacts that need to be resolved in order to answer the question whether the large-scale flow and temperature field is sufficient to explain water entering the stratosphere.​

Yes, I know you may not understand what the abstract is saying. I look forward to translating the paper into simple English and math that the even the most 'UNCLE' advocates can understand. So let's start by understanding what this abstract is trying to say:

1. We analyze the relation between atmospheric temperature and water vapor—a fundamental component of the global climate system—for stratospheric water vapor (SWV). We compare measurements of SWV (and methane where available) over the period 1980–2011 from NOAA balloon-borne frostpoint hygrometer (NOAA-FPH), SAGE II, Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)/Aura, and Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) to model predictions based on troposphere-to-stratosphere transport from ERA-Interim, and temperatures from ERA-Interim, Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis (MERRA), Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC), HadAT2, and RICHv1.5. All model predictions are dry biased. - OK so they stopped with the balloons in 2011. Works for me.

Uh Oh, there appears to be a problem, "over the period 1980–2011" I wonder what that problem might be? I look forward to vivisection. Would you like to choose another?

Bob Wilson

 

Dear Jacek, if you ever apprehend any study published in any journal and carefully summarize it for us here, you will approach the point. I have such high hopes for you. Calling anyone else wrong is beneath you. Go big, my dear.

 

In simple English, 'Fueglistaler 2013' like 'Solomon 2010' spends most of its time trying to stitch multiple, historical records together. But Occam's razor comes into play as the most current record, "Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)/Aura", is still working and generating data and this is what they report:

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the troposphere. Its greatest influences on climate forcing is in the upper troposphere, and it is generally believed that water vapor amplifies the radiative forcing associated with the anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide. In the tropics upper tropospheric water vapor is closely linked to sea surface temperature and thus ocean-atmosphere coupling phenomena such as the El Nino southern oscillation can be observed. Energy is released when water vapor condenses and large values of relative humidity, which is derived from water vapor and temperature, show where cloud formation is likely. Stratospheric water vapor influences stratospheric ozone chemistry both by providing a source of odd-hydrogen that destroys ozone and by influencing the formation of polar stratospheric clouds that trigger processes leading to large ozone loss in polar winter. Water vapor has been increasing in the stratosphere, believed due to changes near the tropical troposphere where water vapor enters the stratosphere.

Source: The EOS MLS H2O Product​

The data can be downloaded to confirm "Water vapor has been increasing in the stratosphere."

Product Summary
Short Name: ML2H2O

Long Name: MLS/Aura Level 2 Water Vapor (H2O) Mixing Ratio

DOI: 10.5067/AURA/MLS/DATA2009

Version: 004

Format HDF-EOS5 (Swath)

Spatial Coverage: (82.0 N to -82.0 S; 180.0 E to -180.0 W)
Min Alt: 316 HPA Max Alt: 0.00215 HPA

Temporal Coverage: 2004-08-08 to Current

Data Resolution:
Latitude Resolution: 300 km at limb tagent point (along-track)
Longitude Resolution: 3 km at limb tagent point (cross-track)
Vertical Resolution: 1.5 - 6 km
Temporal Resolution: Twice per day; Day and Night; Orbital repeat cycle 16 days

File Size: 1.21 MB per file​

So it looks like we'll have 2015-2004 ~= 11 years of data, several GB of data. Then there is the other edge of Occam's razor, discounting the non-stratosphere water column. Still, it is good to have more data.

Bob Wilson