Re the oil companies, I guess we’ll have to settle for running them out of the state.

]]>As you may remember, I’ve discussed limitations that the surface energy balance places on how our climate can change. A 1% increase in relative humidity over the oceans is a 5% decrease in undersaturation and therefore evaporation (if wind speed remains constant). A 5% decrease in evaporation is a 4 W/m2 decrease in latent heat – the same change in flux as 2XCO2. Over the past 30 years we have experienced about a 50 ppm increase in CO2 or 1/8 of a doubling or 0.5 W/m2, but potentially a 4 W/m2 reduction in latent heat. These small changes in relative humidity are “big game” when converted into W/m2. This is why I bothered to calculate the change. Unfortunately, this paper deals with total column water, not relative humidity in the boundary layer.

]]>I expect that the difference between 8% and 7% is not significant with respect to the error bars.

An 8% change in the column amount does not mean an 8% change in the surface partial pressure since the vertical gradient could change.

Off hand, it sounds to me like the results indicate that the measured changes are consistent with roughly constant RH in the boundary layer. But does anyone really doubt that? The debatable issue is water vapor in the upper troposphere. But that has little effect on column water vapor.

]]>Abstract: Measurements of total precipitable water (TPW) from 11 satellite‐borne microwave imaging radiometers are intercalibrated and merged into a single gridded monthly dataset starting in January 1988 and continuing to the present. The resulting dataset shows a global mean, ocean‐only trend in TPW of 0.436 kg/m2 per decade (1.49 percent per decade), and a trend in the deep tropics (20S‐20N) of 0.629 kg/m2 per decade (1.503 percent per decade)…

(1.5%/decade)/(0.18 K/decade) = 8.3%/K increase in TPW.

Since this is higher than the 7%/K increase for saturation vapor pressure, this hints at an increase in relative humidity. 0.18 K is surface warming. For the whole atmosphere, UAH6.LT and RSS TLT V4 are 0.13 and 0.20 K/decade; affording increases of 11.5% and 7.5%/K.

Properly quantifying the change in “relative humidity” for a column of atmosphere isn’t a trivial calculation. You need to start with a Ts and temperature profile for each grid cell. If I remember correctly, a 7%/K increase in saturation vapor pressure is accurate only near 288 K.

]]>I don’t guarantee I’ve handled that issue perfectly, but I haven’t ignored it. This is the note on that topic which i have on the sea-level analysis pages on my site:

]]>Calculation of Confidence Intervals and Prediction Intervals for monthly Mean Sea-Level (MSL) is complicated by the fact that MSL measurement data is serially autocorrelated. That means each month’s MSL measurement is correlated, to an extent which varies by location, with the MSL measurements of the previous and next months. That means there are effectively fewer independent measurements, which would cause a naive confidence interval calculation to underestimate the breadth of the intervals. The code here follows the method of Zervas 2009, “Sea Level Variations of the United States 1854-2006,” NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 053, p. 15-24, to account for autocorrelation, when calculating confidence intervals and prediction intervals…

Well you got me, I was about to say something silly til I saw the satire addendum.

Not fair, I thought warmists in general had no sense of humor.

Still cross at myself for my bias. ]]>

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2018EA000363

]]>Thanks for confirming this with your post ]]>