Stratospheric Water Vapour Master Climate Control?
“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study...Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. _NOAA_via_Reason
...now scientists from NOAA have published research in Science that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp...
...the fundamental assumption in global warming dogma, that carbon dioxide is the most important factor in global warming, is simply not true...the research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought... _Ntl.Post
These results were predicted years ago by a former NASA physicist from Hungary, Ference Miskolczi. David Stockwell of the blog Niche Modeling, has looked into the Miskolczi theories, and posted several explanatory articles.
Miskolczi is not the first scientist to introduce the idea of "negative feedback" into atmospheric studies. MIT's Richard Lindzen has been discussing negative feedbacks in climate for many years.
In fact, wherever you look in the atmosphere, the biosphere, or the oceans, you find negative feedbacks are predominant in climate. Otherwise by now the Earth would have experienced runaway climate change in various directions, and never have come back. Instead, when one looks at the history of Earth's climate, one sees fractal cycles that repeat over several overlapping time scales.
Only the political takeover of climate science since the 1990s has allowed the unscientific ideas of James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Tom Karl, and the rest of the on-the-take scamsters to crowd out a true scientific investigation of climate. Until recently, studies such as the one above from Science could not have been published -- they would have been censored by the established powers-that-be in climate science.
With the downfall of the University of East Anglia's CRU, and the increased scrutiny on Michael Mann's and James Hansen's "research" by various levels of auditors, the iron grip that controls what can be published and discussed has been loosened slightly.
If you still go to realclimate.org to get your daily dose of "climate science", you should start to understand that you have only been drinking heavily drugged mother's milk. If you remain in the creche of realclimate or wikipedia's climate coverage, you will never be weaned into the larger world beyond the pseudoscience to which you are addicted. No problem, psychological neotenates and academic lobotomates. That may be the limit of your capacity.
For the rest, it looks as if some actual scientific observations may finally be allowed -- instead of restricting climate studies to fudged computer models and cherry-picked proxies.