Here's a paper that may be of help to you, ST.

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data.

Basically the levels below 850 Hpa are increasing in humidity.
[ 850 hPa= about 5000 feet for the uninitiated or the low level surface convective layer ]

The levels above 850 Hpa are decreasing in humidity over the long term decadal time span.

This is totally contrary to the theory that CO2 should be increasing humidity at the upper levels. Such an increase is required to get the necessary positive feedback to account for the claims that increasing CO2 levels are the major factor behind any postulated / predicted warming

The unseen and previously highly touted tropical upper troposphere / lower stratospheric Hot Spot which has failed after two decades to put in an appearance and was touted as the major signal of global warming until a couple of years ago, was all based on the climate models output of increasing humidity above the equatorial regions as CO2 level increased.
Until only about a couple of years ago, the warmist scientists were so confident and arrogant in their ability to accurately predict the future of the global climate and that they were right about the Hot Spot that they even promulgated that if it didn't appear then there was no global warming.
A claim that has very quietly tip toed away into the already rather large and rapidly increasing in size, very embarrassing trash bin of failed global warming predictions.
There is still is no Hot Spot!

I don't know whether Ian (BD) includes cloud cover in his models but if he does, it would be interesting to see what his models show, seeing as he works extensively with various solar parameters.

The temperature would presumably be warmer with less high cloud but the real issue might be what radiation changes occur when certain wavelengths are filtered by the cloud in question. And what effect does less high cloud (more heat) have on the formation of convective cloud?

Taken as a whole, the atmosphere involves such a complex interaction of one thing with another!

Mm...I'm always loath to trust the NCEP reanalysis (especially Mk I, but also Mk II) after working with it for the Southern Hemisphere - its pretty commonly used by those north of the equator - but it has some failings in consistency over time in the late 20th century - I much prefer using the ECMWFs - ERA-Interim, or the Japanese JRA-25. which don't have those issues. Thanks for the links though ROM, Arnost, I'm not that familiar with this material regarding cloudiness and the levels of humidity, only the warming - humidity increase suggestion.

Proff Richard Lindzen was on to a theory which he called the Iris Theory after the eye's ability to open to and shut off solar radiation, that the high level tropical clouds were operating in a cyclic fashion on very roughly a thirty day cycle.
[ or at least that is how I understand it ]

In one part of the cycle they were trapping heat energy whereas in the next part of the cycle they were allowing the transmission of heat energy back into space.

"Iris hypothesis" from Wikip-

Abstract


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050506.shtml

Oh, just came across this while doing some literature review - don't think I've seen it before but figured it might come back to Crikey's discussion earlier. Its a journal paper:
Compilation and Discussion of Trends in Severe Storms in the United States: Popular Perception v. Climate Reality. Natural Hazards
Abstract

The ongoing greenhouse gas buildup and increase in near-surface air temperatures may have an impact on severe weather events in the United States. Output from some numerical modeling simulations suggests that the atmosphere over mid-latitude land areas could become more unstable in the future thereby supporting an increase in convective activity. However, despite the numerical simulation results, empiricists have been unable generally to identify significant increases in overall severe storm activity as measured in the magnitude and/or frequency of thunderstorms, hail events, tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storm activity across the United States. There is evidence that heavy precipitation events have increased during the period of historical records, but for many other severe weather categories, the trends have been downward over the past half century. Damage from severe weather has increased over this period, but this upward trend disappears when inflation, population growth, population redistribution, and wealth are taken into account.

Theres also a good paper by Steve Chagnon:
Shifting Economic Impacts from Weather Extremes in the United States: A Result of Societal Changes, Not Global Warming

Abstract:
Loss values from extremes in the U.S. and elsewhere have been more qualitativethan quantitative, but recent pressures for better information have led to newassessments and better estimates of financial losses from extremes. These pressureshave included concerns over potential impacts of more extremes due to global warmingfostered by ever increasing costs to the insurance industry and government from weather extremes; plus a series of massive losses during the past 15 years (drought of 1988–1989,Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Midwestern 1993 floods). These recent assessmentsattempted to adjust data for societal changes over time and thus derived new and betterestimates of losses for seven major extremes than existed previously. Three extremeshave annual average losses in excess of a billion dollars (1998 dollars) includinghurricanes (42billion)floods(3.2 billion), and severe local storms (16billion) One extreme and its adjusted losses exhibit upward trends (floods) but all others show no increases with time or temporal decreases (hail hurricanes tornadoes and severe thunderstorms) Annual national losses during 1950–1997 from the three major extremes plus four others (hail tornadoes winter storms and windstorms) collectively reveal no upward or downward trend over time with an average annual loss of 10.3 billion. The quality loss values do not indicate an increase as has been postulated for global warming. The good news is that better estimates of impacts now exist, but the bad news is that they are still estimates and do not include sizable unmeasured losses. If accurate data on the economic impacts from weather extremes are seen as important for scientific research and policy-making for global warming, the U.S. needs a continuing program to adequately measure losses from weather extremes.

I am able to secure copies from this journal, but its a subscription so if anyone is interested drop me a message.

Whats the severe weather records like in the US ST? You have alluded to the fact that in Australia they are consitently terrible, but just wondering how complete the US records might be. Also wondering when they use the term "empiricle" whether they are referring to atmospheric and other measurable evidence to support the theory of increased sever events (i.e. storm height, precip rates, lightning frequency, doppler wind analysis etc) or if its more anecdotal (i.e. hail size, visible storm structure etc.)?

Looking deeper into the Davies & Molloy paper, the reduction in cloud cover is apparently AFTER accounting for ENSO:



Figure 1. Deseasonalized anomalies of global effective cloud-top height from the 10-year mean. Solid line: 12-month running mean of 10-day anomalies. Dotted line: linear regression. Gray error bars indicate the sampling error (±8 m) in the annual average

Germany has the second highest power prices in Europe just behind Denmark with it's overwhelming reliance on wind turbines. Germany has wasted $130 billion on extremely subsidised solar power to become the country with the greatest concentration of solar power. That immense investment in solar power was generating down to just .3% [ point 3% ] of Germany's power needs. Plus the huge German investment in heavily subsidised wind turbine power as well.

Recently the Germans had to buy huge amounts of Nuclear produced energy from France with it's fifty nuclear reactors [ Energy from it's nuclear reactors is France's second biggest export earner. ] and from the Czech Republic and even had to fire up a mothballed oil fired power generator in Austria to get enough power to fill German industry and domestic needs when the winter got overcast and all the much vaunted alternative energy systems just failed to produce any power.

But it gets worse, much worse!
There is now in Germany , like the UK, an increasingly large group of the less well off, the poor and those in unfortunate circumstances that can no longer afford the astronomical power prices created by this crazy stupid drive to the extremely costly, totally unreliable alternative power.
Those unfortunates have to make a decision on whether to "heat" or "eat" through this present bitterly cold European winter

For an so called advanced western economy such a situation is scandalous and near a criminal indictment on the politicians and all those who promoted the stupid drive to alternative energy which they knew full well was totally unreliable and a non economic proposition without immense tax payer subsidies. And it is all brought about by this unbelievably stupid belief in catastrophic global warming supposedly brought on by increasing CO2 and the so called alternative power being promoted at every step by the greens and other radical, left wing, society re-engineering organisations.

Green Germany: Half A Million Families Sitting In The Dark

For crikey

New Peer-Reviewed Paper On Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls

And another from the GWPF.
You can read this one for yourself.
There are certain comments made on this forum over time that are coming to fulfilment in Europe and by implication from there to the rest of the world.
We are coming to the end of a long cultural, societal and economic cycle and as always it will end in tears for some and with joy for others.
The fact that the subject below is even being raised now speaks volumes as to the declining power and influence of political environmentalism.

Sophie Quintin Adali: Let’s Hope For A Big Freeze On Political Environmentalism

Thanks ROM for taking the time to post the model outlooks. Yes and interesting to see how inflated nearly all of them were
However the IPCC did predict a very large broad range for the models over time and l am sure a mean ensemble would still of been over exaggerated
However their model MR seems to have been the best so far. if i have read that correctly
However note that even MR has been correct in showing a steady but much leaner incline in temp over that time period.

That should give us an extra century or two to deal with catastrophic temp change

Having said that. We may have to be concerned at the growing anomaly between the troposphere temps ( slowly rising) and the lower stratospheric temps inversely cooling proportionately
The increasing temp variation between the 2 layers may produce some change in weather dynamics?
and need to explain the strong temp anomaly hot spots appearing across the globe at both the surface layer and stratosphere, jetstream anomalies, persistent high MSLP over the arctic and warm temp anomalies, strength of recent El Nino and La Nina events, ocean warming, increaed flooding trends in many partys of the globe including the UK


Great posts .. Enjoying the read..

ROM
Re suggesting l never speak about Callaghans graphs Ever Again.. LOL


Callaghan from www.greencross has got a few more severe weather events to add to 2012 in NSW and QLD list already.. and we are only in January..

FLOODING TRENDS INCREASE IN THE UK

ABI News Release ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH INSURERS
http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/201...ys_the_ABI.aspx
Wednesday, 24 November 2010 Ref: 58/10
Massive rise in Britain's flood damage bill highlights the need for more help for flood vulnerable communities says the ABI

Britain’s rising flood risk is further underlined today, with figures published by the ABI showing that the cost of flood damage since 2000 has leapt by 200% on the previous decade. With more people set to be at significant risk of flooding, the ABI is calling on the Government to ensure that spending on flood defences is targeted to the most flood vulnerable communities.

.One in six homes in England is currently at risk of flooding. Nearly 500,000 people face a significant flood risk, and it has been estimated that this could rise to 840,000 by 2035 without adequate investment in flood defences.1

ABI’s figures highlight the huge financial cost of flooding:
• Since 2000 insurers have paid out £4.5 billion to customers whose homes or businesses have been hit by flooding. This is up 200% on the £1.5 billion paid in the previous decade in real terms.
• Major floods since 2000 have included the 2007 summer flooding which resulted in insurers paying out £3 billion, the 2005 floods in Carlisle that cost £272 million, and the Cumbrian floods in November 2009 costing £174 million.
• Reasons for the rise in flood costs include the increased frequency and severity of flooding in the UK and the growing problem of surface water flooding (the Environment Agency has estimated that 2.8 million properties are at risk of flooding from surface water). It has been previously estimated that the total value of assets under flood risk exceeds £200 billion – more than the current budget deficit

ROM... I guess I was wrong - you were right. Thought I'd give the benefit of doubt.

Heartland threatens action against a 71-year old retired USAF Colonel for sending them a critical email: link

AHHa. I see the australian branch of the Fraud Squad is back

Just a heated too and fro there PG...expected under the circumstances...people on both sides get a bit over the top on these issues...that is life, unfortunately!

This whole affair is causing science to look like a "Gillard & Rudd soap opera" by now!
No wonder most folk have turned off and global warming is no longer a newsworthy event in most papers and news...
As life and weather go on, up and down, just as they always have........

The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats — and We All Lose


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2107364,00.html#ixzz1n9UDjcq6

Another take on it all...
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/22/from-climategate-to-fakegate/

As very little of the Heartland / Peter Gleick "Fraudgate" scandal has been published in the Australian media quite a lot of those readers who only have a passing interest in the climate wars will be wondering just what it is all about and whether they should bother.

Briefly, The Heartland institute is a conservative think tank that has adopted a skeptical view of the global warming claims. It has held a number of conferences where scientists, researchers and climate science related industry figures numbering in the hundreds both skeptical and even luke warmers have presented papers and debated the science behind the global warming / climate change claims.
Invitations have been extended to the climate warmer scientists to participate but so far those invitations have been totally ignored by the climate warming scientific literati.
The Heartland institute is absolutely hated by the warmistas who have now finally gone to the most extreme lengths to try and tear it down [ as can be seen in an above post ] and that will become very evident if you follow this story through in the blogs.
The Heartland Institute's budget amounts to princely $6.4 million annually and they have trouble raising that money which is also used for their other research think tank projects.

To give an idea of the scale of the amount of money involved in both promoting and in the skeptical questioning the CAGW claims.

From JoNova's site; Comparisons of the budgets involved in the catastrophic global warming / climate change conflict.



Prof. Peter Gleick is a very high profile, rabid and fanatical activist believer in CAGW who has done everything in his power to discredit and try and destroy anybody or any organisation that questions the global warming meme.
He was [ until a day or so ago ] also chair of the American Geophysical Union's [ AGU ] ethics committee.

Gleick has confessed to the following and also stands accused of the further deliberate fraud of creating an entirely frauduilent document which was intended to totally discredit the Heartland Institute.
There is very considerable supporting evidence for this further fraudulent act as per the Heartland Institute's Joe Bast's statement;
According to those who have studied the structure and wording of the main and now verified as entirely fraudulent document, it has Gleick's personal and unique structuring of language and wording fingerprints all over it.

From Climate Audit; Gleick's confession which most pundits from both sides of the debate believe is a highly corrupted, untrue and self serving and self aggrandizing version of what actually did occur.


From Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute;



Gleick now is accused of;
Wire fraud
Fraud
Identity theft
Plus other criminal offenses relating to fraud, impersonation and identity theft.
Plus he will now no doubt along with those that published his fraudulent claims without any checking, be sued by the Heartland Institute for everything they have left.

Judith Curry ; "Climate Etc" and a luke warmer has an excellent post on this whole fraud debacle.

Gleick’s ‘integrity’

She concludes;

Megan McArdle, a full on warmista journalist in the "Atlantic " is absolutely scathing;

Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses

She finished with a comment that is already being hailed by both sides as a classic statement.

"After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else."

Some more irony from Gary Wamsley's webiste

It's possible that Joe Bast might also get an official slap on the wrist for using the 'FBI' threat.