Another one to make the climate catastrophists squirm

Anyone who has been paying attention to the climate debate will be aware that the looming catastrophe isn't the the temperature increased caused by CO2, that is accepted by the IPCC and skeptics is about 1deg C increase, a minor irritation. No, climate alarmists rely on positive feedback to multiply that 1 deg rise by 3, 4 or even more. It works something like this: CO2 causes some warming, this warming causes, say more clouds, more clouds causes more heat to be trapped, which causes more clouds....and this is what is in the climate change models

Climate skeptics have, for some time, been pointing out that positive feedback in nature is not only unproven, but also very unlikely - think of the runaway affects when someone puts a microphone in front of a speaker - why hasn't the earth endued up like Venus as we've had hotter periods and periods with more CO2 in the atmosphere? Up until now climate scientists have been able to dismiss skeptic claims because they had nothing to base their objections on. I say up until now because via Climate Skeptic we get this interesting piece.

The gist of the story is:

The [NASA Aqua] satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Both are worth the full read although Climate Skeptic gets to the point faster and is easier to read, there are also some interesting comments that are worth reading.

So, whilst there is still some argument to be had over this data is does at least support the skeptic arguments which cannot now easily be dismissed.