Global warming

[David Rodale]

The muscle that I refer to is the big bad analogue model, and I doubt that has been much misunderstood. What provides the muscle behind your interpretation? Surely you can give it some definition, however wimpish.

The world's decision-makers haven't concluded that AGW is real and significant because they want it to be so. They've accepted it because they've no choice - reality has intruded, and even the White House has accepted that.

What contrarians such as yourself are reduced to is whining about how your little corner is becoming ever more marginalised. The arguments you depend on have long been made, and the powers-that-be have given them the short shrift they deserve.

Why isn't the troposphere warming at a faster rate than the surface?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
The arguments you depend on have long been made, and the powers-that-be have given them the short shrift they deserve.
​

Why isn't the troposphere warming at a faster rate than the surface?

This report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals."
​

The answer to the question is that the troposphere is not warming as predicted by IPCC chapter 9 because there is no heavy co2 influence such as would cause that effect.

Claiming otherwise as CD would do is not the method used in science. This study is presented, others then attempt to critique or rebut it. Or others replicate the work and confirm the findings.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, it's not the same issue we were discussing and the 2.3mm doesn't seem terribly out of bounds (I was at 1.8 going to 1.3, and you were on 2.8), neither is that going to sink those islands (which on other grounds, it had been pretty firmly established that the Maldives ain't going under water).

Also I don't get the leap from one of the Hong Kong gauges being 2.3mm to that curiously being related to the IPCC number of 2.3mm.

Woodroffe CD
Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005
“…Regardless of minor past fluctuations, most reef islands in the Maldives are particularly low-lying and appear vulnerable to inundation, and extracting a more detailed sea-level history remains an important challenge….”
“…Mörner et al. (2004) appear to base much of their narrative of past sea-level change upon their interpretation of the morphology of reef islands. They postulate a series of levels shown schematically in their Fig. 2, representing, they claim, stepwise coastal evolution, including a higher storm level, a sub-recent level now vegetated, and an older and higher island surface….”
“…implied, by Mörner (2004). If there had been such a sea-level fall, then those microatolls that had grown up to the limit of coral growth prior to the fall, would have shown a ‘top hat’ morphology with continued growth during post-fall years constrained at a lower level….”
Kench PS, Nichol SL, McLean RF
Comment on "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives" by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005
“Here we raise a number of concerns with arguments and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) that are central to the interpretations and conclusions presented in their paper….”
“…We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes. The region's sea level history remains uncertain. Consequently, we believe that this work does little to inform the international community on new perspectives of the future of the Maldives…”

 

[a_unique_person]

Why isn't the troposphere warming at a faster rate than the surface?

Whoa there. Maybe you could actually put some evidence for whatever it is you are claiming, (not just pasted gifs), and let us see what to respond to.

 

[fsol]

This report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals."
​

The answer to the question is that the troposphere is not warming as predicted by IPCC chapter 9 because there is no heavy co2 influence such as would cause that effect.

Claiming otherwise as CD would do is not the method used in science. This study is presented, others then attempt to critique or rebut it. Or others replicate the work and confirm the findings.

Fromyour link...

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

So it leaves me wondering what Douglass et. al. did to get different results from the same data. Did they do something right or wrong?

 

[mhaze]

CCSP did note the discrepancy with tropospheric response in the tropics, and if this is noted in IPCC Chapter 9, as they say, as a fingerprint of GW of the CO2 induced variety, then the IPCC is wrong. The article is not on those available to me via the ejournal list, but here is the abstract.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p n/a)
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22

Climate of the 20th Century

model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
​

IPCC Chapter 9, sections 9.4.4.3 and 9.4.4.4, page 701, discusses differences between free atmosphere and surface temperatures including in the tropics. It goes into the various uncertainties in some detail. As usual, one should look at the IPCC conclusions which may diverge from the uncertainty of the details discussed. No reason to do that until the PDF of the article surfaces and/or it is reviewed by various blogs (incomplete information at this point).

 

[fsol]

Aside from having the thought that the models are now convieniantly reliable if they disprove AGW...You know, the models can't predict stuff accurately enough to say that AGW is real, but here the models say this particular thing should happen and we haven't seen it so the models are accurate enough to disprove AGW...Which story am I to believe?

I think it would be interesting see what the "almost identical data sets" and methodologies are that produce the different results and why there is a difference. Not that the methodologies would necessarily mean all that much to me but, interesting all the same.


With a conspiracy hat on, I find it amusing that there seems to be a flood, well, two or three, papers out at the moment, spawning OpEds by the dozen just at the time of the Bali shindig...The Loehle reconstruction was of course seemingly fatally flawed as has been discussed elsewhere. McKitricks UHI analysis doesn't look that robust either...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ds-affected-by-economic-activity-ii/#more-507

So I'll wait and see about this one latest one.

 

[mhaze]

Aside from having the thought that the models are now convieniantly reliable if they disprove AGW...You know, the models can't predict stuff accurately enough to say that AGW is real, but here the models say this particular thing should happen and we haven't seen it so the models are accurate enough to disprove AGW...Which story am I to believe?

Not even a computer is required to show the reasoning behind the hypothetical AGW troposphere warming. Or do you have no physical effects directly attributable to AGW, by model, hypothesis or otherwise?

I think it would be interesting see what the "almost identical data sets" and methodologies are that produce the different results and why there is a difference. Not that the methodologies would necessarily mean all that much to me but, interesting all the same.

seems to be a flood, well, two or three, papers out at the moment

Timing the appearance of peer reviewed papers? How? A general increase in climate skeptic inclined papers in the last six months, perhaps.
​

Loehle reconstruction was of course seemingly fatally flawed as has been discussed elsewhere.

Might you wish to dig a bit deeper into that? Someone has been preaching to the choir.
​

McKitricks UHI analysis doesn't look that robust either...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ds-affected-by-economic-activity-ii/#more-507

a Rasmus blog discussion of a peer reviewed, published paper?

But of course, all this work must stand on its merits or the lack of (including your aforementioned critiques).

 

[fsol]

Not even a computer is required to show the reasoning behind the hypothetical AGW troposphere warming. Or do you have no physical effects directly attributable to AGW, by model, hypothesis or otherwise?

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p n/a)

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22

Climate of the 20th Century

model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

I am just pointing out what their argument is. The model doesn't agree with our findings, this means no AGW. Normally much less weight is placed on the model results as being useful enough to show anything, but when it suits... I find it amusing is all.

Timing the appearance of peer reviewed papers? How? A general increase in climate skeptic inclined papers in the last six months, perhaps.

Yeah, see this is why I said "With a conspiracy hat on..." why you felt the need to quote me out of context however I have no idea.
​

Might you wish to dig a bit deeper into that? Someone has been preaching to the choir.

This might point out some of it's shortcomings to you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

Of course it might not...For a more "angry" approach you could try JEGs blog.
​

a Rasmus blog discussion of a peer reviewed, published paper?

But of course, all this work must stand on its merits or the lack of (including your aforementioned critiques).

Well, he had a commentary published about their 2004 effort...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

...and he notes that they have failed to address some of the problems of that paper sufficently well in the new one. McKitrick responds in the comments, it's quite interesting.

Maybe there'll be another commentary along for this one too. Who knows?

Besides, from a commenter on RC, if McKitricks analysis is correct it would mean that the oceans are warming faster than the land masses. That would be a little bit odd if it were the case.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...fected-by-economic-activity-ii/#comment-74696

 

[CapelDodger]

I think it would be interesting see what the "almost identical data sets" and methodologies are that produce the different results and why there is a difference. Not that the methodologies would necessarily mean all that much to me but, interesting all the same.

While we might find the methodologies impenetrable, the differences between them would indeed be informative.

With a conspiracy hat on, I find it amusing that there seems to be a flood, well, two or three, papers out at the moment, spawning OpEds by the dozen just at the time of the Bali shindig...The Loehle reconstruction was of course seemingly fatally flawed as has been discussed elsewhere. McKitricks UHI analysis doesn't look that robust either...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ds-affected-by-economic-activity-ii/#more-507

Everyday cynicism, I'd say, not conspiracism.

So I'll wait and see about this one latest one.

Perhaps Steve McIntyre - who I gather is a methodology maven - will audit it for us. If he does, and given that Christy and Singer are co-authors, I (cynically) predict a clean bill of health.

To be fair, of course (and even cynics can be fair), McIntyre should also audit the several other recent papers that come to a different conclusion.

I stress "several" because a feature of contrarian behaviour is concentration on single papers that are variance with the general ensemble. They do this because these papers serve their needs. It's not coincidental that such papers usually emerge from the same small coterie of scientists.

 

[mhaze]

I am just pointing out what their argument is. The model doesn't agree with our findings, this means no AGW. Normally much less weight is placed on the model results as being useful enough to show anything, but when it suits... I find it amusing is all.

Thanks for your succint analysis.
Uh, correction: succinct trotting out of the old tired RC dogma.
I'll wait until after I've actually read the paper to comment further.

Have you?

 

[fsol]

Wow.

So because I have been saying that I'll wait and see about this paper, that means that I'm not going to wait and see? That's quite a tortuous path you must have travelled to reach that conclusion. Oh well.

So, me saying that I find the apparent double standard amusing is RC dogma now as well? I guess you'd better let them know about that then. Just so they can keep up to date. It would be unfair to spring it on them unannounced. It's cute though.

What do you think about the McKitrick land vs ocean temperature rise rates? Does it convince you of his models veracity? I seem to remember you trying to convince yourself that the oceans don't warm up very quickly over on that other thread not so long ago, well according to McKitricks results it might warm up just as quick, if not faster than the land does. How odd.

Incidently, when you can make posts like this...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3225872&postcount=2638

...with a straight face and then accuse others of parroting dogma you don't really do yourself any favours..

 

[fsol]

I stress "several" because a feature of contrarian behaviour is concentration on single papers that are variance with the general ensemble. They do this because these papers serve their needs. It's not coincidental that such papers usually emerge from the same small coterie of scientists.

It's just another of those puzzles isn't it?

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for your succint analysis.
Uh, correction: succinct trotting out of the old tired RC dogma.
I'll wait until after I've actually read the paper to comment further.

Have you?

For myself, I'm content with what's already been quoted. Let us know how reading it works out for you.

'The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” '

Inescapable conclusion?

What defines this "characteristic fingerprint"? Is it the science of AGW?

"Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.

Or is it instead the models that are so often dismissed as useless? Models are in no position to demand anything.

When you've read the paper, perhaps you can enlighten us.

Anyhoo, we're told satellite and balloon measurements find no variance in the warming between troposphere and surface. Warming is admitted (necessarily, since that's what's going on), but it bears not the fingerprint of AGW. There are feedbacks being wrongly evaluated, we're told.

The question then arises : if these are neglected feedbacks to greenhouse warming, why are they not feedbacks to whatever is causing the warming? The cloud argument isn't specific to greenhouse warming - it derives from the simplistic notion that more water-vapour in the atmosphere necessarily means more clouds.F

From Christy we hear of the negative feedbacks of clouds and water-vapour. What are the suggested negative feedbacks of more water-vapour per se? You could bear that in mind as you read the paper, and enlighten us.

 

[CapelDodger]

A couple of fingerprints of a changing greenhouse effect :

Night and winter surface lows will respond more than day and summer highs.

The polar surfaces will respond more than the tropical surface.


Those fingerprints are all over current warming.


The tropospheric response is much more arcane, which makes it a prime candidate for a refuge.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's just another of those puzzles isn't it?

It's one heck of a fingerprint. We could probably work up a full set of ten. A DNA profile would be a stretch .

Fingerprint #2 : dark and muscular, but shadowy, forces are at work. Details cost lives, but Al Gore's in there, 'nuff said, guvnor, know what I mean?

 

[a_unique_person]

CCSP did note the discrepancy with tropospheric response in the tropics, and if this is noted in IPCC Chapter 9, as they say, as a fingerprint of GW of the CO2 induced variety, then the IPCC is wrong. The article is not on those available to me via the ejournal list, but here is the abstract.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p n/a)
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Published Online: Dec 5 2007 8:29AM
DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/giflibrary/12/lsquo.gifClimate of the 20th Centuryhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/giflibrary/12/rsquo.gif model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
​

IPCC Chapter 9, sections 9.4.4.3 and 9.4.4.4, page 701, discusses differences between free atmosphere and surface temperatures including in the tropics. It goes into the various uncertainties in some detail. As usual, one should look at the IPCC conclusions which may diverge from the uncertainty of the details discussed. No reason to do that until the PDF of the article surfaces and/or it is reviewed by various blogs (incomplete information at this point).

More cherry picking, IMHO. There is the non tropic troposphere, and the layers above the troposphere. It appears since they ignored those areas, they are behaving as predicted.

 

[David Rodale]

More cherry picking, IMHO. There is the non tropic troposphere, and the layers above the troposphere. It appears since they ignored those areas, they are behaving as predicted.

Come on AUP, please review the literature before making unsubstantiated claims.

Where is the heat at if it's not in the troposphere as climate models say should be there? Hiding in the missing sink with the CO2?

We keep hearing about the mountains of peer reviewed articles supporting the core principles of AGW, but thus far you folks haven't come up with much. I don't have a problem with disagreeing with any paper, however it must be substantive.

Lurkers take note.

BTW, I ran a quick statistical R squared (which Capeldodger hasn't the foggiest what it means) check on the last ten years of temps vs CO2 levels. It's not pretty for AGW.

 

[mhaze]

Incidently, when you can make posts like this...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3225872&postcount=2638
...with a straight face and then accuse others of parroting dogma you don't really do yourself any favours..

The fingerprint of AGW in the upper troposphere was never there.

Klaus is against dogma. RC is pretty dogmatic in my opinion, granted there are exceptions. RC is much easier to read than climateaudit....

 

[a_unique_person]

Come on AUP, please review the literature before making unsubstantiated claims.

Where is the heat at if it's not in the troposphere as climate models say should be there? Hiding in the missing sink with the CO2?

We keep hearing about the mountains of peer reviewed articles supporting the core principles of AGW, but thus far you folks haven't come up with much. I don't have a problem with disagreeing with any paper, however it must be substantive.

Lurkers take note.

They are only looking at the tropics, and only at the troposphere. As I said, why are they only looking at this one particular area of the atmosphere? Presumably, the other areas agree with the model predictions.

BTW, I ran a quick statistical R squared (which Capeldodger hasn't the foggiest what it means) check on the last ten years of temps vs CO2 levels. It's not pretty for AGW.

Lurkers take note An R squared over the last ten years is going to be meaningless.