Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

The resounding silence when I asked whether it was the surface temperatures or the models he has issues with is telling

Post #1690

Someone is still digging through their Cut/Paste library for an answer....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

No issues?

Not even the fact that it (along with RSS and radiosonde data sets) shows less warming than the terrestrial data sets - while all the climate models say that lower troposphere temperature should be rising faster than surface temperatures?

So where are the issues? With the terrestrial data sets or the models?

You are a little behind the times

Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences

Convening Lead Author: Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors: V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K. Met Office

Abstract

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliograph...s/tmlw0602.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Someone is still digging through their Cut/Paste library for an answer....

Had to go searching. See the cut and paste above. Notice who the authors are.

I am also trying to put the finishing touches on two seminars I am conducting at The Vancouver Boat Show next week. That has been my priority.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are a little behind the times



http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliograph...s/tmlw0602.pdf

That paper is nearly 12 years old. At the time it said:
"A potentially serious inconsistency, however,
has been identified in the tropics. Figure 4G
shows that the lower troposphere warms more
rapidly than the surface in almost all model
simulations, while, in the majority of observed
data sets, the surface has warmed more rapidly
than the lower troposphere. In fact, the nature
of this discrepancy is not fully captured in Fig.
4G as the models that show best agreement with
the observations are those that have the lowest
(and probably unrealistic) amounts of warming
(see Chapter 5, Fig. 5.6C). "


Since then, the difference in trend between lower troposphere and surface temperature data sets has widened - in the wrong direction according to the models.

So that paper certainly doesn't answer the question.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

That paper is nearly 12 years old. At the time it said:
"A potentially serious inconsistency, however,
has been identified in the tropics. Figure 4G
shows that the lower troposphere warms more
rapidly than the surface in almost all model
simulations, while, in the majority of observed
data sets, the surface has warmed more rapidly
than the lower troposphere. In fact, the nature
of this discrepancy is not fully captured in Fig.
4G as the models that show best agreement with
the observations are those that have the lowest
(and probably unrealistic) amounts of warming
(see Chapter 5, Fig. 5.6C). "


Since then, the difference in trend between lower troposphere and surface temperature data sets has widened - in the wrong direction according to the models.

So that paper certainly doesn't answer the question.

And, IIRC, heating of the troposphere in the tropics is an AGW smoking gun yet to materialise.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And, IIRC, heating of the troposphere in the tropics is an AGW smoking gun yet to materialise.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

This smoking gun?

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Since then, the difference in trend between lower troposphere and surface temperature data sets has widened - in the wrong direction according to the models.

Got a cut and paste for that?

[Exile]

I couldn't find a date on the summary paper Jack posted, but unless he responds otherwise I'll assume Stu has correctly stated that it is 12 years old. If true, then I don't know why Jack stated that Stu's info was "behind the times," thereby implying that the summary was new information. Hopefully Jack can clear this up. I did find the same paper cited by skepticalscience.com and used in the same way to rebut the sat data discrepancy.

I posted below a link to an interview of Christy & Spencer by a local AL journal publication. The interview was conducted in March 2015. The interview has both scientists again confirming that the sat temps are consistently lower than what the models predicted. Since the ground-based temp readings have been adjusted upward to be more in line with the models, there appears to remain a large differential b'twn. the two sets of temp data. Notwithstanding disputes over the accuracy of each method, there are large differences over many years that appear to establish clearly defined overall trends. Seems like a tough one to explain away.

7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years | AL.com

In the interview, Christy & Spencer also discuss the 97% consensus controversy, allegations of political bias at NASA & NOAA, and dissension over NOAA's "adjustments" to the ground-based data. These involve claims that NOAA adjusted data from earlier years to lower the temps, and then adjusted more recent temps upwards, thereby showing an increased overall warming trend. These scientists emphasize that adjustments to all data sets are normal practice, but they and others do question how it has been done by NOAA.

It seems there's enough controversy within the science itself without partisans trying to shroud and confuse it. It would be nice to at least agree that there is a significant discrepancy in the two types of data without necessarily agreeing on which set of data may be correct.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This smoking gun?

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

I thought you said that you accepted the UAH data? This seems to contradict.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Got a cut and paste for that?

No cut and paste, just the data. RSS v two surface datasets.

Although your linked paper was dated 2004, all the relevant data and graphs ended in 1999. So here's the real "since then":

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

So where's the extra heat in the lower troposphere hiding?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This smoking gun?

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

This sums it up fairly well:

Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data « JoNova

"Who’s desperate to find the missing hot-spot? Sherwood’s new paper claims to have found it, but after years of multi-layered adjustments, and now kriging the gaps, and iteratively homogenizing, the results of the new data partly “solve” one problem while creating others. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The raw data was used by airlines, the military, and meteorologists for years, yet the suggested new results are quite different to the raw data. It’s as if we can’t even measure air temperature properly. Somehow we’ve made multivariate complex models work but not simple temperature sensors? The main problem with the old results was that they didn’t fit the models. Now, after torturing the data, they still don’t.
...

The weather balloons independently agreed with each other, the humidity results fitted the temperature results, the whole lot was loosely supported by satellites. The data doesn’t need homogenising or kriging or obscure numerical witchcraft. Instead Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant of UNSW revisited their 2008 technique of homogenizing temperature data by using wind data as well. They homogenised it again. They have iterated the iteration? They’ve also extended it from 2005 to 2013 and changed the “wind shear” component to “vector wind”. "


Yep, the temperatures don't show a hot spot, but our manipulated wind data does. 'nuff said.

[StuM]

Oh and incidentally, Sherwood has this to say about his "hot spot":

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

The implications for attribution of observed global warming are nil, as far as I can see. The regulation of lapse rate changes by atmospheric convection is expected to work exactly the same way whether global temperature changes are natural or forced (say, by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning).

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

That paper is nearly 12 years old.

Some math problems?

The paper was published in 2006.

Here is the full report. SAP 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding & Reconciling Differences | GlobalChange.gov

2016-2006 = 10 years.

John Christy of UAH was one of the authors

[/QUOTE]

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Oh and incidentally, Sherwood has this to say about his "hot spot":

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

The implications for attribution of observed global warming are nil, as far as I can see. The regulation of lapse rate changes by atmospheric convection is expected to work exactly the same way whether global temperature changes are natural or forced (say, by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning).

So you are agreeing with Sherwood that the "hot spot"is irrelevant?

You should tell Reefmagnet and all the skeptics / deniers who think otherwise.

[StuM]

Just realised that we have ended up confounding two things:

1. relative surface and lower troposphere warmong rates.
and
2. the upper troposphere tropical "hotspot"

The Sherwood paper is irrelevant to the former which was the question on which I was trying to get an answer from JD.