Apologies for my lack of blogging activity of late - I've had a busy Christmas period on both the work and home fronts. Some friends even managed to hold a pre-Chrsitmas BBQ on 22nd December - no, not a result of global warming in the UK, just a cool, pleasant evening and the heat from the BBQ itself.
Despite science historian Naomi Oreskes’s claim, repeated ad nauseum by greenhouse industry beneficiaries that there are few or no peer reviewed papers that dispute the still undefined ‘consensus’ on anthropogenic global climate change, such papers have not been hard to find during 2007. Some of the more recent papers containing inconvenient results, that I haven’t previously blogged, are briefly described below:
Surface:troposphere warming
According to climate models of enhanced greenhouse warming, the tropical troposphere should warm more than the surface. Recent publications have contradictory results despite using essentially the same data. The latest paper on this subject, by Douglass et al, suggests that model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere.
Interestingly, a poster presented by Penner and Andronova at the recent AGU meeting, entitled ‘Tropical atmosphere radiative budget 1985-2005’ seems to reconcile the differences between surface and troposheric warming, supporting the Douglass et al data, without necessarily disproving enhanced greenhouse warming.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit attended the conference and the following is extracted from his write-up:
"the tropical atmosphere has absorbed less energy and the Earth’s surface has gained energy which is consistent with the temperature increase in the tropics;
the tropical atmosphere has recently become less reflective and more absorbing while the Earth’s surface gained radiative energy; thus, the tropical atmosphere had recently become more transparent to the incoming radiation and there is an overall brightening of the Earth’s system;
none of the IPCC AR4 models simulates the overall brightening of the Earth system. The majority of the models show a loss of radiative energy by the tropical energy in the post-Pinatubo period, suggesting that the models have still not properly captured the feedbacks between temperature change and clouds."
Of course, there are also unresolved issues regarding a potential warm bias in the surface temperature data.
Climate sensitivity to CO2
A new paper by Chylek et al entitled:
Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations
The climate sensitivity of 0.29 to 0.48 K/Wm-2 translates to warming between 1.1 and 1.8 deg C for doubling of CO2, supporting values close to the lower end of the IPCC range of 2 to 4.5 deg C. - Petr Chylek
Hurricanes
HURRICANES HAVE NOT INCREASED IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC
By William M. Briggs, Statistician
My paper on this subject will finally appear in the Journal of Climate soon. Download it here.
The gist is that the evidence shows that hurricanes have not increased in either number of intensity in the North Atlantic. I've only used data through 2006; which is to say, not this year's. But if I were to, then, since the number and intensity of storms this past year were nothing special, the evidence would be even more conclusive that not much is going on.
Now, I did find that there were some changes in certain characteristics of North Atlantic storms. There is some evidence that the probability that strong (what are called Category 4 or 5) storms evolving from ordinary hurricanes has increased. But, there has also been an increase in storms not reaching hurricane level. Which is to say, that the only clear signal is that there has been an increase in the variability of intensity of tropical cyclones.
Of course, I do not say why this increase has happened. Well, I suggest why it has: changes in instrumentation quality and frequency since the late 1960s (which is when satellites first went up, allowing us to finally observe better). This is in line with what others, like Chris Landsea at the Hurricane Center, have found.
I also have done the same set of models of global hurricanes. I found the same thing. I'm scheduled to give a talk on this at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in January 2008 in New Orleans. That paper is here.
In another paper, Vecchi and Soden find natural climate variations have bigger effect on hurricane activity than global warming:
Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden. 2007. Effect of remote sea surface temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 450, 1066-1071.
So, Luke ducks for cover and reappears as Errol.
Interesting choice of "Walter Mitty" style pseudonyms, as if he quietly aspires to the possession of a chest and chin.
Mark's reconstruction of the temperature record is entirely based on previously accepted science. But now that the full implications of it are apparent then we can probably expect past champions of it, like Church et al, to discover some new pretext for ignoring it.
But nothing Luke/Errol can say will change the fact that trends are measured from peak to peak, not trough to peak as the IPCC "Climate Lards" have done to date. And the adjusted data makes it very clear that there has been next to zero sensitivity to the 140Gt of atmospheric CO2 increase since 1982.
It is an unambiguous case of "Global Luke-Warming".
James Annan has a good, honest attempt at 2xCO2 = 2.5C or 3C, but is unable to provide references and highlights some of the uncertainties:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2528#more-2528
SJT, regarding your rather obnoxious comment to me above, I know that WGII is about impacts, adaption, and vulnerability, as anyone who has perused it, or the comment I linked to, would have known or found out.
But your comment stuck the mark in reference to yourself seeing that the impacts of AGW must itself be based on the science (what else are they going to arise from?), see, for instance, Chapters 1 and 2.
Seeing as I was making a general point about the IPCC and not about only one of their reports, WGI, your comment represented a wonderful piece of avoiding the point. Or do you mean to say that the infamous 2500 'scientists' (i.e. professors, research scientists, PhD candidates, etc.) often referred to do not include any of the lead authors, reviewers, etc. listed as contributors, etc. to WGII?
I see, by the way, that Climate Resistance have a new post on WGIII, which is about Mitigation (just for you SJT):
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/wgiii-but-is-it-science.html
BTW, forgive the lateness of this response; I've been enjoying the sun and sea around Mallacoota and been away from the computer.
And remind me again why it is a good and prudent idea to increase CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppmv to 560ppmv - apart from the alleged financial inconvenience of doing otherwise?
SJT couldn't find the lab work either.
Don't feel bad 3PO it doesn't exist.
The first few 10ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere have the biggest effect, the effect of adding more is logarithmic. All things being equal, which of course they are not, 280ppmv to 560ppmv is worth about 1C, in theory. The unresolved arguments over higher temperatures depend on the balance between negative and positive feedbacks, and the other factors both internal and external to the complex, chaotic climate system.
Alarmists scroll down here and weep:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
James
and even Louis, if he is still around
the CO2 acts like a dam. The water gets through, but it builds up for a while. The heat will always get out, but the time it takes is longer and longer as you build that dam higher and higher.
"And yet you still can't come up with a lab experiment showing the temperature of a co2 molecule when exposed to radiation."
that is not even so last century, that is so last century before that. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is beyond dispute. Even Paul agrees on that, it's just Physics 101. If you can't even get that right, go home, turn on the TV, watch some football.
Well you pointed me to the herd and made some moo noises (again).
What it has to do with co2 heat retaining properties, I have no idea. So score one for you, right?
Seems to me, if there were such a lab study you would have whipped it out directly.
About that book sized pdf that you were expecting me to wade through. Would that author be the same Pierrehumbert who posts regularly at RealClimate?
Lab rat huh?
And yet you still can't come up with a lab experiment showing the temperature of a co2 molecule when exposed to radiation.
That makes you a liar Errol. A liar among a whole movement of liars. No wonder global warmers congregate. Using the safety of the herd so nobody singles you.
Oink.