• Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • More Broken Panes in the Greenhouse
Uncategorized

More Broken Panes in the Greenhouse

By jennifer
December 28, 2007

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.

Good Causes

Comments

  1. A pdf 260 some odd pages long. Why am I not surprised that a rude trash talking sob like you would resort to the old baffle em with BS strategem.
    You didn't even give a page number. A link to an abstract? An article? A chapter? a name of the principle investigator?

    We aren't talking about some vague debate point like how much ice melted in Chile last summer,
    this is the heart and soul of the climate dogma.
    CO2 will cause global warming because [ fill in the blank with Errols book ].

    For climate changers this is the absolute beyond which none may travel. This is your equivalent to "We hold these truths to be self evident", and the best you can come up with is a pdf of a book?
    No discussion on thermal properties of co2 at an alarmist website for you to link to?

    That is weak.
    You phony. I was really hoping for some substance from Errol - no scratch that - some substance from ANY of the climate changers.
    Just like every other trash talker - no follow through.
    All hat no cattle.

  2. "Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities [measured in the past five years] are possible,"
    Is that $50 Billion worth of climate wisdom or what? I wonder how big Gavin's slice was?

  3. As for fundamental radiative properties of CO2 - the point is that these properties have been demonstrated in the laboratory.

    Really, which labratory would that be Errol?
    Got a link?

    It would be so simple if it were true.
    385 ppm * T(co2) = climate sensitivity
    Instead we get http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5834/abs/293634a0.html
    Early estimates indicate that for doubled CO2, the surface temperature would be raised by 1−10 K, but recent numerical experiments with radiative-convective or general circulation models (RCM, GCM) of the atmosphere seemed to narrow this range to 2−4 K (see refs 2−6). However, Newell and Dopplick7, and Idso8, argue that these results are inconsistent with the observed or computed values of certain terms of the surface energy budget, which seem to indicate a far smaller sensitivity.

    That doesn't sound very simple. For guys who checked the radiative properties of co2 in a lab, they sure sound confused. But that was from 1981. I'm sure that problem has been examined and resolved.
    Here's one from 2006 that claims the climate sensitivity is a whopping 11ºC!
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0419_060419_global_warming_2.html

    Several studies have found that the temperature change may be higher than 16.2ºF (9ºC).

    Then there is another study that estimates climate sensitivity at anywhere from 2.2º to 15.5ºF (1.2º to 8.6ºC).

    And then there is a combination of models with the average sensitivity 2.7º to 11.2ºF (1.5º to 6.2ºC).

    Now isn't that strange? They studied the problem for 25 years, spent $50 billion dollars, and they still have to estimate, and their estimates are no better then the old 1981 versions.

    Better run on back to RealClimate and get some coaching Errol.
    Here's a quote from Gavin Schmidt on what is claimed to be the first study to confirm scientists' assumptions about climate sensitivity.

    Wait for it. The master climate guy is going to clear everything up.

    "Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities [measured in the past five years] are possible," Schmidt said.

    Well that's clear as mud isn't it?

    Errol you are going to have to get that lab out here for us all to see- Gavin is counting on you.

  4. SJT - your loyalty to the cherry-picked scientific opinion of a few lead authors that write the UN reports knows no bounds. A classic example is Kevin Trenberth's view of the 'link' between hurricanes and global warming which resulted in the resignation of Chris Landsea. No matter what the science says, we need a link to bolster the man-made global warming scare story.

    Never mind the flaws in the chosen climate reconstructions, we need to show the current warming is unprecedented. Never mind the divergence problem. Never mind the peer reviewed papers suggesting a warm bias in the near surface temperature record.

    Never mind the evidence against a large positive feedback, or the evidence for negative feedback - feed garbage into a computer model and get big scary warming prediction.

    Never mind the flaws in GIGO computer models.

    Present uncertainty as 90% certainty.

    Close down the UN IPCC and let's have an assessment that is independent of UN political agenda and the preconceptual, tunnel vision pseudo-science of certain lead authors.

  5. Chrisgo

    the IPCC does not do research, it collates the results of research and summarises them. There is no hard statistical method of doing this, hence the need to provide a rough indication of what all the research means. If you want to, feel free to read all the research papers that are the source of the IPCC reports, and let us know what your conclusion is.

  6. The IPCC's core statement is:

    "Most (over 50%) of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (over 90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentration"

    Think about it.

    Does it mean that over 50% of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas concentration?

    No, it doesn't mean that.

    Does it mean that over 90% of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas concentration?

    No it doesn't mean that either.

    The statement is absolutely meaningless.

    But, to be generous, what I think it means is that, in the view of the IPCC, 51% (0.25℃) of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is 91% due to human greenhouse gas concentration.

    Sounds OK to me.

    So all you unfortunate hysterics can relax and have a happy new year (if you can).

  7. Errol, SJT:

    Would you actually think about what you read, if you even bother reading anything at all here and are just giving automatic knee-jerk responses!

    Again - in the IPCC's own words, VERY LIKELY / 90% Probability.

    Not - Well maybe.
    Not - With a significant degree of uncertainty.
    Not - With a range where the upper threshold of the uncertainty interval is 4 times the lower threshold.

    Stop embarrassing yourselves!

    Christ, I thought the LBE was bad!

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *