Temperature Fraud Expands

[WeatherRusty]

It's a legitimate uncertainty in Climate Science, but it's very important. If the Cloud Feedback were to be strongly negative, then sensitivities below the blackbody sensitivity of 1.1 Degrees C are definitely on the table.

 

That also then means that the anthropogenic forcing is insufficient to explain the long term warming trend.

 

Low sensitivity is a posibility, but not one less than that produced by the external forcing of greenhouse gases. The feedback is to warming, so if clouds increase so as to reduce the temperature the process is self limiting. What remains is the original forcing and Planck temperature response.

 

It increased cloudiness where to be due to a change in cosmic ray flux, then those clouds would be decoupled from temperature as a cause. This difference illustrates the importance of external forcing versus internal variability.

[skierinvermont]

Low sensitivity is a posibility, but not one less than that produced by the external forcing of greenhouse gases. The feedback is to warming, so if clouds increase so as to reduce the temperature the process is self limiting. What remains is the original forcing and Planck temperature response.

 

It increased cloudiness where to be due to a change in cosmic ray flux, then those clouds would be decoupled from temperature as a cause. This difference illustrates the importance of external forcing versus internal variability.

 

If net feedbacks are negative, you could have a sensitivity that is less than that produced by the external forcing of greenhouse gases. If negative feedbacks are for example say 2W/m2 per 1C, then equilibrium in response to a 3.7W/m2 external forcing would be calculated as follows, solve for N, where N = the final temperature resposne:

 

(3.7-2*N)*(1.1/3.7)=N

 

(3.7-2N)*(.297)=N

 

1.1-.594N=N

 

1.1=1.594N

 

N = .69C

 

Thus doubling CO2 would only cause .634C of warming. 

 

The 3.7W/m2 initial forcing would be balanced by a 1.38W/m2 negative forcing response after an initial warming of .69C. (2W/m2 * .69C of warming). Thus net forcing would be 3.7W/m2 minus 1.38 W/m2, which is 2.32W/m2.

 

2.32W/m2 causes .69C of warming, indicating we have reached equilibrium.  

 

 

However, I've read nothing to suggest anything more than the slightest theoretical possibility of net negative feedbacks.

[Snow_Miser]

Except we know that CO2 and methane forcing is far greater than the long-term warming trend. This is not debatable it is a basic logical conclusion. 

 

The earth remains in a large energy imbalance. Further warming would take place before equilibrium is reached. Even more warming would take place were it not for the large amount of aerosol pollution we have darkened our atmosphere with and blocked out the sun. Neither internal variables nor the sun could have caused such a massive change in forcing. Only long-lived radiative gases with significant net positive feedback could have done so. 

 

If Climate Sensitivity were even 4 w/m^2/Degree C, then the anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 w/m^2 since 1750 would be insufficient in being able to explain most of the long term warming trend over the last 100-150 years.

[Snow_Miser]

Snowlover123,

 

Here's a paper on the PDO that describes what it is: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3527.1

 

Thank you for this link Don.

[WeatherRusty]

If net feedbacks are negative, you could have a sensitivity that is less than that produced by the external forcing of greenhouse gases. If negative feedbacks are for example say 2W/m2 per 1C, then equilibrium in response to a 3.7W/m2 external forcing would be calculated as follows, solve for N, where N = the final temperature resposne:

 

(3.7-2*N)*(1.1/3.7)=N

 

(3.7-2N)*(.297)=N

 

1.1-.594N=N

 

1.1=1.594N

 

N = .69C

 

Thus doubling CO2 would only cause .634C of warming. 

 

The 3.7W/m2 initial forcing would be balanced by a 1.38W/m2 negative forcing response after an initial warming of .69C. (2W/m2 * .69C of warming). Thus net forcing would be 3.7W/m2 minus 1.38 W/m2, which is 2.32W/m2.

 

2.32W/m2 causes .69C of warming, indicating we have reached equilibrium.  

 

 

However, I've read nothing to suggest anything more than the slightest theoretical possibility of net negative feedbacks.

 

Your calculation assumes that a feedback -2W/m^2 forcing as a direct consequence of 1.1C of greenhouse gas forced temperature response is a possibility. You have pointed out in the past quite eloquently why feedback can not enter a runaway condition. They are limited by the rule of diminishing returns.

The feedback we are concerned with is a direct consequence of warming, not radiative forcing. As soon as additional clouds reduced the temperature to +1.1C the clouds are gone.

[WeatherRusty]

If Climate Sensitivity were even 4 w/m^2/Degree C, then the anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 w/m^2 since 1750 would be insufficient in being able to explain most of the long term warming trend over the last 100-150 years.

 

If on the other hand, equilibrium climate sensitivity were 0.75C/W (the conventional expression), then 1.6W/m^2 well expains the warming with about 0.5C remaining in the pipeline due to the TOA energy imbalance.

[Snow_Miser]

If on the other hand, equilibrium climate sensitivity were 0.75C/W (the conventional expression), then 1.6W/m^2 well expains the warming with about 0.5C remaining in the pipeline due to the TOA energy imbalance.

 

"Conventional Climate Sensitivity" doesn't explain why there is little to no amplification rate in the rate of warming as you go up in altitude. (Fu et al. 2011) That means that the negative lapse rate feedback is much closer to a neutral feedback, and the Water Vapor Feedback is closer to neutral as well, since the water vapor and lapse rate feedbaks are strongly negatively correlated in the models.

 

Blizzard has mentioned in previous posts that convective overturning can be responsible for a mechanism for the dehumidification of the upper troposphere, which would lead to a negative water vapor feedback. The climate is more sensitive to changes in the upper tropospheric water vapor, than it is to changes in the lower tropospheric water vapor (Spencer and Braswell 1997).

 

Observations from Vonder Haar et al. 2012 can not "prove or disprove" a "robust trend" in overall water vapor over the last 20-25 or so years so the Water Vapor Feedback is still an open question. It would be interesting if in a following paper, they could break the water vapor trends at different altitudes, so individual trends in the boundary layer and the upper troposphere can be seen, and what implications that may have for climate sensitivity and the water vapor feedback.

 

Preliminary data from NVAP, like the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, showed negative water vapor trends in the upper troposphere, so it should be interesting to see if the updated NVAP data continues to suggest this.

 

 

The NVAP dataset for the upper troposphere.

 

In addition, other papers found that the Cloud Feedback can be negative, and not positive, potentially reducing the sensitivity even further.

 

Each individual feedback is definitely questionable with regard to the sign and the magnitude to say the least.

[skierinvermont]

If Climate Sensitivity were even 4 w/m^2/Degree C, then the anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 w/m^2 since 1750 would be insufficient in being able to explain most of the long term warming trend over the last 100-150 years.

 

Given a forcing of 1.6W/m2, .8C of warming thus far, and a remaining energy imbalance of ~.5W/m2, then that means .8C of warming has taken place in response to only 1.1W/m2 of forcing. An additional .5W/m2 of forcing remains "in the pipeline." Thus a rough estimate of climate sensitivity would be .8C per 1.1W/m2, which comes out to .73C/m2, or commonly expressed as 2.7C per CO2 doubling. Not coincidentally this is near the mean of the many other methods of determining climate sensitivity (2-4.5C mean 3C). 

 

Thus a sensitivity of only 4W/m2/Degree C (more usually expressed as .25C/Wm2 or .93C per CO2 doubling) is impossible. Which is why studies of the last couple centuries of climate find that climate sensitivity must be at least 2C per 3.7W/m2. Or as I calculated above, 2.7C per Co2 doubling. 

[blizzard1024]

"Conventional Climate Sensitivity" doesn't explain why there is little to no amplification rate in the rate of warming as you go up in altitude. (Fu et al. 2011) That means that the negative lapse rate feedback is much closer to a neutral feedback, and the Water Vapor Feedback is closer to neutral as well, since the water vapor and lapse rate feedbaks are strongly negatively correlated in the models.

 

Blizzard has mentioned in previous posts that convective overturning can be responsible for a mechanism for the dehumidification of the upper troposphere, which would lead to a negative water vapor feedback. The climate is more sensitive to changes in the upper tropospheric water vapor, than it is to changes in the lower tropospheric water vapor (Spencer and Braswell 1997).

 

Observations from Vonder Haar et al. 2012 can not "prove or disprove" a "robust trend" in overall water vapor over the last 20-25 or so years so the Water Vapor Feedback is still an open question. It would be interesting if in a following paper, they could break the water vapor trends at different altitudes, so individual trends in the boundary layer and the upper troposphere can be seen, and what implications that may have for climate sensitivity and the water vapor feedback.

 

Preliminary data from NVAP, like the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, showed negative water vapor trends in the upper troposphere, so it should be interesting to see if the updated NVAP data continues to suggest this.

 

 

The NVAP dataset for the upper troposphere.

 

In addition, other papers found that the Cloud Feedback can be negative, and not positive, potentially reducing the sensitivity even further.

 

Each individual feedback is definitely questionable with regard to the sign and the magnitude to say the least.

Nice paper. I love how they dance around the issue of the usability of this data for climate variability. If you don't

want to hear my opinion on this don't read the next paragraph as I know some don't want to read opinions. That's fine.

Skip to the last paragraph if you even care. 

 

Ok. Here is my prediction on this: if the data indeed shows a negative trend it will be discounted as not reliable

for climate variability because it would completely blow a gaping hole in AGW and especially CAGW theory.

In this way, all the funding, research labs, university departments, grant money, IPCC and all would be ruined.

There is way too much vested into CAGW as a global community that I doubt this data would be taken seriously

if it anyway disproved the positive feedback. It would also crush the egos of many high flying PHDs in climate

science too as they would have egg on their face.  Yet it could be totally valid. That's just an opinion of mine.

No science here. Just opinion. 

 

Scientifically speaking, it does attest to the uncertainties in the sign of the water vapor feedback. It still could be

positive but in no way is this settled science, unless one ignores this stuff. It needs to be studied. Hopefully

we can get a better answer soon. Thanks for posting Snowlover123

[blizzard1024]

Given a forcing of 1.6W/m2, .8C of warming thus far, and a remaining energy imbalance of ~.5W/m2, then that means .8C of warming has taken place in response to only 1.1W/m2 of forcing. An additional .5W/m2 of forcing remains "in the pipeline." Thus a rough estimate of climate sensitivity would be .8C per 1.1W/m2, which comes out to .73C/m2, or commonly expressed as 2.7C per CO2 doubling. Not coincidentally this is near the mean of the many other methods of determining climate sensitivity. 

 

Thus a sensitivity of only 4W/m2/Degree C (more usually expressed as .25C/Wm2 or .93C per CO2 doubling) is impossible. Which is why studies of the last couple centuries of climate find that climate sensitivity must be at least 2C per 3.7W/m2. Or as I calculated above, 2.7C per Co2 doubling. 

You are assuming ALL the warming from .8C has come from CO2. Remember the little ice age ended in the 1800s and the first 40s years of the 20th century saw warming related to natural factors, like solar. Plus how could there be warming in the pipeline from CO2 as is often stated ? No one has addressed that CO2 forcing can have lags and yet solar forcing doesn't??  I never understood this and the papers I have read never really explained the difference between warming in the pipeline from CO2 and the lack of apparent lags in solar forcing. How can this be? Just curious. 

[skierinvermont]

Your calculation assumes that a feedback -2W/m^2 forcing as a direct consequence of 1.1C of greenhouse gas forced temperature response is a possibility. You have pointed out in the past quite eloquently why feedback can not enter a runaway condition. They are limited by the rule of diminishing returns.

The feedback we are concerned with is a direct consequence of warming, not radiative forcing. As soon as additional clouds reduced the temperature to +1.1C the clouds are gone.

 

The -2W/m2 is not a response to 1.1C of forced temperature response. The feedback I suggested was -2W/m2 per Degree C. 

 

In this case, equilibrium would be reached after .69C of warming. 

 

 

Practically this means that if CO2 doubles, and warming commences, cloud cover immediately begins to increase. After .3C of warming, cloud forcing will have reached -.6W/m2. The CO2 forcing remains +3.7W/m2, so net forcing would be 3.1W/m2. This is enough to cause more than .3C of warming, so warming continues.

 

 

After .5C, cloud forcing would have reached -1W/m2. The CO2 forcing remains +3.7W/m2, so net forcing would be 2.7W/m2. This is enough to cause more than .5C of warming, so warming continues.

 

 

After .6C, cloud focing would have reached -1.2W/m2. The CO2 forcing remains +3.7W/m2, so net forcing would be 2.5W/m2. This is enough to cause ever so slightly more than .6C of warming, so warming continues.

 

 

After .69C of warming, cloud forcing would have reached -1.38W/m2. The CO2 forcing remains +3.7W/m2, so net forcing would be +2.32W/m2. This is enough to cause exactly .69C of warming, thus the earth is in energy balance after only .69C of warming in response to a doubling of CO2.

 

 

 

Net negative feedbacks are a logicaly coherent theoretical possibility. Net negative feedbacks can only be ruled out by empirical evidence, such as the recent climate record, the paleoclimate record, and atmospheric modeling. 

 

 

The final warming response to feedbacks is expressed as:

 

(3.7-F*N)*(1.1/3.7)=N

 

Where F= feedbacks

 

and N = the final warming response

 

 

Where F = -2W/m2

 

N = .69C

[skierinvermont]

You are assuming ALL the warming from .8C has come from CO2. Remember the little ice age ended in the 1800s and the first 40s years of the 20th century saw warming related to natural factors, like solar. Plus how could there be warming in the pipeline from CO2 as is often stated ? No one has addressed that CO2 forcing can have lags and yet solar forcing doesn't??  I never understood this and the papers I have read never really explained the difference between warming in the pipeline from CO2 and the lack of apparent lags in solar forcing. How can this be? Just curious. 

 

 

The forcing of 1.6W/m2 since 1750 is nearly entirely anthropogenic. The mid-1700s also had very high solar activity. Solar forcing since the mid 1700s is estimated as a mere .04W/m2. 

 

Alternatively, forcing from the late 1800s would be greater than 1.6W/m2, but so would warming. The final calculation would yield a similar result. 

 

Forcing from the late 1800s would be more like 1.7 or 1.8W/m2. Warming would be more like .9C than .8C. Thus we would get .9C per 1.2 or 1.3W/m2 after subtracting the .5W/m2 in the pipe. That would be a sensitivity of 2.8 or 2.6C per CO2 doubling. 

[bluewave]

"Conventional Climate Sensitivity" doesn't explain why there is little to no amplification rate in the rate of warming as you go up in altitude. (Fu et al. 2011) That means that the negative lapse rate feedback is much closer to a neutral feedback, and the Water Vapor Feedback is closer to neutral as well, since the water vapor and lapse rate feedbaks are strongly negatively correlated in the models.

 

Blizzard has mentioned in previous posts that convective overturning can be responsible for a mechanism for the dehumidification of the upper troposphere, which would lead to a negative water vapor feedback. The climate is more sensitive to changes in the upper tropospheric water vapor, than it is to changes in the lower tropospheric water vapor (Spencer and Braswell 1997).

 

Observations from Vonder Haar et al. 2012 can not "prove or disprove" a "robust trend" in overall water vapor over the last 20-25 or so years so the Water Vapor Feedback is still an open question. It would be interesting if in a following paper, they could break the water vapor trends at different altitudes, so individual trends in the boundary layer and the upper troposphere can be seen, and what implications that may have for climate sensitivity and the water vapor feedback.

 

Preliminary data from NVAP, like the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, showed negative water vapor trends in the upper troposphere, so it should be interesting to see if the updated NVAP data continues to suggest this.

 

 

The NVAP dataset for the upper troposphere.

 

In addition, other papers found that the Cloud Feedback can be negative, and not positive, potentially reducing the sensitivity even further.

 

Each individual feedback is definitely questionable with regard to the sign and the magnitude to say the least.

 

I think what you are pointing out is a quality of measurement issue.

 

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejoel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

 

 

Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65±0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/abs/ngeo1008.html

 

Deep convection over tropical oceans is observed generally above a threshold for sea surface temperatures^{1, 2, 3, 4}, which falls in the vicinity of 26–28 °C. High-resolution models suggest that the related sea surface temperature threshold for tropical cyclones rises in a warming climate^5, 6. Some observations for the past few decades, however, show that tropical tropospheric warming has been nearly uniform vertically^7, 8, suggesting that the troposphere may have become less stable and casting doubts on the possibility that the sea surface temperature threshold increases substantially with global warming. Here we turn to satellite observations of rainfall for the past 30 years. We detect significant covariability between tropical mean sea surface temperatures and the convective threshold on interannual and longer timescales. In addition, we find a parallel upward trend of approximately 0.1 °C/decade over the past 30 years in both the convective threshold and tropical mean sea surface temperatures. We conclude that, in contrast with some observational indications, the tropical troposphere has warmed in a way that is consistent with moist-adiabatic adjustment, in agreement with global climate model simulations.

[skierinvermont]

"Conventional Climate Sensitivity" doesn't explain why there is little to no amplification rate in the rate of warming as you go up in altitude. (Fu et al. 2011) That means that the negative lapse rate feedback is much closer to a neutral feedback, and the Water Vapor Feedback is closer to neutral as well, since the water vapor and lapse rate feedbaks are strongly negatively correlated in the models.

Blizzard has mentioned in previous posts that convective overturning can be responsible for a mechanism for the dehumidification of the upper troposphere, which would lead to a negative water vapor feedback. The climate is more sensitive to changes in the upper tropospheric water vapor, than it is to changes in the lower tropospheric water vapor (Spencer and Braswell 1997).

Observations from Vonder Haar et al. 2012 can not "prove or disprove" a "robust trend" in overall water vapor over the last 20-25 or so years so the Water Vapor Feedback is still an open question. It would be interesting if in a following paper, they could break the water vapor trends at different altitudes, so individual trends in the boundary layer and the upper troposphere can be seen, and what implications that may have for climate sensitivity and the water vapor feedback.

Preliminary data from NVAP, like the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, showed negative water vapor trends in the upper troposphere, so it should be interesting to see if the updated NVAP data continues to suggest this.

The NVAP dataset for the upper troposphere.

In addition, other papers found that the Cloud Feedback can be negative, and not positive, potentially reducing the sensitivity even further.

Each individual feedback is definitely questionable with regard to the sign and the magnitude to say the least.

The first paper you post is indeed very interesting and further work on this subject should help hone estimates of climate sensitivity. There have been a number of papers citing the Fu 2011 paper you posted written just in the last year or two. As far as I can tell, it remains difficult to know whether the discrepancy is due to model and/or observational biases. Given the trends in upper tropospheric temperature are as follows:

UAH: .089C/decade

RSS .16C/decade

NOAA: .196C/decade

there remains extremely large discrepancy. I find it difficult to put any trust in observational data sets where such large discrepancies exist. Even higher estimates of warming can be found from the various radiosonde datasets.

However, the third paper you post is not remotely interesting and you are misrepresenting it. It is the beginning work in the development of a global data set. However, they have made no attempt to integrate the data in a way to yield accurate long-term trends. It's not that the results of the study are "inconclusive" as you suggest, the study yields no conclusions whatsoever as to what the long-term trend of column water vapor is.

However, other studies do, such as Santer 2007, Wentz 2007, Mieruch 2008, and Shi and Bates 2011). The IPCC concludes that it is "very likely" that tropospheric specific humidity has increased since the 1970s.

In short, the 3rd study you have posted is simply an incompleted study. Get back to us when it is completed. Given it is drawing upon similar sources and methods as the studies above, the results will likely be very similar.

[Snow_Miser]

The forcing of 1.6W/m2 since 1750 is nearly entirely anthropogenic. The mid-1700s also had very high solar activity. Solar forcing since the mid 1700s is estimated as a mere .04W/m2. 

 

Alternatively, forcing from the late 1800s would be greater than 1.6W/m2, but so would warming. The final calculation would yield a similar result. 

 

Forcing from the late 1800s would be more like 1.7 or 1.8W/m2. Warming would be more like .9C than .8C. Thus we would get .9C per 1.2 or 1.3W/m2 after subtracting the .5W/m2 in the pipe. That would be a sensitivity of 2.8 or 2.6C per CO2 doubling. 

 

The level of solar activity derived from proxy measurements in the 1700s was no where even close to the values experienced during the 20th Century.

 

Usoskin et al. 2005

 

 

And according to Scherer et al. 2006

 

 

In addition, there are many many papers which show a large solar effect on the temperatures over the 20th Century, and solar activity has probably contributed significantly to the long term warming trend.

[Snow_Miser]

The first paper you post is indeed very interesting and further work on this subject should help hone estimates of climate sensitivity. There have been a number of papers citing the Fu 2011 paper you posted written just in the last year or two. As far as I can tell, it remains difficult to know whether the discrepancy is due to model and/or observational biases. Given the trends in upper tropospheric temperature are as follows:

UAH: .089C/decade

RSS .16C/decade

NOAA: .196C/decade

there remains extremely large discrepancy. I find it difficult to put any trust in observational data sets where such large discrepancies exist. Even higher estimates of warming can be found from the various radiosonde datasets.

However, the third paper you post is not remotely interesting and you are misrepresenting it. It is the beginning work in the development of a global data set. However, they have made no attempt to integrate the data in a way to yield accurate long-term trends. It's not that the results of the study are "inconclusive" as you suggest, the study yields no conclusions whatsoever as to what the long-term trend of column water vapor is.

However, other studies do, such as Santer 2007, Wentz 2007, Mieruch 2008, and Shi and Bates 2011). The IPCC concludes that it is "very likely" that tropospheric specific humidity has increased since the 1970s.

In short, the 3rd study you have posted is simply an incompleted study. Get back to us when it is completed. Given it is drawing upon similar sources and methods as the studies above, the results will likely be very similar.

 

The study found that the trends in the upper troposphere were not significantly different relative to the trends at the surface. This is significant, because the GCMs predicted around double the warming predicted at the surface, and this amplification seems to be largely absent. In fact, none of the temperature trends in the upper troposphere are even close to matching the rate of warming predicted in the GCMs.

 

I haven't said that tropospheric water vapor isn't increasing overall. What I said is that the water vapor feedback can be negative even with an overall tropospheric water vapor increase, since the climate is extremely sensitive to changes in the upper tropospheric water vapor, and relatively insensitive to changes in the boundary layer humidification changes.

[skierinvermont]

The study found that the trends in the upper troposphere were not significantly different relative to the trends at the surface. This is significant, because the GCMs predicted around double the warming predicted at the surface, and this amplification seems to be largely absent. In fact, none of the temperature trends in the upper troposphere are even close to matching the rate of warming predicted in the GCMs.

 

The trends are also not statistically different from a warming rate 3X the surface rate. This is an issue of measurement uncertainty. It is interesting, and further work needs to be done. Improvements in our observational system (which are widely opposed by republicans) would help resolve the issue. As of now, it is completely inconclusive.

 

If we cannot tell if the upper tropical troposphere is warming at .08C/decade, or .3C+/decade, there are major issues. 

 

 

The NOAA satellite method which measures .196C/decade is close to the model mean. Some radiosonde methods are even higher. So your statement that none come close to the model mean is false. RSS isn't really that far off either, given the measurement uncertainty. We're talking about very subtle differences that we really do not yet have the measurement accuracy to assess properly.

[Snow_Miser]

The trends are also not statistically different from a warming rate 3X the surface rate. This is an issue of measurement uncertainty. It is interesting, and further work needs to be done. Improvements in our observational system (which are widely opposed by republicans) would help resolve the issue. As of now, it is completely inconclusive.

 

If we cannot tell if the upper tropical troposphere is warming at .08C/decade, or .3C+/decade, there are major issues. 

 

 

The NOAA satellite method which measures .196C/decade is close to the model mean. Some radiosonde methods are even higher. So your statement that none come close to the model mean is false. RSS isn't really that far off either, given the measurement uncertainty. We're talking about very subtle differences that we really do not yet have the measurement accuracy to assess properly.

 

It is most likely though that they are not warming at around 0.3 Degrees C per decade, since three independent measurements all show a most likely value much lower than the most likely warming value the models predicted in the upper troposphere. There is a large discrepency, and is probably due to the models not handeling the lapse rate and water vapor feedback correctly.

[blizzard1024]

I think what you are pointing out is a quality of measurement issue.

 

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejoel/g280_s09/recent_atmosphere/allen_sherwood_ngeo08.pdf

 

 

Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65±0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/abs/ngeo1008.html

 

Deep convection over tropical oceans is observed generally above a threshold for sea surface temperatures^{1, 2, 3, 4}, which falls in the vicinity of 26–28 °C. High-resolution models suggest that the related sea surface temperature threshold for tropical cyclones rises in a warming climate^5, 6. Some observations for the past few decades, however, show that tropical tropospheric warming has been nearly uniform vertically^7, 8, suggesting that the troposphere may have become less stable and casting doubts on the possibility that the sea surface temperature threshold increases substantially with global warming. Here we turn to satellite observations of rainfall for the past 30 years. We detect significant covariability between tropical mean sea surface temperatures and the convective threshold on interannual and longer timescales. In addition, we find a parallel upward trend of approximately 0.1 °C/decade over the past 30 years in both the convective threshold and tropical mean sea surface temperatures. We conclude that, in contrast with some observational indications, the tropical troposphere has warmed in a way that is consistent with moist-adiabatic adjustment, in agreement with global climate model simulations.

 

I read the first paper on thermal wind and temperature and a couple things stick out. The thermal wind equation equates temperature gradients to vertical wind shear as the authors state. 1) They state that the trends in the NAO and also AO could be the reason for the increase winds north of the tropics which in effect would imply a warmer tropical upper troposphere(possibly). If the temperature gradient increases then it must be get colder somewhere north of the tropics which would be observed. But this would be because of the trend in the NAO/AO. 2) This is a very indirect method of obtaining temperatures. They also use models to validate results. Geez. So here we have it, use an indirect method based on reanalysis data(which has been stated to be unreliable for climate analysis because of the changes in instrumentation over the years) using winds which come from the same radiosondes that they don't believe the temperatures. Also the satellites an independent measure of temperature also agrees with the radiosondes BUT they don't agree with the models. So we throw out the real measurements and use an indirect method to validate the models.  End result if the data agrees with the models it has to be correct, if it doesn't then it must be wrong. Sorry, this paper is weak. 

[skierinvermont]

The level of solar activity derived from proxy measurements in the 1700s was no where even close to the values experienced during the 20th Century.

 

Usoskin et al. 2005

 

 

And according to Scherer et al. 2006

 

 

In addition, there are many many papers which show a large solar effect on the temperatures over the 20th Century, and solar activity has probably contributed significantly to the long term warming trend.

 

Your chart shows well that Sunspot Number was pretty high in the mid 1700s. Also the chart doesn't run up until the present. It appears to run up to some time before the year 2000. Sunspot number has been much lower for the last 10 years. The forcing number I gave of .04W/m2 was from the 1745 minima to the 2008 minima. 

 

I'm not sure how your posting of sunspot number rebuts a forcing of .04W/m2. Instead, it appears to support it. 

[skierinvermont]

It is most likely though that they are not warming at around 0.3 Degrees C per decade, since three independent measurements all show a most likely value much lower than the most likely warming value the models predicted in the upper troposphere. There is a large discrepency, and is probably due to the models not handeling the lapse rate and water vapor feedback correctly.

 

UAH, RSS, and NOAA are not entirely independent. They all rely upon MSU and AMSU satellite data and attempts to calibrate and integrate that data. The fact that the three show values of .09, .16 and .20C/decade calls into question the entire methodology. It appears at best they are throwing darts at a dart board. The higher value would be fairly consistent with climate models. Several radiosonde sources, which are fully independent, show even higher values. 

 

As of now, the studies are completely inconclusive. Which is what the authors of the studies conclude as well. I'm not sure why you are so eager to conclude otherwise, other than your obvious bias. 

[blizzard1024]

 

 

1.  what are the impact factors of the journals you have acted as a referee for?

 

2.  what percentage of the papers you have been a referee for have been published?  what percentage of those papers focused on climate science?

 

3.  how can you in this post discount those scientists as not being reputable after using them as proof for your contentions *in this thread*?

 

1. I mentioned that I did NOT review any climate related papers, just meteorological. You know there is a difference. 

 

2. I believe all the papers I reviewed were published despite my recommendation to reject one. The other reviewers were kinder. NONE

were in climate as I stated. 

 

3. I like reading papers from once reputable scientists who are going against the mainstream to learn and see what the uncertainties are. 

It is the current practice to completely destroy the reputation of those who go against the mainstream and that is what happened here. 

Climate science is brutal to those who don't comply to the mainstream. I have spoken with a few former grad students that have either

left grad school(one of which was a total genius) to work for the NWS or other meteorological jobs because of the global warming

bias. Everything has to be related to global warming to get funding. Pretty sad and it creates an environment that is hard to go against.

If your results indicate that global warming won't be that bad...you are done. That is the experience that I have seen with

some of the students I have known threw the years. Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Bill Gray among others were very reputable

scientists, now they are considered fringe lunatics. Sad. There is no debate anymore. Just my viewpoint from my personal experiences. 

[skierinvermont]

I read the first paper on thermal wind and temperature and a couple things stick out. The thermal wind equation equates temperature gradients to vertical wind shear as the authors state. 1) They state that the trends in the NAO and also AO could be the reason for the increase winds north of the tropics which in effect would imply a warmer tropical upper troposphere(possibly). If the temperature gradient increases then it must be get colder somewhere north of the tropics which would be observed. But this would be because of the trend in the NAO/AO. 2) This is a very indirect method of obtaining temperatures. They also use models to validate results. Geez. So here we have it, use an indirect method based on reanalysis data(which has been stated to be unreliable for climate analysis because of the changes in instrumentation over the years) using winds which come from the same radiosondes that they don't believe the temperatures. Also the satellites an independent measure of temperature also agrees with the radiosondes BUT they don't agree with the models. So we throw out the real measurements and use an indirect method to validate the models.  End result if the data agrees with the models it has to be correct, if it doesn't then it must be wrong. Sorry, this paper is weak. 

 

 

1. You call into question the radiosonde wind measurements because the radiosonde temperature measurements have required correction over time. The wind measurements are not subject to the same biases as the temperature measurements.

 

2. The satellites do NOT agree with radiosondes. This is impossible given the satellites do not agree with each other (.09, .16, .2C/decade) and there is wide spread in the radiosonde sources as well, some even higher than the highest satellite based estimate of .2C/decade. 

 

3. They do not "use models to validate results." This is a lie. They compare their observational results to climate models in order to assist in climate model validation and improvement. 

[Snow_Miser]

Your chart shows well that Sunspot Number was pretty high in the mid 1700s. Also the chart doesn't run up until the present. It appears to run up to some time before the year 2000. Sunspot number has been much lower for the last 10 years. The forcing number I gave of .04W/m2 was from the 1745 minima to the 2008 minima. 

 

I'm not sure how your posting of sunspot number rebuts a forcing of .04W/m2. Instead, it appears to support it. 

 

The running mean is MUCH lower during the 1700s than it is now.

[blizzard1024]

1. You call into question the radiosonde wind measurements because the radiosonde temperature measurements have required correction over time. The wind measurements are not subject to the same biases as the temperature measurements.

 

2. The satellites do NOT agree with radiosondes. This is impossible given the satellites do not agree with each other (.09, .16, .2C/decade) and there is wide spread in the radiosonde sources as well, some even higher than the highest satellite based estimate of .2C/decade. 

 

3. They do not "use models to validate results." This is a lie. They compare their observational results to climate models in order to assist in climate model validation and improvement. 

1. simply not true. changes in instrumentation have been cited in making this dataset unreliable for climate record. 

 

2. the reanalysis data actually does show some warming between 1949-2012 at 300 mb in the tropics. 

 

3. They used models in their study1

, "...this technique enables recovery of trends at other latitudes, including the tropics. This method has recently been found to recover regional

climatic temperature fluctuations accurately, even in the deep tropics, where the Coriolis force approaches zero, a finding

we test further here using climate models. This characteristic, along with the relative homogeneity of radiosonde winds,

makes the thermal wind equation a promising alternative for reconstructing patterns of temperature change above the planetary

boundary layer"

[skierinvermont]

The running mean is MUCH lower during the 1700s than it is now.

 

The SSN in the mid-1700s appears to have been around 40 from your chart. The average over the last 10 yeas appears to be around 50. Not much of a difference and would probably equate to around .04W/m2. 

 

 

It is difficult to use your chart because it doesn't have the resolution needed, however.

 

 

There are a half dozen studies the IPCC relies upon to conclude .04W/m2. Unless you offer something to dispute those studies, I'm assuming you have nothing but your usual bias. 

[bluewave]

I read the first paper on thermal wind and temperature and a couple things stick out. The thermal wind equation equates temperature gradients to vertical wind shear as the authors state. 1) They state that the trends in the NAO and also AO could be the reason for the increase winds north of the tropics which in effect would imply a warmer tropical upper troposphere(possibly). If the temperature gradient increases then it must be get colder somewhere north of the tropics which would be observed. But this would be because of the trend in the NAO/AO. 2) This is a very indirect method of obtaining temperatures. They also use models to validate results. Geez. So here we have it, use an indirect method based on reanalysis data(which has been stated to be unreliable for climate analysis because of the changes in instrumentation over the years) using winds which come from the same radiosondes that they don't believe the temperatures. Also the satellites an independent measure of temperature also agrees with the radiosondes BUT they don't agree with the models. So we throw out the real measurements and use an indirect method to validate the models.  End result if the data agrees with the models it has to be correct, if it doesn't then it must be wrong. Sorry, this paper is weak. 

 

Satellites are subject to measurement errors also. But the better we get at identifying the biases or errors of some of

our data, the more the temperature record agrees with expectations. We also had to correct the humidity measurements

on some of the data.

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/05/07/new-research-brings-satellite-measurements-and-global-climate-models-closer/

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract

[blizzard1024]

Satellites are subject to measurement errors also. But the better we get at identifying the biases or errors of some of

our data, the more the temperature record agrees with expectations.

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/05/07/new-research-brings-satellite-measurements-and-global-climate-models-closer/

satellites show some modest upper trop warming not as much as the surface just like radiosondes. This would suggest

the warming is stronger in the lower atmosphere which is a real problem for the CO2 induced warming

hypothesis. The surface warming more than upper troposphere implies solar is the driver. CAUTION here comes an

opinion of mine, so some of you may want to skip:  

 

I believe this is making some climate scientists on a crusade to prove

the upper troposphere is warming more than the surface to validate the theory. If their results agree with the models

then they get published, cited and referenced and it is good for their careers. If they don't find something consistent

with the models...the paper will get rejected. If they insist on their results...they are kicked off the gravy train. 

[skierinvermont]

1. simply not true. changes in instrumentation have been cited in making this dataset unreliable for climate record. 

 

2. the reanalysis data actually does show some warming between 1949-2012 at 300 mb in the tropics. 

 

3. They used models in their study1

, "...this technique enables recovery of trends at other latitudes, including the tropics. This method has recently been found to recover regional

climatic temperature fluctuations accurately, even in the deep tropics, where the Coriolis force approaches zero, a finding

we test further here using climate models. This characteristic, along with the relative homogeneity of radiosonde winds,

makes the thermal wind equation a promising alternative for reconstructing patterns of temperature change above the planetary

boundary layer"

 

 

1. Please post some evidence that radiosonde wind measurements are unreliable. Otherwise all you have given us is your personal assertion, which contradicts with the assertion of the study Snowlover posted which states that "wind observations will undoubtedly have their own problems, artifacts appear to be significantly fewer and of smaller magnitude for temperature."

 

 

2. This does not support your assertion that radiosonde data agrees with satellite data. There is very wide disagreement between and within all the various satellite and radiosonde methods. Satellite methods yield .09, .16 and .20C/decade. Radiosonde methods yield a wide range as well, with some methods even higher than .20C/decade and agreeing with climate models. There is no agreement between any of the many satellite and radiosonde methods. It is like throwing darts at a dart board.

 

3. This test only provides an extra double check that wind shear reflect and are able to predict temperature gradients. This is a well-known meteorological principle.

[blizzard1024]

The SSN in the mid-1700s appears to have been around 40 from your chart. The average over the last 10 yeas appears to be around 50. Not much of a difference and would probably equate to around .04W/m2. 

 

 

It is difficult to use your chart because it doesn't have the resolution needed, however.

 

 

There are a half dozen studies the IPCC relies upon to conclude .04W/m2. Unless you offer something to dispute those studies, I'm assuming you have nothing but your usual bias. 

This whole topic about the LIA and the current warm period is very frustrating. During the depths of the LIA there were few if any sunspots, the late 20th century

we reached a grand maximum. The LIA was colder than today but the sun only accounts for .04W/m2???  really. That can't be...just does not make physical

sense. There is something else going on here....