Temperature Fraud Expands

[skierinvermont]

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. 

 

This is a well known denier lie. The idea that the "tropospheric hot-spot" aka tropical tropospheric amplification is a unique feature of CO2-induced warming is a lie. Tropical tropospheric amplification is not unique feature of CO2 warming. It is an expected result of any type of warming due to changing lapse rates. At worst, a lack of tropical tropospheric amplification would suggest models do not have a good handle on how lapse rates will change in a warmer world, which could imply a somewhat lower climate sensitivity. However, there is no where near enough evidence to conclude that at this point. 

[skierinvermont]

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.... 

 

No .04W/m2 is from the 1745 minima to the 2008 minima. Forcing from the Maunder minimum to the present is stated as .15W/m2. Probably closer to .2 or .3W/m2 from the Maunder Minimum to peak solar activity (SCs 19, 21, 22, and 23).

 

The lower .04W/m2 from 1745 to 2008 occurs because SC24 is much weaker than SC23, and because the mid 1700s had much higher solar activity than the Maunder which occurred in the 1600s. 

 

 

This is the latest reconstruction of TSI from Vieir 2011. Remember forcing is TSI divided by 4 because only half of the earth faces the sun at any one time, and because of the curvature of the surface of the earth that does face the sun.

 

Thus you see TSI increased 1.2W/m2 from the Maunder to the late 1900s, implying a forcing of .3W/m2. TSI from the mid 1700s to the late 1900s was .6W/m2, implying .15W/m2. Values to the present will be lower because SC24 is much lower than SC23.

 

[blizzard1024]

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.

I will do this after you post why radiosonde measurements of temperature and humidity are unreliable, especially temperature results. Plus if the westerly wind to the north of the tropics is increasing as this study implies it implies a stronger gradient and the authors mentioned that it likely is due to the phase shift of the NAO/AO back to negative late in the period. This would shift the jet farther south and increase the anticyclone shear over the subtropics and tropical regions leading to warming signal higher up. This could be an artifact of that alone and not a true temperature signal from CO2 warming. Near the equator where the Coriolis force is weak you can't use the thermal wind. Also temperature gradients are weak in the tropics so this whole analysis is based on a weakly changing field and is a very indirect way of coming up with temperature. It is shaky in my opinion and believe me I know the thermal wind well. You don't use anything that is related to baroclinic waves in the tropics and the thermal wind because it relies on wind shear and temperature gradients which are much weaker down there. This is a stretch and if it didn't show warming they would have thrown it out...no doubt in my mind. it would have been blasted. 

[blizzard1024]

so then you aren't a climate expert.

this simply is not true. big oil and gas support TONS of research. they support the Heartland Institute. the Geophysical Society of America actively suppresses papers on AGW because it's bad for business.

there is plenty of debate in the legitimate science community about legitimate science. I have ten years in this community. do they spend time on people who deny the established facts? no. why should they? do we need to spend time proving that the Earth is round to a member of the Flat Earth Society? do we need to spend time proving the Earth revolves around the Sun? no.

Climate science is a hobby of mine like many on this forum. I have a lot of training in the field especially radiative transfer, thermo and paleoclimatology. These are my scientific opinions based on what I have

OBSERVED how the atmosphere works in more than 20 years. You can ignore them all you want I don't care.  The atmosphere is way more complex than a round earth, gravity, etc. To equate the climate system and its non-linear feedbacks, uncertainties in measurements and complexities that are poorly understood to gravity or round earth or earth revolving around the sun shows a real lack of understanding of how complex the atmosphere is and ruins your credibility.  Prove that big oil and gas are funding this research. I have heard this but would like to see the proof. where did you get this?? Most researchers who don't believe in this stuff have stated they receive NO money from big oil etc. where do you get this from??  How can you say that CO2 doubling will lead to 2 to 4.5C warming is a FACT. A fact? that is not a fact. It is a "projection" not even a forecast. 

 

I have stated many times before that CO2 does lead to warming via 3.7 w/m2 of TOA forcing which equals 1.2C. This is fact or our best estimate of fact. The feedbacks are where I am uncertain. That does not make me a denier. You sound like a broken record over and over again with the same insults. 

[skierinvermont]

I will do this after you post why radiosonde measurements of temperature and humidity are unreliable, especially temperature results. Plus if the westerly wind to the north of the tropics is increasing as this study implies it implies a stronger gradient and the authors mentioned that it likely is due to the phase shift of the NAO/AO back to negative late in the period. This would shift the jet farther south and increase the anticyclone shear over the subtropics and tropical regions leading to warming signal higher up. This could be an artifact of that alone and not a true temperature signal from CO2 warming. Near the equator where the Coriolis force is weak you can't use the thermal wind. Also temperature gradients are weak in the tropics so this whole analysis is based on a weakly changing field and is a very indirect way of coming up with temperature. It is shaky in my opinion and believe me I know the thermal wind well. You don't use anything that is related to baroclinic waves in the tropics and the thermal wind because it relies on wind shear and temperature gradients which are much weaker down there. This is a stretch and if it didn't show warming they would have thrown it out...no doubt in my mind. it would have been blasted. 

 

For how much you brag about your training, I am forced to ask what kind of meteorologist are you? Every meteorologist knows that an increase in mid-latitude westerlies is associated with an INCREASE in the NAO not a DECREASE. The study doesn't say that the sharp increase in parts of the mid-latitudes is related to a decline in the NAO. They merely say that it is related to a "trend." By which they must mean a positive trend, not a negative trend. The last few years of negative NAO would lead to a DECREASE in westerlies in the mid-latitudes. This is really basic. Even mets with an online 2-yr degree would have learnt this. 

 

Moreover, this brief statement about the NAO was related to the mid-latitudes. They do not say that the NAO would effect westerlies or shear in the tropics. As the paper establishes elsewhere, tropical shear is related to meridional temperature gradient. Which is why they conclude an upper tropical troposphere peak warming of .65C/decade. The NAO would not effect this. 

 

 

In response to your initial question, this paper explains some of the reasons that radiosonde temperature measurements exhibit biases: http://hadleyserver.metoffice.com/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf

[blizzard1024]

What kind of meteorologist are you? Every meteorologist knows that an increase in mid-latitude westerlies is associated with an INCREASE in the NAO not a DECREASE. The study doesn't say that the sharp increase in parts of the mid-latitudes is related to a decline in the NAO. They merely say that it is related to a "trend." By which they must mean a positive trend, not a negative trend. The last few years of negative NAO would lead to a DECREASE in westerlies in the mid-latitudes. This is really basic.

 

Moreover, this brief statement about the NAO was related to the mid-latitudes. They do not say that the NAO would effect westerlies or shear in the tropics. As the paper establishes elsewhere, tropical shear is related to meridional temperature gradient. Which is why they conclude an upper tropical troposphere peak warming of .65C/decade. The NAO would not effect this. 

When the NAO goes into the negative phase...the westerly jet stream shifts way SOUTH more into the mid latitudes. That would increase the shear between the tropics and mid latitudes. It weakens the westerly shear NORTH of the mid latitudes. That is what kind of meteorologist I am...you are totally WRONG here. 

[skierinvermont]

When the NAO goes into the negative phase...the westerly jet stream shifts way SOUTH more into the mid latitudes. That would increase the shear between the tropics and mid latitudes. It weakens the westerly shear NORTH of the mid latitudes. That is what kind of meteorologist I am...you are totally WRONG here. 

 

The jet stream is already located in the mid-latitudes (between 35-55N). Ridging at high latitudes, due to a -NAO, tends to weaken westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

 

The observed trend was a strong increase in westerlies. You are (wrongly) suggesting that a decrease in the NAO would cause an increase in mid-latitude westerlies. However the paper was written in 2008 and relied on data from 1979-2005, before the recent -NAO years. Instead the NAO increased over the period, and the authors are correctly suggesting that the increase in the NAO led to an increase in westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

[blizzard1024]

The jet stream is already located between 35-55N. Ridging at high latitudes, due to a -NAO, tends to weaken westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

If you look at the 300 mb zonal wind anomalies when the NAO/AO was at its most negative state on record since 1950 (winter 2009-2010)

it shows a massive westerly anomaly in the subtropics almost circulating the globe which increases the shear from the tropics to the subtropics/mid-latitudes.

This leads to a trend in the anticyclonic shear in the tropics which would imply warming. A graph of the NAO/AO shows it has been in decline from the

early 1990s to mid 2000s when this study was ended. This could completely be an artifact of that change. For some reason, I can't post graphics but I will show you

the zonal 300 mb wind anomaly when I can do it. in a nutshut, during a negative NAO/AO the jet shifts southward. That increases shear and would lead to these

results. 

[skierinvermont]

If you look at the 300 mb zonal wind anomalies when the NAO/AO was at its most negative state on record since 1950 (winter 2009-2010)

it shows a massive westerly anomaly in the subtropics almost circulating the globe which increases the shear from the tropics to the subtropics/mid-latitudes.

This leads to a trend in the anticyclonic shear in the tropics which would imply warming. A graph of the NAO/AO shows it has been in decline from the

early 1990s to mid 2000s when this study was ended. This could completely be an artifact of that change. For some reason, I can't post graphics but I will show you

the zonal 300 mb wind anomaly when I can do it. in a nutshut, during a negative NAO/AO the jet shifts southward. That increases shear and would lead to these

results. 

 

 

The paper says that the NAO was partially responsible for the increase in westerlies in the MID-LATITUDES from 35-55N. As EVERY meteorologist should know, the NAO decreases westerlies at these latitudes. You were completely and laughably incorrect in your assertion that the NAO increases westerlies in the mid-latitudes. You have of course now switched to saying the sub-tropics.

 

The paper was written in 2008 and relied on data 1979-2005, over which period the NAO INCREASED (it was long before the NAO declined the last few years). They were suggesting that the INCREASE in the NAO was responsible for an INCREASE in westerlies. You incorrectly suggested that a DECLINE in the NAO was responsible for that INCREASE.

 

 

Moreover, they only mention the effect of the NAO on the mid-latitudes. You attempt to undermine the papers conclusion by suggesting that a decline in the NAO would have led to an increase in westerlies in the tropics and subtropics. However, over the period studied (1979-2005) the NAO INCREASED. Thus the NAO would have caused a DECREASE in westerlies in the subtropics and tropics, opposite to that which was observed. Thus the NAO cannot, as you try to suggest, explain the increase in subtropical and tropical shear 1979-2005, since the NAO increased slightly over that period, not decreased. 

[blizzard1024]

The paper says that the NAO was partially responsible for the increase in westerlies in the MID-LATITUDES from 35-55N. As EVERY meteorologist should know, the NAO decreases westerlies at these latitudes. You were completely and laughably incorrect in your assertion that the NAO increases westerlies in the mid-latitudes. You have of course now switched to saying the sub-tropics.

 

The paper was written in 2008 and relied on data 1979-2005, over which period the NAO INCREASED (it was long before the NAO declined the last few years). They were suggesting that the INCREASE in the NAO was responsible for an INCREASE in westerlies. You incorrectly suggested that a DECLINE in the NAO was responsible for that INCREASE.

 

 

Moreover, they only mention the effect of the NAO on the mid-latitudes. You attempt to undermine the papers conclusion by suggesting that a decline in the NAO would have led to an increase in westerlies in the tropics and subtropics. However, over the period studied (1979-2005) the NAO INCREASED. Thus the NAO would have caused a DECREASE in westerlies in the subtropics and tropics, opposite to that which was observed. Thus the NAO cannot, as you try to suggest, explain the increase in subtropical and tropical shear 1979-2005, since the NAO increased slightly over that period, not decreased. 

The NAO was decreasing during this time 1990-2005...sorry. You are COMPLETELY WRONG HERE. I sent a pm to you with the graphics that won't post for some reason on these replies. A positive NAO increases the westerlies north of 45N...not really as far south as 35N but it depends on your definition of the mid latitudes.  A decline in the NAO can indeed increase the westerlies at 40N or 35N it depends on how negative it is an other factors like the state of ENSO. It is not as simple as you suggest. Any meteorologist that makes absolute claims about latitude bands and the states of ENSO, NAO and AO is going to be wrong. it varies. Nevertheless, if the westerlies increase in the subtropics it will increase the anticyclonic shear in the tropics as this study claims. It likely is related to the NAO and AO phase decline up until 2005.  

[skierinvermont]

The NAO was decreasing during this time 1990-2005...sorry. You are COMPLETELY WRONG HERE. I sent a pm to you with the graphics that won't post for some reason on these replies. A positive NAO increases the westerlies north of 45N...not really as far south as 35N but it depends on your definition of the mid latitudes.  A decline in the NAO can indeed increase the westerlies at 40N or 35N it depends on how negative it is an other factors like the state of ENSO. It is not as simple as you suggest. Any meteorologist that makes absolute claims about latitude bands and the states of ENSO, NAO and AO is going to be wrong. it varies. Nevertheless, if the westerlies increase in the subtropics it will increase the anticyclonic shear in the tropics as this study claims. It likely is related to the NAO and AO phase decline up until 2005.  

 

The study is 1979-2005, not 1990-2005. The trend 1979-2005 is POSITIVE for the NAO. The effect of the NAO would have been to decrease westerlies 1979-2005 in the tropics and sub-tropics.

 

 

The study says the NAO explains the increase in westerlies for 35-55N. You are right that a -NAO causes an increase 35-40N, but for 35-55N as a whole, it is a +NAO that causes an increase. A +NAO can only be responsible for this increase, and an increase in the NAO is what was observed.

[blizzard1024]

Moreover, they only mention the effect of the NAO on the mid-latitudes. You attempt to undermine the papers conclusion by suggesting that a decline in the NAO would have led to an increase in westerlies in the tropics and subtropics. However, over the period studied (1979-2005) the NAO INCREASED. Thus the NAO would have caused a DECREASE in westerlies in the subtropics and tropics, opposite to that which was observed. Thus the NAO cannot, as you try to suggest, explain the increase in subtropical and tropical shear 1979-2005, since the NAO increased slightly over that period, not decreased. 

This is false, the tropics tend to develop more easterly shear or most of the time keep similar wind speeds as the wind increases to the north(subtropics/lower mid-latitudes.....depends on your definition). This increases the anticyclonic shear in the tropics implying warming.  BUT, the thermal wind equation ONLY applies to a baroclinic atmosphere. The tropics tend to be barotropic. So this whole study is on VERY shaky ground in my opinion. 

[blizzard1024]

The study is 1979-2005, not 1990-2005. The trend 1979-2005 is POSITIVE for the NAO. The effect of the NAO would have been to decrease westerlies 1979-2005 in the tropics and sub-tropics.

 

 

The study says the NAO explains the increase in westerlies for 35-55N. You are right that a -NAO causes an increase 35-40N, but for 35-55N as a whole, it is a +NAO that causes an increase. A +NAO can only be responsible for this increase, and an increase in the NAO is what was observed.

The graph shows the NAO increased to 1990 and then fell back to the late 1970s level in 2005. Again, the tropics tend to be barotropic not baroclinic so again using the thermal wind is

shaky here at best.

[Jonger]

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. 

 

Peer-review works great in non-controversial science fields.

[skierinvermont]

The graph shows the NAO increased to 1990 and then fell back to the late 1970s level in 2005. Again, the tropics tend to be barotropic not baroclinic so again using the thermal wind is

shaky here at best.

 

The net trend is positive. Which would increase westerlies in the mid-latitudes, decrease them in the sub-tropics, and have little effect in the tropics.

 

 

All the study says is that the positive trend in the NAO increased westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

You incorrectly interpreted them as saying that a (non-existent) negative trend in the NAO caused an increase in westerlies in the mid-latitudes (which it wouldn't). You then corrected yourself to say it would increase them in the sub-tropics.

 

You have yet to comprehend that the trend 1979-2005 in the NAO was positive and that all the study was saying is that this positive trend explains the positive trend in westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

 

 

The validity of the study does indeed rest on whether shear can be used to predict tropical temperature. They claim that it has been able to do so well regionally.

[blizzard1024]

The net trend is positive. Which would increase westerlies in the mid-latitudes, decrease them in the sub-tropics, and have little effect in the tropics.

 

 

All the study says is that the positive trend in the NAO increased westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

You incorrectly interpreted them as saying that a (non-existent) negative trend in the NAO caused an increase in westerlies in the mid-latitudes (which it wouldn't). You then corrected yourself to say it would increase them in the sub-tropics.

 

You have yet to comprehend that the trend 1979-2005 in the NAO was positive and that all the study was saying is that this positive trend explains the positive trend in westerlies in the mid-latitudes. 

 

But this still makes me wonder why they use the thermal wind to explain tropical temperature trends which tend to be barotropic (lack significant temperature gradients). 

Obviously they have a good reason for it. I don't doubt their sincerity. Just wonder as a MET how this would show anything significant. Climate models I guess supported

their results which I know have the basic physics of atmospheric motion correct. I will have to dig further. The NAO if it increased the westerlies either in the mid latitudes

or sub tropics (depends on definition)...would increase shear in time and lead to warming on the south side of the shear. This could explain the warming results I guess

but again...tropics are barotropic. Anyway, something to look into more. Thanks for the debate. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Peer-review works great in non-controversial science fields.

 

There is no controversy.

 

You have never posted one shred of evidence supporting that idea on this forum.

[skierinvermont]

But this still makes me wonder why they use the thermal wind to explain tropical temperature trends which tend to be barotropic (lack significant temperature gradients). 

Obviously they have a good reason for it. I don't doubt their sincerity. Just wonder as a MET how this would show anything significant. Climate models I guess supported

their results which I know have the basic physics of atmospheric motion correct. I will have to dig further. The NAO if it increased the westerlies either in the mid latitudes

or sub tropics (depends on definition)...would increase shear in time and lead to warming on the south side of the shear. This could explain the warming results I guess

but again...tropics are barotropic. Anyway, something to look into more. Thanks for the debate. 

 

I will have to dig into it some more too. Obviously it's not a nail in the coffin slam dunk for rapid warming of the upper tropical troposphere, or else the debate would be over. Instead, the debate rages on in the peer-reviewed literature (contrary to your assertion that all evidence that doesn't fit CAGW is marginalized). It appears that this study is one piece of evidence for faster warming of the upper tropical troposphere, but there is much conflicting evidence out there, and this study is not a slam dunk. Or at least it has not been treated that way in the literature or by the latest leaked IPCC report. 

 

I think they are assuming that because tropical sheer has can be used to predict temperature well on a short-term regional scale, this relationship should be able to do so on a longer scale for the whole tropics. 

[FloridaJohn]

Prove that big oil and gas are funding this research. I have heard this but would like to see the proof. where did you get this?? Most researchers who don't believe in this stuff have stated they receive NO money from big oil etc. where do you get this from??

 

This stuff is well documented. To start with, take a look at this website:

The Heartland Institute

 

From that page:

 

"The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources."

 

The Heartand Institute says about it's work in climate change, "You may also know us from our work exposing the shoddy science and missing economics behind the global warming delusion. Our videos, books, studies, and international conferences changed the debate and led to the defeat of 'cap and trade.'"

 

The page goes on to detail more information on who is funding the Heartland Institute. Much of this information comes from the Heartland Institute itself.

 

There is also a list of Heartland "experts," with a few familiar names (these are people who have taken money from Heartland):

 

Richard Lindzen

S. Fred Singer

Roy Spencer

Anthony Watts

 

The documents from Heartland also detail where some of the money was spent, including:

 

"the global warming research project"

"staff directed research"

"global warming research projects"

Weather Stations Project

Global Warming Curriculum Project

 

Nature also has an article about the Heartland Institute. From that article,:

 

" “They distort science, ignore reality and will not tolerate opinions or facts that conflict with their beliefs.” “Cynical manipulators or simple pawns, their purpose is only to keep funds flowing to a corrupt few who profit from the status quo.” Those are the kinds of words scientists use, often correctly, to describe the sceptics, many of whom would have the financial interests of today continue their dominance tomorrow. Yet this is also how sceptics characterize climate scientists, whose careers and reputations they claim are intertwined with protecting the science of anthropogenic global warming."

 

If you would like to read a detailed account of this type of work, I recommend the book Merchants of Doubt. That book details the denier activities from the tobacco industry all the way to the current climate change "debate." The book is well researched and footnoted, so all accounts can be researched independantly.

 

The Heartland Institute is not alone in these activities. The Cato Institute, Marshall Institute, and several others all have documented ties to climate change denial. It really is a industry all of it's own. There are people who go to work each day trying to figure out how to create uncertainty in the climate change discusssion. This includes things like writing articles for newspapers, appearing on TV, writing blogs, and even going into the comments section on websites of news articles to make sure the voice of the denier is heard in every discussion (aka "sock puppets").

[WeatherRusty]

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

[FloridaJohn]

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

 

That's a good paper, I hadn't seen that one before. From the paper:

 

"Another organization used to launder information is the George C. Marshall Institute. During the 1990s, the Marshall Institute had been known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. However, it soon became an important home for industry-financed “climate contrarians,” thanks in part to Exxon-Mobil’s financial  backing. Since 1998, Exxon- Mobil has paid $630,000 primarily to underwrite the Marshall Institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, CEO of the Marshall Institute, formerly worked as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute, served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.

 

Since ExxonMobil began to support its efforts, the Marshall Institute has served as a clearinghouse for global warming  contrarians, conducting round-table events and producing frequent publications. Most recently, the Marshall Institute has been touting its new book, Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by longtime climate contrarian Patrick Michaels (a meteorologist). Michaels has, over the past several years, been affiliated with at least ten organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Contributors to the book include others with similar affiliations with Exxon-funded groups: Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Ross McKitrick, and Willie Soon (for details, see  Appendix B, Table 2).

The pattern of information laundering is repeated at virtually all the private, nonprofit climate change programs ExxonMobil funds. The website of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which received $119,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005, offers recent articles by the same set of scientists. A visit to the climate section of the website of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which received $241,500 from Exxon-Mobil in 2005, turns up yet another non-peer reviewed paper by Patrick Michaels. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $215,000 from ExxonMobil over the past two funding cycles of 2004 and 2005, boasts a similar lineup of articles and a scientific advisory panel that includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz—all affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations."

[WeatherRusty]

That's a good paper, I hadn't seen that one before. From the paper:

 

"Another organization used to launder information is the George C. Marshall Institute. During the 1990s, the Marshall Institute had been known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. However, it soon became an important home for industry-financed “climate contrarians,” thanks in part to Exxon-Mobil’s financial  backing. Since 1998, Exxon- Mobil has paid $630,000 primarily to underwrite the Marshall Institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, CEO of the Marshall Institute, formerly worked as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute, served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.

 

Since ExxonMobil began to support its efforts, the Marshall Institute has served as a clearinghouse for global warming  contrarians, conducting round-table events and producing frequent publications. Most recently, the Marshall Institute has been touting its new book, Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by longtime climate contrarian Patrick Michaels (a meteorologist). Michaels has, over the past several years, been affiliated with at least ten organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Contributors to the book include others with similar affiliations with Exxon-funded groups: Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Ross McKitrick, and Willie Soon (for details, see  Appendix B, Table 2).

The pattern of information laundering is repeated at virtually all the private, nonprofit climate change programs ExxonMobil funds. The website of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which received $119,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005, offers recent articles by the same set of scientists. A visit to the climate section of the website of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which received $241,500 from Exxon-Mobil in 2005, turns up yet another non-peer reviewed paper by Patrick Michaels. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $215,000 from ExxonMobil over the past two funding cycles of 2004 and 2005, boasts a similar lineup of articles and a scientific advisory panel that includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz—all affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations."

 

Yes, when we refer to AGW deniers, the people affilliated with these conservative political think tanks head the list. They create the disinformation which is gobbled up by our skeptics and regurgitated across the land. They are the most cited "authorities" in the world of AGW skepticism. Even Idso of "Oregon Petition" fame is there, as well as McKitrick of "Climategate" fame and all the others who have orchestrated the attack on mainstream science.

[FloridaJohn]

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.

 

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. 

 

I would like to address this topic, since you have brought it up several times now. I am going to map out a line of reasoning here, and I want you to logically follow it through. You say you are skeptical of all claims, regardless of which side of the argument they came from. I have no problem with that as long as you are applying your skepticism equally.

 

What you seem to be implying by what you are saying, is that scientists are not interested in pursuing the truth, that their egos cannot handle being "wrong." I would estimate that climate scientists are standard cross-section of humanity. Some really good guys (and gals), some bad guys, but most people are just trying to do a good job and accomplish something they can be proud of. But what you are saying is that climate science, as a whole, hinges on the fact that nobody "breaks ranks." That no actual science needs to be done, as long as everyone keeps to the script. To me, that doesn't seem logical.

 

Another point you make is that climate scientists will "lose funding" if they say something that does not fall in line with everyone else. Do you know where the funding for this research is coming from? Is there only one source of funding? Are researchers in other countries subject to the same funding source as researchers here in the USA? My understanding of the process is that researchers write grant proposals (to a multitude of funding sources), and if the research is funded, the money goes first the reasearcher's home institution (university, etc.) where it is then distributed to the researcher through the normal checks and balances found in any business (i.e things are purchased with Purchase Orders, bills are paid for electricity, etc.) At no time is a bag of money just handed over to a researcher to do whatever they want with that. It is also my understanding that research monies only go to fund a researcher's salary during the summer months. During the rest of the year, their salaries come from the universities for their normal teaching duties. More information on this can be found here.

 

So, if funding only gives them money to take on new research, and is administered through various universities throughout the world, then who is determinining that they don't get funding if they don't "toe the line?" University presidents, government agencies? Also, James Hansen actually lost funding in 1981 for a research paper that linked carbon dioxide to global warming. If what you are saying is true, then shouldn't he have gotten more money?

 

You also say, "the current practice to completely destroy the reputation of those who go against the mainstream." Where are these people "destroying reputations" of scientists? Point me to some websites, please. The only people I see destroying reputations are those who are funded by the anti-science "think tanks" (Heartland, etc.). Perhaps you are familiar with what they tried to do to Michael Mann? Those people weren't mainstream scientists, they were shills paid by the think tanks.

 

As I am sure you know, research is a highly competitive field. Each researcher is competing for grant money and "making a name" for themselves in any field. If you had some research that went completely against the current knowledge base, wouldn't you want to publish that? Wouldn't that make you well known in the field? Perhaps this is the next great discovery? If everyone else is doing one thing, and you have the data to prove the opposite, wouldn't that be a huge feather in your cap? If all that is true, then there should be a large incentive to find some proof that current global warming theory is incorrect. Sure you would have your detractors, but if you have the facts and data to support your conclusions, then you should prevail in the end. Has no other scientific field ever had a discovery contrary to the current thinking? If that was the case, then there would be no scientific advancement. Let others repeat your experiments and come to the same conclusions. Funding should not be an issue since, as we have seen, the oil companies are more than happy to through millions of dollars at someone who can prove global warming is not happening. Not only would you be famous, but you would also be rich. That is a large incentive to do research in that area. And yet no one has come up with any data to suggest global warming is not happening.

 

Finally, as with any good conspriracy theory, you are told to, "follow the money." Who has more to lose from global warming, a few thousand scientists scattered at different institutions around the world, or the world's largest oil, gas and coal companies? What would be the advantage to the fossil fuel industry in delaying any action? What would be the advantage to the researchers?

 

It could be an elaborate conspiracy that requires no one to speak of it, involving thousands of people who have no incentive to "blow the whistle." There is no underpaid, disgruntled secretary at any university around the world who would like to get rich blowing the lid off of this conspiracy? Or, maybe, just maybe, the facts and data are overwhelmingly in favor of the current body of knowledge? That the science is pretty much correct?

[Snow_Miser]

No .04W/m2 is from the 1745 minima to the 2008 minima. Forcing from the Maunder minimum to the present is stated as .15W/m2. Probably closer to .2 or .3W/m2 from the Maunder Minimum to peak solar activity (SCs 19, 21, 22, and 23).

 

The lower .04W/m2 from 1745 to 2008 occurs because SC24 is much weaker than SC23, and because the mid 1700s had much higher solar activity than the Maunder which occurred in the 1600s. 

 

 

This is the latest reconstruction of TSI from Vieir 2011. Remember forcing is TSI divided by 4 because only half of the earth faces the sun at any one time, and because of the curvature of the surface of the earth that does face the sun.

 

Thus you see TSI increased 1.2W/m2 from the Maunder to the late 1900s, implying a forcing of .3W/m2. TSI from the mid 1700s to the late 1900s was .6W/m2, implying .15W/m2. Values to the present will be lower because SC24 is much lower than SC23.

 

 

Use running means to figure out what the running average of TSI is like during the Maunder Minimum. Don't cherry pick the highest TSI that didn't last for very long and claim that TSI has barely increased. Factor in the indirect solar forcings, and you have a significant solar forcing across the 20th Century that is unaccounted for by the TSI forcing alone.

[Snow_Miser]

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. 

 

The authors conclude that observations show significantly less warming in the upper troposphere than predicted by the GCMs.

 

Not sure why you're trying to dispute that.

[skierinvermont]

Use running means to figure out what the running average of TSI is like during the Maunder Minimum. Don't cherry pick the highest TSI that didn't last for very long and claim that TSI has barely increased. Factor in the indirect solar forcings, and you have a significant solar forcing across the 20th Century that is unaccounted for by the TSI forcing alone.

 

There is zero evidence for significant indirect solar focings over the 20th century in the peer-review literature. There is strong evidence against such a conclusion.

 

I am using the very lowest TSI of the Maunder Minimum, and the very highest TSI of the late 20th century. The maximum forcing from the 1600s to the late 1900s is .3W/m2. From the mid-1700s, which is not part of the Maunder Minimum, it is .15W/m2. And from the mid-1700s to the present, including the drop off in solar activity the last 10 years, forcing is just .04W/m2. 

 

 

Remember TSI changes must be divided by 4 to arrive at forcing because half the earth does not face the sun, and because of the curvature of the earth.

[skierinvermont]

The authors conclude that observations show significantly less warming in the upper troposphere than predicted by the GCMs.

 

Not sure why you're trying to dispute that.

 

They also say:

 

"We cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy between models and observations is partly caused by biases in satellite data."

 

They find a ratio between the mid and upper troposphere of 1.1, which is slightly less than the expected ratio of 1.2. However, they cannot rule out a ratio as high as 1.3 or as low as .9. 1.2 is still well within the observational 95% uncertainty interval. 

 

 

They find upper-mid = .014+/-.017. Which means it could be as high as .031C/decade. Given the RSS mid-trop trend of .145C/decade (+/- .118), That would be a ratio of 1.21. If the mid troposphere trend were on the lower side of the uncertainty range, say .05C/decade, that would be a ratio of 1.61... WAY above the predicted ratio of 1.2.

 

 

 

There is way too much uncertainty in satellite data to say whether the mid to upper troposphere warming ratio is 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or even higher. And that's just the measurement uncertainty. We haven't even gotten to the rather large ensemble spread with different ensemble members showing different ratios over the last 30 years (this study only lists the mean for each model, not the full ensemble spread).

 

 

Even IF the actual ratio is 1.1 over the last 30 years, which is below the model mean but not outside all the ensemble members, it would suggest that the modeled climate sensitivity is perhaps very slightly too high. Perhaps it is 2.8C instead of 3C. Climate sensitivity depends on many factors, of which the ratio between the mid and upper tropospheric warming ratio is only one small factor. 

[blizzard1024]

I would like to address this topic, since you have brought it up several times now. I am going to map out a line of reasoning here, and I want you to logically follow it through. You say you are skeptical of all claims, regardless of which side of the argument they came from. I have no problem with that as long as you are applying your skepticism equally.

 

What you seem to be implying by what you are saying, is that scientists are not interested in pursuing the truth, that their egos cannot handle being "wrong." I would estimate that climate scientists are standard cross-section of humanity. Some really good guys (and gals), some bad guys, but most people are just trying to do a good job and accomplish something they can be proud of. But what you are saying is that climate science, as a whole, hinges on the fact that nobody "breaks ranks." That no actual science needs to be done, as long as everyone keeps to the script. To me, that doesn't seem logical.

 

Another point you make is that climate scientists will "lose funding" if they say something that does not fall in line with everyone else. Do you know where the funding for this research is coming from? Is there only one source of funding? Are researchers in other countries subject to the same funding source as researchers here in the USA? My understanding of the process is that researchers write grant proposals (to a multitude of funding sources), and if the research is funded, the money goes first the reasearcher's home institution (university, etc.) where it is then distributed to the researcher through the normal checks and balances found in any business (i.e things are purchased with Purchase Orders, bills are paid for electricity, etc.) At no time is a bag of money just handed over to a researcher to do whatever they want with that. It is also my understanding that research monies only go to fund a researcher's salary during the summer months. During the rest of the year, their salaries come from the universities for their normal teaching duties. More information on this can be found here.

 

So, if funding only gives them money to take on new research, and is administered through various universities throughout the world, then who is determinining that they don't get funding if they don't "toe the line?" University presidents, government agencies? Also, James Hansen actually lost funding in 1981 for a research paper that linked carbon dioxide to global warming. If what you are saying is true, then shouldn't he have gotten more money?

 

You also say, "the current practice to completely destroy the reputation of those who go against the mainstream." Where are these people "destroying reputations" of scientists? Point me to some websites, please. The only people I see destroying reputations are those who are funded by the anti-science "think tanks" (Heartland, etc.). Perhaps you are familiar with what they tried to do to Michael Mann? Those people weren't mainstream scientists, they were shills paid by the think tanks.

 

As I am sure you know, research is a highly competitive field. Each researcher is competing for grant money and "making a name" for themselves in any field. If you had some research that went completely against the current knowledge base, wouldn't you want to publish that? Wouldn't that make you well known in the field? Perhaps this is the next great discovery? If everyone else is doing one thing, and you have the data to prove the opposite, wouldn't that be a huge feather in your cap? If all that is true, then there should be a large incentive to find some proof that current global warming theory is incorrect. Sure you would have your detractors, but if you have the facts and data to support your conclusions, then you should prevail in the end. Has no other scientific field ever had a discovery contrary to the current thinking? If that was the case, then there would be no scientific advancement. Let others repeat your experiments and come to the same conclusions. Funding should not be an issue since, as we have seen, the oil companies are more than happy to through millions of dollars at someone who can prove global warming is not happening. Not only would you be famous, but you would also be rich. That is a large incentive to do research in that area. And yet no one has come up with any data to suggest global warming is not happening.

 

Finally, as with any good conspriracy theory, you are told to, "follow the money." Who has more to lose from global warming, a few thousand scientists scattered at different institutions around the world, or the world's largest oil, gas and coal companies? What would be the advantage to the fossil fuel industry in delaying any action? What would be the advantage to the researchers?

 

It could be an elaborate conspiracy that requires no one to speak of it, involving thousands of people who have no incentive to "blow the whistle." There is no underpaid, disgruntled secretary at any university around the world who would like to get rich blowing the lid off of this conspiracy? Or, maybe, just maybe, the facts and data are overwhelmingly in favor of the current body of knowledge? That the science is pretty much correct?

Fair enough. I don't doubt that most scientists in any field are sincere in their beliefs and research. There is tremendous pressure to publish and get grant money and the pie is shrinking. Every field has this, not just climate science.  

[blizzard1024]

you are accusing me of saying things I simply have not asserted. please stop. now.

 

I must have misunderstood you. sorry. 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

There is zero evidence for significant indirect solar focings over the 20th century in the peer-review literature. There is strong evidence against such a conclusion.

 

I am using the very lowest TSI of the Maunder Minimum, and the very highest TSI of the late 20th century. The maximum forcing from the 1600s to the late 1900s is .3W/m2. From the mid-1700s, which is not part of the Maunder Minimum, it is .15W/m2. And from the mid-1700s to the present, including the drop off in solar activity the last 10 years, forcing is just .04W/m2. 

 

 

Remember TSI changes must be divided by 4 to arrive at forcing because half the earth does not face the sun, and because of the curvature of the earth.

This TSI has me baffled. I concur you have to divide by 4 because of the geometry of the Earth which makes there very little change in TSI. 

Forgive me if I am not up on the latest research, but then how did we get a little ice age?? Was is just unusual high level of volcanic

eruptions? I saw something on that recently. I am not doubting the TSI changes. I am asking a sincere question. We know that there

was a LIA and it is hard for me to imagine that it was just in western Europe and Greenland/Iceland only.