2016 even hotter than 2015 and 2014

[Fogdog]

It seems logical at some point to evaluate model performance against observations. If the greatest warming is expected to occur in the troposphere above the tropics, and our best measurement tools are not seeing it taking place at expected levels, should we not get concerned about our assumptions at some point? If so, when?

Ah the troposphere, I was hoping somebody would post that bit of skepticism.

Beginning at about 2:50, he gets into middle and upper troposphere temperatures, both predicted and measured.

The middle troposphere measurements above the tropics are not heating up as predicted in the models for the greenhouse gas effect But again, skeptics are cherry picking. Surface temperatures and upper troposphere temperature measurements are changing exactly as predicted.

As the narrator, Mark Richardson from NASA/JPL-Cal Tech says: "Using the (absence of a predicted) hot spot to cast doubt on greenhouse warming is a red herring. Its a sign of changing moisture in the tropics, not of greenhouse gas warming. A real fingerprint of greenhouse warming is warming near the surface while the atmosphere above 20 km cools this has already had a spectacular effect" as shown in satellite readings. (his words from the video are shown in italics.

The key point is, while it is true that the state of the science of global climate modelling and the science of measuring atmospheric temperatures at all elevations are not completely in synch. What is also true is the fingerprint showing greenhouse global warming are exactly in sync. Predicted and measured rising surface temperature and upper troposphere cooling are confirmed.

For example, the figure below shows a series of PCM global temperatures throughout all elevations. Compare (a), where elevated surface temperature is entirely due to solar forcing with (c) where elevated surface temperature is entirely due to elevated greenhouse gas emissions. The blue-violet region in the upper atmosphere in (c) is the fingerprint that Richardson refers to.

Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (IPCCAR4 WG1)

Anyway, don't listen to me, listen to Richardson 'splain it better than I can.

 

[Bugeye]

Ah the troposphere, I was hoping somebody would post that bit of skepticism.

Beginning at about 2:50, he gets into middle and upper troposphere temperatures, both predicted and measured.

The middle troposphere measurements above the tropics are not heating up as predicted in the models for the greenhouse gas effect But again, skeptics are cherry picking. Surface temperatures and upper troposphere temperature measurements are changing exactly as predicted.

As the narrator, Mark Richardson from NASA/JPL-Cal Tech says: "Using the (absence of a predicted) hot spot to cast doubt on greenhouse warming is a red herring. Its a sign of changing moisture in the tropics, not of greenhouse gas warming. A real fingerprint of greenhouse warming is warming near the surface while the atmosphere above 20 km cools this has already had a spectacular effect" as shown in satellite readings. (his words from the video are shown in italics.

The key point is, while it is true that the state of the science of global climate modelling and the science of measuring atmospheric temperatures at all elevations are not completely in synch. What is also true is the fingerprint showing greenhouse global warming are exactly in sync. Predicted and measured rising surface temperature and upper troposphere cooling are confirmed.

For example, the figure below shows a series of PCM global temperatures throughout all elevations. Compare (a), where elevated surface temperature is entirely due to solar forcing with (c) where elevated surface temperature is entirely due to elevated greenhouse gas emissions. The blue-violet region in the upper atmosphere in (c) is the fingerprint that Richardson refers to.

Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (IPCCAR4 WG1)

Anyway, don't listen to me, listen to Richardson 'splain it better than I can.

Good video, but it does not address the expected rate of warming in troposphere and expected rate of cooling in stratosphere vs. the actual levels we are seeing. Again, very few published skeptics disagree with AGW, just the expected contribution levels. The science on that is not settled.

 

[Fogdog]

Good video, but it does not address the expected rate of warming in troposphere and expected rate of cooling in stratosphere vs. the actual levels we are seeing. Again, very few published skeptics disagree with AGW, just the expected contribution levels. The science on that is not settled.

Could you post a reference to help me understand the discrepancy you mention?

 

[Bugeye]

Could you post a reference to help me understand the discrepancy you mention?

I'm speaking to plots of actual mid tropospheric temp anomalies compared to the "spaghetti graph" put out in AR4 or 5. If you google IPCC spaghetti graph vs actual you see many variations. Here is one (probably orginating from Spencer/UAH):

 

[Fogdog]

I'm speaking to plots of actual mid tropospheric temp anomalies compared to the "spaghetti graph" put out in AR4 or 5. If you google IPCC spaghetti graph vs actual you see many variations. Here is one (probably orginating from Spencer/UAH):

Out of my league here, even more than with surface temperature data sets and issues with model converging to them. The following is what I gleaned from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Slide12.jpg


The graph is most definitely from Spencer, University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), who has adjusted his data set about 8 times since his first findings from satellite data in the 90's that claimed global cooling. Some of his errors were blatant, such as not correcting for satellite change in altitude over time, timing errors as the satellite slowed down (daytime temperature data in some cases were actually recorded at night). This is all said not to refute the data but to point out that the satellite measurements are the least stable and are fraught with assumptions and bias due to those assumptions. The two satellite data sets don't agree yet here they are averaged together without showing an error range.

Also the balloon data are not what we'd expect from a good effort either. Four data sets were combined and there are discrepancies between each set of data. Again without showing an error range. Also, Spencer chose to leave out other data sets that would have been in better agreement with the climate model.

Summary: Note that the average data for balloon and satellite data sets do not show an error range. Also, note that errors of +/- 0.1 would be significant on the scale of this graph. This is interesting when the spaghetti graph is overlaid upon them. It makes the modelling data appear to be hodge-podge and the satellite and balloon data appear rock solid. But that is not the case, the satellite data set especially is not nearly as solid as indicated but even the balloon data isn't as good as the simple average would lead the reader to think..

So, basically, I'm not calling bullshit, just obfuscation.

The gif has a little fun at Spencer's expense but it shows multiple reasons why we should look at more than just the mid-troposphere.

 

[ginjawarrior]

February Blows Away Global Heat Record

MAR 14, 2016 02:04 PM ET // BY ANDREA THOMPSON, CLIMATE CENTRAL

VIEW RELATED GALLERY »
A map displays global temperatures for February 2016.

One particularly notable aspect of last month’s heat was that it beat out January as the most anomalously warm month on record by a solid 0.36°F (0.2°C).

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/february-blows-away-global-heat-record-160314.htm

 

[ThickStemz]

The lefts holy grail is AGW. It is perfect for them becuase it gives them the means through which to attack big business.

I'm no scientist. If I were id get a government grant to study things like this, and if I come back with info that supports AGW I get more funds next year.

What we do know... carbon dioxide is the weakest greenhouse gas we know of, and it is in by far the smallest concentration of any other greenhouse gas. Furthermore, humans aren't even the largest producers of co2. Water vapor makes up many times more parts of concentration of our atmosphere, and is a much better greenhouse gas.

It's said to counter this argument that co2 focuses it's effects near the poles, but as pointed out above polar sea ice is doing just fine.

We have had more than one exposed cover up or falsification of data in the AGW movement, climate gate.

And whenever they say things like "the hottest year on record, or most this or that ever recorded" it goes back less than 200 years, on a 4 billion year old planet.

That's like going out and running into one redneck and asking him who he likes for president, then reporting that "Trump leads the polls with 100%."

 

[Rrog]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/weather/february-warmest-ever-month/index.html

You're right. It's a leftist conspiracy

 

[Bugeye]

Out of my league here, even more than with surface temperature data sets and issues with model converging to them. The following is what I gleaned from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Slide12.jpg


The graph is most definitely from Spencer, University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), who has adjusted his data set about 8 times since his first findings from satellite data in the 90's that claimed global cooling. Some of his errors were blatant, such as not correcting for satellite change in altitude over time, timing errors as the satellite slowed down (daytime temperature data in some cases were actually recorded at night). This is all said not to refute the data but to point out that the satellite measurements are the least stable and are fraught with assumptions and bias due to those assumptions. The two satellite data sets don't agree yet here they are averaged together without showing an error range.

Also the balloon data are not what we'd expect from a good effort either. Four data sets were combined and there are discrepancies between each set of data. Again without showing an error range. Also, Spencer chose to leave out other data sets that would have been in better agreement with the climate model.

Summary: Note that the average data for balloon and satellite data sets do not show an error range. Also, note that errors of +/- 0.1 would be significant on the scale of this graph. This is interesting when the spaghetti graph is overlaid upon them. It makes the modelling data appear to be hodge-podge and the satellite and balloon data appear rock solid. But that is not the case, the satellite data set especially is not nearly as solid as indicated but even the balloon data isn't as good as the simple average would lead the reader to think..

So, basically, I'm not calling bullshit, just obfuscation.

The gif has a little fun at Spencer's expense but it shows multiple reasons why we should look at more than just the mid-troposphere.

The below graph breaking out radiosonde vs satellite is from:https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
It shows they all move pretty well together when smoothed, but to your point it would be nice to see the error ranges.


Figure 4. The annual average global midtropospheric temperatures derived from 102 individual CMIP5 climate model runs forced with historical (+ RCP4.5 since 2006) forcings were obtained from John Christy (personal communications). Linear trends were computed through the global temperatures from each run, ending in 2015 and beginning each year from 1975 through 2006. The trends for each period (ranging in length from 10 to 40 years) were averaged across all model runs (black line). The range containing 95 percent (dotted black lines) and the minimum (dashed black line) of trends from the 102 model runs are indicated. The observed linear trends for the same periods were calculated from the annual average global mid-tropospheric temperature record compiled by several different agencies (and include compilations derived from satellite observations as well as weather balloon observations) described in the legend (colored lines) (the value for 2015 was estimated from January through October, average).

 

[ThickStemz]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/weather/february-warmest-ever-month/index.html

You're right. It's a leftist conspiracy

What I find funny that is never mentioned is that while yes, it has been getting warmer, the 17th century saw the onset of a mini ice age that lasted until, some say, the 19th century. About the time the records started. So we're basing the warming on temperatures starting at the end of an ice age.

 

[Rrog]

Too bad professionals agree there's a warming problem. Debates here are amateur. Just saying.

It's like having a thread where you feel the research at CERN is wrong

 

[ttystikk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/weather/february-warmest-ever-month/index.html

You're right. It's a leftist conspiracy

Only 1696 months of data. Not an acceptable statistical sample, too short to be used in a climate debate.

 

[Bugeye]

All we need is a leader with the guts to eradicate all human life forms on this planet, and the AGW problem is solved. Maybe that should be plan B?

 

[ThickStemz]

Too bad professionals agree there's a warming problem. Debates here are amateur. Just saying.

It's like having a thread where you feel the research at CERN is wrong

The only problem with that is all their income depends on their results.

If they came out and said "hey its a natural cycle, we may or may not be impacting it slightly, but these things ebb and flow over time" their research grants would evaporate quicker than water in the Sahara.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just point out the conflict of interest, lack of any realistic solution offered to the problem, and knowledge of at least 2 cover-ups by climate scientists of data not helpful to their cause.

 

[Rrog]

I love high profile conspiracy theories that require hundreds, if not thousands of super-smarties to ALL be in on the gag. What's better than that?

That's right up there with the lunar landing conspiracy. Thousands of scientists and engineers are still in on that ol' gag! I wonder if they get together and laugh about the old days of green screen and Hollywood.

 

[Fogdog]

I love high profile conspiracy theories that require hundreds, if not thousands of super-smarties to ALL be in on the gag. What's better than that?

That's right up there with the lunar landing conspiracy. Thousands of scientists and engineers are still in on that ol' gag! I wonder if they get together and laugh about the old days of green screen and Hollywood.

Maybe its not a conspiracy. Maybe millions of poorly educated people just know better than really smart, motivated, passionate people with PhD's in physics and computer science and decades of experience. Maybe a dream state religious experience is better than knowledge?

 

[JaJaJaJa]

I agree with the idea that we're causing at least some of the recent warming. However, I don't know what we can/should do about it. The alternatives simply aren't ready yet. We need fusion power and ultracapacitors for energy storage/electric vehicles. Also global overpopulation is the biggest issue. Even if we cut our CO2 emissions by 50% per person over the next 50 years it won't matter if the world has 10 billion people by then.

 

[ttystikk]

Me too. But then again, not many skeptics deny AGW. However, the rate of warming increase expected may be far less settled than you are aware.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/weather/february-warmest-ever-month/index.html

That's looking pretty damn settled to me, brother.

 

[Bugeye]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/weather/february-warmest-ever-month/index.html

That's looking pretty damn settled to me, brother.

Okay, I'll bite, what is the level of warming that we can expect that 97% of scientists agree on?

 

[Fogdog]

The below graph breaking out radiosonde vs satellite is from:https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
It shows they all move pretty well together when smoothed, but to your point it would be nice to see the error ranges.


Figure 4. The annual average global midtropospheric temperatures derived from 102 individual CMIP5 climate model runs forced with historical (+ RCP4.5 since 2006) forcings were obtained from John Christy (personal communications). Linear trends were computed through the global temperatures from each run, ending in 2015 and beginning each year from 1975 through 2006. The trends for each period (ranging in length from 10 to 40 years) were averaged across all model runs (black line). The range containing 95 percent (dotted black lines) and the minimum (dashed black line) of trends from the 102 model runs are indicated. The observed linear trends for the same periods were calculated from the annual average global mid-tropospheric temperature record compiled by several different agencies (and include compilations derived from satellite observations as well as weather balloon observations) described in the legend (colored lines) (the value for 2015 was estimated from January through October, average).

First of all, the graph you posted is fairly weird. It shows a calculated rate of global warming -- in degrees C per decade -- over a period of forty years. There is no explanation for how this was calculated. Also, why the "trend" becomes unstable towards the end of the time period is not explained. I think its because as we approach the right end of the graph, it is based upon ten years worth of data. The far left end of the graph is based upon all forty years of data. From left to right the same data set is used only fewer data are used to calculate the "trend".

It appears once again that data are being used to justify a conclusion made in advance. But OK, let's take a look at it as if it were an honest attempt.

• Over the forty years presented in the figure above, satellites have been taken out of service and replaced with new ones that contain different measurement systems. Different assumptions and different accuracy with each generation of satellite.
• During this time, new adjustments or corrections to the data have been applied as we learned more about the satellite measurements.
• Error range is included for the model but no error range was calculated for the satellites. No doubt because the error range would confuse the reader from the conclusion the author intends for the reader. The author is Judith Curry. More on her below.
• The measurement is in an area of little importance, the middle troposphere, which is about 11 miles up.
• Issues like wind shear for the balloons and variability in heating of the system from sunlight on the satellite are known but not well understood. This is discussed in scientific papers on this kind of metrology, I can provide sources if requested.
• Look at the scale on the right. 0.1C is a pretty small temperature change. 0.1C per decade is even smaller.
• In summary, it is really hard to take consistent, accurate readings 11 miles up over a period of forty years. NASA keeps trying but its a learning experience

By focusing on one region and not a very important one at that, using really suspect data, the conclusion is still that AGW global warming is occurring but half the rate of the current model.

Is this the best that science deniers can do to dispute the current estimate given for the rate of global warming?

Other trends and measurements align better with the model one must ask why did the author focus on this specific set?

If you listen to NASA professionals, they would tell you that their model should not be sold as an absolute prediction. The error range for model predictions as shown in the graph is an honest depiction of this. That there are no estimates for error on the satellite and balloon reading is a red flag. This is not an honest depiction of the reliability of those readings.

==================================================================================================
Who is the author?

Judith Curry, a professional climate science skeptic put together the graph. She admits that some of her funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. She is one of a very few climate skeptics with a degree in climate science and a sought after speaker on this topic. Speaker fees are good money. Just ask Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. For a scathing alternative perspective on this self proclaimed expert, here is a climate friendly scientist's perspective: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/some-history-that-led-to-judith-curry.html

Judith has no expertise in putting together surface temperature records (if you can't tell from reading her articles), so she wouldn't know what to do with the NOAA data any more than Lamar Smith does. (Judith dropped off the Berkeley Earth project team at an early stage, without making any substantive contribution.)

She does know how to insinuate and spread nasty smear campaigns, however. Over the years she's honed that art to a reasonable, if patently transparent, level.

@Bugeye has helped highlight exactly what is going on with the AGW global warming debate. On one hand, we have a large and international community that is pursuing the science and admit there is error in their work. They quantify the error and publish it. Taking in all possible data, their best estimate is about 0.2 +/- 0.1 degrees C per decade global warming due to industrial CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Judith Curry cherry picked a data set that agreed with the conclusion she wanted to make and would generate a good income for her. The industry just wants to sow doubt and that's exactly what Judith provided.