
Christopher Monckton writes via email:
Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently. I wrote the attached reply, which Eos are refusing to print. – Christopher
It appears that Eos has indeed refused to print this reply, as this according to the document properties, this document was created June 30th, when the early edition was available, and there’s been no response so far from Eos. -Anthony
Right of Reply
I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem.
The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as “climate change deniers” (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply.
The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including “public displays” and “social media” – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse.
Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today.
Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.
Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork.
The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC.
Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50.
The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.
Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.
References
Bode, H.W. (1945), Network analysis and feedback amplifier design, Van Nostrand, New York, USA, 551 pp.
Boden and Marland (2010a), Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring, 1751-2007, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Boden et al. (2010b), Ranking of the world’s countries by 2007 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Dessler, A.E. (2010), A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science 220, 1523-1527.
Dessler, A.E. (2011), Cloud Variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett.
HadCRUt3 (2011), Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt.
IPCC (1990), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, and Melbourne, Australia.
IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2011), On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. (2010), Response to John Abraham, SPPI Reprint Series, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC, USA, July 12, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf.
Popper, K (1934), Logik der Forschung, rewritten by the author in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.
Roe, G. ( 2009), Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red, Ann. Rev. Earth & Planet. Sci. 37, 93-115.
Scotese, C.R., A.J. Boucot, and W.S. McKerrow (1999), Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology, J. Afr. Earth Sci. 28(1), 99-114.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2011), On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant-energy balance, Remote Sensing 3, 1603-1613, doi:10.3390/rs3081603.
Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea-surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett, 37, L03702.
Wong, P. (2010), Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11: Budget-Related Paper No. 1.4. Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups (2001), Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present, Science 292, 686-693.
─ CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA; monckton@mail.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Myrrh
>…Unable to give any real science to back this claim he to resorts to viscious ad homs and arguments from authority.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ! OK, Myrrh, have a look at Monckton’s investigation into the must-be-there-for-AGW-to-work tropical hotspot at 8-16 km above the surface of the Earth. This is the hot zone Al Gore hopes to find one day because he ‘knows it is there’.
It does not exist. It is a necessary requirment of the ‘science’ of CAGW. All IPCC models have it as part of their coding.
It does not exist. There is no CO2-induced hot spot capturing IR and re-radiating it back to the surface.
I am rebutting your ridiculous claim that Monckton does no ‘real science’. Read and try to understand his excellent, once-and-for-all-time disproof about anything like a ‘hot spot’ created by ‘CO2 trapping IR’.
Next, scrutinise the soon to come AR5 which will have to address the issue because it is the cornerstone of CO2-based AGW. If there is no hotspot, there is not AGW, finis and klaar. People have been sending up ballons to measure the temperature there so everyone is expecting to see the results in AR5 proving AGW based on the measurements. The temperature will have to have a clear increase with altitude, peak, then decrease with increased elevation. All the models contain this effect/result. It is the very basis of AGW. Monckton’s proper scientific analysis of the reality of the atmospheric temperatures showed years ago that it does not exist. You will find it with his other scientific investigations all of which are interesting and informative.
Alternatively, bring your scientific investigations, Myrrh. Show us the hot spot. After you have done so, we will perhaps believe some of your ad homs.
Christopher Monckton is not a scientist, and his ‘theory’ has many flaws. I’m still waiting to see the alternative theory that explains what CO2 emissions are supposed to do if not trapping infra red radiation into the atmosphere (which cause warming).
I am most grateful to commenters here for taking an interest in the bad behavior of the AGU. Itsr pretext for refusing me a right of reply was that what I had written had already appeared at icecap.us. This was a convenient untruth.
I am particularly grateful to Anthony for having given me the opportunity to publish this reply to a far larger and more impartial audience than the hard-left ideologues of the now-discredited AGU.
Since a question has been raised in this thread, It is worth confirming that in the eight years during which Envisat collected sea-level data the raw data show that the mean annual rate of increase was equivalent to just 3 cm/century, not 30 cm/century. This result is consistent with the absence of any global warming over the past 15 years: but it has not, of course, received any publicity in the mainstream news media, because it is so greatly at odds with the outlandish official predictions.
To those who questioned my use of Latin, I apologize. This article was originally written for what purports to be a journal for scientists, not for the general public. Also, as several commenters have rightly pointed out, it is more concise to refer to the fundamental fallacies of logic in human discourse by the Latin names that the medieval schoolmen gave them than to spell out the meaning of each in English: though, after naming the three fallacies of which my attackers in Eos were guilty I gave brief instances of each fallacy from their shoddy article.
An anonymous contributor venomously takes me to task for asserting that there is a greenhouse effect. As I have said before, the question whether there is or is not a greenhouse effect is irrelevant to my argument, since if there were no greenhouse effect then my assertion that there is no point in attempting to mitigate CO2 concentration would be demonstrated a fortiori.
A fortiori means that my argument would be still more self-evidently true if there were no greenhouse effect than if there is one. Yet there is one: its existence has long been definitively established by observation, experiment, and theory. I continue to recommend that the usually ill-tempered and extravagantly off-topic contributions of a small, largely anonymous and scientifically-illiterate group ought really to be channeled into a separate thread. As so often in the past, the tiresome, yah-boo, unevidenced whingeing of the “no-greenhouse-effect” brigade does not belong in this (or any) scientific discussion. If they do not believe there is a greenhouse effect, and if they wish to convince anyone of that belief, then they should confine their argument for their religion to an appropriate forum, and they should deploy reason and science rather than invective or illogic.By their attempts to derail the discussion here, they discredit themselves and re-emphasize the inadequacy of their argument.
RockyRoad says:
Myrrh=BITTER
Henry says:
True
Henry@Myrrh
it’s BETTER
to stick with me
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031411
(you must be able to show some results that you or someone measured….???)
Caragea says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031487
Henry says
Do you actually read the messages being posted here? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031411
Or do you just want show off your ignorance, here to all of us?
On this blog we discuss the results of tests that you have measured or those of others that support your position. I am waiting for it….
HenryP, thank you and I appreciate your reply. I am interested in the truth, and I will do more studying in my search for it. Thanks for the links. We are all ignorants by various degrees, so I am not bothered by that part.
Myrrh
Glad I checked your quote. I see you have more substance than your rant here suggested.
Overall, it is as I suspected, exactly as I hinted at in my reply to you. Re-read my reply carefully, especially the last sentence. There is a lot of substance behind it. I might well agree with you over the science you take issue with. I had a tantalising glimpse of the real state of radiative science from Spartacusisfree at Bishop Hill recently. I do wish he’d contact me (paging Spartacusisfree … are you there??)
Relate to people for what they are good at, and thank them. This can always be used, when really necessary, to build the bridges to their weaker areas of understanding. And spell out the science. Heck, why not apologize here but write an article on what you see as the real science issue where you disagree with Monckton? If you do it properly, there should be a lot of readers.
trccurtin says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm
If Chris M would cut out the Latin and write more concisely in plain English he would stand more chance of getting published.
====================================================
I suspect that it wasn’t the latin that kept Eos from publishing his reply but rather the content of his reply.
A touch of devil’s advocate.
Lord Monckton’s reply is quite well written and makes for enjoyable reading. However, it does not meet EOS’s criterion for the maximum length of a reply, which is limited to 350 words.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_tools/eos/categories.shtml
Perhaps if he were a tad less verbose, the reply might get published. Brevity, soul of wit, if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter, all that jazz.
Alexander Feht says: July 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm
…….. that endemic Soviet brain rot, it spread all over the globe now. There is nowhere to run, we’ve got to exterminate the bug of cowardice before it kills us all.
*******************************
Dittos
But it’s more than just cowardly brain rot. It is venal corrupt self-serving thugs using a grand hoax to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. See doe examples: the former Soviet Union, North Korea, or Cuba. Or, closer to home, Detroit, Buffalo, Flint, or Chicago. The current Liberal Democrat agenda brings NOTHING but poverty, desolation, and death.
The 1950 census found Detroit to be one of the wealthiest per-capita cities in the world. And it had the largest, wealthiest per-capita community of people with an African ancestry of any city in the world. The 2010 census showed that it is now the second poorest, ahead of only Cleveland. And in 2010 the Detroit City Council proposed bulldozing 40 square miles of abandoned housing.
The wealthiest community of African-Americans in the world laid waste by 60 years of Liberal agenda.
It was NEVER about science. It was ALWAYS about money, power, and control.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin.)
Robin says:
July 13, 2012 at 6:43 am
But true science as a body of knowledge and a set of universal propositions developed during the Enlightenment is precisely what is being rejected….
….the federal government officially redefined what is to constitute an academic discipline and how it is to be taught in school. Disciplines are now “distinct communities that engage in shared practices of ongoing knowledge creation, understanding and revision.”
….. In particular science is redefined as “a social process through which individual scientists and communities of scientists continually create, revise, and elaborate scientific theories and ideas.”
_________________________________
A SOCIAL PROCESS??? Well so much for the scientific method. Looks like reality has now been ‘OFFICIALLY’ excised from science.
(I think I am going to be sick…)
Gail Combs says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:25 am
“…(s)he thinks that any version of the “Greenhouse Effect” – reradiation of IR towards earth by GHGs – is pure bunk. Second law and all that.”
====================================================
Gail, these are 2 different things. “Reradiation of IR towards earth by GHGs” is one thing, but “warming (or reduced cooling) by reradiation of IR towards earth by GHGs” is a quite different thing.
If the first one is true ( and it probably is, Tyndall’s experiment), you still need to prove the second one. Physically. Unfortunately, I have not seen any proof of that besides “thought experiments” which are not physical proofs at all.
So, no problem with re-radiating, but with warming.
A grand example of why any degree of warming here and there in Earth’s atmosphere, especially over land, causes/leads to cooling here and there, can be found in the magnificance of a thunderstorm brought about by the instability of warmed versus cool air in steamy battle. It is an obvious display of the poorly mixed soup only a dunderhead would call a well-mixed atmosphere. Lowly weather has been, is now, and will be the victor in this climate war.
@climatetruthinitiative
Also his latin is more impressive than his use of English.
“attack on Dr. Giaever and me ” should be “Dr. Giaever and myself”.
*****
Sorry, P. Solar, but “me” is perfectly correct and preferred by many who think that “myself” sounds a bit pretentious.
It’s not just that it sounds pretentious; it’s flat out WRONG.
The only proper use of reflexive pronouns like “myself” is when the subject of a verb and an object (direct or indirect) of that verb name the same person. It substitutes for the objective case (me, us, you, him, her, it, them) that would otherwise be correct:
Right: “I beat myself up about mistakes.”
Wrong: “When you find you, come back to me.” [direct object] (Song lyrics often have bad grammar.)
Right: “He tried to do the job [by] himself.” [object of explicit or implicit “by” modifying verb]
Right: “Feel free to help yourself to some fine KC BBQ.”
Wrong “Please join The Bride of Monster and myself in celebrating Monsterette 1’s current pregnancy at the baby shower…” [Subject of imperative is implicit “you”]
Caragea says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:41 am
Christopher Monckton is not a scientist, and his ‘theory’ has many flaws. I’m still waiting to see the alternative theory that explains what CO2 emissions are supposed to do if not trapping infra red radiation into the atmosphere (which cause warming).
________________________________
If you take as given CO2 acts as a ‘mirror’ and can ‘bounce’ LWIR radiated from the earth back down to the earth you STILL run into a problem.
This is off-the-cuff reasoning:
#1. Mankind’s addition to the annual CO2 cycle is about 3 to at max 4%
#2. Total CO2 is less than 400 ppm or only four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor can be up to four percent. and absorbs a lot more of the solar spectrum. link
#3. Only certain wavelengths (energy packets) can be absorbed by the CO2 molecule and the graph of the wavelengths radiated by earth show a large low sprawl compared to incoming sunlight. link Compare that to the amount of high energy wavelengths absorbed by the oceans. link
#4. When the energy packet is absorbed it can be transferred to another molecule by collision or reradiated. If it is reradiated it can be in any direction therefore only a small amount of the reradiated energy is directed towards the earth. (Think steradian or solid angle math and two spheres)
#5 LWIR is much lower in energy compared to the Visible, UV and EUV link that has been found to vary as much as 6%. NASA: Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths
Total Solar Irradiance Monitoring results 1978 to present:…a recent National Research Council study which concluded that gradual variations in solar luminosity of as little as 0.25 % was the likely forcing for the ‘little ice age’ that persisted in varying degree from the late 14th to the mid 19th centuries.
NOAA: From the late 50’s the sun has been at its most active for more than 11,500 years…
So when you add it all up you have 4% of the four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere (CO2) grabbing a small amount of specific low energy radiation from the earth and redirecting an even smaller amount of that captured energy back to earth to be absorbed. Balanced against that is the ocean covering 70% of the earth that absorbs a large chunk of the high energy wavelengths (visible through extreme ultraviolet) direct from the sun that has just been found to be a lot more variable than the staid old solar scientists wanted to admit.
Sorry, the orders of magnitude of energy flow between the two “theories” say the Sun+Ocean + Water Vapor knock puny old Earth LWIR + CO2 right out of the game.
Caragea says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031607
Henry says
You are not far that way from the truth. God bless you on the way seeking it.\\
just keep your eyes wide open.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031502
Henry says
thx. so much for your response!! we find it sometimes lacking from those who do leave posts here.
Honestly, though,
what is your reply to my assertion that there is no final proof that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling, or that – who knows what- perhaps the net effect of an increase in our carbon footprint is simply neutral.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Gareth says:
July 13, 2012 at 4:02 am
Nitpicking:
Amplifiers by their nature need a gain of greater than unity,
###
BZTTT! Wrong Answer!
Crispin in Waterloo says:
If your statements here were meant to demonstrate that Monckton does real science then you have not succeeded since your statements show only complete confusion and ignorance of the subject (although, to be fair, I don’t know what part of that is attributable to Monckton and what part is yours alone).
The predicted “hotspot” (more technically called tropical tropospheric amplification) is not CO2-induced and has nothing to do with CO2 capturing IR and re-radiating it back to the surface. It is a prediction of how warming will occur in the atmosphere due to **ANY*** cause (including El Nino, for example) and follows from the fact that the temperature profile with altitude in the tropics is expected to generally closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate profile.
It is not a necessary requirement for AGW. In fact, the most direct consequence of its absence would be that the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback included in all of the climate models is not present and hence that the climate sensitivity predicted by these models is lower than it ought to be.
However, it is rather doubtful that it is missing since it is in fact seen quite clearly for temperature fluctuations such as those caused by ENSO. Where there has been more difficulty finding it is for the multidecadal warming trend. However, both the satellite data and the radiosonde data have artifacts that contaminate these long-term trends and thus to what extent you see the amplification or not for these long-term trends depends on which data set and analysis or re-analysis of the data you believe. It is hard to imagine a mechanism by which the amplification would be occurring on the monthly to yearly timescales associated with the temperature fluctuations but would be absent on the multidecadal time scales which is why the U.S. Climate change Program report on this issue concluded that it is most likely that most of the remaining discrepancy is problems with the data and not with the models. Interestingly, skeptical scientist Richard Lindzen has reached the same conclusion (although he tries to argue that the problem is with the surface temperature record in the tropics rather than the satellite and radiosonde temperature records at altitude) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/ :
So, in other words:
(1) The “hotspot” has absolutely nothing to do with what you think it does and the most direct effect of its supposed absence would be that the climate models are including a negative feedback in them that does not actually exist.
(2) Given the known issues of the data and the wide-ranging differences in the different analyses of the data, the conclusion that the “hotspot” is absent is not warranted anyway.
joeldshore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031657
Henry says
Your whole argument falls with my results, here,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and my results fall if you can bring me similar tables with different results.
(Note the development of maximum temperatures)
Gail says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031620
Henry says
either you are a genius
or perhaps you are an expert in collecting knowledge from all those commenting on this blog?
By the way, since the lapse rate feedback is not hard to understand, it is worthwhile briefly explaining it: When CO2 increases, it causes a radiative imbalance; that is, the Earth is now emitting less radiation back out into space than it is receiving from the sun. The result is that it will warm until the radiative balance is again restored. Since most of the radiation that successfully escapes to space occurs at higher altitudes in the troposphere, it is this region that must warm by a certain amount in order to restore the radiative balance.
But, tropical tropospheric amplification says that the troposphere at altitude in the tropics warms faster than at the surface. Hence, the surface temperature increase necessary to produce the required temperature increase at altitude is lower than it would be if the tropical troposphere warmed uniformly with height. This is referred to as the lapse rate feedback and it is a negative feedback because it reduces the climate sensitivity from what it would be in its absence.
Gail Combs
July 13, 2012 at 9:00 am
(I think I am going to be sick…)
###
I think Robin has been researching the same stuff I have. What I have been finding out will make one more then just sick. You think its any accident that the average College grad can not hold two independent concepts in their head at the same time?
@ur momisugly climatetruthinitiative July 13, 2012 at 7:30 am
I quite agree. To English ears it can sometimes sound very pretentious indeed, especially coming from the mouths of those badly educated, low-level, bureaucratic types — you know, people with hideous accents like that nauseating Barbara Roche. Definately!
As for Lord Monckton’s Latin: CAESAR ADSUM JAM FORTE. Q.E.D.
Oh wait – he’s a Cambridge classicist! Fair enough then.
In any event, more power to him. Excellent stuff. 🙂
joeldshore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/moncktons-reply-to-eos-on-climate-denial/#comment-1031677
Henry says
that does not make sense (to me) unless or until you give me a relevant balance sheet (in the right dimensions) of how much warming and how much cooling (both radiative and due to increase in photo synthesis) is caused by the increase in CO2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/uah-global-temperature-for-june-2012-up-slightly/#comment-1028920
Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently.
———–
Hmmmm. Was this unprovoked attack anything like the incredibly chivalrous Lord Moncton’s unprovoked attack on that woman at a conference, published here at WUWT.
Here, in the land of real men, the rule is: if you can’t take, it don’t dish it out.
Joel Shore, with the characteristic unscientific impoliteness that makes him so relentlessly unconvincing, attacks one of the commenters here for having dared to cite with approval my paper on the significant real-world absence of the model-predicted tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot”, which I had the honor of naming.
Mr. Shore bloviates: “If your statements here were meant to demonstrate that Monckton does real science then you have not succeeded since your statements show only complete confusion and ignorance of the subject (although, to be fair, I don’t know what part of that is attributable to Monckton and what part is yours alone).”
And yah-boo to you too.
Eventually, Mr. Shore gets around to the pseudo-scientific point he is trying to make: “The predicted ‘hot-spot’ … is not CO2-induced and has nothing to do with CO2 capturing IR and re-radiating it back to the surface. It is a prediction of how warming will occur in the atmosphere due to any cause (including El Nino, for example) and follows from the fact that the temperature profile with altitude in the tropics is expected to generally closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate profile. It is not a necessary requirement for anthropogenic global warming.”
Mr. Shore is of course entitled to his point of view. But 50 years of real-world mid-troposphere temperature measurements by drop-sondes, balloon-mounted radiosondes and satellites do not show, as the models do, a tropical mid-troposphere warming rate that is twice to thrice the surface warming rate. It is fashionable among post-modernist climate “scientists” to reject the data to the extent that they disagree with models, and that is what Mr. Shore seems to be doing here.
Let me briefly correct Mr. Shore by summarizing the science from the models this way:
1. The ability to distinguish between climate responses to different external forcing factors in observations depends on the extent to which those responses are distinct. The modeled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings.
2. The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to anthropogenic forcings. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere, with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but, in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere.
In contrast to Mr. Shore’s statement that the mid-troposphere hot-spot would be expected regardless of the forcings that triggered it, the models predict a very clear distinction between the significantly greater and more concentrated mid-troposphere warming caused by manmade forcings and the lesser and very much more diffuse vertical warming profile caused natural forcings such as that from the Sun.
Would it not have been better if Mr. Shore had admitted that he considers his precious models to have gotten matters wrong in this respect (as perhaps they have), rather than accusing me of a confusion for which I am not to blame? That confusion arises not from any misunderstanding on my part but from the official interpretations by climate “scientists” of results from the official models. So, yet again, Mr. Shore – in attacking me personally rather than admitting that the models had made an error – has it exactly wrong. When he learns to eschew ad-hominem arguments and concentrate exclusively and dispassionately upon science, his contributions may begin to become useful.