Watts et al gets a mention.
3. NEW INFORMATION ON SURFACE TEMPERATURE PROCESSES
In general, the issue of global warming is dominated by considering the near-surface air
temperature (Tsfc) as if it were a standard by which one might measure the climate
impact of the extra warming due to increases in greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the
proper variable to measure is heat content, or the amount of heat energy (measured in
joules) in the climate system, mainly in the oceans and atmosphere. Thus the basic
measurement for detecting greenhouse warming is how many more joules of energy are
accumulating in the climate system over that which would have occurred naturally. This
is a truly “wicked” problem (see House Testimony, Dr. Judith Curry, 17 Nov 2010)
because we do not know how much accumulation can occur naturally.
Unfortunately, discussions about global warming focus on Tsfc even though it is affected
by many more processes than the accumulation of heat in the climate system. Much has
been documented on the problems, and is largely focused on changes in the local environment, i.e. buildings, asphalt, etc. This means that using Tsfc, as measured today,
as a proxy for heat content (the real greenhouse variable) can lead to an overstatement of
greenhouse warming if the two are assumed to be too closely related.
A new paper by my UAHuntsville colleague Dr. Richard McNider (McNider et al. 2012)
looked at reasons for the fact daytime high temperatures (TMax) are really not warming
much while nighttime low temperatures (TMin) show significant warming. This has
been known for some time and found in several locations around the world (e.g.
California – Christy et al. 2006, East Africa – Christy et al. 2009, Uganda – just released
data). Without going into much detail, the bottom line of the study is that as humans
disturb the surface (cities, farming, deforestation, etc.) this disrupts the normal formation
of the shallow, surface layer of cooler air during the night when TMin is measured. In a
complicated process, due to these local changes, there is greater mixing of the naturally
warmer air above down to the shallow nighttime cool layer. This makes TMin warmer,
giving the appearance of warmer nights over time. The subtle consequence of this
phenomenon is that TMin temperatures will show warming, but this warming is from a
turbulent process which redistributes heat near the surface not to the accumulation of
heat related to greenhouse warming of the deep atmosphere. The importance of this is
that many of the positive feedbacks that amplify the CO2 effect in climate models depend
on warming of the deep atmosphere not the shallow nighttime layer.
During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer. Thus, the daily high temperature (TMax) is a better proxy of the heat content of
the deep atmosphere since that air is being mixed more thoroughly down to where the
thermometer station is. The relative lack of warming in TMax is an indication that the
rate of warming due to the greenhouse effect is smaller than models project (Section 2).
The problem with the popular surface temperature datasets is they use the average of the
daytime high and nighttime low as their measurement (i.e. (TMax+TMin)/2). But if
TMin is not representative of the greenhouse effect, then the use of TMin with TMax will
be a misleading indicator of the greenhouse effect. TMax should be viewed as a more
reliable proxy for the heat content of the atmosphere and thus a better indicator of the
enhanced greenhouse effect. This exposes a double problem with models. First of all,
they overwarm their surface compared with the popular surface datasets (the non-circle
symbols in Fig. 2.1). Secondly, the popular surface datasets are likely warming too much
to begin with. This is why I include the global satellite datasets of temperature which are
not affected by these surface problems and more directly represent the heat content of the
atmosphere (see Christy et al. 2010, Klotzbach et al. 2010).
Fall et al. 2011 found evidence for spurious surface temperature warming in certain US
stations which were selected by NOAA for their assumed high quality. Fall et al.
categorized stations by an official system based on Leroy 1999 that attempted to
determine the impact of encroaching civilization on the thermometer stations. The result
was not completely clear-cut as Fall et al. showed that disturbance of the surface around a
station was not a big problem, but it was a problem. A new manuscript by Muller et al.
2012, using the old categorizations of Fall et al., found roughly the same thing. Now,
however, Leroy 2010 has revised the categorization technique to include more details of
changes near the stations. This new categorization was applied to the US stations of Fall
et al., and the results, led by Anthony Watts, are much clearer now. Muller et al. 2012
did not use the new categorizations. Watts et al. demonstrate that when humans alter the
immediate landscape around the thermometer stations, there is a clear warming signal
due simply to those alterations, especially at night. An even more worrisome result is
that the adjustment procedure for one of the popular surface temperature datasets actually increases the temperature of the rural (i.e. best) stations to match and even exceed the more urbanized (i.e. poor) stations. This is a case where it appears the adjustment process took the spurious warming of the poorer stations and spread it throughout the entire set of stations and even magnified it. This is ongoing research and bears watching as other factors as still under investigation, such as changes in the time-of-day readings were taken, but at this point it helps explain why the surface measurements appear to be warming more than the deep atmosphere (where the greenhouse effect should appear.)
Full testimony PDF here: christy-testimony-2012
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anybody catch Joe Bastaridi’s piece in the USA Today? It’s worth a look
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-07-31/Joe-Bastardi-WeatherBELL-Analytics/56623728/1
Well,they are sneering over at the New York Times that Watts here discovered that the temperature rises and falls within a 24 hour period yet both promoters and dissents in this sordid business do not know the actual dynamics behind those daily temperature fluctuations and especially the modelers who imagine the 24 hour day falls out of step with one rotation of the Earth to the unimaginable tune of 1465 rotations to 1461 days via Ra/Dec reasoning,if it can be called reasoning at all.
I see all these guys who never saw a graph that they didn’t like yet couldn’t interpret the primary fact of of a round and rotating Earth and how temperatures keep in step with that massive temperature fluctuation.
In the end,one side looks the same as the other in the most unfortunate way.
Well. What did I tell you. Keep an eye on maxima and it will tell you almost everything.
Good comment from cbltoo.
I think what we were reading was Dr. Christie’s prepared remarks. Was his verbal testimony closer to his one page summary (see PDF link)
Excuse me for the poor proofreading – the massive daily temperature fluctuations keep in step with one rotation of the Earth,once a day and 1461 times in 1461 days/4 years.Maybe you can all throw a party when this primary fact is discovered because the modelers and their graphs refuse to accept the dynamic behind this most primary of all facts known to man.
Tmin indeed !,what I wouldn’t give to sit down with reasonable men and point of the difficulties at certain junctures and outline a stable and productive perspective for global climate.
I don’t know if anyone heard the Q&A segment of the testimony, but Chairperson Boxer asked about the new Watts et. all paper. Apparently it is a reference in Christy’s written submission to the committee.
Congressmen Boxer specifically asked if it had been peer reviewed – which, of course, it hasn’t yet. Obviously, she was coached to ask that question. Then she dismissed it because it has not.
Don says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:31 am
“During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer.”
There seem to be some steps missing in this cause/effect statement. Please clarify to this layman. Is it because the surface, as it becomes warmer than the boundary air, heats it by conduction, initiating convection and thus mixing?
——————————————
I agree. I think Dr Christy wanted to avoid a hot button topic like convection, so he talked about deep layer mixing instead, which of course is caused by convection. In the daylight hours as soon as rising surface temperatures cause the adiabatic lapse rate to be exceeded convection initiates, the heat load is shifted from radiation to convection, and further temperature rise is limited. At the equator over the oceans it is actually capped at 30 ºC.
I am glad John R. Christy exists. A real scientist with both legs planted on the ground, while measuring the temperature in the athmosphere. Every time I hear him, it gives me a hope that, yes, there is still hope for the Western civilisation.
I agree strongly with cbltoo, up toward the top comments, please read it, it’s excellent.
You have to speak to people using their language. The alarmists are better at convincing the laymen because they can speak succinctly AND in layman’s terms.
Stop speaking to Congress as if they are academics or care about facts. In general, socialists have always been better and convincing and here’s why: They don’t have the facts, so they MUST have THE TALK. If you want to be heard, learn the language of politics.
A politician want you to do one of two things. Either speak in such a way to conform to their agenda, or give them such a start that they are inspired to rethink the whole shebang.
It’s one or the other. One shot.
“So let’s see, the dinosaurs being cold blooded thrived when the earth was a lot warmer than it is today. ”
there is a considerable body of opinion supporting the idea that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/i/warmblooded_2.htm
@ur momisugly azleader. 12.07pm Then Congresswoman Boxer is a very silly girl. Sceptic lawmakers can now ask the same question of warmist, “evidence”. If the evidence has not been peer-reviewed she is bound to reject it, or turn the whole proceedings into a farce.
In addition to reporting Tmins and Tmaxs, another way of reporting temperature would be to integrate the temperature over time, and then determine the centroid for 24-hour periods; and/or periods when the sun is up, and when it is not.
Dont want to be a grump, but… We continually win the war with facts, but lose the battles with bad communications. The vast majority of commenters from the alarmist side are social scientists (Mooney at Desmog, etc) even Al Gore who has a theology bachelors who are professional communicators. It’s not about the facts – its about influencing opinion not debating one set of data against another. Desmog is run by David Suzukis PR firm for heavens sake.
Are there no PR advisors who could help the realist scientists convince ordinary people and politicians?
pochas says:
August 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Don says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:31 am
“During the day, the sun generally heats up the surface, and so air is mixed through a deep
layer.”
There seem to be some steps missing in this cause/effect statement. Please clarify to this layman. Is it because the surface, as it becomes warmer than the boundary air, heats it by conduction, initiating convection and thus mixing?
——————————————
I agree. I think Dr Christy wanted to avoid a hot button topic like convection, so he talked about deep layer mixing instead, which of course is caused by convection. In the daylight hours as soon as rising surface temperatures cause the adiabatic lapse rate to be exceeded convection initiates, the heat load is shifted from radiation to convection, and further temperature rise is limited. At the equator over the oceans it is actually capped at 30 ºC.
_________________________
Ah, clarity! Thanks for that!
And I want to express gratitude to Dr. Christy for being willing to step out of the landing craft into the stream of gunfire. I appreciate that many of our Honorable Leaders can’t and won’t learn anything that might contradict their dearly-held mythologies, so instead it seems to me that the good Dr. has tried to get as much good data into the record as possible for those who have not yet become slaves to lucrative ignorance. A worthwhile foray, I think. Like Omaha Beach, the outcome is all but inevitable, but a lot of bloodshed still to come before it is achieved.
@noaaprogrammer,
Yes, that would be better in theory but it would require entirely new instruments and would be imposible to compare with temperature records even a few years old.
Temps can change drastically in just a few minutes when you are right on the edge of a front. Your method would require temp readings at sub hour if not sub minute intervals.
Agree with cbltoo. The term we use is BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front). Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and finally tell them what you just told them.
Robert Brown says: “All very reasonable. Too bad Christy doesn’t connect this to Koutsoyiannis’ recent results….If Christy’s mixing, Leroy’s warming/bias, Watts’ station bias, precisely correspond to Koutsoyiannis’ INDEPENDENTLY observed statistical bias in Europe and elsewhere in the world — a completely independent dataset — it would be pretty powerful evidence of problems with the surface data.”
Excellent comment, as usual.
Very lucid explanation.
Probably only a few members of the committee will understand it though.
For the Sen. Boxer types, in my opinion, the explanation should be of the the “Willis Elevator speech” type. Even then, in Boxer’s case, …doubtful understanding …”Rosemarie Kabibi” syndrome, etc. and she’s the chair!
Theo Goodwin says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:50 am
What do you propose we do with the decades of data that are max/min temperatures recorded by hand from max/min thermometers? Replace it with treering data?
I agree with cbltoo. When talking to Congress or the public, you have to think like advertisers or film makers. You have to use language that will grab the attention immediately and not let go. Use emotive words, words that speak from and to the heart.
Look at what the others side pushes: Distaster, extreme, “getting worse”. It’s like reading the back of an exciting book or movie script. “The End of the Earth is approaching. We’re all going to drown or fry. Will bold strategy Save the Day?” Of course you’re going to read the book or see the movie, it sounds exciting.
We have to sound exciting and more so. What have we got? They’ve got horror-story, we’ve got spy-thriller. Let’s use it. It’s true. People are lying to the government, misleading politicians and the public, stealing billions of dollars with the aim to bankrupt and destroy civilization. Will we get word out to the misinformed public? We have to… but the MSM is corrupt…” The games behind the scenes are all about back-stabbing and subterfuge. Exciting stuff, let’s sell it.
I’m not joking. We have to punch it up and sex it up. That’s what grabs the attention. The truth is the backbone, don’t get me wrong, but with 30 second attention spans, that truth has to look pretty or at least exciting. You want your audience to sit up straighter and focus on what you’re telling them, not slide down in their seats and start daydreaming about something else, or worse, fall asleep. You want them to remember YOU and WHAT YOU SAID not what the other side said, no matter how exciting their horror-story is, you’ve got a spy-thriller.
We have to sell them the spy-thriller.
An increased greenhouse effect, by slowing radiation to space, would be expected to warm Tmin more than Tmax. The argument that Tmax is a better proxy than Tmin for heat content is a bit stretched in my opinion. I am listening and sympathetic but not fully convinced.
With regard to my previous comment, what might convince me is some actual data from pristine stations not subject to changes in mixing of the boundary layers at night showing that in those places Tmin has NOT increased.
Cuts to the crux of Tmin if Senators would ask for math help: “… bottom line … humans disturb …formation of … surface layer of cooler air during the night … greater mixing of …shallow nighttime cool layer … giving the appearance of warmer nights ….”
Joe Prins says:
August 1, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thats been covered here before. In a nushell… yes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
I agree the sales pitch is missing – there are no catastrophes on the skeptics side to trot out, only a Tropical Paradise Earth, that isn’t going to scare anyone into action …. Or is there?
How many people will die from burning food for fuel – flour at 17 MJ/kg is the most viable fuel after coal.
How many people will die because of delayed action on cancer and other morbidities due to misdirection of funding to climate change and how many families will vote out the parliaments who misdirected the funds that prevented their cure
How many pensioners will die of hypothermia because Power costs are too high, (and how many family members will vote out the parliaments who made the laws that killed them)
Global warming mitigation – Kills!