Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Since the slowdown in surface warming over the last 15 years has been a popular topic recently, I thought I would show results for the lower tropospheric temperature (LT) compared to climate models calculated over the same atmospheric layers the satellites sense.
Courtesy of John Christy, and based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, below is a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 – 2025 for the models:
Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models. The reasons for the disagreement are not obvious, since there are at least a few possibilities:
Read the rest here at Dr. Spencer’s blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@richardscourtney
Of course, and glad to oblige.
But you agree with my conclusions only because we agree in general. If I had been a warmist instead of onlyna lukewarmist, posting pretend data with opposite conclusions, there would have been a kerffuffle. That is why I strongly believe it obligatory to go check everything yourself, since in climate science no one can be trusted. Heck, I don’t even trust me…sometimes.
That is why WUWT crowd sourced weather stations project is so very important. Crowd sourced facts-observations and pictures- put the lie to homogenization and show there is a definite UHI ( or local HI as some have advocated for the name) bias. By itself, it says little other than the science isn’t settled. Add it to all the other ‘little’ observations like missing heat, no troposphere hotspot, sensitivity recalibration, this thread, ice at both poles, …. And one builds a strong case for CAGW nonsense. But each ‘fact’ should be checked by everyone for themselves, which is easy these days.
Nullius in Verba is the motto of Newton’s Royal Society. Was good then, is good now.
Regards and thanks
BW, some of the newest GCMs do attempt to incorporate the entire carbon cycle, which as you point out has a significant biological component. (But not exclusively so on time scales of about 800 to 1000 years thanks to Henry’s Law and LeChatellier’s principal, both rooted in physical chemistry, ocean CO2, and the reason Al Gore was so wrong about the Vostok Ice core.
That said, any modlemnotmincluding biogenic sequestration is obviously flawed. That is ( to the best of my knowledge and belief) all of AR4 and most of AR5.
Very good point, Sir. I merely attempt to make it more precise.
Regards
Rud Istvan:
At April 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm you say to me
That is absolutely untrue and is deeply offensive!
For example, on another thread earlier today I made a post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/18/another-paper-finds-lower-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1278866
which began saying
Richard
Obviously the 44 models do not have much of a handle on the Earth’s climate. A model is simply a calculation made with certain assumptions. So who in fact did these 44 calculations, as a group, and did anybody make any calculations that were more accurate making different assumptions, which we could then place more faith in?
These are 44 model runs, the actual number of models is around 17 IIRC.
I think the reason for the discrepancy is obvious. The theory behind the models is wrong.
kretchetov says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:00 am
Now what that graph tells me is this – natural selection. As the system they are trying to model is chaotic, any model contains a number of fudge factors, and can be made to show, warming, catastrophic or not, stable climate, or cooling, depending on the wish of the modeller.
So any model not conforming to the political views at the time will not be accepted or funded. Hence we have the “consensus”, and all of the “scientists” who followed each other produced – surprise, similar looking, but entirely wrong results.
Gavin Schmidt has admitted the output of climate models is basically just a quantification of the opinions of the modellers.
Once the models are tuned to match historical data, at a certain point the tweaking stops and the dials are glued in place. While tuning, some models put more CO2 fudge factor in, some put more ENSO fudge factor in, some put more dust or lack there of in, some put more or less water vapor in, and some do other adjustments. They keep tweaking their favorite dials till they have a match they can live with. That’s why there are separate models. Each group of scientists have their own favorite dials. Once they have a hindcasted match they glue the dials in place, so to speak, and let’r run forward. So what I am saying is that there are actually two models hooked together at a certain point. One model allows tweaking, the other does not. But the two models appear to be the same model because there is no label identifying the point in time when the tweaking/tuning stopped.
What bothers me is that one, it leaves one with the impression that they got it right in the beginning because they were so knowledgable about how climate works. Second, it serves to make the descrepancy that builds the fault of the actual observations, not the models. We see that kind of thinking when someone decides that a reconstruction was not done right so they re-measure and come up with something more to their liking.
Good point by Ian W on April 18, 2013 at 3:31 am.
Here is my layman take on CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and IR radiation in the 15 micron band. EVERY molecule is ‘warmer’ than 194K (-79C) due collisions with surrounding N2, O2 and Ar molecules. 194K is peak emission temperature for 15 microns. Below that temperature 15 micron radiation drops off rapidly. Not a problem for the atmosphere. While the CO2 molecules are being battered about, statistics show it can, at some time, emit a 15 micron photon. Only in the short period before the next collision will the CO2 molecule be able to absorb a passing 15 micron photon (from any direction, not necessarily from surface only). I fail to see any ‘heat’ transfer in that reaction. To me it seems CO2 molecules can radiate more than they absorb, especially in the lower high density atmosphere levels. I see this as a cooling effect.
There is no doubt that 15 micron radiation is reaching the surface from CO2 in the atmosphere but the surface is much warmer than 194K (-79C) so is unlikely to absorb much of that radiation. Whatever is absorbed will leave the surface almost instantly as the below surface molecules much higher levels of energy up to the surface. I cannot see how ‘back radiation’ from CO2 15 micron radiation can warm anything.
Factor analysis of the curves yielded two strong components;
1) The minute you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist. and,
2) Garbage in = garbage out.