(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Satellite readings, which are much more accurate, show that the earth is in fact cooling.
I wonder how long before this one stops coming up?
Answer: There are a few advantages to the satellite readings,mainly the more uniform global coverage and the fact that readings can be taken at different altitudes. However, it is an extremely complicated process which uses microwaves emitted by the oxygen in the atmosphere as a proxy for temperature.
The complications arise from many things, including decay of the satellite orbits, splicing together and calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the signals by the layer of atmosphere they originate from, etc. It is a little ironic that the same people who distrust the surface record so happily embrace this even-more-convoluted exercise in data processing!
Anyway, it has been many years since the satellite analysis showed cooling.
Until recently, though, one of the many analyses of tropospheric temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct contradiction to model predictions that say the troposphere should warm significantly in an enhanced greenhouse environment. Something had to be wrong, the observations or the model predictions. Naturally, the skeptics had no doubt it was the models that were off.
However, it turns out that additional errors were uncovered and the MSU Satellite temperature analysis now shows warming well in line with model expectations. Real Climate has a good rundown of the technical details for those with the stomach for it. In short, this long-running debate turned out to be a great validation of the models and a real death blow to the "earth is not warming" crowd.
Beware of zombies!
(image from Global
Warming Art)
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Threaded
Zarkov Posted 10:08 am
04 Nov 2006
As the air dries (it loses humidity), "normal air temperature readings" (NATR) will show cooling. The air loses heat capacity, and can not heat up as fast as "wet air".
As the clouds disappear, the NATR will show a slight heating, because more sunshine will penetrate to ground level... and that is where we live.. But this heating will not in itself create new absolute maximum temperature records. What we see is new relative maximum temperature records for that time of year. That is to say, the Sun's radiation to earth is relatively stable.
If all was as expected by current models, the increased radiation would lead to an increase in humidity which would increase the NATR.. However induced cloud cover would then increase, reducing the NATR.
So we have competing factors, which has confused everyone.
Now when clouds disappear, the little humidity left in the atmosphere will only condense as ice crystals high in the stratosphere. These ice crystals are stable and as they build up they will reduce the sunshine reaching the ground by quite a lot, though not in comparison to lower cloud cover.
Ice reduced sunshine and no low clouds and dry air, leads to a confused picture for climatologists, who are only relying on NATR.
However this is what is happening. This picture is not consistent with a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect as popularly modeled.
So it is no wonder satellites, and people on the ground seem to getting confused and contradicting pictures.
When the climate problem and its effects become really clear, as is seen in Australia, then all the discrepancies will be easily explained in hindsight.
But hindsight is way too late.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 10:59 am
04 Nov 2006
I can however spot a few basic errors:
water vapour does not naturally exist in the stratosphere
wet air has a higher, not lower, heat capacity
the air is not in general drying. Warmer air holds more moisture.
the satellites and the people on the ground do not present contradicting pictures
surface, troposheric and stratospheric observations are indeed consistent with model expectations in an enhanced greenhouse.
HTH
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:06 am
05 Nov 2006
It might be worth pointing out that, given what we expect for global warming, the troposphere is expected (and, indeed, observed) to warm, but the stratosphere is expected to cool. Thus the sluggish recovery of the ozone layer (colder stratosphere-->less ozone).
So we expect part of the atmosphere to warm and part to cool.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 2:30 am
05 Nov 2006
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
jobobtwc Posted 6:39 pm
13 Nov 2006
Permalink
elstinko Posted 8:18 am
27 Dec 2006
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies find
By Ker Than
Updated: 4:51 p.m. CT Aug 11, 2005
For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.
Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analysis.
The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.
While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.
"But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.
Oops!
Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.
For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.
But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.
Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.
"It's like being outside on a hot day--it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.
Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data--which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were--the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.
The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.
"Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.
Argument evaporates
According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.
"This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."
The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.
But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.
After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.
Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.
"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."
Permalink
Ivriniel Posted 7:09 am
24 Feb 2007
I just started looking at this site, but I have noticed a few things that I feel deserve comment. First, there are many blanket statements made with little or no supporting evidence.
---
Um, isn't this also a blanket statement? ;)
Ivriniel
Permalink
gravy Posted 3:20 pm
20 Apr 2007
Statements like the one above do little to actually prove anything:
"It is a little ironic that the same people who distrust the surface record so happily embrace this even-more-convoluted exercise in data processing!"
This is basically admitting that in fact all of the data is too complex for anyine to interpret with certainty, and therefore undermines the whole argument behind the crisis theory.
As a skeptic about everything, and former philosophy major, i see basic flaws not in the science, as I am no scientist, but the way of arguing that global warming is a crisis.
The problem is that the onus is on the global warming crisis side to prove their point, not the skeptical side.
Science draws on philosophy for its fundamental proof methodology. In philosophy, the argument that god exists because i can think of him does not wash because it is unprovable. the global warming crisis argument loses out because of this same problem.
Double standards like the following just will not wash in convincing reasonable skeptics like myself:
Data that crisis proponents point to is complicated but reliable, whereas data that skeptics point to is complicated and therefore unreliable.
There are always regional fluctuations in global temperature, and the ones that support our argument are reliable evidence, whereas the ones that undermine it are just exceptions that prove the rule.
There is consensus in the scientific community on global warming. All of the scientists, no matter how many, who disagree with the consensus somehow, do not undermine the consensus argument, but rather are quacks or paid by the oil companies. This is regardless of the fact that global warming crisis proponents have billions of dollars in research grants.
The last point bears further comment. Studies that support the crisis theory will get more money, and be published more often than studies that show conflicting evidence or nothing at all.
And finally, the mere premise of this series, "how to talk to a skeptic" shows how dogmatic the crisis proponent argument has become. Proponents of the crisis view, possessing less than smoking -gun evidence have to resort to converting the skeptical unwashed.
The whole situation is starting to resemble the pre-Iraq invasion rhetoric spouted by the White House. Dissenters are traitors. With us, or against us.
Again, I applaud any efforts to clean up the environment and make it better for our children, but I fear that this particular issue has been hijacked, not by true humanist environmentalists, but rather hard-core anti-capitalists of the luddite kind, which is fine if that`s truly what they want. But then they shouldn`t try to pretend their goal is saving the environment.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 1:13 pm
21 Apr 2007
I have a vew varied points to make to you.
The problem is that the onus is on the global warming crisis side to prove their point, not the skeptical side.
On the vernacular level I disagree strongly with this. I believe, and most other policy areas in western societies reflect this, that the burden of proof is on those who which to alter a natural state. The climate system exists and functions as it is, if we are proposing actions that will alter it, it is encumbent on those who advocate these actions to prove that no harm will come of it. Putting tremendous amounts of a significant greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, where it will remain for centuries, should be convincingly shown to be harmless before we accept doing it.
Secondly, as a philosopher you should be aware that in science there is no such thing as proof, that is for logic and mathematics. All we can hope to acheive is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, a comprehensive and internally consistent theory and successful predictions. In climate science, we have this.
About your complaint about my snarky remark, I must plead guilty as charged. However, keep in mind I was not saying that this is what one should believe, (ie "satellites are complicated, don't believe them") rather I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the so-called skeptics who are only skeptical of what they don't want to hear ("surface records are complicated, trust the satellites").
As for complex data, there is plent of territory between too complicated for an average layperson to understand and too complicated for an expert in their field to understand. I presume that satellite readings of tropospheric microwave readings fall in this realm. Recall that it is not the scientists who understand the complexities that make the absolute claims of reliability, it is the cherry picking advocates (and this can include people on both sides).
Respectfully, your three objectional arguments enumerated above are strawmen, I will not defend them, I have never made them.
Studies that support the crisis theory will get more money, and be published more often than studies that show conflicting evidence or nothing at all.
I was wondering if you have some data or research that supports this notion? I think in science the more appealing goal is to overturn previously held beliefs. If this doesn't happen, I think you need a very convincing reason to assume it is because of corruption or narrow mindedness rather than becasue the beliefs are consistent with empirical reality. And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion.
the mere premise of this series, "how to talk to a skeptic" shows how dogmatic the crisis proponent argument has become. Proponents of the crisis view, possessing less than smoking -gun evidence have to resort to converting the skeptical unwashed.
I think you may have misunderstood the premise, I am only trying to address the clearly substanceless arguments that are out there. I don't believe there is one article that is not on very solid logical and empirical ground, please let me know if I am wrong. I respect real skepticism, but real skeptics (well informed ones at any rate) do not make the claims that I address here.
You also mistake informed opinion for dogmatism. You can not fairly make such an accusation about me until such time as you see me reject some reality or another simply because I am incapable of changing my mind. (btw, where has this series emphasized crisis? That is consistent with my feelings on the matter but these articles are really meant to be about the science not the values).
Thanks for the thoughtfull comment!
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"
-- unknown
Permalink
Mad Scientist Posted 3:52 pm
30 May 2007
Measurement of surface temperature (over land) and Sea Surface Temperature (SST) is not a trivial exercise because the atmosphere interferes so much with all measurements. But this is surface temperature; when people talk of global warming it is the air temperature being discussed. Although influenced by surface temperature, you can't adequately predict air temperature from surface temperature using available remote measurement data.
Forget about estimating air temperature near the surface when you analyze for surface temperatures. Contemporary satellite instruments simply cannot measure temperature near the ground.
Numerous air temperature measurements are made by a number of satellite instruments - but these are primarily at altitudes way above the ground so they are not directly relevant. If you measure a cooler stratosphere that doesn't mean temperatures near the ground have also gone down - the physics just isn't that simple.
Mostly this 'satellites show cooling' argument is based on ignorance of exactly what is being measured and how. Speaking of ignorance, Zharkov demonstrates a truly profound ignorance on all topics on which he comments. Does anyone know if he is a manager? He certainly cannot be a scientist. I always have a good laugh at Zharkov's expense - he clearly knows everything and nothing.
Permalink
Mad Scientist Posted 4:52 pm
30 May 2007
The globe is warming up (there is no evidence to the contrary and skeptics who claim otherwise are true bastions of ignorance)
CO2 does cause a warming. Using fairly straightforward calculations we can arrive at a minimal warming. However, it has long been supposed that the effect may be amplified by a feedback mechanism. So it is generally agreed that the warming must be greater than this minimum. How much greater? No one knows. What about the models? HAHAHA! Personally I think the modellers are the voodoo priests of climate change and do more harm than good. How about a negative feedback - could more CO2 = cooler temperatures? Well, no one has come up with a credible mechanism for that and there is absolutely no evidence to support such an idea.
How do we humans fit into this? Over the years people have estimated CO2 emission (actually as grams or kg of carbon rather than CO2) from direct human consumption of coal, oil, natural gas. The true numbers may be somewhat higher or somewhat lower, but even if you halved them (which will definitely be too low an estimate) we make a significant contribution to global atmospheric CO2. (need some references on that) In fact the calculations (available in any good textbook) show that something is soaking up a lot of the CO2 we humans are putting out. We are fortunate that there is a large natural sink somewhere - but that sink is simply not good enough because CO2 levels continue to rise at an incredible rate.
How about the contribution from changes in the sun and our geometry (orbit, tilt, etc)? Geometry has been determined to an unbelievable degree for quite a few decades and scientists and modellers can compensate for geometry. Over the past 15 years or so we've also had excellent space based measurements of the sun, and for the past 80 years or so we've had pretty good measurements of the sun from the earth's surface. Some measurement techniques go back to over 120 years but it is truly a challenge to equate many of those measurements to any modern measurements we make. Anyway, we know the sun well enough to compensate for its effects on the warming. Now for the shocking bit: regardless of what the sun does and how the earth's motion and attitude changes, CO2 will still be warming the air. Blaming all warming on astrophysics serves no purpose whatsoever. Now, even after scientists do their best to account for the sun etc, we find that the globe is still warming. Oh, what a shock. Damn CO2 just won't go away.
In short, yes the globe is warming and yes humans are having a significant effect. I cannot understand why the IPCC makes such inane statements as "90% probability humans are having an effect" - I really can't make any sense of that statement. Do they mean there's a 10% chance we have no effect at all? I say bollocks to that - there is a 100% probability that humans are having an effect. How big an effect? Who really knows - but we can estimate a minimum (anyone know of a recent calculation of this?). It would be irresponsible to say 'poo-poo' and 'we can't change this' because ultimately there is a genuine threat to species on the planet. It makes no sense to say "we can't do anything" until we've put in an honest effort and analysed the result of that effort. So can we ameliorate this warming? Well, that remains to be seen. I'm betting a case of beer that the wishy-washy fools win and nothing is done and some generation in the future will find that it genuinely can do nothing.
Permalink
Micawber Posted 11:18 am
17 Jun 2007
It is not contradictory to say that data is complex and then derive conclusions from it providing an explanation is given of how the complexities were sorted out. Conclusions are derived from complex data all the time. You should read a little more carefully. This stuff takes patience.
Perhaps this is a good time to mention that scientists are biased. It has been shown time and time again that scientists will collect and interpret data that supports priori conclusions regardless of the actual state of things. I am not making this up, these are scientists who published their raw data and, when that data was compiled by someone else later, the results were often dramatically altered. I'm in no way trying to belittle scientists or say that this is always the case or even intentional, I'm just saying that bias is inherent in science and its influence cannot go ignored. I also believe that the effects of scientific bias reach far deeper than anyone wants to admit.
So, in case that data you'd like to see happens not to support the conclusion you want, you have prepared a retreat: scientists cannot be trusted. That's good strategy, but poor thinking.
Yes, a few scientists have published bad data. A very few have done so deliberately. It does not happen often. Even if accidental, it can be very harmful to a person's career and is always embarrassing. If bias was as prevalent as you suggest, then the advancement of science becomes rather difficult to explain, as does the existence of the computer on which you are reading this. :)
Third, did you even read Zarkov's comment, or just skim it, scoff and refute it? You repeat what he said and offer it as evidence that he is wrong (e.g. he says that drier air has a lower heat capacity and you tell him he is wrong because wet air has a higher heat capacity...does anyone else see the contradiction here)? I guess my point is, you don't know near as much as you assert and your solid data isn't all that solid.
Zarkov does appear to have his facts wrong. Heat capacity is determined by density. Since wet air is more dense than dry air, it has a greater heat capacity. (When you open an oven and 300-400F air wafts over you, it is unpleasant and you certainly couldn't withstand that temperature for long. Spill boiling water on your hand (212F) and you may go to the hospital, or at least make use of a few choice words)
I don't know what to make of your closing remark, except that it appears you have already made up your mind without the benefit of that data you'd like to see. That's OK, as long as you are prepared to change your mind should the the data warrant. Be sure to read the arguments, too. Raw data's a little hard to chew.
Paragraphs are nice. :)
Permalink
Paulidan Posted 4:11 am
20 Jun 2008
So I assume those pesky errors were solved before the latest readings?
Oh, let me guess, some new instrumentation error is going to fall out of the heavens like mana and save your Millenarian scam.
Permalink
Voldemort Posted 2:17 pm
24 Jun 2008
Reality is what will save the "Millenarian scam".
Permalink
DaveK01 Posted 9:14 pm
02 Jul 2008
That being said, the difference in heat capacities between dry and wet air parcels is practically insignificant.
If you are talking about phase changes (i.e. cloud formation or dissipation), that's an entirely different discussion, and is not really about heat capacity.
Permalink