Do you think that atmospheric data disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory?

Question

If so, please read the following paper, primarily from NOAA.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/tmlw0601.pdf

After reading it please tell me, do you still think atmospheric data disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory? If so, why?

Answer 1

Tomcat:

Your answer is nuts. Read Chapter 5 of the full report, available here:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf

or section 4 of the summary.

The temperature records support the theory that anthropogenic gasses are affecting climate. You are picking the one thing the models and measurements don't agree on, predicting/measuring the tropical amplification trend (although both models and measurements agree on the variability), and ignoring all of the instances where the anthropogenic climate signal is crystal clear.

If the tropical amplification were critical in damning the temperature records, the summary for Chapter 5 would be screaming about how important it is and how it shows there is no evidence in the temperature record for anthropogenically induced warming. This is virtually certain given the definitive conclusions that open the chapter and the equivocating in the summary at the end.

The discussion of tropical temperatures starts on p113 of the full report and is pretty interesting. The point is they don't reach the conclusion in the summary (that it is likely their are systematic errors in the measurements of tropical temperature trends) in a vacuum.


TC:

The margins of Antartica are warming significantly. The interior is cooling, but that is due to the loss of ozone. To say that no warming has been observed in the Southern Hemisphere cuts against your reputation as "the thinking man's skeptic." Really, aside from a few reasoned opinions, you're just as entrenched in lousy science as the rest of the nuts. You would do well to read Pielke's website. He raises issues you can't just toss off with one link.

Answer 2

The shift in the radiosonde data at 1976 is an inconsistency that has not been resolved. The Radiosonde data has more problems than the satellite dataset. Of course your reference acknowledges that. It has never been my contention that the atmospheric temperature disproves AGW warming, just that it does not support it. Since the satellite dataset can be bench marked against El-Chichon, Pinatubo and 1997/98 El-Nino.La-Nina Oscillation, it would seem reliable enough to detect an enhanced greenhouse signature over the last thirty years if one were present.

A deceptively subtle quote from your reference:

"A potentially serious
inconsistency has
been identified in the
tropics. The favored
explanation for this is
residual error in the
observations, but the
issue is still open."

It would seem they have some work left to do, before ringing the alarm.

EDIT

Patrick we are talking about the troposphere today. And your real climate blog page is just an absolute tragedy. They are talking about all of the wonderful radiative opportunities that CO2 has in the 20+ micron range. The earth radiates energy in the 7-14 micron range.
.

EDIT3:

Gcnp58

Nuts hugh? Well since you have it all figured out, why does the Southern Hemisphere not show an AGW trend, the report makes it very clear that the radiosonde data coverage for the Southern Hemisphere is to sparse. Is 27 years of data not enough time to see a global warming signature in the Southern Hemisphere.

http://www.john-daly.com/nh-sh.htm

EDIT4:

Patrick:

If you notice on your outgoing spectrum (Blue), the tiny bit of energy to right of the main body. That is all that is escaping the atmosphere beyond 14 microns. The main body of outgoing energy is what greenhouse gases have to work with, which is centered at 10 microns. That is why CO2 at this point is saturated, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not deepen the absoprtion spectrum, you have tp widen the absorption frequency range. To do that you must add ever increasing amounts to have additional effects.
.
.

Answer 3

Well the atmosphere can't really tell us that much about the climate because its always changing. More greenhouse gasses are being emitted into the air, warming it up. The ozone layer is thinning in certain parts so i really don't know how it can disprove the "Atmospheric Global Warming Theory"

But that's just what i think.

Answer 4

The lower stratosphere graph shows a definite trend of decreasing stratospheric temperature.

Tomcat cut it off at around 1980 and plotted the data points(exluding the major volcano spikes) in excel and got a positive slope. Many skeptic web pages do the same thing. I think they are simply plotting the recovery after a volcanic event. The wide trend shows decreasing temperatures.

a volcanic event initially increases the low strat temp due to ghg effect

then it decreases it due to loss of ozone

the strat then recovers after a couple years (temp increases)

but after this recovery the temp finds itself lower than it started out at - this trend is clear in the graph.

Also, the upper stratosphere (40-50km) is a powerful indicator of increased greenhouse effect:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

another interesting article which im sure skeptics won't bother to read:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/langswitch_lang/sk

edit
i mean from a pure blackbody 7-14 micrometer curve peak for earth makes sense. but, here we have stated that up to 1/2 occurs occurs after 15.4 microns (states it in the abstract):
http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/estc-2002/Papers/B4P2(Mlynczak).pdf

from abs spec it doesn't look like any of the ghg's have strong abs in this 7-14 region except ozone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

edit 2
I think your mistaking the meaning of the spectrum.
I think this spectrum shows what leaves the planet in one emission event from the ground - it says nothing about what happens to the photon after it is absorbed. Once absorbed it will likely be emitted again - at the same wavelength - at this point it will continue on back out to space or reverse direction back to earth, if co2 concentration is high it will likely be absorbed again - each time it is absorbed it could transfer energy by collision or be emitted again - the concentration is very important.

also possible:
It doesn't say on the wiki link - but i suspect that these abs specs were of the pure substance(ie 100% concentration CO2) - conducted in a lab - this wouldn't say much about what is going on in the atmosphere.

Answer 5

What does the physics that the fashions remember on let us know. no want for references because you recognize them already. It tells us that water vapour has to advance. A paper that got here out final month says that water vapour decreased interior the final decade. It says that the OHC has to advance. they have decreased interior the previous 5, and has in basic terms better a million.5% of what Hansen anticipated it would advance over the final decade. It says the troposphere has to heat at a swifter value than floor temperatures. Observational records says that is not. regardless of if one takes your excuse that the records is defective, one would not no longer anticipate that they are warming on the value the GMC fashions say they ought to.

Answer 6

i wonder if the puffins that follow & fall off the cliff,that survive, walk off the cliff again in same fahion.
the word "anthropogenic" makes my globes warming.

Answer 7

Ah...... the old data didn't support our theory, it had errors in it, so here's new data.

= Amimal Farm.

Even if there were identifiable errors that have since been corrected, it's THEIR DATA. "We screwed up before but now, NOW we're on top of it."

Right.

Gary they've fixed the problem - now there's a prediction for every eventuality. If there's more warming, someone has predicted it. If the warming gives way to cooling, someone has predicted it. If nothing happens, someone has predicted THAT. Oh, now it's usually "fluctuations" - right - the weather's going to change........... the weather's ALWAYS changed, it's THE WEATHER.

The Emperor is naked.

Answer 8

No, I don't think that. So I didn't read your link.

Answer 9

I learned that in Historical geology..way back in the day...as a freshman in college!!! Not too long ago "warming" screamers were talking about the coming ice age!!!