Why are people arguing that Paltridge 2009 proves climate sensitivity is low?

The new denier argument – if I’m understanding it correctly – is that climate sensitivity is low because water vapor isn’t a significant positive feedback, which we know because of the results of the recent Paltridge paper.

The paper in question examines atmospheric water vapor data take from radiosondes (weather balloons) and finds

"the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity ‘q’ is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes…The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations"

However, this is stated with the following caveats:

"It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level."

"The upper-level negative trends in q are…largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data."

"These negative trends are not supported…by the few indications from satellite observations"

"It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/models/paltridge.2009.pdf

In short, as with any radiosonde data, there are large uncertainties with the NCEP water vapor data. It contradicts satellite water vapor data, which also has large uncertainties. In other words, nothing conclusive can be stated about this study.

Yet certain individuals are arguing that this study proves climate models are wrong and climate sensitivity is low. What’s up with that?
Ottawa – nobody does that. Nor is your hypothetical example anything like the claim in question…

Who in the world knows Troy Andrew Brission?

I have been going with this boy for 6 weeks and 4 days. I just want to know weather yall know him. ( If you do know him give me details of yourself so i can get to know his friends.)

Is this letter signed by 141 scientists to the SG of the UN a bunch of nonsense?

8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and
rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth
without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that
resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating
that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal
variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the
United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous
human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven
computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous
scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in
previous centuries;
1.
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global
climate;
2.
Help those most in need
Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger Support Concern Worldwide
www.concern.net
Public Service Ads by Google
Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General … Page 1 of 7
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?news.123 12/28/2009
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly
influence climate;
3.
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby
threatening small islands and coastal communities;
4.
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG
emissions;
7.
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects,
independent of the causes of those changes;
8.
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not
happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the
supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural
origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Benjamin, you then are not a scientist if you disagree with these scientists rights under the scientific method to ask these questions. You sir are one of the cultists who signed on to an issue as a matter of religion. Those who agree are making money off of their agreement, those who attempt to dispell these so-called facts are called fakes as Pegminer so often likes to do. You all have been caught up in a hoax and have been duped by science gone amok.

Isn’t this a KEY example of just how corrupt the surface data is? Is it time to call a time out on AGW craze?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
NOAA Claims: Global Summer Temperature Was Ninth Warmest – Questionable
9/16/2008
This just doesn’t seem to add up given what we’ve seen from anecdotal weather information and satellite data. For example the UAH global temperature for the lower troposphere shows that the temperature in 2008 doesn’t get anywhere close to this claim made by NOAA:
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for summer 2008 was 0.85 degrees F (0.47 degrees C) above the 20th century mean of 60.1 degrees F (15.6 degrees C).
From my perspective as surveyor of the USHCN network, and knowing firsthand just how corrupted the data measuring system is, I have a lot of trouble believing this claim. The satellite data says otherwise ……….. -0.010C.
Anthony Watts

You folks condemning a blog source just crack me up. You are simply scared ____-less of the blog’s author…. Anthony Watts. His findings have totally undermined the very fabric of AGW.
You folks condemning a blog source just crack me up. You are simply scared ____-less of the blog’s author…. Anthony Watts. His findings have totally undermined the very fabric of AGW.

Do the AGW Activists realize that their propaganda is fooling no one?

August 26, 2010
Over e-mail Transom: Extreme Weather and Climate Change
Russ Steele

“I got this email from RePower America an Al Gore organization promoting the dangers of human caused global warming.

‘Extreme weather is putting hundreds of thousands of lives and livelihoods at risk all around the world. In order to avoid the worst and most devastating impacts of the severe weather events that are consistent with climate change, we must begin to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.’

This is the kind of crap that is being sent the faithful to raise money for their cause. Let’s examine some of the claims in: Extreme Weather and Global Climate Change

‘Pollution from human activities is warming our climate. The 10 warmest years on record all occurred since 1990, and the last decade was the hottest recorded since worldwide record keeping began more than 100 years ago. The period between January and June of 2010 was the warmest six months on record.’

Let check the facts on this point:
Spot checks of the data shows that the world is not warming, the data is being rigged to show warming. Grid squares without weather stations in Russian Siberia, Africa, Greenland and Canada shows warming where there are no weather stations. The details can be found here.

Al Gore’s minions continue:

‘Warming climate increases the chance that we will experience extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and intense storms, and ramps up the risk that severe weather events will cause catastrophic damage. The floods, fires and droughts we’re seeing in places like Pakistan and Russia are consistent with the effects of global warming, including temperature increases, increased precipitation in some parts of the world, and droughts in others.’

Lets check the facts on this point, NOAA Says It’s Not Due to Global Warming:

The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory published a report on Aug 13 [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/] which states that despite “strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. … the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988). … Our assessment indicates that, owing to the mainly natural cause for this heat wave, it is very unlikely that a similar event will recur next summer or in the immediate future (next decade).” More details here.

And still more claims:

‘In early August, a 97-square mile chunk of ice–the largest since 1962–broke away from the northwest coast of Greenland.1 Canadian officials fear the massive "ice island" could pose a risk to ships and oil platforms.2Unless we significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, we are likely to see even more extreme weather events and the consequences they bring.’

Lets check this facts on this point:
And ocean science professor Andreas Muenchow says years of data on the glacier itself show that after this month’s event, the mass of ice is still, on average, discharging about the same amount of water it usually does – some 600 million cubic meters a year, or about 220,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. "Even a big piece like this over 50 years is not that significant. It’s just the normal rate," he said.

Muenchow warns people not to jump to conclusions. "An event like this, this specific event, all flags go immediately up, ‘Oh, let’s explain this by global warming.’ I cannot support that," he said.

What did we learn from this analysis? We found out that Al Gore and his minions are trying to scare people in to donating, so they can keep publishing global warming propaganda.”

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/

What are the reasonings of the current weather swings?

Has anybody been struck with fear from the recent snow storm?
Could it be a natural omen or a random storm that could have been potentially worse?

Where I’m trying to go with this is why are there so many rnadom changes in weather conditions and what effects are they haveing, as well as what they could become.

For example: Say this April snow storm could have been slightly colder and longer, freezing many plants and other organisms acorss the continent that are incapable of withstanding winter weather in their spring prime?

Wether you’re realistic about your answer (global warming….) or Sci Fi (tilting the ecosystem destroying almost that of the entire nation….), I’m curious to see what answers, logical and imaginitive, may come about.

I am curious to know if such a storm is possible enough to destroy so many flowers, all animals depending on it suffer and next years generation is never pollinated.

Why are proponents arguing that Paltridge 2009 doesn't prove climate sensitivity is low?

The new proponent argument – if I’m understanding it correctly – is that climate sensitivity is not low because water vapor is a significant positive feedback, which we know is not true because of the results of the recent Paltridge paper.

The paper in question examines atmospheric water vapor data taken from radiosondes (weather balloons) and finds

"the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity ‘q’ is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes…The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations"

However, this is stated with the following caveats:

"It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level."

"The upper-level negative trends in q are…largely (but not completely but mostly) inconsistent with satellite data."

"These negative trends are supported…by the few indications from satellite observations"

"It is of course "possible"(but not supported by data) that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/models/p…

In short, as with any radiosonde data, there are large uncertainties with the NCEP water vapor data. It contradicts satellite water vapor data, and all computer model data, which also has large uncertainties. In other words, nothing conclusive can be stated about this study similarly to any other research in favor of global warming.

Yet certain individuals are arguing that this study proves climate models are accurate and climate sensitivity is still high. What’s up with that?

Can anyone tell me how it is to live in Troy, MI?

I have a job offer but don’t know if I want to move from CA. How is the food, people, crime, weather, overall quality of life?

The Earth has a “Fever” Is there a cure?

The symptoms are showing – the temperature is rising. A case in point is the Alaskan Village Newtok, located in the subarctic. The once frozen subsoil-known as permafrost-on which Newtok is built is melting. "I don’t want to live in permafrost [anymore]," lamented a resident named Frank. "It’s too muddy." Studies say that within ten years, this coastal village could be washed away.

The "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Rising global temperatures testify to this fact. What scientists call climate change has resulted in extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and hurricanes worldwide. What will happen to our planet? Is there a cure?

What do you make of the programmers comments in the hacked data file "HARRY_READ_ME.txt"?

Here is the actual file: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Here is subset of what is in this file:

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless …" (Page 17)

- "It’s botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the network died … no explanation from anyone, I hope it’s not a return to last year’s troubles … This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "… this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ‘supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )" (98)

- "You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …" (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …" (98-9)

- "OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS …" (266)