Significantly negative water vapor feedbacks?

On Feb 26, Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook’s report on a re-examination of NCEP reanalysis data on upper tropospheric humidity was published online by Theoretical and Applied Climatology. Upper tropospheric humidity is a critical topic in assessing the strength of water vapor feedbacks – knowledge that is essential to understand just how much temperature increase can be expected from doubled CO2. Paltridge and Arking are both senior climate scientists with lengthy and distinguished publication records. They reported:

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, 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. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

A few days earlier on Feb 20, Dessler and Sherwood published a review article in Science on upper tropospheric humidity. This was accompanied by a podcast and a blog article at Grist here. They reported:

Interestingly, it seems that just about everybody now agrees water vapor provides a robustly strong and positive feedback

They made no mention of the pending Paltridge et al results.

OK, climate scientists disagree. What else is new.

The question of origin vs. the question of validity

There’s a good example from the Climategate emails showing a completely difference response to Jones and I making the same comment to IPCC authors.

In the thread of email 609 (2005-08-01), Jones had asked AR4 chapter 6 author Tim Osborn why they hadn’t shown the Law Dome d18O series (shown in Jones et al 1998 and Jones and Mann 2004) as one of the (scarce) SH proxies in their graphic, a query reported by Osborn to his chapter 6 co-authors as follows:

Phil Jones took a look and asked why we hadn’t included the Law Dome d18O ice core series from Tas van Ommen – but perhaps you’ve already discussed such things in earlier emails?

In my review comments to the AR4 Second Draft, I asked exactly the same question.

6-1231 B 34:12 34:12
What happened to the Law Dome proxy? Why isn’t it shown?
[Stephen McIntyre (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-115)]

Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck (CG1- 709. 1153233036.txt) sneered that a so-called “expert” reviewer would ask such a question:

Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends – your suggestion to leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the response to “expert” review comments (sometimes, it is hard to use that term “expert”…).

In the incident in question, they were aware that the Law Dome d18O record, one of very few well-dated SH proxies, had a warm MWP. They elected not to show Law Dome d18O in the figure, but to insert a short CYA discussion of Law Dome in the running text.

The difference in attitude to the same comment being made by Phil Jones and by me could hardly be more stark.

While I’m sure that they could with considerable probability identify comments by McKitrick and/or me, by knowing for sure, they were disposed to argue against the comments rather than consider them seriously.

It seems to me that there’s a process interaction between two unusual features of IPCC review here: (1) that the Lead Authors ultimately decide on whether or not to consider a review comment; (2) the naming of the reviewers.

Sources of reconstruction uncertainty in CRU temperature proxy reconstructions

Here is a list of all the sources of error, variability, and uncertainty and whether those sources—as far as I can see: which means I might be wrong, but willing to be corrected—are properly accounted for by the CRU crew, and its likely effects on the certainty we have in proxy reconstructions:

1. Source: The proxy relationship with temperature is assumed constant through time. Accounted: No. Effects: entirely unknown, but should boost uncertainty.
2. Source: The proxy relationship with temperature is assumed constant through space. Accounted: No. Effects: A tree ring from California might not have the same temperature relationship as one from Greece. Boosts uncertainty.
3. Source: The proxies are measured with error (the “on average” correlation mentioned above). Accounted: No. Effects: certainly boosts uncertainty.
4. Source: Groups of proxies are sometimes smoothed before input to models. Accounted: No. Effect: a potentially huge source of error; smoothing always increases “signal”, even when those signals aren’t truly there. Boost uncertainty by a lot.
5. Source: The choice of the model m(). Accounted: No. Effect: results are always stated the model is true; potentially huge source of error. Boost uncertainty by a lot.
6. Source: The choice of the model m() error term. Accounted: Yes. Effect: the one area where we can be confident of the statistics.
7. Source: The results are stated as estimates of β Accounted: No. Effects: most classical (frequentist and Bayesian) procedures state uncertainty results about parameters not about actual, physical observables. Boost uncertainty by anywhere from two to ten times.
8. Source: The computer code is complex. multi-part, and multi-authored. Accounted: No. Effects: many areas for error to creep in; code is unaudited. Obviously boost uncertainty.
9. Source: Humans with a point of view release results. Accounted: No. Effects: judging by the tone of the CRU emails, and what is as stake, certainly boost uncertainty.

There you have it: all the potential sources of uncertainty (I’ve no doubt forgotten something), only one of which is accounted for in interpreting results. Like I’ve been saying all along: too many people are too certain of too many things.

The folly of calculating an average temperature for the entire globe

Just take a look at the graph above, and tell me what the meaning behind calculating a "global average temperature" is.

By the way, this story is funny: Al Gore goes to the Antarctica and the weather is unusually cold. Dire warning about the globe warming. So this comment from WattsUpWithThat is nice:

From the sound of it you’d think that they were baking down there in Antarctica, like they’d seen all kinds of warmer than normal temperatures, penguins wearing sunhats, leopard seals changing their spots, or something warm and not all that fuzzy.

But if you look at Figure 1, you’ll see that the area right where they are is running about 15°C (27°F) colder than normal … and normal even in the summer is kinda cold to start with.

Thank goodness for the Gore effect. Just think of what rubbish those jokers would have written if it had been 27°F warmer than normal down there, or 54°F warmer than what they are actually experiencing … we’d never have heard the end of it. They would have blogged every drop of sweat running down the side of their iced drinks on the cruise ship. Glad to see that justice still can prevail.

"Do not replicate my scientific work"

I personally do NOT want anyone else developing software that overlaps MAGICC/SCENGEN. I would also be extremely annoyed if Tyndall should support work that is clearly our territory; or even if Tyndall/Hulme should encourage such work. Indeed, Mike should contact this person and point out that his behaviour is quite intolerable. At the very least it breaches the bounds of normal scientific etiquette.

WTF?

Why Steve McIntyre does what he does at ClimateAudit

Richard Betts asks:

Steve,

Thank you for your very frank feedback on the Met Office, it is always interesting to see how one’s employer is perceived.

Since you have been so direct with me, I hope I can ask you a direct question in return, prompted by Richard Drake’s remark that

IPCC acolytes seek to paint McIntyre as a gratuitous troublemaker.

Is this picture an accurate one? Are you “a gratuitous troublemaker” or are you just trying to help, albeit in a way which some find uncomfortable?

Indeed what would “success” look like for you at the end of the AR5 process? A Fifth Assessment Report which is as scientifically robust as possible, so that governments can make informed decisions on climate policy, whatever the outcome of those decisions might be, or do you (as some appear to think) have a particular objective to influence these decisions in a particular direction?

I hope these are not impertinent questions. I didn’t really intend to get into such issues, especially not in one of my first contributions to your blog since I only commented to clear up a couple of misunderstandings and answer some specific questions, but your comment and Richard Drake’s has sparked these off in my mind.

Best regards and thank you for your attention,

Richard

Steve McIntyre answers (highlights by me):

My wife and friends have never understood why I’m doing this and think that I should go back to doing business.

Mostly I do it because I’m interested in what I write about. I’m not as interested as I was a few years ago, when I woke up every day with 3 or 4 things that I was interested in writing about. There was a lot of energy in my posts a few years ago. I also found the low culture of the Climategate correspondents very distasteful and this has sapped my interest.

Answering your question would take a fairly long essay. It’s late here and I’ll try to reply some time, though I don’t know when.

I’m actually not that interested in “big” policy. I assume that politicians will do what they’re going to do. On a private basis, I tend to think that if climate is a “big” problem, the proffered solutions are probably totally inadequate and that windmills, for example, are like prescribing laetrile for cancer. But that’s not an issue that I deal with at this blog. The only policy that I’ve advocated is much better data archiving. The opposition on this point by climate scientists has been totally insane and the opposition to the [by the?] prima donnas should have been led by people worried about climate, not by “skeptics”. (As regular readers know, I am not confident enough in my knowledge of all the relevant issues to express an opinion on the “big picture”.) I realize that many readers are interested in policy, but, as an editorial policy, for the most part, I avoid discussions of policy and delete many comments that do not adhere to this policy and urge readers to take such discussions to other blogs (of which there are obvious excellent examples.)

I’ve frequently made suggestions as to how people concerned about the impact of increased CO2 could present their case more effectively. I’ve often used the term “engineering quality report” as an important element in the process. It’s not something that I’ve defined or explained and it would take considerable effort to set out specs for such a document. Most readers get wrongfooted on the phrase and talk about V-and-V or try to point to little articles that they find meritorious, but the sort of thing that I have in mind is more like the sort of document that a professional engineering firm would do for a refinery or a mine or something like that.

I thought that the IAC review should have re-examined the purpose of the IPCC reports – a point that I made to Shapiro in a telephone conversation but which wasn’t considered in their report. It is not at all obvious to me that a literature review of work in the previous 5 years is what is needed.

I obviously have a very low opinion of the standard of work in the 1000-year field. While my criticisms in this area are pointed, I try to write accurately and, when writing well, avoid editorializing as much as possible. If you are aware of any inaccuracies in anything that I’ve written, please bring it to my attention so that I can make appropriate corrections.

Some of my original engagement arose from my astonishment at outright dishonesty that I encountered early on and by the lack of self-policing of such conduct within the field. This was long before Climategate. As a matter of decorum, I’ve established blog policies that do not allow readers or myself to make accusations of dishonesty or “fraud”, but I don’t say everything that I think. I think that the handling of Climategate by the broader climate community has exacerbated what was a difficult situation. Something like the trick to hide the decline should have been disowned in some manner, rather than whitewashed. Financial managers, lawyers, accountants and other professionals are dumbfounded that the climate community is unoffended by such conduct. The various “inquiries” have unfortunately exacerbated the problem through their failure to adhere to even the most elementary principles of public inquiry. These defects are easily understood by non-academics.

There’s lots else that I can say.

Bill Briggs smacks down Phil Plait

After getting a first slap, Phil Plait, that blithering self-centered loudmouth, gets a another slap by Bill Briggs:

It is a sure sign that Sanity has packed her bags and headed for the door when otherwise sober scientists begin slinging around terms like “denier” and “denialist.” Language like this displays willful, pretended, or real ignorance of the historical context of these words. Anybody who talks like this makes himself an ass. They’s fightin’ words which start any discussion on an angry footing, their presence a certain indication we are dealing with zealotry, not science.

Let’s look again at the claim made by the scientists at the Wall Street Journal, over which many have popped their corks:

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

There are two claims made here. Given the observational evidence we have, both claims appear true. The first (A) is that for the last ten years it has not grown warmer. Since it has grown warmer in some places and colder in others, this is evidently a claim about some global average and not any individual station. The second claim (B) says that the IPCC forecasts have been systematically too large: it is also concerned with some global average.
…

What about the counter-claim (C) that the 2000′s where the “warmest years on record” or the like? It is trivially false. The 2000s simply were not the warmest. Four billion years ago, Earth was much hotter. “Wait! It’s obvious we weren’t talking about billions of years ago. Cheater! Denier!” Well, it isn’t obvious. What years did you have in mind as comparators? Ah, that’s the real question, isn’t it.

Did we mean just the last century? The last 1000 years? The last 10,000? What? You must supply a starting year. To make the claim (C) that it’s hotter now than before, you must tell us what you mean by before. If you say “before” means the last ten years, then claim (C) is identical with claim (A). If you say the last 200 years, then you have to do what BEST tried and incorporate the non-parameter error bars, otherwise there is no way to compare what happened a century ago with what happened last year. Obviously, the further you go back, the larger those uncertainty bars become, therefore the more difficult it becomes to claim (with any certainty) that now was hotter than then.

As I often say, over-certainty abounds in this field. People speak of models (statistical and physical) as if they were truth, as if the data that goes into them were granted some kind of special immunity from ordinary criticism. And when the critiques come, that’s when the asinine language breaks out. All sense of humor evaporates.

You would think that because both claims (A) and (B) are likely true (and claim (C) is unproved or likely false) that we have found a reason to celebrate! Perhaps our worst fears won’t be realized after all. This is good news! Wouldn’t it be great if we really did over-emphasize feedback in climate models and that whatever changes we do make to the climate are easily mitigated and not as horrific as posited?

Why so glum that things are so good?