Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

I have been receiving some offline comments regarding this diary.

First one objected to my statement: "So right here we know from physics what effect increased greenhouse gasses will have and we are seeing that predicted effect. This is not controversy, this is proof of principle."

When I pointed out that the greenhouse effect of various gasses is a physical fact used in our understanding of the atmosphere of every planet he backed off, saying his objection was to the correlation between increasing Earth temperatures and increasing CO2. Well, that is STILL the point I was making: we know from physics what to expect and we are seeing it.

His main point, I think, was that correlation does not mean causation. This is true! And his point would be well taken if I had been claiming that correlation meant causation. What I was saying was that correlation in agreement with an established physical fact is more than mere correlation. It is evidence in favor of one's hypothesis of causation. If it is known from previously established physics that certain atmosphereic gasses increase global temperature, and you see a correlative increase in both the amounts of those gasses AND global temperature with correlation in both time and rate of change, that is pretty damned good evidence of causation!

He then put a buddy of his up to "enlightening me" regarding climatology. The article sent to me by this buddy had as its main point that there is no real correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperatures. One of the main reasons for this guy's claim is that there is disagreement between the surface temperature measurements and the tropospheric measurements. Yet in my diary I say:

"Reinterpretation of the data has solved this by realizing that the interpretation of the tropospheric temperatures were inaccurate.  So this disagreement has been resolved and BOTH increasing temperatures AND increasing greenhouse gasses are certain."

To emphasize this point better, I should give a more solid reference than just a diary I had written on Daily Kos. From Fu, et al in the journal Nature:

Nature 429, 55-58 (6 May 2004) | doi: 10.1038/nature02524
Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends

Qiang Fu1, Celeste M. Johanson1, Stephen G. Warren1 and Dian J. Seidel2
Top of page

From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1−3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of approx0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is approx1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.

And from the News and Views article on this research:

Nature 429, 7 (6 May 2004) | doi: 10.1038/429007a
Global warming anomaly may succumb to microwave study

For years, climate researchers have struggled with an apparent discrepancy in the data on global warming: temperatures in the lower atmosphere have been rising far slower than models predict, given how fast the Earth's surface is heating.

The discrepancy has been central to the arguments of sceptics about global warming. But according to a study in this issue of Nature (see page 55) it can be explained by interactions between the troposphere -- the first 11 km of the atmosphere -- and the stratosphere above it.

In the study, a team from the University of Washington at Seattle and the Air Resources Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), based in Maryland, analysed microwave emissions from the atmosphere. The emissions were recorded between 1979 and 2001 by NOAA's polar orbiting satellites. The data can be used to deduce temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere. And the study finds that stratospheric cooling, a known effect of greenhouse gases, appears to account for discrepancies between temperature trends on the ground and in the troposphere.

The team, led by Qiang Fu, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, subtracted the impact of such cooling from data on the stratosphere and performed a statistical analysis, which found temperature trends consistent with observed warming on the surface and the predictions of climate models.

So this guy's main claim, which he ironically calls "State of the Art," is out of date and has been disproven by more recent research.

There is no discrepancy between tropospheric and surface temperature measurements. When corrected for stratospheric effects, the tropospheric measurements are in excellent agreement with the surface measurements and with the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are causing an increase in temperature.

He then goes on to try and muddy the issue with seasonal effects and the effects of water vapor, claiming that these are ignored by climate scientists in their rush to blame human generated CO2 for global warming. Well, all I can say is that these have been part of my wife's research. Both seasonal cycles and the effects of water vapor have been of great interest to her, disproving the claim that these are being ignored. To quote from my wife's blurb on teh Columbia University website:

Cloud Water Variability on Seasonal Time Scales.

Clouds have long been recognized as an integral and yet somewhat mysterious component of the climate system. They are sensitive to and feed back upon many of the physical processes that determine the state of the atmosphere. By altering the energy balance at the surface, top of the atmosphere and within the atmosphere, which then influences atmospheric circulation, clouds mediate interactions between radiative and dynamic processes in the atmosphere. There is still much to learn about how these interactions take place and their implications for the earth's climate.

My work thus far has focused on determining how the amount of water in a cloud changes with season at different locations on the earth and on trying to understand the atmospheric processes responsible for the changes, with an emphasis on identifying interactions between the tropics and extratropics. In the future, I plan to more deeply investigate the relationship between seasonality, clouds and the large scale dynamics, particularly the role of clouds in the atmospheric energy cycle and how it may vary with season.

And, for the record, my wife solidly believes that global warming is happening now and that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the most obvious culprits and  that the global warming deniers are full of it. So, she is a good antidote to the people who have been writing me.

So far I am unimpressed with the responses from the denial side. With a simple perusal of the current research, as I hear it from my wife and as I read about it in the journals Science and Nature, I can poke gaping holes in the claims of the denial side. When I get the chance, I will go into more detail on the denial and deceptions of the right wing regarding science. But for now I wanted to discuss these two claims I have been receiving off line in response to this article.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 01/17/2006 10:12:03 AM EST

Meet the Press, yesterday.

Sounds like he's going to make "going green" part of his new platform.

His party just kills me!

(It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.)

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 01/16/2006 12:33:04 PM EST

Well, I don't like replying so much to my own diary, but the "discussion" with the "skeptics" has continued. I had expected that at least one of them, since they speak so authoritatively, would actually be a climate scientist. I also expected that they might be scientists working for oil interests, but I figured they at least were experts. But they aren't.

Well, I am not a climatologist either. But I do cite the real literature and that is what I am arguing from. The initial person who questioned my diary began by questioning my scientific abilities and said it was clear that I wasn't a climatologist. Funny, that implies he is...but he isn't. He is only a moderator of a website he CLAIMS is unbiased but which is titled: "The Alleged Human-Caused Climate Change." The title alone gives away the bias. Since that is his personal web page, I will not give the link since he did not say I should make it public. And his citations to counter my claims consisted of telling me to look at his website.

The other "skeptic" began much better and started with an actual scientific discussion. He points out that there is a counter point to the Fu, et al paper in Nature I cite in my previous comment. In fairness, here is the counter point he cites:

THORNE, Peter W.,  DAVID E. PARKER, JOHN R. CHRISTY, AND CARL A. MEARS
"Lessons from Upper-Air Temperature Records" Bull. American Met. Soc. 86(10)  2005,  1437-1742

"We can no longer absolutely conclude whether globally the troposphere is cooling or warming relative to the surface. Clearly, however, the climate system has evolved in one unique way. Hence the challenge to the climate science community is to understand the reasons for the coherent differences between available datasets, and to discern the true climate evolution. The key first step is to understand the likely sources and causes of errors and biases. Only with this knowledge can we hope to truly reconcile the differences and gain a more complete and accurate picture of the true climate system evolution."

Well, the journal isn't quite Nature, and the statement isn't really saying anything but, "well, you proved one of our main points wrong, so now we just will say it's all very complicated." Fu, et. al. RECONCILED the main discrepancies in the available datasets. So to say that we have to understand the reasons for differences that have partly or fully been reconciled isn't really helpful. But it does show that there remains some scientific debate regarding tropospheric temperature measurements.

The gentleman who forwarded this to me as a counterpoint to Fu, et. al. is himself a retired scientist. Again, I won't say who since much of this has been a private email exchange, but he is NOT a climatologist. Rather he was a molecular geneticist whose last major publication was in the late 1970's and since then published a single review article in 1999 that sounds like it challenges evolution, but I was unable to access the article through the NYU library, so I am not sure. In the end though, despite our starting with a scientific discussion, his frustration at my failure to see it his way led to his challenging my scientific ability. Sigh. Well, I can't say that does anything to convince me. Bottom line is, he and I are about equal in our qualifications to discuss climate: we are both informed laymen whose scientific backgrounds give us a sense of how to judge scientific controversies. His disagreement with me does not lead me to ignore what I hear from actual climate scientists and change what I have said.

In short, I had looked forward to their challenge and to letting you know any place where I overstated my case. In the end, though, I don't find their challenges very interested and they certainly don't make me alter any of what I said. The piece by Thorne, et al that was quoted DOES show that there are climatologists who challenge the Fu, et al data. However, others have further tested the method of Fu et al and found it robust:

Brief Communications Arising

Nature 432, (2 December 2004) | doi: 10.1038/nature03209
Atmospheric science:  Stratospheric cooling and the troposphere

Nathan P. Gillett1, Benjamin D. Santer2 and Andrew J. Weaver1
Top of page
Abstract

Arising from: Q. Fu et al. Nature 429, 55-58 (2004); see also communication from Tett et al.; Fu et al. reply

Satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures seem to show less warming than surface temperatures, contrary to physical predictions1. Fu et al.2 show that statistical correction for the effect of stratospheric cooling brings the satellite-based estimates of tropospheric warming into closer agreement with observations of surface warming. Here we apply the method of Fu et al.2 to output from a state-of-the-art coupled climate model and show that simulated tropospheric temperature trends are consistent with those observed and that their method is robust.

All I can say is that I stick by what I wrote in the diary. I do not always air attacks of my diaries like this, but given that my intentions here are to look at scientific debates, and since the challenge was to some of the scientific evidence I cite, I consider it only reasonable to include the challenges and my responses. I hope you find this helpful. If not I can stop airing their challenges (they call it "enlightening" me). I could let them argue their own points, but so far they have only done this privately, leaving it to me to present their side of it.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 01/17/2006 02:45:41 PM EST

Well, I HAD assumed the folks arguing with me were at least honest about it, not shils for energy companies. Well, one of the folks who has been emailing me is this guy. A shil for the coal industry. This explains much. Let me also point out that this shil was also the only one who was outright and blatantly rude, rather than merely insinuating their insults.

So, in the end, I find that those who have been commenting on this diary offline are indeed linked to the energy industry. How stereotypic.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 01/19/2006 04:16:13 PM EST

I see two reasons to be skepical of the global warming theory. First, the Earth has been warmer at various times in the past than it is today.  Second, global warming believers generally exclude water vapor, the number one greenhouse gas, from their models and calculations.

During the Medieval Warm Period (800AD-1300AD) temperatures were slightly warmer than at present.  This period is generally described as a time of good harvests and plenty. There was also a Roman Warm Period (900BC-100AD) and a Dark Ages Cold Period (100AD - 700AD). This record suggests that the varying output of the sun plays a major role in climate change.

The claim that proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is steadily increasing is valid only if one arbitarily excludes water vapor.  Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas and is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect.

If you want to see what a real climatologist thinks of global warming, I suggest you read Richard Lindzen .  CO2 Science Magazine collects peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject.

by kauffner on 01/29/2006 04:12:06 AM EST

on science matters.

All I  know is that it's Feb. 1st in Chicago and it feels like spring outside. :)

That's enough to scare me into believing!

My blog is pretty.

by Georgia10 on 02/04/2006 12:32:37 PM EST

成人电 4433; 成人论 2363; 成人图 9255; 成人小 5828;
黄色电 4433; 黄色图 9255; 黄色网 1449; 黄色小 5828;
激情电 4433; 激情小 0005;影 美女视 9057;录像 色情电 4433;
色情图 9255; 色情网 1449; 色情小 5828; 性爱电 4433;
性爱论 2363; 性感美 2899;床上೽ 8;拍 诱惑妹 2969;激情ഋ 4;吧 人体艺 6415;图辑
三级片 成人论 2363; 成人小 5828; 黄色电 4433;
激情小 0005;影 劲舞团 免费电 4433; 免费三 2423;片
美女视 9057;录像 人体艺 6415;图辑 三级片 色情小 5828;
成人电 4433; 色情电 4433; 性爱电 4433; 性爱论 2363;
诱惑激 4773;妹妹ഋ 4;吧 性感美 2899;床上೽ 8;拍

by kan102 on 05/11/2006 01:03:38 PM EST