Is this yet another nail in the coffin of a common skeptic argument?

Question

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html

Skeptics often point to the lack of warming in the tropospheric temperature record as evidence that something must be horribly askew in climate modeling or the whole theory of atmospheric radiative transfer. Do these results suggest those arguments by skeptics are wrong? Or is it that Yale is now in on the great deception?

Answer 1

What makes a Yale scientist more moral than any other human?  Al Gore went to Harvard... his movies been torn to shreds... and Bush went to... YALE!?!?!  

Okay, now that I've shot down your ridiculous, blind faith point about Yale, here are a few things to think about in starting your de-programming:

There is an entire industry based around this latest climate scare (there is one every 30 years or so, either warming or cooling).  The global warming religion likes to use the National Academy of Science report as their bible, but this is bias and funded by special interest groups. Look carefully at the facts. For example, it states that temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century. This is true. However, temps have NOT increased in the last 10 years. You'll notice that, in the 2008 report, none of the graphs contain data past 2000... sketchy, huh? It's because this defies the rising temp theory.

Even though the polar bears have now been put on the endangered species list, it is because environmentalists petitioned to change the rules. The population has actually tripled in the last 30 years. It's the reason that the governor of Alaska is now suing the federal government.

Furthermore, the ice shelfs are the among the highest seen in 30 years. Carbon dioxide is actually a good thing. The list goes on and on for evidence to the contrary of man made global warming, but there is no irrefutable evidence that it does exist.

No matter what environmentalists say (or how they say it), there is no evidence that man is causing global warming. They will use sleight of hand to try and get you, but don't be a sucker. For example, notice how NO commercials say anything about "global warming" anymore? The use the words "climate change" now. That's because environmentalists realize that time is becoming limited on this scare, but they can use the words "climate change" and keep us afraid that we're going to die, whether it be from warming, cooling, etc.

A link that'll get you started on your education (not funded by any special interest groups): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...

For your own good, the good of the nation, and yes, the planet, you should be VERY skeptical. Look carefully at the facts and the language. Environmentalists are not always keeping the green of nature in mind. There is a lot of money to be made in this hugely expanding industry.

Even if you are someone who will never believe that global warming doesn't exist, think about this... it will cost 29 trillion dollars to fight this threat of sketchy (and special interest funded) "science" along with ruin our economy. Know how much it will take to feed the entire human population for the next 100 yrs? 7 trillion.

Still think we should be making public policies and spend all that money? Then do one thing for me before you call your local congressman: Name one thing that the government hasn't screwed up.

And feel free to collect the half a million dollar reward with your "proof":

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.co...

Answer 2

Yet no one yet can say if the future will be warmer or colder even though co2 levels continue to increase.

A flip of a coin is just as accurate as Dr. Hansen and all his fancy hardware.

Answer 3

Theories are much easier to prove if those doing the proving want them to be true. Sure signs of this are well represented by the smugness expressed by nearly all proponents of this farce. They fancy themselves gods,  having complete understanding of systems just now beginning to be explored. Pride cometh before the fall of man-made Gorbal Warming.

Answer 4

"Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65 +/- 0.47K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause."

What kind of study was this. The allotment for error is almost 75% of the data set. A study with this kind of probability for error is not very scientific is it.

Again the libs use flawed science to prove a point. Give us hard facts not just conjecture and some model that says we will all be dead tomorrow.

Answer 5

icecap Note: We knew this was coming. A rushed, coordinated rebuttle to the papers which have shown no agreement between models and the tropical atmosphere as observed by satellites and weather balloon data. Greenhouse models show significant warming in the middle tropical atmosphere not there in the observations.  First they attempted to find fault in the long used balloon temperature data and now they are using wind as a proxy data set to try and recover the warming not shown by actual temperature and satellite measurements.

As Dr. John Christy, who has helped develop and quality control the satellite data set that shows a relatively minor warming in the tropics, notes “This relies on the Thermal Wind Model. The idea to use the thermal wind equation is credible and has a bit of elegance about it. Allen and Sherwood are searching for other ways to get at the temperature changes, so this is a legitimate effort and they have worked very hard on it.” But its results “depend critically on the assumptions used.  This is not a direct measure of temperature.  The results actually vary considerably when partitioned by season ... something that is not real. I think they made a reporting error on the +0.65/decade ... that is clearly outside the bounds of reality (that would imply a warming of over 2 C since 1970). Wind measurements have many flaws and have had some major changes in measuring techniques through the years - something that seems to have been overlooked in this study.”

Also MIT’s Dr. Lindzen notes correctly “It’s the old story.  If the data don’t match the models, change the data.  As has been pointed out a number of times, the odds of data always changing to get closer to the models are pretty small.”

Edit:  If Christy is such a bad scientist, then you should not have any problems finding faults with what he said.  But you cannot do that.  You attempt to slander Christy is a typical doom sayer strategy meant to take the discussion away from science, because your science is that weak.  Really, proxies are a better indicator than direct measurements?  Give me a break!

Here is a short bio of Christy for those who are tempted to believe GCNP that Christy is such a bad scientist:

In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

Answer 6

You're on to something.  Yale MUST be in on the great conspiracy. I've met some of those Yale graduates, and there a shifty low-class bunch whose only purpose in doing science is to make some quick cash!  

I guess it is possible they have been able to adjust temperatures to account for the factors that transport and distribute heat from different levels of the troposphere, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that they took millions in research funds, spent it on a lavish life style, wrote a bogus paper, and published it.  They probably bought of the research and administration oversight department at Yale to falsify their work, bribed the federal watchdogs (Lord knows the Bush administration is a huge proponent of AGW ), contacted all of the peer anonymous reviewers for Nature  and gave them vacations on their new yachts or something.  I think this makes much more sense than doing the work and publishing the results and receiving feedback.

Answer 7

Yes.

Get used to coffins.

Answer 8

The "skeptics" around here who mentioned those arguments probably didn't understand them anyways. So it won't matter. Understanding the actual science has never been much of an interest for them.

Co-author Steven Sherwood has done a lot of good work. Here's his home-page:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

Here's his FAQ on Global Warming:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/...

Answer 9

The thing about the tropical troposphere that the 'skeptics' don't seem to understand is that it would be warming faster than the surface regardless of the radiative forcing, whether it be an increased greenhouse effect, increased solar output, etc.  This is an argument that undermines the reliability of radiosonde measurements, not the AGW theory.

"If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case - the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

The Yale study confirms that the radiosonde measurements are indeed flawed.  Not a surprising result, but a valuable confirmation.  It does undermine the argument in one of the few peer-reviewed skeptical papers, by Douglass, Singer, Christy et al. who essentially neglected this instrumental uncertainty.

Answer 10

No it is not another nail because there is no coffin.  It makes me laugh though, you claim that scientists who go against the theory of global warming are paid by ExxonMobil and such.  but when someone supports your theory, they are "the leaders in the field".  It is amazing how easily some people are influenced.

Now is this Robert J Allen, MD??

Answer 11

they are statistically even more likely to be wrong now, but that wont stop them. its not a matter of science any more but of dogma.

meanwhile, those of us who really want to know what the h**l is going on have a bit higher confidence in the predictions.

Answer 12

there is no such thing as globle warming

Answer 13

Your response to Eric C: yes, Christy is an authority on this. "Messing up data" is quite a common occurrence in science, and just because you do does not mean you are no longer an authority on the subject. RSS is likely "messing up data" as well:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/20...

On to the Allen and Sherwood paper: Pielke has provided a nice short response to the paper, and promises more in an upcoming response in the peer reviewed literature:

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/02/use-of-...

and

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/04/comment...

Many say radiosonde and satellite data are flawed or imperfect. Well, it is, but so is every other temperature dataset (that includes the temperature based off of wind measurements)

Edit:

Did you read both of the blog posts by Pielke carefully? I suggest you do. Specifically the second one I linked to, as it does disagree with the results and methods of both papers.

"But have you ever noticed that unlike you, Pielke doesn't dispute the basic physics."

I believe you have my position wrong--I don't doubt that CO2 should cause warming and that it likely has contributed to the recent warming, but how much it has and how much it will has not been exactly been shown conclusively, and "basic physics" aren't an excuse to forget about providing such evidence. And, of course, the uncertainties. So many uncertainties. But I guess anything less than complete and utter belief isn't good enough for you, gcnp.

I am not even against action, because I certainly except the possibility of CO2 being the main driver, and that it could lead to catastrophic warming if left unabated. A rational response would be nice, though.

Dana said:

"The Yale study confirms that the radiosonde measurements are indeed flawed. Not a surprising result, but a valuable confirmation."

I thought we all knew that the radiosonde data was flawed in one way or another. Sort of like surface temps, satellite temperature data (which matches with the radiosonde data), and yes, even thermal wind data.

"by Douglass, Singer, Christy et al. who essentially neglected this instrumental uncertainty."

Uhh, no they didn't.

Answer 14

Seems legit, but what does the troposphere have to do with anything at the moment? As long as humans are trying to find something to freak out about, maybe we should worry about the Western world's regrettable lack of nuclear power usage. THAT would help us with oil dependency than simply trying to use oil and coal less.

Answer 15

I find the fact that 31,000 scientists have recently signed a petition rejecting global warming to be a "nail in the coffin" of this pathetic hoax.

It's just another way to tax people which is why Gore refuses to debate anyone who disagrees with him.