Ilmastoskeptikon käsikirja

[Tapsa]

Minua myös rassaa sinun tapasi heittää uusia huomautuksia tai kysymyksiä, mutta et itse vaivaudu vastaamaan esittämiini kommentteihin. Vaikuttaa siltä, että keskityt vain esittämään mahdollisimman paljon hankalia kysymyksiä tai muuten vain herjoja, johon kuitenkin olet peräämässä vastauksia.

Siltähän tuo näyttää. Vastaukset tuppaavat olemaan linkkejä tutkimuksiin, joiden sisältö on linkkaajan tajunnan ulkopuolella. Ei sekään vielä mitään, jos kuitenkin saisimme joskus Tuomaksen omiakin ajatuksia vastineeksi.

[tuhelin]

Hmm... Vaivautuisikohan joku osoittamaan tälle huippututkija Dr. Spencerille IPCC AR4:n kappaleen 9.2.2.1,

Spencerin yhteystiedot löytyvät linkkaamasi sivun alalaidasta, eli ole hyvä vaan ja vaivaudu itse. Muista laittaa tänne vastaus.

Spencer vastaili ja hänen luvallaan laitan tähän nyt keskustelun, kuten JeanS pyysit.

Dear Dr. Spencer,

I was listening to your presentation last May in Helsinki, Finland on the PDO and clouds. Since then I have followed your blog. I'd like to thank you for your post on "Hotspots and Fingerprints" in your blog last Sunday: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hot ... gerprints/

I am a little confused about your post and would like to ask you a question about it. You begin:

"It is claimed by the IPCC that there are ‘fingerprints’ associated with global warming which can be tied to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, as if the signatures were somehow unique like real fingerprints."

You refer to the Figure 9.1 in AR4 with this and a little bit later you continue:

"But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source."

I totally agree what you write in your last quote. But are you suggesting with this that IPCC has made a claim that the hotspot is the unique fingerprint of greenhouse gas induced warming, based on the Chapter 9.2.2.1? I am a bit confused.

I hope you find time for clarifying the issue.

Best regards,

Tuomas Helin
Project Engineer (M.Sc.) / Ph.D. Student
Laboratory of Environmental Technology
Lappeenranta University of Technology

Spencerin vastaus:

After comparing "natural" to anthropogenic forcings, Chapter 9.2.2.1 states,

"The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above."

Given the use of the term "fingerprint" in this chapter, I would say that the impression is indeed left with the reader that the hotspot is the unique signature of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

As my article mentions, I think that any sufficiently strong warming influence in the troposphere would have the same effect, for instance a decrease in global albedo.

But my comments are directed more at those "skeptics" who think that a LACK of a hotspot somehow invalidates the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. For instance, it would be possible for most of the observed warming to be the result of anthropogenic GHG emissions, but the hotspot itself is muted because water vapor feedback is not nearly as strong as the models suggest. After all, lapse rate and water vapor feedback in the models tend to offset one another, so the lack of a hotspot (no negative lapse rate feedback) might be consistent with no positive water vapor feedback.

-Roy

Kyselin vähän lisää:

Dear Dr. Spencer,

Thank you for your kind response. You wrote:

"After comparing "natural" to anthropogenic forcings, Chapter 9.2.2.1 states,

"The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above."

Given the use of the term "fingerprint" in this chapter, I would say that the impression is indeed left with the reader that the hotspot is the unique signature of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing."

With all respect, I have to say I feel that your have made a mis-interpretation here. Have you noticed what they wrote in the second paragraph of Chapter 9.2.2.1:

"Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c)."

I feel you have neglected in your post what they really write in AR4 about the "fingerprint" unique to GHG's. That is, simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere while the troposphere is warming. At least to me it seems like there is a distinctive fingerprint after all. In fact, the higher tropic troposphere (or the 'hotspot') is not mentioned at all - only the warming of the troposphere in general. At least my interpretion is that the IPCC doesn't claim the 'hotspot' is a fingerprint unique for GHG's. Do you agree?

I truly have no clue where the claim "IPCC claims the 'hotspot' is an unique fingerprint for GHG's" widespread in the Internet originates from. A mis-interpretation originally made by Joanne Nova, perhaps?

Ja Spencerin vastaus:

Like most things in the IPCC reports, conclusions are implied rather that explicitly made. So, you are correct that, technically, the IPCC did not claim that the "hot spot" was a unique feature of manmade warming. But it is the dominant feature seen in that figure, and the chapter has to do with patterns as "fingerprints". So I guess I can see the argument going either way.

And, yes, my objection to using the hot spot as unique evidence of anthropogenic warming is directed much more to the "skeptic" community rather than the IPCC. Sorry if that was not clear from my article.

(Sure, you have my permission to post our discussion.)

-Roy

-Tuomas

[BorisW]

Tuomas, kuten huomaat Spencer ei ota selkeätä kantaa, mutta toteaa, että IPCC:n tavasta esittää asian, se voidaan tulkita myös kuten skeptikot tekevät. Kokemuksesta voin sanoa, että Spencer on diplomaatti eikä halua ottaa selkeätä kantaa, joten häneen vetoaminen ei kiistaa ratkaise.

Jos palataan aivan alkuun, niin muistaakseni IPCC pyrki tuolla troposfäärin lämpenemisellä ja stratosfäärin viilentymisellä kertomaan, että ihmisperäiset kasvihuonekaasupäästöt nostavat alailmakehän (troposfäärin) lämpötilaa ja sen seurauksena stratosfääri kylmenee. Tästä olisi seurannut, että stratosfäärin alentuneen lämpötilan takia ulossäteilevän enrgian määrä alenisi ja näin edesauttaisi maapallon lämpenemistä.

[pexis]

Onkos tämä Skeptikon käsikirja Mk2 ollut jo esillä?

The_Skeptics_Handbook_Mk2

Vaikuttaa ihan yhtä hyvältä kuin ensimmäinenkin.

[BorisW]

Uusi skeptikon käsikirja on hyvä. Sain sellaisen Joannalta jo joulukuun alussa ja mielestäni kyllä ilmoittelinkin siitä, mutta sitten unohtui muiden ilmastouutisten ym. tulvan alle.