I have acted as both reviewer and the reviewed in the area of peer reviewed literature. However I have never been a reviewer of a Peer of the British Realm. So I am pleased to be able to look at a piece on YouTube (no, I'm not going to link to it) that has been making the rounds. It is an interview of Lord Monckton (3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) by Michael Coren. In it he claims to present a scientific argument against global warming and this is the claim I want to review.
The interview was about 1 hour long and was unfortunately mostly made up of rhetoric. For example, he said that Al Gore could only answer simple questions like “what’s your name”. He consistently called the people who understand the science of global warming the “bed wetters”, claimed that the “left” overplayed it hand (in regards to global warming) for money, power and glory; and much more of the like. However, there was some science in there so lets plunge in and see what it boils down to.
The first bit that he presents comes from Part 1 of the YouTube broadcast at 7:15 where he states (and I am paraphrasing here) that 700 scientists from 400 institutions in the last 20 years have contributed to a number of papers that say that the MWP was real, global and noticeably warmer than the present. I am fairly familiar with the literature in regards to global warming and I am not aware of anything that says the MWP was global and noticeably warmer than today. So I am calling him on that one.
In part 2 (at 4:00) he starts talking about outgoing radiation. Now, I could have been distracted by him doing strange things with Coren’s head (physically, not mentally - you really should watch it), but his argument seems a little confused. He asks what would happen to the outgoing radiation if the ocean and land warmed by 1 degree C – would it increase, decrease or stay the same? He claims that it would increase but that every computer model is programmed to show that it would decrease. That is flat out wrong in that the models are not programmed to show a decrease, instead they respond to the physics of the situation. Whether the temperature goes up or down depends on the relation between the incoming radiation and the outgoing radiation. If the surface temperature was magically increased by 1C, you would indeed see more outgoing radiation until the Earth had cooled to its current temperature. However if you add more CO2, then part of the outgoing radiation will be inhibited and temperatures will go up. The earth will then radiate more energy in the parts not blocked and a new equilibrium will be reached. The models show this in both cases.
Tied in with this point was a rather strange claim that goes something like this. “The IPCC best estimate for increase of temperature for a doubling of CO2 is 3 ¼ degrees. However suppose it really turns out to be only ½ degrees, is that really worth worrying about?“ Seriously, that is what I got out of his argument. If someone can interpret it differently, please let me know.
In part 3, Monckton talks about a paper by Richard Lindzen and I am going to confess that this is the first time I have come across the paper so I can’t really comment too much. The paper uses satellite data to measure outgoing radiation and claims that the outgoing radiation does not match what it is supposed to do. My off the cuff comment is first, satellite data is very tricky to work with and second, we are not dealing with equilibrium temperatures, so there may be a time lag. If anyone is interested in this paper, let me know and it may be worth a post.
In the same section at 7:45 he talks about the oceans not warming. This of course is wrong since the oceans are warming . He also talks about the lack of warming in the troposphere. This is a technical and complex issue so I will do the simple thing and outsource it to Chris Close (a good review of the topic).
Part 4 had a comment in it at 6:40 about how much effort it would take to reduce CO2. My only comment is that he appears to ignore the current sinks (as we produce CO2, a lot of it is being taken up by plants and absorbed into the Ocean).
In part 5 there was little about global warming but he did bring DDT into the discussion. I am generally aware of the issue of DDT, but instead will happily link to Ed Darrell.
In closing, since Lord Monckton went to great lengths to say that both Al Gore and David Suzuki refuse to debate him, I am ready, willing and eager to debate him! You heard it here first.
So, there it is! All in all a very poor set of arguments, but I can now add another review-of-a-peer paper to my CV. If you have come across a point of his that you think is worthy, then please let's hear it in the comments.
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
I'll take Antarctic Melting for $10 please Alex.
Mark Francis, in comments, wrote "Why don't you take a good swing at the kerfuffle over the recent Antarctica ice study by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan?" Now, that's more like it – the easy softball questions as opposed to Peter 1’s question about models (that one has kept me up all night for that last few days ;) )
The "TEDESCO AND MONAGHAN" paper is called An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. It has made a splash in the skeptic world because it shows the smallest "snowmelt index anomaly" ever recorded (of course in this case, ever is since 1980).
To begin with, the snowmelt index is not the same thing as snow/ice loss. The index is defined as the number of melting days multiplied by the area of melt. It is measured by satellites looking in the microwave range since liquid water provides a very strong microwave reflection. Along the coast, there is a relation between ice/snow loss and the snowmelt index, but in the interior you can have huge areas that melt under the summer sun in the day but then freeze again at night (or what passes for night). Also, keep in mind that because of the thickness of the ice cap, most of the Antarctic surface is at an elevation of 2km above sea level which tends to make it a little cooler anyway.
However this paper is not looking only at the snowmelt index, but rather the relation between a couple of well known climate phenomena and the snowmelt index. In a nutshell, the authors show that there is a relationship between the snowmelt index and the SOI and the SAM.
The SOI is the Southern Oscillation Index and is a measure of the atmospheric pressure across the Pacific Ocean (this is related to el Nino and la Nina conditions which people are probably aware of). Essentially when the SOI is positive, we are in La Nina conditions. This means that the winds blow warm water in a generally west direction across the Pacific which piles up in Northern Australia and Indonesia.
The SAM is the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode and is another measure of atmospheric pressure difference, except this time between the southern hemisphere mid and high latitudes. When the SAM is positive you get a wind pattern forming over the Antarctic which essentially forms a “ring” of wind around 55 to 60 degrees latitude south. This wind essentially acts to insulate the Antarctic from the warmer northern areas.
Tedesco and Monaghan have shown that when both of these indices are positive then the snowmelt index is small (i.e. negative). This seems to make sense in a qualitative way since a positive SOI will mean cooler pacific waters and a positive SAM will mean a more insulated Antarctic. However this paper shows that there is a strong link in a quantitative i.e. statistical way (it is an inverse link since as the SOI and SAM go up, the snowmelt index goes down).
Now, comes the payoff! Over the last year, the SOI was the second highest for the study period and the SAM was the 4th highest for the study period. With such high values for both of these it seems expected to have a very small (smallest over the study period) snowmelt index. So rather than something new and shattering, the study provides an insight into how the climate factors interact and show that the current snowmelt is what we would expect given other climate factors and thus isn't probably the smoking gun that some make it out to be. (Although if anyone is interested, there will be a study coming out soon that looks at snow and ice loss over Greenland and the Antarctic using gravity measurements from satellites.)
In addition, the authors also point out that since the 1970’s the SAM has tended to be relatively high and it has been proposed that there is a connection between the high SAM and the loss of ozone over the South Pole. So as the ozone hole starts to heal in the future, the SAM is expected to decrease.
I will leave the final words to the authors themselves:
"Negative melting anomalies observed in recent years
do not contradict recently published results on surface
temperature trends over Antarctica [e.g., Steig et al.,
2009]. The time period used for those studies extends back
to the 1950’s, well beyond 1980, and the largest temperature
increases are found during winter and spring rather than
summer ..."
Funny how that part of the paper never gets quoted on the skeptic sites.
PS, first post so please excuse any formatting errors. I have not put a picture at the top since I didn't know how to - but more importantly I don't think I can match the Dr.'s talent for using the exactly correct graphic for each post.
The "TEDESCO AND MONAGHAN" paper is called An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. It has made a splash in the skeptic world because it shows the smallest "snowmelt index anomaly" ever recorded (of course in this case, ever is since 1980).
To begin with, the snowmelt index is not the same thing as snow/ice loss. The index is defined as the number of melting days multiplied by the area of melt. It is measured by satellites looking in the microwave range since liquid water provides a very strong microwave reflection. Along the coast, there is a relation between ice/snow loss and the snowmelt index, but in the interior you can have huge areas that melt under the summer sun in the day but then freeze again at night (or what passes for night). Also, keep in mind that because of the thickness of the ice cap, most of the Antarctic surface is at an elevation of 2km above sea level which tends to make it a little cooler anyway.
However this paper is not looking only at the snowmelt index, but rather the relation between a couple of well known climate phenomena and the snowmelt index. In a nutshell, the authors show that there is a relationship between the snowmelt index and the SOI and the SAM.
The SOI is the Southern Oscillation Index and is a measure of the atmospheric pressure across the Pacific Ocean (this is related to el Nino and la Nina conditions which people are probably aware of). Essentially when the SOI is positive, we are in La Nina conditions. This means that the winds blow warm water in a generally west direction across the Pacific which piles up in Northern Australia and Indonesia.
The SAM is the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode and is another measure of atmospheric pressure difference, except this time between the southern hemisphere mid and high latitudes. When the SAM is positive you get a wind pattern forming over the Antarctic which essentially forms a “ring” of wind around 55 to 60 degrees latitude south. This wind essentially acts to insulate the Antarctic from the warmer northern areas.
Tedesco and Monaghan have shown that when both of these indices are positive then the snowmelt index is small (i.e. negative). This seems to make sense in a qualitative way since a positive SOI will mean cooler pacific waters and a positive SAM will mean a more insulated Antarctic. However this paper shows that there is a strong link in a quantitative i.e. statistical way (it is an inverse link since as the SOI and SAM go up, the snowmelt index goes down).
Now, comes the payoff! Over the last year, the SOI was the second highest for the study period and the SAM was the 4th highest for the study period. With such high values for both of these it seems expected to have a very small (smallest over the study period) snowmelt index. So rather than something new and shattering, the study provides an insight into how the climate factors interact and show that the current snowmelt is what we would expect given other climate factors and thus isn't probably the smoking gun that some make it out to be. (Although if anyone is interested, there will be a study coming out soon that looks at snow and ice loss over Greenland and the Antarctic using gravity measurements from satellites.)
In addition, the authors also point out that since the 1970’s the SAM has tended to be relatively high and it has been proposed that there is a connection between the high SAM and the loss of ozone over the South Pole. So as the ozone hole starts to heal in the future, the SAM is expected to decrease.
I will leave the final words to the authors themselves:
"Negative melting anomalies observed in recent years
do not contradict recently published results on surface
temperature trends over Antarctica [e.g., Steig et al.,
2009]. The time period used for those studies extends back
to the 1950’s, well beyond 1980, and the largest temperature
increases are found during winter and spring rather than
summer ..."
Funny how that part of the paper never gets quoted on the skeptic sites.
PS, first post so please excuse any formatting errors. I have not put a picture at the top since I didn't know how to - but more importantly I don't think I can match the Dr.'s talent for using the exactly correct graphic for each post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)