Here is what Happer said that was wrong. " but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased,". The basis for his statement is a peak-to-valley trend line. (1998 peak, 2007 valley). To make the statement he made based on this method of analysis is fallacious -- and also wrong. The Hadley CRUT3 plot I provided demonstrated that this decade is warmer than the 1990s, and the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, etc. That's how climate should be evaluated.
As for GISTEMP and its "scientificness" or validity, Happer's statement is based on an evaluation of the surface temperature record. Since he doesn't specify NOAA, GISS, or Hadley Centre, I should be entitled to post a graphic about the surface temperature record. There is so little difference between them that the same basic plot could be generated from any of the three records. You might claim that all three datasets are "unscientific", but if Happer is going to talk about them, then we have to talk about them too. (Besides, how wrong are they when they show cooling due to volcanoes and they even discriminate the El Chichon cooling from the subsequent El Nino warming?)
If you have a link from a site that allows scientific discussion without censorship, then post it. If all you have is RealClimate, I am not interested.
Factz iz factz. Those two posts from RealClimate are by far the best full explanation about why the CO2 saturation in the atmosphere card played by Happer is bogus. "History of Global Warming" gets into some of that, but not with the graphics that make it nice and clear.
The point is not that water vapor increases with temperature, but that UT is drying and cooling in contrast to the models. The most basic problem is that the models lack proper simulation of concentrated convection because they don't have fine enough resolution.
You're the meteorologist, not I. I'd like to have the reference for UT drying and cooling; I do know that at some point the atmosphere switches from warming in the lower layers to cooling in the upper layers, because the stratosphere cools radiatively (and this cooling signal is evidence for the current action of CO2 in trapping increasing amounts of longwave radiation in the troposphere). Are you talking about a transitional zone with regards to the UT? Furthermore, does UT drying and cooling affect LT warming and the expected changes due to that?
Regarding Point 4, simulation of 20th century warming, i.e. attribution studies. You didn't comment on the link I posted, so here it is again:
Ensemble Climate Simulations With Anthropogenic and Natural Forcings
This is one sentence from the abstract: "In the remaining three ensembles, forcings from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere are added progressively, such that the fourth ensemble uses all four of these forcings."
Does that process constitute "tweaking" according to the Climate Audit link that you posted? I don't think it does, because of this comment: "In many models aerosol forcing is not applied as an external forcing, but is calculated as an integral component of the system. Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system."
BTW, here's the Kiehl paper: Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity
I made an attempt to see if any of the authors from the NOAA/GFDL study were also included in any of the 9 models Kiehl analyzed. It doesn't look like it. My question is, and if you can answer it, I'll be impressed: is Kiehl only analyzing a certain subset type of GCMs? I don't know. I submit that Kiehl is not the last word on the subject.
Two incorrect comments. The first is a repetition of a lie. The MWP was removed in 1999
How is it a lie when the period 1000-1300 is about 0.2 C warmer than the two low periods from ~1600-1700 and from ~1800 to ~1900? It's less than the IPCC cartoon from the first report would make it appear it "should" have been, and the second graph shows the range of variability possible from different proxy estimates (I think Moberg 2005 had the widest range) -- and subsequent work indicated that there's a lot less certainty about any temperatures after 1600 based on proxies. The original Mann "hockey stick" was flawed, but the MWP was not removed. That's just a popular talking point.
Regarding the Svalbard data: I think there's general agreement that both the MWP and the LIA were most strongly felt in Europe. So you provide a link that demonstrates the MWP being strongly evidenced in Europe! I don't deny that. I don't deny evidence for the MWP in New Zealand, either. What I deny is that the MWP was removed from the proxy temperature records, especially with the implication that it was deliberately removed.
Beyond that, I'm providing a link to Dr. Mann's congressional testimony.
Senator Inhofe’s Follow-up Questions for Dr. Michael Mann There are two points where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are explicitly discussed. (Responses to questions 2 and 7.) These cover the issue of synchronicity and why if there isn't synchronicity in warming or cooling, a global record (to the extent that is possible) will not show the same timing or magnitude of warming or cooling as a regional record.
Further discussion of CO2 timing and lag:
A new hypothesis for deglacial CO2 rise? (conveniently posted on March 14!!!)
Permit me to quote a comment from Dr. Anderson, the lead author: "The fact that atmospheric CO2 lagged behind the initial change in climate at the end of past ice ages is a red herring frequently tossed around by global warming skeptics. No scientist that I know believes that changes in CO2 provided the initial cause of glacial-interglacial climate change. Rather, CO2 represents a feedback that amplified climate change that was triggered by other processes. It was recognized decades ago that insolation alone is likely insufficient to drive the changes in earth’s climate between glacial and interglacial periods. Scientists were looking for a feedback mechanism to amplify the effects of insolation before the first ice core records revealed that atmospheric CO2 was lower during glacial periods. It seems that CO2 provides that amplifier." The next part of the response explains (again) why Happer is wrong, along with numerous skeptics, about the source of the increased atmospheric CO2 during interglacials. Happer's paragraph beginning "Many of us are aware..." is the wrongest paragraph in the whole mishmash. You've brought up timing and gas diffusion and many other issues. That's fine. The basic facts are that CO2 increases by 80-100 ppm from a glacial to an interglacial and it's that change that drives (with the inclusion of positive water vapor feedback and reduction of albedo) the glacial-interglacial temperature increase. There is no other way to do it short of a variable Sun far more variable than any evidence or observations indicate.
I took a look at the solar forcing link. That only addresses the 20th century (well, back to 1880), and my initial reaction is that if there is less solar variability at the beginning of the 20th century in the "outdated" analysis, then something else has to step in to explain it. I know what I think, but I'll stop there. But Happer's statement was in the context of his MWP discussion, and it's not true; they have attempted to figure out what caused this variability. It appears to be a combination of natural variability (definitely with an ocean component) and the well-known sunspot minima periods. On longer time-scales, then you get into glacial-interglacial forcing; on really long time-scales, you get into tectonically-related CO2 forcing.
Regarding hurricane strength and SST, feel free to explain what you perceive as the flaws with Elsner et al. 2008. I still (perhaps naively) think that the basic SST-intensity relationship would have to manifest itself somehow.
The economy will be sustained by eliminating government interference in energy which can easily be sustained for hundreds of years with fossil fuels.
Boy do I wish I had a time machine capable of parallel-universe visitation with driver-defined economic and climate settings. All we have currently now is computer models.
The line from the 1998 peak to the 2007 valley slopes down, i.e. cooling. But that's not what Happer said. What he used was 1999 to present which in HadCRUT show a bump up from 1999 to the mid 2000's and then back down, or essentially flat. His statement was that warming has ceased, which is correct. You selected the 1998 peak, not he. You attributed the 1998 talking point to him because it fits your stereotype of him. What he said was correct.
(Besides, how wrong are they when they show cooling due to volcanoes and they even discriminate the El Chichon cooling from the subsequent El Nino warming?)
It would be useful if you used something other than the tortured surface data to prove that the tortured surface data is correct. Do you have an analysis of the magnitude of the El Chichon cooling and El Nino warming besides the surface data? If so, then we can talk about how accurate the surface record is. Otherwise you have a circular argument. Yes, there are your models, but those are often externally forced to match the surface record and volcanoes are added via "tweaking" (see below) not from inserting real world SO2 concentration measurements into the model.
(2) Factz iz factz. Those two posts from RealClimate are by far the best full explanation about why the CO2 saturation in the atmosphere card played by Happer is bogus. "History of Global Warming" gets into some of that, but not with the graphics that make it nice and clear.
The two RC articles are incomplate and inadequate, not the least bit full. Weart, who never displays any scientific curiosity, waves his hands and says 4 W/m2. Raypierre does a clear sky analysis and ignores reality. The actual CO2 warming depends on the analysis of the poorly modeled weather that distributes clouds and water vapor. Simply assuming a certain percentage of WV and clouds within each model cell is inadequate because the percentages will change with warming and model cells are far too coarse to accurately model those changes.
(3) You're the meteorologist, not I. I'd like to have the reference for UT drying and cooling;... Are you talking about a transitional zone with regards to the UT? Furthermore, does UT drying and cooling affect LT warming and the expected changes due to that?
The basic problem is lack of a long term dataset. My best guess is steady or moistening from 70's to late 90's, strong drying since, e.g.:
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/SPARC2008GA/Posters/SessionB_P104_A118_VanMalderen.pdf
If, like Happer, you believe that global warming has ceasad since 2001, then the drying will fit your theory of positive feedback from surface warming and cooling. If not, then you will need a different theory. Also in the Paltridge paper, the tropics show strong UT drying since about 1990. The 1998 El Nino spike so prominently displayed in the surface record did nothing to change that trend so your positive feedback model seems have broken down for the last 20 years or so.
(4) Does that process constitute "tweaking" according to the Climate Audit link that you posted? I don't think it does, because of this comment: "In many models aerosol forcing is not applied as an external forcing, but is calculated as an integral component of the system. Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system."
Thanks for the link to the Kiehl paper. The gist is the more aerosol forcing included in a model, the more climate sensitivity (to CO2 forcing) can be calculated, and vice versa. As for the models that add the forcing by "predicting" it, they are not really doing that. They are instead substituting other modeled parameters for aerosol forcing, e.g. lowering albedo to simulate increased aerosol concentration. It makes sense to do it that way, but it is certainly what I would call tweaking.
(6) How is it a lie when the period 1000-1300 is about 0.2 C warmer than the two low periods from ~1600-1700 and from ~1800 to ~1900? It's less than the IPCC cartoon from the first report would make it appear it "should" have been, and the second graph shows the range of variability possible from different proxy estimates (I think Moberg 2005 had the widest range) -- and subsequent work indicated that there's a lot less certainty about any temperatures after 1600 based on proxies. The original Mann "hockey stick" was flawed, but the MWP was not removed. That's just a popular talking point.
I think taking the zero point as 1960-1990 average and showing the MWP lower constitutes removal as the MWP was traditionally defined. The MWP was warmer than today in Europe, China and North and South America. Mann's statement about synchronicity is a red herring, the proxies were never synchronized because of other patterns (ocean currents and subsequent rainfall and droughts) that affect them and are not synchronized today either. The bottom line is that the warming affected civilization over decades, not just a few years that proxies may sync up.
(7) I took a look at the solar forcing link. That only addresses the 20th century (well, back to 1880), and my initial reaction is that if there is less solar variability at the beginning of the 20th century in the "outdated" analysis, then something else has to step in to explain it. I know what I think, but I'll stop there. But Happer's statement was in the context of his MWP discussion, and it's not true; they have attempted to figure out what caused this variability. It appears to be a combination of natural variability (definitely with an ocean component) and the well-known sunspot minima periods. On longer time-scales, then you get into glacial-interglacial forcing; on really long time-scales, you get into tectonically-related CO2 forcing.
The lack of solar forcing modeling was just an example. The 0.1 of temperature from that forcing is significant if you believe in positive WV feedback because that would explain a large amount of the early 1900's (and hence full century) warming. Another potentially important solar forcing is low altitude cloud modulation from galactic cosmic rays. These factors are not modeled even though accurate proxy data is available and effects like the Maunder minimum to LIA link are well documented although not well understood.
(8) Permit me to quote a comment from Dr. Anderson, the lead author: "The fact that atmospheric CO2 lagged behind the initial change in climate at the end of past ice ages is a red herring frequently tossed around by global warming skeptics. ... The basic facts are that CO2 increases by 80-100 ppm from a glacial to an interglacial and it's that change that drives (with the inclusion of positive water vapor feedback and reduction of albedo) the glacial-interglacial temperature increase. There is no other way to do it short of a variable Sun far more variable than any evidence or observations indicate.
As you have explained here many times there is no single driving factor but several factors in the Milankovitch cycle. The forcing amounts to only a couple W/m2 on average, so would seem to require plenty of CO2 feedback. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the forcing is so concentrated that it causes a 4C drop in summer temperature which causes ice and snow to stick around with albedo changes that trigger the ice age. In that scenario there is no need for a lot (or any) CO2 feedback. Also the CO2 readings in the ice cores are smoothed over 1000's of years. I know you want to believe that there is no possibility of a spike like the present, but ice cores can't tell you that. So we really don't know the relationship of CO2 and warming and cooling from solar forcings.
(9) Regarding hurricane strength and SST, feel free to explain what you perceive as the flaws with Elsner et al. 2008. I still (perhaps naively) think that the basic SST-intensity relationship would have to manifest itself somehow.
The specific problem with peak maximum wind intensity is that it is cherry picked and he as much as admits it in the abstract. ACE is a much better measurement because it closest to a total storm energy measurement.
(10) I probably need to rephrase what I said. I believe that normal economic incentives for developing new energy sources (so we don't have to use our hundreds of years of coal) will be far more powerful and beneficial than government intervention. One thing you and other warmers do is try to associate coal with dirty. The reality through history is that economic prosperity is always efficient and clean and government bureaucracy is inevitably corrupted and dirty. It is also painfully obvious that bad AGW science brings along bad energy policy with it like people unplugging their cell phone chargers when not in use (0.03 watts) while they go shower and use from 4 to 15 years of cell phone charger power in their electric water heater for that one shower. But the government saw fit to turn that into a radio commercial as stupid policy is a reflection of biased science.