The Watts nail in the coffin of AGW headline:
Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor
New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)
Well, the paper this blogger / expert reviewer is behind a paywall so we have to assume that what he quotes is correct. But a quick search pulls up this paper
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-2-245
This from the abstract TPW=total precipitable water:
...Further, we found out that the TPW anomalies are driven by the global surface temperature anomalies, but with a lag.
and from the text:
Time series plots of monthly and annual anomalies of TPW for the two datasets are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b, respectively. Also included in Fig. 8 is the global surface temperature anomaly, computed based on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global surface temperature data (Hansen et al. 1999).
Well, the paper this blogger / expert reviewer is behind a paywall so we have to assume that what he quotes is correct. But a quick search pulls up this paper
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-2-245
This from the abstract TPW=total precipitable water:
...Further, we found out that the TPW anomalies are driven by the global surface temperature anomalies, but with a lag.
and from the text:
Time series plots of monthly and annual anomalies of TPW for the two datasets are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b, respectively. Also included in Fig. 8 is the global surface temperature anomaly, computed based on NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global surface temperature data (Hansen et al. 1999).
The first 3 yr (1988–90) and part of 1996 show significant discrepancies between the anomalies of the two TPW datasets. There is, however, a good agreement for most parts of the other years. Linear regressionsbetween the two datasets show a correlation coefficient of 0.66 for the monthly anomalies and 0.74 for the annual anomalies. TPW anomalies are closely correlated to surface temperature anomalies. The correlation with surface temperature is higher for R-2 than for NVAP (Fig. 8d). The maximum cross correlation between TPW and surface temperature is reachedwhen the temperature leads the TPW by 2 months and equals 0.67 for R-2 and0.50 for NVAP. This suggests that precipitable water anomalies are driven by the temperature anomalies.
 |
The problem is which cherry to pick?!!!!
Then of course Watts puts his foot in the wet and smelly with this blog post:
IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’
So in this headline post we have a total misreading of a document. One of the authors (and surely he should know) sais so on Australian Radio:
.
The leaked IPCC drafts cover a range of subjects from the quality of climate models to measurements of sea level rise and Arctic ice loss.
Professor Steve Sherwood is a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.
He is also a lead author of chapter seven of the IPCC report, which happens to be the one the sceptics are claiming for their side.
But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming.
STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that's completely ridiculous. I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.
MARK COLVIN: They're saying that it is the first indication that the IPCC recognises something called solar forcing.
STEVE SHERWOOD: It's not the first time it recognises it. What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything. The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.
And there have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic ray/cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that that doesn't actually work.
MARK COLVIN: So you're saying that you've managed to basically eliminate this idea that sunspots or whatever are more responsible for global warming than human activity.
STEVE SHERWOOD: Based on the peer-reviewed literature that's available now, that looks extremely unlikely.
MARK COLVIN: So what have these people done? Is this just a case of cherry-picking a sentence?
STEVE SHERWOOD: Yeah, it's a pretty severe case of that, because even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.
|
It looks as if IPCC has played a blinder.
They can see where the "skeptics" will find inconsitancies and then clarify before publishing and all for free
They also show that sketics cannot read or comprehend!.
