A catch-all post for comments on my various reviews on significant pro IPCC climate papers.
Dr Rolf Philipona has kindly replied to my comments on his 2005 paper. I intend to present more data for various parameters in the weeks ahead.
Just for now though I want to restate that the Greenhouse Effect has to act in the lower atmosphere and then some of that heat is re-radiated to the surface. See basic descriptions on this NOAA site.
Hence my comment that I feel it is odd to ignore lower troposphere trends, because that is where AGW has first to take place.
IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is driven by increases in trace gases carbon dioxide, methane etc plus contentious postulated positive feedbacks from water vapour which as many authorities state is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas.
To wrap up for now, just a few very general points. Readers who follow weather forecasts and associated satellite imagery do not need me to point out that the lower atmosphere is characterized by constant large scale movement, lateral and vertical and circulation of air masses on hemispheric scales. Dr Philipona has alluded to looking to understand European warming to some extent outside the influence of the NAO and other people may comment on that.
Then there are issues of truly colossal scale heat transport such as the ever present Gulfstream which prevents the European climate from being significantly more frigid.
I have trouble imagining that Dr Philipona’s “line to the sky” radiation measurements from his Alpine site, however beautifully expressed in mathematics, can explain European warming in the face of these other confounding weather and climate factors.
Here is the key sentence in the Philipona paper:
“how could westerly
humid air flows only increase humidity and temperature in
eastern parts of Europe?”
I would remind to dr. Philipona that the climate of this planet is equivalent to the state of the ocean, and the climate doesn’t change if the ocean state doesn’t change at the same time.
If westierlies get stronger, the climate of the cost of Western Europe…oceanic was and oceanic will remain. Instead, the transition zone between an oceanic climate and a continental one will move further inland depending on the intensity of the new westerly regime.
At the end, small or no change in western area, greater changes inland up to where the ocean heat and moisture can arrive.
When NAO is in his positive phase, westerlies are stronger and move northward, leaving Iberian peninsula in a drier state.
Saying that moisture in Eastern Europe has a local origin is not enough, must be proven!
Furthermore, look at his figure 4, which in his pourpose proves the strong correlation between temperature and IWV changes. If his theory is valid in Central and Northern Europe, Philipona has to explain why in central Med (over Sicily) and, above all, in Northern Africa the correlation disappears.
RE: #1 – July 2004, I spent time in both Vienna and Salzburg one week. Vienna was hot and dry, Salzburg reminded me of being in an area with a Monsoon climate in the NH in July. It was the odd combination of Atlantic air and being so far inland that acheived this effect. Striking.
Steve, indeed Europe is fully open to Atlantic winds: no mountain range at the western cost to act as an impediment to the high moisture loaded flow.
Thanks Paolo for those comments which I will keep in mind as I pursue these issues.
I have found an Abstract for a Philipona 2006 paper which attributes the 2003 heat wave to solar radiation (short wave), contrary to their 2004 paper which covers 2003. In the 2006 paper they still say of course that Euro warming in recent decades is due to greenhouse long wave radiation.
Curious, this invoking of solar after the IPCC have for 20 years downplayed any solar influence.
I am reminded of that saying by Sir Walter Scott, the one about weaving tangled webs.
Click here for abstracts for Philipona 2004, 2005, 2006 papers.
If anyone has a pdf for the 2006 paper, please email me: sanur2007 AT warwickhughes.com or let me know.
Thanks.
Warwick,
a new study, against the paper of Philipona, finds new evidence that it has been the ocean to warm the continents in the last decades and not a local source of moisture.