An easy way to understand the issue is to ask “What random data would I need to generate to pass a particular test?”

For the test proposed at RC, I would only need to generate radom data with sufficient variance to encompass the observations, irrespective of the mean.

For the test in Douglass, I would need to generate data where the mean matched the observations. To do this I would need the random number generating process to be sufficiently right about physical reality to reproduce the lapse rate change. This matches the intent of the Douglass comparison.

RC slides over the issue that they are not looking at the possible trajectories of temperature over time, but at the atmospheric profile aloft. This is much more constrainted that the time-evolution of the system, and much more theory laden. Thats why it is a test of the theoretical basis of the models (which they fail).

Your graph is for the lower strat, where ozone dominates. CO2’s cooling effect is greatest at the top of the strat. –40-50km.

See the graphs at the bottom of this page, though they are a decade out of date. Anybody know of any updated upper stratospheric temps?

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

I have updated Milloy’s analysis and I find no stratospheric cooling since 1996:
http://i23.photobucket.com/alb.....sphere.png
I seem to recall an image somewhere of the thickness of the Ozone layer in Dobsons which flattened out around that time. I’m searching for it.

In any case, the fingerprint of AGW is asserted by the models. That is, the models say, if you have AGW, then
you will see this fingerprint.

When allegeded fingerprint is slow to show, they say. wait a few years. After a while of no show, they say,
the models while largely correct need adjustment in this area.
Crap, guys, raise your hand if you danced this kind of dance before. everybody? ya I thought so.

Modelers Anonymous.

delta surf temps prop delta IR prop delta optical depth prop delta GHG concentation – greenhouse increasing.

The fingerprint of eqns in the smi-transparent theory is something like:

delta surf temps prop delta IR atmosphere down inv prop delta IR top of atmosphere up – greenhouse constant.

If any of that makes sense.

I’m getting very sceptical about this fingerprint metaphor. decompose the fingerprint metaphor into maths.

Ah wait here.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/index.php

If they deny you access tell me.

So they are reduced to the type of verbal dancing that you see in comment 2317 above. Not dignified for a NASA scientist, but one does what one must.

Ah, I see what’s wrong with Monckton’s interpretation of the figure you cite.

The figure shows the contributions from the various forcings, and then the total effect of all forcings combined. It does not attempt to show various forcing fingerprints.

Here is the actual caption from the figure Monckton uses:

Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings

As you can see, this has nothing to do with “fingerprints” or “signatures.”

H2O might be a contributor. I don’t know too much about it. Here’s a good resource on ozone and CO2:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

See RC’s post here:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....re-trends/

The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):

The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic. They differ most clearly in the stratosphere (the part above 100mb) where CO2 causes cooling while solar causes warming. It’s important to note however, that these are long-term equilibrium results and therefore don’t tell you anything about the signal-to-noise ratio for any particular time period or with any particular forcings.

If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something to climate models.

In addition to not trusting Milloy, I would not trust Monckton or SPP either. BTW, I could make neither heads nor tails out of the image you linked.

I just posted over at CA. Maybe someone has a reliable source…

I was under the impression that the majority of stratospheric cooling was hypothesized to be due to increased stratospheric H20?

–

Lucia, Happy (slightly belated) Bday, and here are a couple of references wrt your #3: (I’ve no idea if they’ve been superseded)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abst....._etal.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abst.....ndell.html
and an overview of that second paper here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea.....indell_05/

Great blog by the way.