On top of the 21 climate scientists correcting the numerous errors in Christopher Monckton testimony to Congress, we also have Rachel Pinker and Ellsworth Dutton correcting Monckton’s misunderstanding of Pinker, Zhang and Dutton (2005):
1 Viscount Monckton attempts to directly link the change in surface solar radiation to a change in temperature. He states:
“What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most
recent period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites
confirmed measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and
naturally-occurring, global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005).”
This statement in effect equates temperature change with surface solar radiation change which, as noted in points 2 and 3 above, is only one input into a complex climate process. Also, it is not necessarily the case that global brightening is naturally-occurring; it can be caused by anthropogenic aerosols or changes in the atmospheric moisture content as well as clouds, possibly affected by increasing CO2 levels.
2 Viscount Monckton states the following about the data used in our study:
Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 W m-2 year-1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W
m-2 year-1 found by Dr. Pinker.”
In the Pinker et al. (2005) study, no use is made of outgoing radiative flux from ERBE observations; observations from ERBE are not used at all. The observations used are from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).
3 Viscount Monckton continues:
“Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface
global brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m-2 over the 18-year period of study
would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a
transient warming of 1 K (1.8 FÂ°). To put this naturally-occurring global
brightening into perspective, the IPCC’s estimated total of all the anthropogenic
influences on climate combined in the 256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m-2.”
It is difficult to comment on the above statement since the elementary radiative transfer
calculations are not presented. Possibly, the following was meant: the 1.9 W m-2 is
obtained by multiplying 0.106 W m-2 (obtained by modifying the 0.16 W m-2 value
quoted in Pinker et al. (2005)) by 18 and further by some climate sensitivity factor Î» (not
specified) and using the relationship (from the IPCC report), namely:
ÎTs = Î»RF
The RF used here is not in line with the IPCC convention.
I made the same points back in May.