There is a post on James Empty Blog titled
Pielkes all the way down, revisited
that continues to misrepresent the scientific findings we have published on with respect to the science of multi-decadal surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends. Moreover, he presents his views in a weblog post, but does not follow up in the peer reviewed literature.
The fundamental scientific question that my colleagues and I are asking is whether multi-decadal temperature trends are invariant with height, winds and surface landscape in the lower troposphere including the surface layer.
We have shown observationally that this is not correct with respect to height; e.g. see
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841″, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655.
Our new paper
G. J. Steeneveld, A. A. M. Holtslag, R. T. McNider, and R. A. Pielke, 2011. Screen level temperature increase due to higher atmospheric carbon dioxide in calm and windy nights revisited. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D02122, doi:10.1029/2010JD014612, 2011
explores this issue further with a model for one particular land surface type (with a single specified value of aerodynamic roughness) with a focus on just the wind speed issue . As we wrote
“…..the parameter spaces investigated in this paper are limited….It is possible that larger roughnesses might provide more sensitivity to wind speed..”
Even for our limited staudy, Figure 3 in our paper illustrates that while the trends are quite similar in the wind speed range of 5 to 15 meter per second, there are larger differences with winds less than those speeds as well as a significant function of height.
We conclude
“…. that the temperature increase close to the surface is much less sensitive to wind speed than suggested by PM05 when the long wave radiative forcing change is from increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. However, the temperature changes do depend on height as also suggested by PM05.”
When James wrote in his weblog post that
“….the central claim of PM05, which underpinned this entire edifice, is refuted”
this is a completely inaccurate characterization of the Steenveld et al paper.
Our paper is also discussed in my post of November 19 2010 (which James does not seem to have read)
See also
and
Comments #55 in http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends.html#c6757055539660809722
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. 