First up, here's one of the BBC's utterly unbiased articles on how to defeat climate change sceptics. In particular, we are going to look at Nº5, the "Counter" to the sceptics' assertion that the troposphere is not warming as we would expect.
Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".
OK. So, the BBC's contention is that radiosonde are far more accurate for measuring the 11km deep troposphere than satellites are. OK, let's say that we accept that there has been warming since 1958 and deal, instead, with this article's assertion—of Monday, 12 November 2007, 11:55 GMT—that "Lower levels of the troposphere are warming". Present tense, you will notice.
Now, let us have a wee look at this article from EcoWorld.
Subsequent to publishing the feature ”The Fluid Envelope—A Case Against Climate Alarm“ by Dr. Richard Lindzen, we received an email from a science journalist questioning one of the central assertions in Lindzen’s report. The writer wanted to know on what basis Dr. Lindzen was claiming there has been no significant warming in the last 10+ years. In response, Lindzen emailed the following table, showing temperature trends for the last 27 years. This data is based on global (including over the ocean) average temperature readings per year, per altitude, as reported by the U.K.’s Hadley Climatic Research Unit:
As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. As Dr. Lindzen explained in his follow up email:
“I used this data to show that the trend at 300 hPa was not about 2.5x the surface trend which is what greenhouse warming [models] requires.” Apparently climate models that predict global warming ala increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 assume increasing temperature trends in the troposphere, where CO2 concentrates, and the reality is the troposphere is not getting hotter, it is getting cooler.
That's what I really admire about these alarmists: the rigourous scientific methods that they employ. Like attempting to suppress the fact that they have been calculating the greenhouse effect with equations that assume an infinitely thick atmosphere. That sort of thing.
And as for the Beeb... well... has anyone ever thought that they were impartial?