The problem of tropospheric temperature trend measurements for global climate models: Complex versus direct empiricism

Abstract

The troposphere temperature controversy concerns an empirical problem facing global climate models (GCMs), that the (tropical) troposphere is not warming as fast as predicted by these models according to observations made by a group of climate scientists – John Christy and colleagues – located at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). Elizabeth Lloyd argues that the UAH data, which conflict with GCM predictions, have been definitively discredited by a competing group of climate scientists, Ben Santer and colleagues, in a paper written in 2008. She also argues that Christy and colleagues make fundamental philosophical errors that undermine their empirical results. I argue that Lloyd's criticism is mistaken, both in terms of her assessment of the scientific value of the UAH data and in terms of her philosophical assessment of the reasoning Christy and colleagues use in support of this data. Contrary to Lloyd's assessment, Santor and colleagues have not definitively repudiated the UAH data, nor do they claim as such. Moreover, she misconstrues Christy and colleagues as philosophically committed to a direct empiricist viewpoint. As a result, I claim that the troposphere temperature controversy remains unsolved and continues to pose a potential problem for contemporary GCMs.