Christopher Monckton writes in email:
I sent the attached commentary to the journal a week back and have not had so much as an acknowledgement. So do feel free to use it.
It is reproduced below. Readers may recall of the editor resignation imbroglio over the journal Remote Sensing publishing Spencer-Braswell 2011 – Anthony
========================================================
Commentary
Empirical determination of climate sensitivity
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Reliable empirical determination of climate sensitivity is limited by uncertainties in the observations [1] as well as in climate theory. A fortiori, reliable numerical determination of sensitivity by general-circulation models is hindered not only by these uncertainties but also by difficulties inherent in modeling the coupled, non-linear, mathematically-chaotic climate object [2-4]. Of the ten papers [5-14] cited in [1] as attempting to determine climate sensitivity empirically as opposed to numerically, four concur with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [4] in finding sensitivity high: in [5], for instance, it is suggested that sensitivities >10 K cannot be ruled out. Two of the ten papers [13, 14] are criticisms of [7, 12], implying high sensitivity. The remaining four papers [7, 10-12] argue for low sensitivity: typically ~1 K per CO2 doubling, implying net-negative temperature feedbacks.
In this lively debate, further papers explicitly finding sensitivity low are [15], where an equilibrium sensitivity 1.1 K was determined as the quotient of the relaxation time-constant of the climate system and the heat capacity of the global ocean, found by regression of ocean heat content; [16], which found that sensitivities over various recent and paleoclimatic periods cohere at 1-1.7 K if an amplification of solar forcing owing to cosmic-ray displacement is posited, but not otherwise; [17], where a reanalysis of the NCEP tropospheric humidity data showed significantly negative zonal annual mean specific humidity at all altitudes >850 hPa, implying that the long-term water-vapor feedback is negative and that equilibrium sensitivity is ~1 K; and [18], where the observed rate of decrease in aerosol optical depth, particularly in the United States and Europe, was found to have contributed a strong positive forcing, requiring that canonical equilibrium climate sensitivity be halved to 1-1.8 K.
In [15-18] the sensitivities ~1 K were declared explicitly. However, several papers contain internal, unstated evidence for low climate sensitivity. For instance, [19] displays a flow-diagram for the energy budget of the Earth and its atmosphere, such that incoming and outgoing fluxes are shown to balance at the surface. The diagram shows surface radiation as 390 W m–2, corresponding to a blackbody emission at 288 K, equivalent to today’s mean surface temperature 15 °C. If the surface radiative flux were indeed the blackbody flux of 390 W m–2, then by differentiation of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer the implicit value of the Planck parameter λ0 would be ΔT /ΔF = T/4(F+78+24) = 0.15 K W–1 m2 (after including 78 W m–2 for evapo-transpiration and 24 W m–2 for thermal convection), whereupon, assuming feedbacks summing to the IPCC’s implicit central estimate 2.1 W m–2 K–1, equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT2x = ΔF2x λ0 (1 – 2.1 λ0)–1 = 3.7(0.15)(1.5) = 0.8 K.
There is a further, and important, indication of low climate sensitivity in [19], where the total radiative forcing from the five principal greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, and N2O) in the entire atmosphere is given as 125 W m–2 in clear skies and 86 W m–2 in cloudy skies, giving ~101 W m–2 forcing overall. Holding insolation and albedo constant ad experimentum, the difference between surface temperatures with and without the atmosphere is readily established as 288 – 255 = 33 K, so that, assuming that any other forcings are comparatively insignificant, the climate sensitivity of the whole atmosphere is simply 3.7(33/101) = 1.2 K.
Much has been written [e.g. 34-36] of the discrepancy between modeled and observed rates of warming in the tropical mid-troposphere. The theory of the moist adiabat, supported by the models, holds that there should be 2.5-3 times as much warming in the tropical mid-troposphere as at the surface. However, [20], cited with approval in [4], regards the existence of the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” as a fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. If so, in all but one of the dozen radiosonde and satellite datasets of tropical mid-troposphere temperature, the fingerprint is absent, indicating that the IPCC’s current central estimate of climate sensitivity should be divided by 2.5-3, giving an equilibrium sensitivity ~1 K.
An intriguing discrepancy between modeled and observed rates of evaporation from the surface was reported by [21]. The models predict evaporation ΔE/ΔT = 1-3% per Kelvin of surface warming: observations, however, indicate that the true value is close to 6%. The equilibrium-sensitivity parameter λ is directly determinable from the rate of change in evaporation expressed as a percentage per Kelvin of surface warming, thus: λ = (0.8 ΔE/ΔT)–1. This result, from [22], may be verified by plugging the model-projected 1-3% K–1 into the equation, yielding λ on [0.42, 1.25] and consequently a climate sensitivity on [1.5, 4.5] K, precisely the model-derived values that the IPCC projects. However, the measured 5.7% K–1 indicates λ = 0.22 and equilibrium sensitivity 0.8 K.
It is sometimes said that we are conducting an experiment on the only planet we have. We have been conducting that experiment with increasing vigor for a quarter of a millennium. Some results are by now available. In [23], an assessment of all greenhouse-gas forcings since 1750 was presented. The total is 3.1 W m–2. From this, the net-negative non-greenhouse-gas forcings of 1.1 W m–2 given in [4] are deducted to give a net forcing from all sources of ~2 W m–2 over the period. Warming from 1750-1984 was 0.5 K [24], with another 0.3 K since then [25], making 0.8 K in all, not inconsistent with the 0.9 K indicated in [26-28]. Then the climate sensitivity over the period, long enough for feedbacks to have acted, is (5.35 ln 2)(0.8/2) = 1.5 K, on the assumption that all the warming over the period was anthropogenic. A similar analysis applied to the data since 1950 produces a further sensitivity ~1 K.
More simply still, the most rapid supra-decadal rate of warming since the global instrumental record [24] began was equivalent to 0.16 K/decade. This rate was observed from 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1976-2001, since when there has been no warming. There are no statistically-significant differences between the warming rates over these three periods, which between them account for half of the record. On the assumption that in the next nine decades what has been the maximum supra-decadal warming rate becomes the mean rate, climate warming to 2100 will be 1.4 K.
Another simple method is merely to project to 2100 the linear warming rate since 1950, when greenhouse-gas emissions first became significant. This is legitimate, since [4] expects CO2 concentration to rise near-exponentially, but the consequent forcing is logarithmic. In that event, once again the centennial warming will be 1.2 K.
These four sensitivities ~ 1 K derived from the temperature record are of course transient sensitivities: but, since equilibrium will not be reached for 1000-3000 years [29], it is only the transient sensitivity that is policy-relevant. In any event, on the assumption that approaching half of the warming since 1750 may have been natural, equilibrium sensitivities ~1 K are indicated.
Resolution of the startling discrepancy between the low-sensitivity and high-sensitivity cases is of the first importance. The literature contains much explicit and implicit evidence for low as well as high sensitivity, and the observed record of temperature change – to date, at any rate – coheres remarkably with the low-sensitivity findings. Until long enough periods of reliable data are available both to the empiricists and to the modelers, neither group will be able to provide a definitive, widely-accepted interval for climate sensitivity.
Two conclusions follow. First, given the uncertainties in the empirical method and the still greater uncertainties inherent in the numerical method, a theoretical approach should be considered. Climate sensitivity to any forcing is the product of three parameters: the forcing itself, the Planck sensitivity parameter λ0, and the overall feedback gain factor [30]. Though the CO2 forcing cannot be quantified directly by measurement in the laboratory, where it is difficult to simulate non-radiative transports, the current value 5.35 times the logarithm of the proportionate change in CO2 concentration, or 3.7 W m–2 (some 15% below the value in [31]), is generally accepted as likely to be correct. Likewise, the value of λ0 is clear: it is the first differential of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer at the characteristic-emission altitude, where incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are by definition identical, augmented by ~17% to allow for latitudinal variation.
The central uncertainty in the debate about climate sensitivity, therefore, resides in the value of the last of the three parameters – the overall feedback gain factor G = (1 – λ0 f)–1, where f is the sum of all individual positive and negative feedbacks and g = λ0 f is the closed-loop gain. Process engineers designing electronic circuits customarily constrain g to a maximum value +0.01 to ensure that conditions leading to runaway feedback do not occur. Above 0.01, or at maximum 0.1, there is a danger that defective components, errors in assembly, and the circumstances of use can conspire to cause runaway feedback that damages or even destroys the circuit.
The climate is an object on which feedbacks operate. Yet in the past 750 Ma [32] absolute mean global surface temperature has not varied by more than 8 K, or 3%, either side of the long-run mean. Similar results were separately obtained for the past 65 Ma [33]. It is most unlikely, therefore, that the loop gain g in the climate object exceeds 0.1. However, the IPCC’s interval of climate sensitivities, [2, 6.4] K, implies a loop gain on [0.4, 0.8], an interval so far above 0.1 that runaway feedback would have occurred at some point in the geological record. Yet there is no sign that any such event has ever occurred. Given this significant theoretical constraint on g, equilibrium climate sensitivity cannot in any event exceed 1.2 K.
The second conclusion is related to the first. It is that, in accordance with the fundamental constraint that theory dictates, climate sensitivities attained by a variety of methods appear to cohere at ~1 K per CO2 doubling, not the far higher values offered by the high-sensitivity community. As we have seen, in six papers [11-12, 15-18], climate sensitivity is explicitly stated to be ~1 K; in a further three [19-21], by four distinct methods, implicit sensitivity is found to be ~1 K; by four further methods applied to the recent global temperature record, sensitivity seems to be ~1 K; and the coherence of these results tends to confirm the theoretical argument that the feedback loop gain, and therefore climate sensitivity, cannot be strongly positive, providing a 15th and definitive indication that sensitivity is ~1 K. Since no single method is likely to find favor with all, a coherence of multiple empirical and theoretical methods such as that which has been sketched here may eventually decide the vexed climate-sensitivity question.
Remote Sensing, therefore, was right to publish [12], authored by two of the world’s foremost experts on the design and operation of satellite remote-sensing systems and on the interpretation of the results. The authors stand in a long and respectable tradition of reassessing not only the values of individual temperature feedbacks but of their mutually-amplified aggregate. Their results suggest that temperature feedbacks are somewhat net-negative, implying climate sensitivity ~1 K. In the context of the wider evidence considered in outline here, they may be right.
References
- Trenberth, K.E.; Fasullo, J.T.; Abraham, J.P. Issues in Establishing Climate Sensitivity in Recent Studies, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 2051-2056; doi: 10.3390/rs3092051.
- Lorenz, E.N. Deterministic nonperiodic flow, J. Atmos. Sci. 1963, 20, 130-141.
- Giorgi, F. Climate Change Prediction, Climatic Change 2005, 73, 239-265; doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-6857-4.
- IPCC. Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.,; Marquis, M.; Avery, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, §14.2.2.2.
- Gregory, J.M.; Ingram, W.J.; Palmer, M.A.; Jones, G.S.; Stott, P.A.; Thorpe, R.B.; Lowe, J.A.; Johns, T.C.; Williams, K.D. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, L03205.
- Forster, P.M.F.; Gregory, J.M. The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from earth radiation budget data. J. Climate 2006, 19, 39-52.
- Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 2010, 115, D16109.
- Murphy, D.M.; Solomon, S.; Portmann, R.W.; Rosenlof, K.H.; Forster, P.M.; Wong, T. An observationally based energy balance for the earth since 1950. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, 114, D17107.
- Clement, A.C.; Burgman, R.; Norris, J.R. Observational and model evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback. Science 2009, 325, 460-464.
- Lindzen, R.S.; Choi, Y.-S. On the determination of climate feedbacks from erbe data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, L16705.
- Lindzen, R.S.; Choi, Y.S. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia Pacific J. Atmos. Sci. 2011, 47, 377-390.
- Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in earth’s radiant energy balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
- Dessler, A.E. A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade. Science 2010, 330, 1523-1527.
- Dessler, A.E. Cloud variations and the earth’s energy budget. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, doi:10.1029/2011GL049236.
- Schwartz, S.E. Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system. Geophys Res. Lett. 2007.
- Shaviv, N. On climate response to changes in the cosmic-ray flux and radiative budget. J. Geophys. Res., 2008, doi:10.1029.
- Paltridge, G.; A. Arking; M. Pook. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2009, doi:10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x.
- Chylek, P.; U. Lohmann; M. Dubey; M. Mishchenko; R. Kahn; A. Ohmura. Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, D24S04, doi:10.1029/ 2007JD008740.
- Kiehl, J.T., & K.E. Trenberth. The Earth’s Radiation Budget. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 1997, 78, 197-208.
- Santer, B.D., et al. Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science 2003, 301, 479–483.
- Wentz, F.J.; L. Ricciardulli; K. Hilburn; C. Mears. How much more rain will global warming bring? SciencExpress 2007, 31 May, 1-5, doi:10.1126/ science.1140746.
- Lindzen, R.S. Climate v. Climate Alarm, Lecture to the American Chemical Society, 2011 Aug. 28.
- Blasing, T.J. Recent greenhouse-gas concentrations), 2011 August; doi: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.032: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html.
- Hansen, J.; Lacis, A.; Rind A.; Russell, G.; Stone, P.; Fung, I.; Ruedy, R.; Lerner, J. Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms. Meteorological Monographs 1984, 29, 130-163.
- HadCRUt3, Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt.
- Parker, D.E. et al. Monthly mean Central England temperatures, 1974-1991. Int. J. Climatol., 1992a.
- Parker, D.E.; Legg, T.P.; Folland, C.K. A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772-1991, Int. J. Climatol. 1992b, 12, 317-342.
- Parker, D.E.; Horton, E.B. Uncertainties in the Central England Temperature series 1878-2003 and some improvements to the maximum and minimum series, Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 1173-1188.
- Solomon, S.; Plattner, G.-K.; Knutti, R.; Friedlingstein, P.. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS 2009, 106:6, 1704-1709, doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106.
- Monckton of Brenchley, C. Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Physics and Society 2008, 37:3, 6-19.
- IPCC. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.; Meira Filho, L.G.; Callander, B.A.; Harris, N.; Kattenberg, A.; Maskell, K. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, 572 pp.
- Scotese, C.R. How global climate has changed through time. 2002, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm.
- Zachos, J.; Pagani, M.; Sloan, L.; Thomas, E.; Billups, K.. Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present. Science 2001, 292, 686-693.
- Douglass, D.H.; Pearson, B.D.; Singer, S.F. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: climate models versus observation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, L13208, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020103.
- Douglass, D.H.; Christy, J.R.; Pearson, B.D.; Singer, S.F. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol. 2007, doi:10.1002/joc.1651.
- Santer, B.D.; Thorne, P.W.; Haimberger, L.; Taylor, K.E.; Wigley, T.M.L.; Lanzante, J.R.; Solomon, S.; Free, M.; Gleckler, P.J.; Jones, P.D.; Karl, T.R.; Klein, S.A.; Mears, C.; Nychka, D.; Schmidt, G.A.; Sherwood, S.C.; Wentz, F.J. Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Int. J. Climatol. 2008, doi:1002/joc.1756.
=========================================================
This document also available as a PDF: Monckton_letter_remote_sensing
The editor of the journal couldn’t even acknowledge receipt, or he would have had to resign. 🙂
The first publication of this paper here had a formatting error due to conversion from MS-Word to Open Office to WordPress, and the numbers in the references section got converted to bullets rather than numbers. I think I have fixed everything but please advise if anything seems amiss in formatting.
Methinks it was twice posted! Regardless, why would Remote Sensing stonewall this contribution? Are they stuck in the “The Science is Settled” loop, or in other words, a runaway feedback, from which their editor had to escape? Everywhere one looks these days, there is evidence of a scientific discipline in collapse. When does the tipping point occur, in this, yet another feedback loop? The stuff leaking from the AGW vortex is increasingly irrational; I can’t imagine what types of convolutions the druids must have to accomplish, daily, to survive in that toxic soup.
Sorry, but if I’m not mistaken, some commenter the other day actually compared Lord Monckton to Al Gore. I’m wondering now if Gore’s papers include such in-depth analysis and reams of references.
Please excuse me now while I laugh and laugh and laugh.
Watts using Word! Glad to see see it didn’t kill you. 😉
REPLY: Read carefully, I use Open Office now, I deleted MS-Word from my computer last year. -Anthony
Mike asks “Why would Remote Sensing stonewall this contribution?”
Excellent question, but the answer requires specialized training only available from the TEAM, and they have already stated their unwillingness to speak on the matter to anyone outside of the TEAM.
My absolute favourite Smartarse of the year(and indeed, of this debate)
The man is in a class of his own. Wish that I were so erudite.
Go Monckton!
My favorite part is the part where he says that we need more time to collect observations. The length of time we have had high resolution data on the climate is relatively short. When dealing with cycles that operate on decadal scales, how many years of detailed observation are required to obtain statistically significant trends? Can you get a trend from only a dozen ENSO or AMO cycles? If you can, does it mean anything?
There’s no serious journal called Remote Sensing.
Good point, that the geological record does not support the concept of a runaway feedback loop roasting the planet. Were such conditions and feedbacks a part of our real world, it would have fried long ago, when CO2 concentrations were much higher.
.
To Ralph:
“Were such conditions and feedbacks a part of our real world, it would have fried long ago, when CO2 concentrations were much higher.”
That’s not really a good argument. The Earth has gone through several periods in the time frame he’s talking about which would not be very good for supporting our modern human civilization.
Gary – your argument is baseless. Humanity’s never been as powerful, resourceful and resilient as today. There’s no past climate we wouldn’t be able to adapt to, even the pre-oxygen eras and iceball Earth.
On my first read………lol, so, Christopher, are you saying the sensitivity is probably ~1K? I just wanted to clarify. 🙂 lol….. well done!
I think you may run into a bump with the exponential + logarithmic = linear. I do like the logic, but some may cry for more illumination. I only bring it up so you may prepare for your antagonists.
It is my understanding that the world’s population is expected to level off in about 40 years or so. So, even if we’re still using the same sources for fuel and energy,(very questionable) we can expect the GHG emissions to lower in the rate of rise and if it doesn’t flat-line, the increase would then likely be linear as opposed to exponential.
My best,
James
I appreciate Lord Monckton’s contributions to the fundamental debate, but the fact remains that Kings and Commoners are no better informed of what the future holds than we were 3000 years ago. The various Oracles also founded their predictions and forecasts on what was considered reliable evidence at the time. Chicken bones and goat entrails performed the same function as modern computer models, and it seems to me that the output of those methodologies is nearly the same. Momentous (and minor) decisions were taken as a result of those predictions – to invade or not, to plant a crop or not, etc.. A prediction is made, and then we all wait to see if it comes true. If it does not, the error is blamed on interpretation by the recipient of said prediction, never on the Oracle.
From a policy and action standpoint, I see little difference between then and now.
p gosselin says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:12 am
Watts using Word! Glad to see see it didn’t kill you. 😉
REPLY: Read carefully, I use Open Office now, I deleted MS-Word from my computer last year. -Anthony
=======================================
Windows Live writer seems to handle things pretty well for me, having things move from other MS apps to a blog. Haven’t tried it with OO apps.
REPLY: I’ll give that a try – A
Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
That’s not really a good argument.
========================================================
Gary, it’s an excellent argument…
People like to argue the science, but the science is all based on “it’s not normal”.
Yet, the very people arguing the science, let the people telling them it’s not normal…..define what is normal.
There’s no one that can look at this graph and agree with where the “normal” line is…..
….Yet skeptics let them get away with it
http://climatechangedownunder.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ice-core-data.jpg
and Christopher Monckton is also 100% correct……
“an interval so far above 0.1 that runaway feedback would have occurred at some point in the geological record. Yet there is no sign that any such event has ever occurred.”
If anything, the opposite has happened. No matter how high CO2 levels were, they crashed….
….a sensible person would be more concerned as to why it’s so hard to maintain higher CO2 levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Take their claim that it’s not normal away from them, and all of their science falls apart and none of it matters…………….
Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
{To Ralph:
“Were such conditions and feedbacks a part of our real world, it would have fried long ago, when CO2 concentrations were much higher.”}
“That’s not really a good argument. The Earth has gone through several periods in the time frame he’s talking about which would not be very good for supporting our modern human civilization.
Particularly the inevitable repeated ice ages!
I normally don’t respond to fantasy posts, but I’ll make an exception:
To omnologos:
“Gary – your argument is baseless. Humanity’s never been as powerful, resourceful and resilient as today. There’s no past climate we wouldn’t be able to adapt to, even the pre-oxygen eras and iceball Earth.”
That is a straw man argument. That isn’t what I said at all. You are changing the subject to sci-fi ideas about whether we could survive a holocaust. I’m sure we could. That wasn’t my point though. I was pointing out that Monkton’s use of paleoclimate records to show that tipping points don’t happen is flawed. I would call an ice age a tipping point, and it would be catastrophic to our civilization. The race would survive, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I was saying at all. If the previous ice age had lasted another thousand years, you wouldn’t be here.
Gary, what was necessary “for supporting our modern human civilization” was radically different a century ago than it is now, and will be radically different in another century. No evidence that warming would produce an unlivable world has ever been presented. On the other hand, even a dozen meters of ice covering the temperate zones would present a much greater challenge.
Think before you write.
Remote Sensing:
re·mote adj. re·mot·er, re·mot·est* …
4. Far removed in connection or relevance;
So it’s trivial whether they acknowledge the letter or not
6. Distant in manner; aloof.
So we’re not likely to hear anything back at all.
7. Operating or controlled from a distance:
So they’re acting under orders/threats from The Team, Al Gore, Joe Romm**, etc.
* From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/remote:
** Yes, yes, I know: “Joe Who?”
Well done, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm
On my understanding of the Tipping point term – as used by the warmists in the climate sense – it’s a position of no return (or runaway warming in the alarmist AGW ‘theory’). By that token, I cannot see how an Ice Age can be a tipping point, as we have indeed returned from the last one!
Anthony,
May I suggest switching to LibreOffice over OpenOffice (http://www.libreoffice.org). LibreOffice is a branch of OpenOffice, but is independent of Oracle. There is good reason to not trust Oracle with open source projects.
Regardless of that, I have found LibreOffice to be a much slicker, less resource hogging, and much less buggy than OpenOffice. LibreOffice opens all MS Office files with ease. Since it uses the exact same file format as OpenOffice, all of your saved documents should seamlessly be usable in LibreaOffice.
Anyways, just a suggestion.
To Craig Goodrich:
“No evidence that warming would produce an unlivable world has ever been presented. On the other hand, even a dozen meters of ice covering the temperate zones would present a much greater challenge.
Think before you write.”‘
Once again, someone is trying to change the subject and argue against something I didn’t even say. I was saying that Monkton’s use of paleoclimate records does not support his claim that catastrphic climate change has not happened in the past. I did not say that mild warming would harm us.
Read before you post sir. I think you were responding more to Ralph’s comment than mine.
Gary Swift wrote: That’s not really a good argument. The Earth has gone through several periods in the time frame he’s talking about which would not be very good for supporting our modern human civilization.
Especially the cold periods!
However, you seem to have missed the point that the geological record rules out (most likely) the possibility of a runaway heating effect induced by CO2 accumulation.
Latitude says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:09 pm
…..There’s no one that can look at this graph and agree with where the “normal” line is…..
….Yet skeptics let them get away with it
http://climatechangedownunder.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ice-core-data.jpg
and Christopher Monckton is also 100% correct……
“an interval so far above 0.1 that runaway feedback would have occurred at some point in the geological record. Yet there is no sign that any such event has ever occurred.”
If anything, the opposite has happened. No matter how high CO2 levels were, they crashed….
….a sensible person would be more concerned as to why it’s so hard to maintain higher CO2 levels……
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The one thing that sticks out in that graph is the drops to abnormally low levels of CO2 that would have wiped out trees. Levels below 200ppm mean that plant growth comes to a grinding HALT.
“If the level decreases down below 200 PPM in an enclosed growing area, plant growth slows to a halt….” http://www.hydroponics.net/learn/co2_calculator.asp
There used to be an online peer reviewed paper claiming tree growth halts at 220ppm CO2 but it got yanked a few years ago no doubt because it contradicted the Ice Core data. Grasses do better at lower CO2 levels compared to trees btw.
What is really interesting about the graph to my mind is the long mostly stable plateau in temperature we have been enjoying while the other interglacials were sharp spikes to a higher temp. and then a crash into another long Ice Age.
If CO2 does have a significant influence on temperature, then given the default condition of the earth is a snowball we should keep pouring out the CO2. The end point of an interglacial is not the time to try to “turn off the heat”
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it comes to mind…..
To Kenin-in UK:
“Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm
On my understanding of the Tipping point term – as used by the warmists in the climate sense – it’s a position of no return (or runaway warming in the alarmist AGW ‘theory’). By that token, I cannot see how an Ice Age can be a tipping point, as we have indeed returned from the last one!”
Okay, finally a substantial post that deserves an actual response, based on what I actually said. lol
That’s subjective, and could be effectively argued in favor of what you said. I agree with you in the context that you placed it. I was speaking in more general terms, and not just talking about warming. I was just talking about variability. Paleo records seem to indicate (dubiously) that climate has been highly variable within the limits we are accustomed to over recent geological time. It has recovered, and maintains its ability to return to equilibrium over medium time frames. I do not dispute that. I do maintain that 100,000 years of ice age and then the end of the ice age represet two tipping points. We balance on the edge of a three edged sword between the solid, liquid, and gas forms of water. Tipping points are common and natural, in that context. I wasn’t talking about the warmist horror tipping point of ZOMGWTF we’re going to die in 50 years. I really was just talking about Monkton’s reference to the past several million years of geological proxies as evidence that the atmosphere is stable. In broad terms, it’s been very stable, but in the context of human survival it’s been quite volatile on all time scales, by natural variations.
to Septic Matthew:
“the possibility of a runaway heating effect induced by CO2 accumulation”
Once again, that isn’t what I said at all. I agree with the point you are making, but that wasn’t what I said. Please see my previous comments for details.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
You’ve been busy. Thanks for the commentary.
John
Gary Swift: I agree with the point you are making,
In that case, your first post was totally pointless.
Perhaps in the context of armies clashing for our money and other political control because anthropogenic CO2 will or will not cause catastrophic cooling your post might have been on point, but as we are it was just a whiff.
There’s too many people enamored of the “collapse” meme. Why would our civilization of many thousand mile long cables, moon trips, permanent polar stations, artificial immunization, greenhouses, domesticated cultivations and people chatting on the internet …why would our civilization “collapse” rather than adapt adapt adapt and adapt as we have done for two million years?
What would get us, a loss of our Tesco or Walmart trip? No more bananas in winter? The end of Facebook? It’s easy to see even instantaneous ice age as in The Day After Tomorrow will bring no “collapse”.
Of course nuclear war would be a wholly different game but it’s like saying an acute illness is different from a chronic ailment.
I’m saying there’s not an ounce of evidence present civilization would not be able to thrive under any “chronic” change the future will throw at us, and under most “acute” changes unless they’re pretty much global and instantaneous.
Gail Combs says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm
=========================================
Gail, funny you should mention grasses. When grasses evolved there was a distinct CO2 crash.
It’s pretty easy to explain the peaks and valleys with biology. No different than any other culture. When your culture grows until something becomes limiting (CO2), it crashes. Releasing all the nutrients (CO2) until it grows again, something becomes limiting again, and it crashes again.
…..all perfectly normal
===========
Gail said: “What is really interesting about the graph to my mind is the long mostly stable plateau in temperature we have been enjoying while the other interglacials were sharp spikes to a higher temp. and then a crash into another long Ice Age.”
==============
Also this spike was not as high as previous spikes. But it’s a lot longer, and started way before man made CO2.
Their science falls apart when you stop letting them define what’s normal.
CO2 levels are not normal…..not even close to average
Temps are not normal…..not even close to average
…..yet the very people claiming “it’s not normal” are allowed to define what is normal
http://climatechangedownunder.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ice-core-data.jpg
On the topic of wether Monkton gets published in Remote Sensing, or even acknowledged, it may be that Monktons paper (letter?) does not qualify. I have no idea of the publication policies of the Remote Sensing Journal but, unless I am getting it wrong, Monktons letter reads as a literature review rather than as new research. Monkton apparently described it as “commentary”, which to me reads as commentary on the reviewed articles. I dont see why it couldnt qualify for the journals letters to the editor section if it does not fit in the main part of the journal. I would place bets that they dont publish it.
I think it is a great article, I like to see the warmists hoist on their own petard. I like that he cuts through the detail it is so easy to fall to and summarizes a general trend in the research.
Monkton does it well in very good scientific goobledegookese to make it more palatable to the preisthood. It is a pet peeve of mine that academics appear to prize work that is written in unintelligible and unnecessarily difficult manner. Reminds me of the Mediaeval church using Latin so the peasants could not understand it so making the priests look more exclusive and clever. It annoys me that warmist sites like Real Climate and Sceptical Science use scientific goobledegookese as a tool to hide their arguments. Some of their articles will even change the tone and style of language mid article so it is harder to follow, then change style back again when they want. Most science can be written in a way that is easy to read and understand. Some people do not have the talent for writing in this way, while being good scientists but they could just hire someone who is. I know Monkton has the ability to pitch to his audience, and I think he has done a good job here.
Latitude says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:09 pm
….a sensible person would be more concerned as to why it’s so hard to maintain higher CO2 levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Take their claim that it’s not normal away from them, and all of their science falls apart and none of it matters…………….
—————————–
Latitude,
I appreciate your observation about taking away the AGW by CO2 alarmist’s presumption of normal climate.
In looking at the graph you linked to in your above quote, I see no reasonable relation between atm temps and atm CO2 that provides alarmist or lukewarmist concern over our increasing release of atm CO2.
However, that graph does give me reasonable concern that atm CO2 over millions of years to now has been steadily increasingly locked up in land and ocean deposits to the extent it is <unavailable to make life flourish as much now as it has in past geologic time scales; like say during the age of dinosaurs; the Mesozoic Era. Our concern was erroneously diverted by the bias toward myopic AGW by CO2 of the IPCC . . . . we should be concerned with availability of atm CO2 as plant food. Even in the inevitable return of a period of glaciation, high CO2 would make the reduced amount of arable land more productive. NOTE: effects on our climate by continental drift millions of years ago causing ocean circulation shifts different than today to the contrary understood.
John
I’m saying there’s not an ounce of evidence present civilization would not be able to thrive under any “chronic” change the future will throw at us, and under most “acute” changes unless they’re pretty much global and instantaneous.
Like a VEI7+ eruption.
I agree, the notion that we can’t adapt to slow change and thrive is ridiculous.
It’s rapid change we have to worry about.
Wow, did Christopher wear them down? Have they given up on their pointless diversions? This has got to be a first. A post by Christopher Monckton, challenging the orthodox of climate hysteria. The post has been up several hours, and all that’s happening on WUWT is a silly discussion as to whether or not tipping points occur and whether or not humanity could survive.
Well, ok, I agree with Omn. What would have been catastrophic even 70 years ago would have much less impact today. Lat is correct, too. Normal was defined by an arbitrary and subjective view. Witness the discussion about arctic ice. The bedwetters always seem to think the ice should be at the levels of the late 70s, when an objective view is applied, we see that level of ice isn’t beneficial to mankind. And, were it to get much larger than that, it would no longer be deemed arctic ice, but rather ice accumulating in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans.
My 2 cents.
James
Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm
As a geologist, I consider the palaeo records reasonably good (within the uncertainties imposed by looking at rocks!) at showing the generic climate that was around in the past.
In respect of natural variation, perhaps the term ‘inflection’ or ‘change’ point would be more appropriate for your apparent descriptive purpose?
In essence, as you appear to concede – the atmospheric conditions are relatively stable, at least between two obvious ‘limits’ (Ice ages and interglacials) over millions of years.
So for this reason, the term tipping point is a little alarmist IMO.
I don’t disagree that such known climate extremes would likely have caused significant distress to the past human population – but it wasn’t instantaneous, and our ancestors moved and adapted….hence, we are still here?
I do agree with your last sentence. ‘In broad terms, it’s been very stable, but in the context of human survival it’s been quite volatile on all time scales, by natural variations.’ – it’s just a shame that the climate science TEAM do not accept that any current variation may largely be natural – and instead decide to impose alarmist theories upon the general public!
Moncktons piece illustrates the alarming over sensitivity being applied quite well IMHO.
“There’s too many people enamored of the “collapse” meme. ”
There are too many people who use “there’s” when they mean “there are”.
Perhaps Wagner’s resignation had to do with an ACCEPTANCE of what was in the paper and more generally in the skeptical press, not with his disagreement. At some point the warmists will want to drift quietly away into a low-profile place where their past excitements can’t hurt them. Perhaps Wagner has just done so.
A flight from CAGW is already happening. RealClimate has explicitly said in a Jan/Feb 2011 argument with me that they are not promoting CAGW, but AGW. The difference, of course, is not just a letter, but an entire concept. Unless it is a catastrophe, there is no probable difference from a “natural” climatic variation. And nothing substantial enough for humans to do anything about, as in the best scenario we can only moderate what we are doing. There is no going back to 1735.
We’ll know reality is coming back into climate when the movie celebrities decline to further push the climate cause, likely explaining that the time has come for them to focus back on their careers and let others carry the shield and spear.
Who will be first?
Oops Jeff..you’re right. The English language hasn’t moved yet to consider “there is” as an impersonal expression.
James Sexton says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Lat is correct, too. Normal was defined by an arbitrary and subjective view.
=======================================================
not…………
Look how they are constantly moving the goal posts……..normal was defined to fit their agenda.
If they had used the real normal, they would have had to change it anyway or their science was going no where…………LOL
=======================
James said: “Witness the discussion about arctic ice. The bedwetters always seem to think the ice should be at the levels of the late 70s”
==============================
Look at how many times they have changed satellites….
….how many times they have “improved” their measurements
Started out measuring melt ponds as open water, changed to a higher frequency, which reads more melt ponds, etc
…and in just the course of ~30 years they claim they are comparing like for like
They have changed equipment, math, and formulas so many times in the past 30 years….
….and expect people to believe they’ve kept an accurate running record
Whatever measurements the get today, are no where near close to what they measured 30 years ago.
Again, letting the very people saying something is not normal…….define what normal is.
Kudos to Lord Monckton! He has summarized the scientific arguments about CO2 feedback-forcing of global temperatures from 36 papers (!) —and seems to have concluded that, if there is any such feedback, it is negative.
My common-sense unscientific conclusion is that such feedback-forcing is unlikely to be positive because if it were, Earth would have suffered a runaway temperature escalation some time ago (like the unendurable squeal caused by feedback from a high-power amplified loudspeaker with a microphone facing it), and Earth would now be uninhabitable. But see? I’m still alive!
O/T sorry but this made me laugh from today’s Grauniad……
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/24/climate-change-mount-everest-melting
Attn. David Cameron: Looking for a science advisor?
(At least give this man a hearing, like the one you gave Al Gore. You thought the latter really knew his stuff. Why don’t you see how well he stands up to a cross-examination by CM?)
Remote Consensing
Roger Knights says:
September 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Attn. David Cameron: Looking for a science advisor?
– – – – – – – – –
Roger Knights,
I have selected some staunch and not always socially agreeable or IPCCable science advisors/mentors. I’ll take, in addition, Monckton-san. I think he is still available. : )
John
Richard Lawson says:
September 24, 2011 at 2:38 pm
O/T sorry but this made me laugh from today’s Grauniad……
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/24/climate-change-mount-everest-melting
So all he has is his own and a sherpa’s personal impression?
If you take a look at John All’s website, http://geoggeol.wku.edu/jall/
and watch the (darker) south side (rather SSW) of the mountain, you can see global warming blowing furiously over the top of Mt. Everest.
/sarc
Who pays Jon All for that quack?
Probably the same people who’ve paid for the study about cat pee glowing in the dark.
The world urgently needs such studies!… not.
However, the IPCC’s interval of climate sensitivities, [2, 6.4] K, implies a loop gain on [0.4, 0.8], an interval so far above 0.1 that runaway feedback would have occurred at some point in the geological record.
———
Christopher is not an expert on process control engineering as some of the slightly wrong leadup to this statement proves.
However while there has been some speculation in the climate science area that thermal runaway is possible, equally there are also known arguments that there are limits arising elsewhere that make it impossible. Therefore Christopher’s argument that lack of thermal runaway in the deep past proves low climate sensitivity is a weak argument.
Remote Sensing, therefore, was right to publish [12], authored by two of the world’s foremost experts on the design and
———-
That paper has not been retracted by the journal. So it is reasonable to conclude that the main fuss at the journal is not about the rightness of publishing the paper.
The main fuss, from reading the editor’s resignation letter, seems to be about an accidental case of what Willis E. would call pal review. And following on from that there is claimed to be quality issues in the paper that would have been fixed if a more rigorous review had been done.
So it seems to me, judging by the relative amount of discourse dedicated to climate sensitivity in his letter, that Christopher is trying to Trojan horse his views on climate sensitivity into the journal and elsewhere. In other words this letter is not really about the resignation at all.
PlainJane says:
September 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm
…..Monkton does it well in very good scientific goobledegookese to make it more palatable to the preisthood. It is a pet peeve of mine that academics appear to prize work that is written in unintelligible and unnecessarily difficult manner. Reminds me of the Mediaeval church using Latin so the peasants could not understand it so making the priests look more exclusive and clever. It annoys me that warmist sites like Real Climate and Sceptical Science use scientific goobledegookese as a tool to hide their arguments…..
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You brought up a very good point. Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School made a study of.
Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals
Written by Dick Pothier
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982.
If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong…
Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose……
He said yesterday that he had studied the publication process in research journals for years….
In one study, Armstrong said, academics reading articles in scientific journals rated the authors’ competence higher when the writing was less intelligible than when it was clear.
In another study, Armstrong said, research papers were mailed to a sampling of dozens of researchers. Half the scientists received a paper that described an experiment confirming existing beliefs; the other half received a paper describing an identical experiment but with a different conclusion that challenged the consensus.
Although the methods used in the two sets of papers were identical, the scientists surveyed generally approved of the procedures used in the papers that confirmed existing beliefs and generally disapproved of the same methods when they were used to contradict what most scientists believed, Armstrong said.
“Papers with surprising results are especially important for adding significantly to what is known. Presumably, the editors of journals want to publish important papers,” Armstrong said. “On the other hand, they are concerned that the journal might look foolish — and so they reject many of the important papers.”
For young academics who wish to be published in such journals, Armstrong said, “the factors that would seem to be a deadly combination would be choosing an important problem and obtaining surprising results.” …..” http://www.ponyspot.com/papers/pothier.html
Scott Armstrong has done some other very good studies on research and how it is perceived.
(see: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/publications.cfm?id=226¤t_flag=0 )
My favorite is J. Scott Armstrong (1980), Bafflegab Pays, Psychology Today, 12: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Bafflegab%20Pays.pdf
The article would be very amusing if it did not have such serious ramifications in the field of science.
Gail Combs says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:50 pm
——————-
Gail Combs,
Have you ever read the old book ‘Less Than Words Can Say’ by Richard Mitchell ?
It bears on the observation non-communication.
Read it +20 years ago and it was great.
John
Just to cite one example of Monckton’s atrociously poor scholarship: He cites Schwartz 2007 paper claiming a sensitivity of 1.1 C, but none of the comments on this paper or even the reply tp the comments where Schwartz himself revised his best estimate to 1.9 C. I am 99.9% sure that Monckton has been made aware of this revision, which makes one wonder why he is still citing the original work!
Of course, the rest of this screed by Monckton is not any better.
The “climate skeptic” community will not be taken seriously by the scientific community if they continue to exercise a complete lack of skepticism regarding the claims of people like Monckton.
REPLY: Joel actually, lets see the math on how you are “99% sure” of what is inside of another persons head. You won’t be taken seriously when you claim to know the thoughts of others.But your M.O. is well established . Monckton could write a paper on 2+2 and why the sky is blue and you wouldn’t like it. Your bias burns brightly. Why not address his actual work here rather than caterwaul about what he didn’t cite because you “know” what he was thinking. – Anthony
[SNIP: Personal insults are unacceptable. If you cannot address Lord Monckton’s comment, then don’t comment. -REP, mod]
Take note: “marketing” (esp., not engineering).
What we may conclude is that research science (and scientists?) have much more in common with marketing than with something more concrete like engineering (whose output function is to build of make something that works) and engineering analysis (the citing of causes, principles and quantifying the results for decision purposes) …
.
Lazy T says:
“…Christopher’s argument that lack of thermal runaway in the deep past proves low climate sensitivity is a weak argument.”
It is, in fact, a very good argument, which is supported by the null hypothesis. Temperatures have been exceedingly steady over the past couple of centuries, and the current climate is exceptionally benign. The planet continues to emerge from the LIA along the same temperature trend line with no acceleration, and the ≈45% increase in CO2 has had no measurable effect.
There has never been thermal runaway in the past caused by CO2. CO2 levels have been almost twenty times higher in the past than they are now without causing thermal runaway. In fact, rises in CO2 in the geologic past are always the effect of warming, never the cause. The argument that more CO2 emissions will cause thermal runaway [catastrophic runaway global warming; CAGW] is based on a pseudo-scientific belief system.
Joel Shore says: September 24, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Joel,
It’s plain you don’t much like Lord Monckton, but waving your arms and asserting that the rest of this screed by Monckton is not any better is not really informative or productive. I have no way of evaluating your point re the Schwartz paper and you provided no links or references that would allow me to check and evaluate for myself. All we have is your word and your judgment…. and I don’t recall you ever commenting on the quality of the scholarship of Al Gore.
I’m going to go out on a limb and venture a guess that Gail has never had to ‘sell’ anything, especially anything to a somewhat jaded, biased or otherwise somewhat adversarial crowd/audience (including sometime upper management), hence the obvious need to reword the ‘sales’ pitch into something less offensive or provocative … perhaps with new terms and terminology (that which she would cite as ‘bafflegab’) to ‘soften’ the introduction of new material.
The purpose and utility of the ‘Court Jester’ cannot be undersold here then; it was the Jester’s job quite often to make new, perhaps contrary news or ideas palatable to the king (or audience). See for instance Jester – Political significance (Wiki) and The Court Jester Around the World by Beatrice K. Otto.
To ‘bring it home’, put it into practical terms – the idea is to ‘sell’ the uninterested or opposed individual (or king) into a more reasonable position … such that progress might made, to quote G. B. Shaw:
.
The main fuss, from reading the editor’s resignation letter, seems to be about an accidental case of what Willis E. would call pal review.
Yeah, sure.
How often has a journal editor resigned over accidental pal review?
LazyTeenager obviously knows nothing about peer-reviewed journals and how they work.
The fact that Wagner personally apologized to Trenberth (whose commentary was then published after less than 24 hours for peer review) will tell you much more about his real reasons for resigning than any of LT’s lame speculating ever will.
Stop press: “Christopher Monckton agrees that CO2 warms climate”. No won’t happen, you just aren’t _warm_ enough. It’s a good write up, thanks.
By any standard, it’s a hell of a good literature review. Head and shoulders over anything I’ve seen anyplace else.
“Holding insolation and albedo constant ad experimentum, the difference between surface temperatures with and without the atmosphere is readily established as 288 – 255 = 33 K, so that, assuming that any other forcings are comparatively insignificant, the climate sensitivity of the whole atmosphere is simply 3.7(33/101) = 1.2 K.”
Over the years I have routinely encountered various alarmists arguing that my skepticism of CAGW was a “denial” of simple physics and mathematics but, to me, the claims of a climate sensitivity well above 1K are themselves a “denial” of simple arithmetic. As Monckton points out, and I suspect few would argue, the total warming effect of the atmosphere is conventionally assumed to be 33 K. CO2 at its maximum effect is said to provide 25%. Although there is a study that suggests it may be as high as a third in the highest latitudes of Antarctica, other work suggests that globally the percentage is much smaller. For the sake of argument I’ll use the 25% figure. That would indicate that CO2 is responsible for 8.25 K of the 33 K total. By my reckoning, at the present 390 ppm level we are at 8.6 doublings of CO2, which works out to fairly close to 1 K per doubling. If you assume a sensitivity closer to 2 K/dbl CO2 must be responsible for more than 50% of the entire GHE. At 3-5 K/dbl you have to assume not only that H2O and the other components of the atmosphere have absolutely no contribution but at the extreme that the 33 K number itself is an error of underestimation.
I’m aware that most will consider this argument too “simple-minded” but in my experience of climate science “simple-minded” seems to be the dominant paradigm, so I don’t mind taking the chance of appearing foolish by making it. You could respond that the sensitivity/dbl is not a constant number, but that would seem to put a cramp in these efforts to project a sensitivity number from observations, proxies, and of course our lovely models and would certainly suggest that the physics and mathematics are anything but simple.
[SNIP: Your insinuations toward another commenter are totally out of line and your comment contributes nothing to the thread. -REP, mod]
Smokey says
There has never been thermal runaway in the past caused by CO2. CO2 levels have been almost twenty times higher in the past than they are now without causing thermal runaway
————-
Yes but the original argument is about climate sensitivity. And that argument assumes that a feedback factor that applies here and now will continue to apply with increased temperature without limit. Positive feedback systems can never increase without limit.
In the case of the electronic feedback systems that Christopher uses as an example, the output voltage limit is typically the power supply voltage.
In the case of Venus, the poster child of climate thermal runaway, there must also be a limit. It does not have infinite temperature.
In the case of positive feedback in the other direction, transition to an ice age, the limit is set by the residual CO2 in the atmosphere.
So given some unknown limit on thermal runaway it is not possible to lay claim to a definitive proof of low climate sensitivity here and now, if it is the case some mechanism causes it to reduce at high temperatures.
The definition of “normal”, according to a prominent Scandinavian scientist (?? lost the link), in climate science was unfortunately set by the development of meteorology at the low point of the late LIA. That’s a pretty mizzuble “normal” to want to get back to; the warming since then has been benign and beneficial.
Fortunately, not all the UN’s horses and all the IPCC’s men can actually do anything meaningful to change the historical “trend”. But they can torpedo industrial society and super-crash the world’s economy if given control of energy sources. That’s the actual battle being waged.
Smokey says
There has never been thermal runaway in the past caused by CO2. CO2 levels have been almost twenty times higher in the past than they are now without causing thermal runaway
————-
LazyTeenager says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:11 pm
So given some unknown limit on thermal runaway it is not possible to lay claim to a definitive proof of low climate sensitivity here and now, if it is the case some mechanism causes it to reduce at high temperatures.
===================================
You really are LAZY, dude. Not sure why you chose that damning handle but I will let sleeping dogs lie on that one.
Your remarks are complete balderdash.
Regardless, taking your words….it is not possible [EITHER] to lay claim to a proof of high climate sensitivity….blah blah blah.
Keep blithering on…its entertaining. Almost embarrassing.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Monckton belongs to the subset of climatologists who theorize the existence of a functional relation that maps the logarithm of every increase in the CO2 concentration to the corresponding increase in the equilibrium global surface air temperature. Alternate possibilities are for there to exist: a) no such relation or b) a relation that is not functional. The theory by Monckton and his colleagues of a functional relation fabricates information that is not possessed by them. Also, as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable, the theory of a functional relation is not a scientific theory for it is insusceptible to falsification by the evidence.
Yeah, but it you look at the distant geological past, climate sensitivity to doubled C02 over >10,000 years was not apparently less than about 1.5 C, which means that if you scale it down to less than 100 years it must also be not less than 1.5 C, because all climate processes happen on the same time scales and the same feedbacks will occur over very short time periods as they do for geologically longer ones. This is what the models tell us. Papers will not be accepted unless they address the issue that for periods both over >10,000 years and less than 100 years the climate sensitivity is the same, ie not less than 1.5 C. Time factors are relevent. That is what the models tell us, and unless the facts fit the models, papers will not be accepted.
I remember in the past, the CAGW crowd wouldn’t believe anything unless it was referenced by (or came from) a peer-reviewed paper.
Seems like Monckton listened to them. I’m sure there are a few papers from “unacceptable” authors or journals, but there’s still enough to prove his point.
Using their own papers against them. Love it.
savethesharks says
Regardless, taking your words….it is not possible [EITHER] to lay claim to a proof of high climate sensitivity….blah blah blah.
———–
Precisely correct. Given the evidence/argument Christopher put forward, it is not possible to decide whether climate sensitivity is high or low. Which is what I said in the first place. The original argument is not a strong argument. Plausible but no cigar.
Terry Oldberg,
Monckton isn’t proposing any theory.
He is pointing out the (GHG) Forcing theory, basic physics and empirical observations make much more than 1 K for CO2 doubling unlikely.
Otherwsie your points apply equally to the Forcing model and > 3K rise proponents, as well as the climate models.
The (equilibrium) global surface air temperature is the preferred metric of the warming proponents (IPCC, etc) and will likely continue to be until they can find the missing heat, which will be a long time IMO, as it doesn’t exist.
BTW, you misuse the term ‘subset’. A subset could be any number up 99.x% of climatologists. But then your post reads like it is intended to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Lazy Teenager – 24 Sep, 9:11pm
There has never been any thermal runaway on Venus either. The following analysis shows that the ambient temperatures of Earth and Venus are a function of air pressure and the distance from the Sun. The CO2 content of the Venusian atmosphere is totally irrelevant.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
A troll has written: “Monckton belongs to the subset of climatologists who theorize the existence of a functional relation that maps the logarithm of every increase in the CO2 concentration to the corresponding increase in the equilibrium global surface air temperature. … The theory by Monckton and his colleagues of a functional relation fabricates information that is not possessed by them. Also, as the equilibrium temperature is not an observable, the theory of a functional relation is not a scientific theory for it is insusceptible to falsification by the evidence.”
If the troll were right that surface temperature change is not some function of change in CO2 concentration, then anthropogenic CO2 emissions would not cause “global warming” at all. If the troll were also right that the non-observability of equilibrium surface temperature made the “global warming” theory unfalsifiable, then there would be no basis whatsoever for any of the IPCC’s claims.
The troll has also alleged that I “fabricate” the CO2 forcing function, and it is the use of the word “fabricates” that is the evidence that the troll is a troll. Had the troll read what I had written, he would have seen that the (logarithmic) CO2 forcing function is referenced to Myhre et al. (1998), who established the magnitude of the coefficient in the forcing equation by intercomparison between three climate models. It is the Myhre value for this coefficient that the IPCC (2001, 2007) has adopted as normative, and I used it ad argumentum throughout the commentary.
To verify that the IPCC value is in the right ballpark, I consulted the mathematician who did the earliest detailed work on the CO2 forcing function, by analysis and integration of thousands of separate spectral lines. He was not willling to warrant the IPCC’s coefficient for the forcing equation, but was able to confirm that the relationship between CO2 concentration change and equilibrium surface temperature change is indeed logarithmic (and not, for instance, an exponential-decay function). It is certainly not linear.
Finally, I am not a “climatologist” but a layman with a sufficient background in mathematics and physics to understand the central features of the debate about climate sensitivity.
Joel Shore rightly points out that I had failed to mention Schwartz’s revision of his climate sensitivity to 1.9 K (which is still not much more than half of the IPCC’s central estimate). However, he is wrong to state that I had known of the revision. If I had known of it, I’d have mentioned it.
Thank you all for your interest. – Monckton of Brenchley
The troll is easily found. Hope he learns to think before he speaks next time.
Excellent lesson for us all.
Robert E Phelan says:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
Okay…I am surprised that you haven’t been made aware of it…but here is the link: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf . The full estimate is 1.9 K +/- 1.0 K. Since the IPCC likely range is 2 – 4.5 K, with the most commonly-cited best estimate of around 3 K, about half of Schwartz’s estimate now overlaps the IPCC range, going just about up to the best estimate. The other half is below the IPCC likely range.
Dave Wendt says:
It is not just simple-minded…It is so simple-minded that it completely throws all feedbacks out the window! Nobody is claiming that the sensitivity to CO2 is produced solely by the direct radiative effects of CO2. The whole point is that if you take out CO2 from the atmosphere, the resulting cooling causes much of the water vapor to come out also…and also the ice albedo feedback to increase. See http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
So, yes, if you consider solely the direct radiative effects due to CO2 and ignore all feedbacks, the sensitivity is roughly 1 K. Nobody seriously disputes that.
Cross-posted from RC (where it may not survive moderation) but I feel it’s relevant to this discussion:
Russ R. says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
25 Sep 2011 at 1:34 AM
@ gavin re: 3-4 degrees & climate sensitivity:
“This kind of forecast doesn’t depend too much on the models at all – it is mainly related to the climate sensitivity which can be constrained independently of the models (i.e. via paleo-climate data),…
A question on the subject of climate sensitivity, though this probably has come up here at some time in the past.
The consensus seems to be that climate sensitivity is in the vicinity of 3.0 K per doubling of CO2, of which ~1 K is the direct radiative forcing impact of the CO2, and the remainder is the result of feedback effects which act as a multiplier on that original forcing and are the only real area of uncertainty.
What I question is how this 3.0 K value can be applied as a constant across all climactic conditions, when the feedback mechanisms themselves are not constant.
For example, ice-albedo feedback will be much stronger during a glacial period when the leading edge of ice sheets approaches mid-latitudes, than during an interglacial period, such as the present, when ice-sheets have retreated to higher latitudes, where the transitional zone covers less surface area and receives less solar radiation.
Looking to the planet’s past behaviour for guidance, the historical oscillation between two equilibrium states… long glacial periods and relatively shorter interglacial periods (the timing of which appears to be driven by orbital variations) would suggest that net climate feedback is not constant, but is higher in the transitional range (around 2-6 K cooler than present) and lower outside that range (preventing runaway cooling or warming).
Deriving a value for climate sensitivity from one set of conditions (a cooler past) and applying it to different set of conditions (a warmer future) could lead to overestimates of climate response.
The IPCC and the team live in a world which conveniently ignores the following:
1. Increasing cloud cover is now known to be more likely to produce negative feedback for global temperatures. Thus the cornerstone of alarmist scare theories has now been demostrated to be complete BS.
2. Arctic ice cover is probably more likely to be linked to variations in ocean salinity (low by world standards) than to changing temperature.
3. There are natural climate cycles which account for almost everything we see. ‘Climate change’ is natural and has been the norm for hundreds of millions of years – you do not need to appoint government ministers for it.
4. The geological record provides absolutely no evidence to support the IPCC scare predictions on climate temperature.
5. The head of the IPCC runs his own TERI organisation like the head of one of those weird ‘christian’ cults that seem to proliferate in the USA. All expenses paid and living a life of unashamed luxury, paid for by the faithful who continue to pour in the cash.
6. ‘Climate scientists’ are conflicted in their science in that their jobs depend on them generating scare stories which require ever more grant funded research. In normal business and scientific circles if you are conflicted, you ask to be excused.
7. ‘Climate scientists’ pal review process and manipulation of raw data would be totally unacceptable in the world of real science.
8. In a brilliant article a couple of months ago, Anthony demonstrated that the current warming period, during this inter-glacial cycle, is about the average for the 10-12 ones which preceded it – hence today’s warming trend, which ceased around 11 years ago, is quite natural and nothing out of the ordinary.
9. Soot deposits on glaciers now possibly account for more glacial melt than temperature change. Yes, I suppose that is man made AGW.
10. Moncton admits to being : “a layman with a sufficient background in mathematics and physics to understand the central features of the debate about climate sensitivity”. No one from the AGW cult dares debate climate science with him, because they know they would be torn to shreds, hence the standard response of: “It is beneath my dignity to debate scientific matters with a layman.”
My view? A pox on the AGW trolls, bad science and the IPCC, plus a warm “thank you” to Moncton for helping bring sanity into the climate change debate.
Henry@Monckton of Brenchley
The theory of any warming caused by the effect of more CO2 or more GHG’s is most certainly not supported by observations of data from weather stations
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Repeatable observations show that it is due to natural warming (less clouds and/or more sunshine) and a small % may be due to increased vegetation.
>>Gail
>>Reminds me of the Mediaeval church using Latin so the peasants could
>>not understand it so making the priests look more exclusive and clever.
And burning at the stake, the first person to print it in English. See Tyndale.
.
Monckton of Brenchley (Sept. 25, 2011 at 3:48 am):
To accuse one’s critic of being a “troll” is an example of an ad hominem argument. As this argument is unrelated to the issue at hand, I won’t respond to it. Also, as you have interests in climatology and have published in this area, I’ve labelled you a “climatologist.” By my use of this term, I do not imply you are a professional in this discipline.
My critique is addressed to the subset of people who have published on climatology and who in these publications have assumed the existence of “the climate sensitivity.” In addition to yourself, these people include the members of IPCC Working Group I. I contend that in debating the magnitude of the climate sensitivity they and you are debating an issue that is not scientific in nature for the climate sensitivity is not an observable feature of the real world and thus speculations about its magnitude are not falsifiable.
“The climate sensitivity” (more properly “the equilibrium climate sensitivity”) is a loaded piece of terminology for the “the” in this phrase implies the stationarity of the equilibrium climate sensitivity but this stationarity is not falsifiable in view of the non-observability of the equilibrium temperature. Thus, by the mere (and possibly innocent) use of this term, one fabricates information that one does not have. The fabricated information is of the stationarity of “the” equilibrium climate sensitivity.
The assumption of stationarity is the equivalent of the assumption of the existence of a functional relation from the logarithm of the CO2 concentration to the equilibrium temperature. By definition, the relation from the first of the two variables to the second is a proper subset of the Cartesian product of the numerical values that are taken on by them. There are alternatives to the existence of a functional relation; they are: a) the non-existence of a relation and b) the existence of a relation that is not functional.
Climatologists have, in the way I have shown, fabricated information. Were they to take it upon themselves to avoid this fabrication, they would have to reorganize their field of inquiry. In the reorganized field, the non-observable equilibrium global surface air temperature could be replaced by an observable surface air temperature, e.g., the average over successive 30 year periods of a global surface air temperature time series. In the reorganized field, observed events could then be examined for the existence of various relations, including the existence of a functional relation from the CO2 concentration to the temperature.
Joel Shore says:
September 25, 2011 at 6:00 am
“So, yes, if you consider solely the direct radiative effects due to CO2 and ignore all feedbacks, the sensitivity is roughly 1 K. Nobody seriously disputes that”
Glad that you recognise that the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is just an increase in radiative forcing.
So, given that CAGW is based on the fact that the Earth MUST warm in the face of an increase in radiative forcing and that is basically ‘settled science’, you wil be to explain the following undisputed evidence and observation.
‘In the last 500 million years the Suns radiative forcing has increased by about 65 WM2 at the TOA. 500 million years ago the Earth was a familiar place the atmosphere was very similar to today’s. Plants, animals and insects were well established, we would feel comfortable if we were present then.
However, what has been the Earths response to this very significant increase in radiative forcing? Why it has cooled of course from about 22c to today’s 14c!’
So, come on Joel, what are the climatic factors that have caused this?
I mean, you do know don’t you, the science being basically settled and all?
Alan Millar
Terry Oldberg says: September 25, 2011 at 9:04 am
Terry: I took your original use of the term “fabrication” in much the same way that Lord Monckton did and interpreted it as an accusation against him directly. Even now, I am not sure the term is applicable: equilibrium is an important element in the paradigm – an assumption. If you have an alternative I think you need to explain it better.
Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
That’s not really a good argument. The Earth has gone through several periods in the time frame he’s talking about which would not be very good for supporting our modern human civilization.
———————————–
Hasn’t human civilization in general flourished during times of warming?
Why did the editor of Remote Sensing resign and publicly apologize to Trenberth? Trenberth wasn’t in way way involved in the paper or its publication, so why the apology?
That is really at the heart of this issue, because the apology is out of place. There is no logical connection. So why did it happen? Answer that question and you will know why the editor resigned.
Why did it happen? Here is a hypothesis: Under the IPCC rules, the SB11 paper must be included in AR5 if it is published before a certain date, and has not been rebutted. The editor was supposed to hold SB11 publication past that date, or at least until Dressler had finished his rebuttal, but he was not able to. Trenberth was upset with this and threatened funding for the editor’s own climate related projects. To protect this funding, the editor resigned and apologized. Trenberth published a rebuttal that was approved in a single day, thus meeting the requirements of AR5 to keep SB11 out of the next IPCC finding. The purpose being to keep anything out of AR5 that questions the IPCC position that CO2 has a high climate sensitivity and there is very high confidence of this.
In other words, the AR5 conclusion is already written. What is now required is a mechanism to cherry pick which scientific papers to include in AR5. The publication rebuttal method was supposed to accomplish this, by holding up contrary papers while allowing speedy publication of rebuttals. This has worked well in the past, where friendly editors informed the Team of new papers, giving the Team enough lead time to write a rebuttal before the paper in question was even published. However, in this instance the procedure failed as the editor in RS was not able to hold up SB112 until Dressler had finished the rebuttal. As a result the editor was required to fall in his sword and Trenbeth was required to publish a rebuttal of SB11 with the highly unusual single day approval.
ferd berple says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:10 am
ferd berple @Gary Young Swift -> Hasn’t human civilization in general flourished during times of warming?
————————-
ferd berple,
For groups like the Club of Rome, things that benefit civilization, like warming, create more people (higher population). The Club of Rome opposes more people (higher population).
There are many groups who oppose more people; it being very common in ideological environmentalists who at the same time oppose warming. The people they promote to populate the Earth are people like themselves. Note: I am not allowed by our gracious host to draw historic parallels between the concepts of those groups and to certain political concepts of a certain European country between 1930s and 1940s, so I won’t.
Gary Swift – Question for you. – Do you think warming is not good for civilization because it will cause a planetary destructive increase in population?
John
Please disabuse me of the notion that you’re using narrow ‘consumer-istic’ (bubble-packed, shrink-wrapped Oliver Stone/JFK-class world-class conspiratorial mysteries solved in under 3 hours sitting) 21st century western mindsets to evaluate 5th century through 15th century thinking regarding language, church and liturgical practices, societal culture, and awareness of translation activities (and resources and capabilities to do so)?
Follow-up (rhetorical Q) – What was the spoken language in ancient Rome (and probably universal through-out the Roman Empire)?
(Can I say – Some of you ppl are UN-believable … get the conspiratorial pun? “UN” as in United Nations? A pun … )
.
I dont see smokey or others on this thread debunking Monkton for claiming that C02 in fact warms the planet. He claims 1C per doubling, and cites a reference that has been amended to 1.9K
( clearly in the lukewarmer camp)
So, Smokey, and others who deny that C02 has any measurable impact on warming.. Take your best shot at Monkton.. If he stands by Schwartz’s 1.9 he’s a lukewarmer. If he wants to reject Schwartz, why that would require an argument.. more than I didnt read that paper.
Or, you can accept that C02 warms the planet.
steven mosher says on September 25, 2011 at 11:18 am …
Mosh, do you know what S-Parameters (e.g. S11 or S21) are? Ever worked with any? Either practically (using a VNA) or theoretically via ‘specs’ or a device spec sheet?
Do you know the difference between a ‘filter’ which is absorptive vs a ‘filter’ which is reflective?
These principles are applicable to optics (optical wavelengths and IR lamda) as well, but, I generally apply them at much lower frequencies/much longer wavelengths than ‘optical’ …
.
_Jim,
If you want to understand the basics of scattering, reflecting and absorbing in the atmosphere, there are plenty of primary texts. Start there rather than with S -Parameters
Mosh said:
Why has this temperature not always been the result when the CO2 density has risen and fallen in the past?
It is also imprecise to say CO2 warms anything as it is not an energy source – it is a radiative insulator and retains energy at certain wavelengths, and acts as a convective conveyor at all times. But I get your point.
Steven Mosher says on September 25, 2011 at 11:43 am …
Mosh, that wasn’t the question; I take it your answer is “no” to the S-Parameter familiarity question then (BTW, the use of S-parms was created tp SIMPLIFY many aspects of a one or two dimensional problem ‘power flow’ problems to just magnitude and phase quantities irrespective of individual circuit component action; no need to measure each and every voltage and current present JUST sample in the x directions the ‘energy flow’ via simple techniques) …
I am already familiar with that ‘stuff’ down to the molecular/molecule vibration level (I have posted on IR spectroscopy for instance. Do you know why the so-called line spectra ‘widen’ at higher gas pressures for instance? Collisions … adjacent molecular collisions and the transfer of energy in those collision; gas physics…)
Do you understand how the magnetic and electric dipole moments at the molecular level couple to impinging EM (Electro magnetic) energy (IR in particular) at various wavelengths? I wonder what your experience level is – does it extend to any classroom physics experiments (or self-study even) to the level of tuning a dipole to become resonant at 2.4 GHz or maybe even a rigging up a dipole for resonance in the middle of the 40 Meter ham band?
Do _you_ know why certain molecules are only receptive to certain wavelengths? (There is no monopoly by any one individual or group on this ‘info’: it has to do with the resonant physical structure and position of the basic elemental atoms making up any given type of molecule, i.e., CO2, H2O etc)
Just trying to gauge your experience level on things EM old chum …
.
steven mosher says:
I dont see smokey or others on this thread debunking Monkton for claiming that C02 in fact warms the planet. He claims 1C per doubling… So, Smokey, and others who deny that C02 has any measurable impact on warming… Or, you can accept that C02 warms the planet.
Steven, you have MAJOR reading comprehension problems – maybe even worse than grammar and punctuation problems. [Didn’t you claim to be a college English professor, or something similar?☺]
First, I am in agreement with Lord Monckton’s view. I have stated many, many times that I think CO2 has contributed – somewhat – to warming. I have also stated many more times that I think a doubling of CO2 would probably result in a ≈1°C rise in temperature, ± 0.5°. I made that same statement often in the past, the last time not more than two weeks ago. And I have never, ever stated that I think CO2 has no effect. But I have quoted others such as Dr Miskolczi, who says that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero. Go argue with him if you don’t like it.
What I have said is that the specific amount of warming from CO2 has never been measured; that there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing just how much CO2 has warmed the planet. That is why there is the endless debate over the climate sensitivity number. If we could accurately measure the fraction of warming due exclusively to CO2, there wouldn’t be any more debate because we would have the sensitivity number nailed down. But there is a missing link in the evidence, which the alarmist crowd simply assumes is there. But it isn’t. You are confused about the difference between measurable evidence, and your flat wrong assumption of my repeatedly stated position.
Reading comprehension, Steven. You really need to work on that. Why not do what Willis suggests, and quote my words verbatim? That way you can avoid embarassing replies.
Do I sense an upcoming Mosher vs. Monckton public debate. : )
It would be a sellout.
John
I think I’m preparing to take him on … not really, But he needs to up his game as of late. Competition is good for all involved; sparring and all that.
.
Russ R says:
That’s a good point. However, it is very important to realize that the empirical derivation of the ~ 3 C per doubling from the last glacial maximum considers the changes in the land ice sheets to be a forcing, not a feedback. This means that the 3 C number, what Hansen calls the “Charney sensitivity”, does not include any significant land ice feedback.
That is why Hansen says a number including that is more like 6 C per CO2 doubling; however, other scientists have argued exactly what you are saying…that going warmer from where we are now won’t result in that large a sensitivity, and I think Hansen’s latest paper did concede that this 6 C sensitivity was likely an overestimate of what would happen in going from the current climate to a warmer climate.
Alan Millnar says:
Alan,
(1) I would need a reference to support your claim that the solar forcing has increased that much over the last 500 million years. Note that an increase in the solar constant by 65 W/m^2 would only result in 1/4 as much increase at the TOA because of the geometrical factor, and then an additional factor of ~0.7 due to albedo.
(2) Over such time scales, there are lots of other forcings that need to be considered. These include changes in greenhouse gas levels, changes in the locations of continents, oceans, and mountain ranges, … Data for both temperature and greenhouse gas levels gets much sketchier and less resolved in time as one goes back this far.
Joel Shore says:
September 25, 2011 at 4:24 pm
“Alan,
(1) I would need a reference to support your claim that the solar forcing has increased that much over the last 500 million years”
Joel, I don’t mean to be insulting but why do you comment on the science of climate change if you are not aware of such basic facts?
I quote the forcing at the TOA because the actual precise forcing is not fully estabished but can be estimated as about a 5% increase.
“2) Over such time scales, there are lots of other forcings that need to be considered. These include changes in greenhouse gas levels, changes in the locations of continents, oceans, and mountain ranges,”
All true.
However, CAGW’s basic tenet is that any increase in radiative forcing on the Earth MUST lead to an increase in temperature.
You have now admitted that this is that not actually true, that other factors may prevent this. Indeed the Earth may actually cool notwithstanding the increase in radiative forcing. e.g how do we know that the current configuration of continents and oceans etc will mean the Earth will not warm in the face of an increase in RF?
We know that the Earth has been cooling for hundreds of millions of years in the face of increasing RF. Show me the science!
Do you feel that this is a breakthrough in your understanding of climate change and that the science is indeed not settled and how much the Earth will warm (if at all) in the face of an increase in radiative forcing in the future is still very much open to question?
This question is also addressed to Steven Mosher and all the other believers out there.
Alan Millar
Joel Shore says:
“…the 3 C number, what Hansen calls the “Charney sensitivity”…”
Somehow a superfluous “h” got in there, and the word came out “charney.”☺
It is not just simple-minded…It is so simple-minded that it completely throws all feedbacks out the window! Nobody is claiming that the sensitivity to CO2 is produced solely by the direct radiative effects of CO2. The whole point is that if you take out CO2 from the atmosphere, the resulting cooling causes much of the water vapor to come out also…and also the ice albedo feedback to increase. See http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf
So, yes, if you consider solely the direct radiative effects due to CO2 and ignore all feedbacks, the sensitivity is roughly 1 K. Nobody seriously disputes that.
At the current 8+ doublings of CO2 the 1 K sensitivity only holds up if you stipulate, as I did purely for the sake of argument, that the nonH2O GHGs are responsible for 25% of the GHE globally. Personally I find that notion entirely dubious. What few efforts I’ve seen that attempt to empirically quantify the contributions of the various components of the atmosphere to the GHE suggest that the only places on the planet where that condition would apply are at polar latitudes and in high temperate latitudes in the dead of Winter. For most of the planet most of the time it appears likely that H2O is responsible for +95% of DLR and hence of the GHE.
For the purposes of the discussion of feedbacks this is significant because the Tropical and SubTropical latitudes where most all of the evapotransitive effects, that supposedly would drive these H2O feedbacks, actually occur is the location where the warmth and humidity of the atmosphere and the high levels of DLR measured there suggests that H2O is most effectively suppressing the effects of the other GHGs. There has been an ongoing controversy over quite a number of comment threads here about how and whether DLR can add heat to the Tropical oceans, but if, as seems entirely likely, CO2’s contribution to the DLR signal there is limited to 2-3% that whole discussion would appear to be almost moot.
Regarding your link to that wonderful Lacis opus, consider this quote
“This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4)”
You will note that the authors chose to cite Arrhenius (1896). Even a complete dolt such as myself is aware that Arrhenius did a complete reanalysis in 1906 in which he dropped his estimates by more than 2/3rds. Given all the smack you’ve put out about Monckton’s Schwartz citation are you similarly willing to kick Lacis and the lads to the curb over their grievous blunder.
And speaking of our boy Svante, I routinely encounter suggestions that the work done by the likes of Spencer, Singer, Lindzen and others should simply be ignored based on associations the suggestors find repellent. Consider this quote from Ole Svante’s bio
Racial biology
Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.[6]
Wouldn’t this association and the clear philosophical six degrees of Kevin Bacon linkage to those folks in Germany who put his hateful theories to there most evil application, an application that we all must fight to remain cognitively separated from, constitute much more reason for disregard than some generally correct criticisms of the dubious science of secondhand smoke or religious beliefs about the origins of the universe.
Steven Mosher;
I dont see smokey or others on this thread debunking Monkton for claiming that C02 in fact warms the planet. He claims 1C per doubling, and cites a reference that has been amended to 1.9K>>>
I believe Lord Moncton in fact acknowledged that he was not aware of amendment. Now, let’s dig a bit deeper into the number itself. I’ve not read the paper being referenced, but I can do some rough math and point out a couple of things.
1. The IPCC quotes 1 degree of direct warming from CO2 doubling based on “doubling” resulting in a forcing of 3.7 w/m2.
2. Stefan Boltzman Law is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 where P is in w/m2 and T is in degrees K.
3. Do the math. The “average” temperature of the earth surface is most commonly quoted as +15 C or 288 K. Problem: It would take 5.5 w/m2 to raise the temperature from 288 K to 289 K.
4. AR4 neglects to mention at what temperature the sensitivity is calculated at. One had to refer to AR3 for that. Turns out that TAR uses the “effective black body” temperature of the earth, which is about -20 C or 253 K, a temperature that occurs on “average” at the 14,000 foot altitude (roughly).
5. At 3.7 w/m2, one indeed gets a direct effect from CO2 doubling of 1 degree C. Translated to surface temperature however, that’s only about 0.6 C.
Question: Is this not a misleading method of presenting the results?
6. Lost in the jumble of claims and counter claims is the simple fact that CO2 is logarithmic. The IPCC and many others talk about CO2 doubling, and how much sensitivity we should expect from direct and from feedbacks in total. BUT THEY DO IT IN REFERENCE TO 1920 WHEN THE CO2 LEVEL WAS 278 PPM. WE AREN’T AT 278 PPM AND HAVEN’T BEEN FOR NEARLY A CENTURY!
Question: Of what value is this? The CURRENT level is about 400 PPM. If we accept 1.0 per CO2 doubling, or we go with 1.9, are either significant?
I will answer my own question. No. 1.9 at “effective black body” still translates into only about 1.2 at surface. To get 1.2 at surface from a doubling of CO2, we would have to get from 400 PPM to 800 PPM. Based on the last few decades, that should take…about 250 years. To get say 2.4 degrees, we’d need 1,600 PPM and that would take six centuries!
Point being that I have no argument with the notion of CO2 warming the planet. A feedback mechanism however, that could maintain an accelerating or even a linear over all temperature response in the face of a rapidly diminishing (on a “per PPM” basis, simply does not, and can not exist. If you have one to propose, I’d be most interested in how perpetual motion actually works.
I can meet your definition of lukewarmist I suppose, but it is catastrophic or even just significant warming that is the real question.
On that sir, I am a skeptic. Hardcore. and the known physics backs me up.
dmh;
I am harder core than that. Poaching from Dave Wendt’s notes:
H2O’s “feedback” effect is not only not positive, as the IPCC asserts and requires, it is vigorously negative, even to the point of overshoot. And it is in de facto infinite supply in the Earth’s atmosphere, though its concentration (RH) varies locally from 0-100% geographically and temporally.
Allan Millner says:
A 5% increase over 240 W/m^2 is not 65 W/m^2, so my suspicion that you were confusing the solar luminosity with the TOA forcing, which ignores both the geometrical factor of 4 and the albedo, is in fact correct.
No…What I am saying is that there are other radiative forcings that act over these longer geological timescales that need to be considered.
To John Whitman and Ferd Berpel:
I didn’t say that warming was bad. Please see my previous comments in that regard.
“Gary Swift says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:33 pm
To Craig Goodrich:
…
Once again, someone is trying to change the subject and argue against something I didn’t even say. I was saying that Monkton’s use of paleoclimate records does not support his claim that catastrphic climate change has not happened in the past. I did not say that mild warming would harm us.”
Why do so many people here seem to think I’m some kind of fool, just because I don’t like the one of the points in the original article?
Here’s Monkton’s statement that I don’t feel comfortable with:
“However, the IPCC’s interval of climate sensitivities, [2, 6.4] K, implies a loop gain on [0.4, 0.8], an interval so far above 0.1 that runaway feedback would have occurred at some point in the geological record. Yet there is no sign that any such event has ever occurred.”
I think he is over-simplifying the problem and I question the use of the loop gain equation in this context. While I do agree that there probably isn’t a greenhouse cliff, I do not agree with this method of trying to prove it. I think there IS a tipping point, but that’s the tipping point between glaciation and interglacial. We’re already past the ‘tipping point’ where the ice melts and life returns to the Earth. His loop gain simplification seems to indicate that the tipping point between glacial and interglacial shouldn’t happen. It obviously did. Once again, I think he’s right in the sense that there is no such thing as a point of no return for warming, but his method seems wrong here.
henry@davidmhoffer&others
I do not regard the notion that more CO2 or more GHG’s cause any warming as scientifically proven
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
please enlighten me if you can prove me wrong
It appears to me that some additional warming on top of the natural warming is caused by increasing vegetation which in turn is caused by
1) human intervention (people wanting more trees and forests)
2) increased heat (from the natural warming)
3) increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is acting as fertilizer/accelerator for growth
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Dave Wendt says:
I think this had in fact been quite well-quantified and you are not correct about the radiative effect of CO2. You seem to be trying to get around this now by arguing about where most of the effect occurs, but that is largely irrelevant: How much the temperature changes under climate change is determined mainly by the total radiative balance between the earth and space. The geographical distribution of the temperature changes is not determined primarily by where the small changes in radiative balance occur because the troposphere is a strongly coupled system with lots of convective and advective flows.
So, rather than desperately trying to find a new way by which you might be correct, why don’t you just admit that your original calculation was meaningless because it ignored feedbacks?
Arrhenius’s views on such things are irrelevant since we have had over a century to evaluate the extent to which Arrhenius was correct or incorrect in regards to climate change. I do not propose evaluating the work of Spencer et al. based on their other views EXCEPT when people are trying to say that we should “Stop the presses” because Spencer et al. have published a new result that is so important that we should take it into serious consideration even though the scientific community has not had a chance to evaluate it yet. In such a case, I think it is reasonable to look at the person’s track record and scientific judgement to see how likely it is that they are correct in their extraordinary claims.
I also think that the discussion about tobacco and creationism, etc. is useful in understanding why there might be scientists who stick with positions that are scientifically not very tenable, i.e., why one can never expect a “consensus” to be unanimous.
HenryP says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:52 am
henry@davidmhoffer&others
I do not regard the notion that more CO2 or more GHG’s cause any warming as scientifically proven http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011 please enlighten me if you can prove me wrong>>>
It depends on exactly what statement you are objecting to. There is no doubt that if all other factors were to remain the same, an increase in CO2 would result in higher temperatures. By how much? Different question. More importantly, there is no such thing as being able to change the concentration of CO2 and have nothing else in the system change as a consequence. There have to be secondary effects, and so on, some of which will be negative and some positive. What’s the net? Close to zero is my guess. But that doesn’t change the fact that increased GHG’s have a direct effect and that it is real. The system as a whole is another matter.
If you want to argue that the direct effect of GHG’s doesn’t exist at all, then sorry, cannot agree.
Joel Shore says:
September 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“I think this had in fact been quite well-quantified and you are not correct about the radiative effect of CO2.”
Well that’s nice to know! You may be surprised but I don’t think that much of your positions either.
You seem to be obsessed with my disregarding feedbacks, which may be my fault. I thought I was clear in my original comment that I was discussing the obvious logical faults in the estimates of the pure CO2 sensitivity sans feedbacks
“For the sake of argument I’ll use the 25% figure. That would indicate that CO2 is responsible for 8.25 K of the 33 K total. By my reckoning, at the present 390 ppm level we are at 8.6 doublings of CO2, which works out to fairly close to 1 K per doubling. If you assume a sensitivity closer to 2 K/dbl CO2 must be responsible for more than 50% of the entire GHE.”
Given the stirring way that the derivation of the CO2 radiative forcing and sensitivity estimates is usually described as being based entirely on well known and well understood laws and rules of Physics, I have always naively assumed they would be constant across all doublings as all those laws and rules are across time and space. Perhaps you can fill me in on how and why the no feedbacks CO2 sensitivity changes as have down to 1 ppm.
J.S.
“You seem to be trying to get around this now by arguing about where most of the effect occurs, but that is largely irrelevant: How much the temperature changes under climate change is determined mainly by the total radiative balance between the earth and space. The geographical distribution of the temperature changes is not determined primarily by where the small changes in radiative balance occur because the troposphere is a strongly coupled system with lots of convective and advective flows.”
I can understand how you might have found that bit about DLR in Tropics a little hard to follow because it is based on my own completely personal interpretation of an obscure bit of science by a couple of guys from Canada named Evans and Puckrin that has become somewhat of a personal obsession of mine. It’s actually pretty much a piece of warmist dreck in terms of the authors analysis which I was actually referred to by one of your fellows in comments here quite a few years ago
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
These guys utilized techniques of spectral analysis to empirically quantify the individual contributions of the components of the atmosphere to total DLR. While I was much less than impressed by the paper the experimental technique seemed sound and something I saw in their data tables really piqued my interest ( you’ll have to click on the extended abstract link to see exactly what I’m talking about) their tables 3a and 3b listed data they collected in winter and summer respectively. The winter data did indicate CO2 providing a solid 25% of DLR in the cold dry winter air 35W/m2 out of a total of about 150W/m2, but in the summer when the total rose to 250-270W/m2 the CO2 declined to 10 W/m2. E&P’s experiment was too limited in both temporal and areal extent to be probative of anything but they did develop a model to recreate the past atmosphere as a reference and the model predicted this same decline almost exactly. E&P did their work in west central Canada where even in summer total DLR is less than 300W/m2 and since over the latitudes of the Tropics and SubTropics the total DLR is usually given in the range of 350-450+ W/m2 this data suggested to me that in those areas, if this phenomenon was confirmed, CO2 would be contributing in the very low single digits of percentage to total DLR there. You seem to want to focus on the TOA energy balance but any H2O feedbacks would be controlled by DLR at the surface not at TOA
I rather naively assumed that there would be a rush to replicate this work globally because it seems to have such great potential for providing the kind of truly empirical data that would resolve some of the many questions in this controversy. AFAIK it has only been used once more in the Antarctic experiment I referenced previously. I have always found that to be extremely curious
More errors in Monkton.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/monckton-planck-parameter-no-better-than-pulling-numbers-out-of-a-hat/#more-17201
David
“I believe Lord Moncton in fact acknowledged that he was not aware of amendment. Now, let’s dig a bit deeper into the number itself. I’ve not read the paper being referenced, but I can do some rough math and point out a couple of things.”
go read the paper and the ammendment. Then get back to us with your response to that paper.
david:
“Point being that I have no argument with the notion of CO2 warming the planet.”
good thats a start.
As far as the rest.. wether the warming will be alarming or what the precise figure for doubling is.. That is where the debate is.
But that debate can’t happen effectively as long as there are people in the room sucking up the oxygen with nonsense like C02 has no effect. or C02 is a trace gas. or 100% percent of all warming is due to the sun, or “natural variability”
In any case, sounds like you might be a lukewarmer.
steven mosher;
go read the paper and the ammendment. Then get back to us with your response to that paper.>>
Why? Is there some flaw in the physics I have presented that the paper would invalidate? I’ve presented known physics upon which the estimate of 1 degree vs 1.9 degree from direct effects of CO2 rests. Using either number invalidates the CAGW claim, and I did so using the higher od the two numbers.
I accepted, unread, the use of the higher number and am not disputing it. What additional value would reading it and accepting it bring? Why are you avoiding addressing the argument that I have raised?
I must admit that to a degree I can’t see the point of arguing over whether the direct result fom a doubling of CO2 is 1 degree or 10 as the climatic equilibrium temperature is not dependent on it.
The change in equilibrium is dependent on what the feedbacks do after the initial forcing is applied, not the size or source of the forcing change.
Obviously there must be limits and outside those the forcing would dominate (for example if TSI doubled) but for the few W/m-2, around 1% changes we are talking about the feedbacks should dominate.
JohnB: I think you make a reasonable point – It is somewhat arbitrary what you consider to be the “zeroth-order” effect of CO2 vs what you consider to be the feedback effects (although I think one can argue that there are certainly better or worse choices that one can make).
This is another way of seeing where Monckton has gone off the rails: In essence, he is proposing a new zeroth-order definition of the effect of CO2…and then combining that new definition with the value of feedbacks that are derived from the more logical definition that everyone else uses in order to produce a new estimate of the total climate sensitivity. This estimate is simply bogus since, at the very least, what he has to do if he redefines the zeroth-order definition is then define feedbacks in a way that are compatible with this new definition. (In practice, the reason that people use the standard definition is based on some good physical reasons, so his way of doing things may prove cumbersome, but at least he should try to do so with some degree of consistency.)
Let’s use an example to make this clear: Suppose I defined my height to be the length of my legs plus the length of my torso plus the length of my head and by using the values of 2.5 ft, 2.0 ft, and 1.0 ft for these, I arrive at my height of 5.5 ft. Then, suppose Monckton comes along and says that he really doesn’t like the definition of my head that I use as everything above my shoulders and he would prefer it to be everything above my waist. He measures everything above my waist and finds a value of 3.0 ft, so he adds that to the length of my torso and the length of legs that I had previously determined and concludes that I am actually 7.5 ft tall…and that I thus should probably be playing in the NBA.
Of course, rational people would say that Monckton has gotten his an incorrect measurement for my height because his definition of the length of my head essentially double-counts everything between my shoulders and my waist.
steven mosher (Sept. 27, 2011 at 11:11 am) asserts that “wether [sic] the warming will be alarming or what the precise figure for doubling is.. That is where the debate is.” I gather that, in mosher’s view, there exists a mathematical relation from an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration to an increase in the equilibrium surface air temperature and this relation is a functional relation. Where’s the proof of mosher’s assertion?
davidmhoffer says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/24/moncktons-letter-to-the-journal-remote-sensing/#comment-752934
The problem that I have is that nobody has set up a balance sheet of the warming and cooling properties so we cannot say with absolute certainty that a gas is a GHG or not. That is:assuming that the definition of a GHG is that more of it contributes to warming rather than cooling.
I am saying that your statement:
“There is no doubt that if all other factors were to remain the same, an increase in CO2 would result in higher temperatures”.
is in fact not proven by absolute physical measurements
When you say: “What’s the net? Close to zero is my guess.”
than we can agree!!!
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
HenryP;
is in fact not proven by absolute physical measurements>>>
It absolutely has been:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
There is zero doubt from this experiment that if all other factors remain the same, an increase in CO2 results in an increase in temperature. This experiment is easily verified and duplicated.
The FLAW in this experiment is that it is not valid for the earth’s atmosphere. While the experiment uses a fixed value for water vapour concentration and concludes that temperature increases from CO2 are negligible, the experiment fails to recognize that the atmosphere is not uniform. At sea level, over the ocean, at the tropics, water vapour would indeed be in the 3% to 4% range. At high altitude however, and also high latitude, and also over land, water vapour concentrations fall to nearly zero (cold air can’t hold water vapour in very high concentrations). So…in places where water vapour concentration is very low, and given that the absorption spectrum of water vapour and CO2 overlap, the direct effects of CO2 are much higher at high altitude and so on.
But there is no doubt, and this experiment confirms, by physical measurement, that all other factors remaining equal, increased CO2 does in fact make things warmer.
davidmhoffer says:
September 28, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“At high altitude however, and also high latitude, and also over land, water vapour concentrations fall to nearly zero (cold air can’t hold water vapour in very high concentrations). So…in places where water vapour concentration is very low, and given that the absorption spectrum of water vapour and CO2 overlap, the direct effects of CO2 are much higher at high altitude and so on.”
I wonder if you have seen this work
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3525.1
Spectral and Broadband Longwave Downwelling Radiative Fluxes, Cloud Radiative Forcing, and Fractional Cloud Cover over the South Pole
“About two-thirds of the clear-sky flux is due to water vapor, and one-third is due to CO2, both in summer and winter. The seasonal constancy of this approximately 2:1 ratio is investigated through radiative transfer modeling. Precipitable water vapor (PWV) amounts were calculated to investigate the H2O/CO2 flux ratio. Monthly mean PWV during 2001 varied from 1.6 mm during summer to 0.4 mm during winter. Earlier published estimates of PWV at the South Pole are similar for winter, but are 50% lower for summer. Possible reasons for low earlier estimates of summertime PWV are that they are based either on inaccurate hygristor technology or on an invalid assumption that the humidity was limited by saturation with respect to ice.”
Even at the coldest, driest place on the planet water is still responsible for 2/3rds of DLR and though CO2’s influence there is in all probability the highest of anywhere on the planet, AFAIK the temps at the Pole have been laying there like a dead dog for 50 years.
davidmhoffer says:
“It absolutely has been:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
There is zero doubt from this experiment that if all other factors remain the same, an increase in CO2 results in an increase in temperature. This experiment is easily verified and duplicated.”
Henry@davidmhoffer, steven mosher etc.
Clearly this experiment only refers to the 14-16 um bandwidth
which is the warming part.
But how much is it cooling (various absorptions 0-5 um) ?
And what is the balance?
How do you know it is warming more than it is cooling?
(I need to see some results in W/m2/per 0.01%CO2/m3/24hrs)
Like many before you, you have not understood that the CO2 is also cooling?
Try to understand the footnote, here,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011