Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract
Global CO2 emissions per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration provide an independent constraint on climate sensitivity over the timescale of the available data (1960-2008), suggesting that, in the short term and perhaps also in the long, climate sensitivity may lie below the values found in the general-circulation models relied upon by the IPCC.
Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, p. 358, Table 6.2), citing Myhre et al. (1998), takes the CO2 forcing ΔF as 5.35 times the logarithm of a proportionate change Cb/Ca in CO2 concentration, where Cais the unperturbed value. Warming ΔT is simply ΔF multiplied by some climate sensitivity parameter λ.
Projected 21st-century anthropogenic warming, as the mean of values on all six IPCC emissions scenarios, is 2.8 K (IPCC, 2007, table SPM.3: Annex, Table 0). Of this, 0.6 K is stated to be in the pipeline. Of the remaining 2.2 K, some 0.65 K is attributable to non-CO2 forcings, since the CO2 fraction of anthropogenic warming is 71% (the Annex explains the derivation). Thus the IPCC’s current implicit central estimate of the warming by 2100 that will be attributable solely to the CO2 we emit this century is only 1.56 K.
Projected CO2 concentration C2100 in 2100, the mean of the values on all six IPCC emissions scenarios, is 713 ppmv (Annex, Table 3), 345 ppmv above the 368 ppmv measured in 2000 (Conway & Tans, 2011). Therefore, the IPCC’s implicit climate-sensitivity parameter for the 21st century is 1.56 / [5.35 ln(713/368)], or 0.44 K W–1 m2. This value, adopted in (1), is half of the IPCC’s implicit equilibrium value 0.88 K W–1 m2 (derived in the Annex).
Global warming from 1960-2008
The IPCC’s implicit central estimate of CO2-driven warming from 1960-2008 is at (1):
The CO2 forcing coefficient 5.35 was given in Myhre et al. (1998). Initial and final CO2 concentrations were 316.9 and 385.6 ppmv respectively (Tans, 2012). Since the 0.46 K warming driven by the CO2 fraction is 71% of anthropogenic warming, use of the IPCC’s methods implies that, as a central estimate, all of the 0.66 K observed warming from 1960-2008 (taken as the linear trend on the data over the period in HadCRUt3, 2011) was anthropogenic. However, attribution between Man and nature remains problematic: an independent approach to constraining climate sensitivity produces a very different result.
An independent constraint on climate sensitivity
Since few non-linearities will obtrude at sub-centennial time-scales, to warm the Earth’s surface by 1 K the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere must increase by 345/1.56 = 223 ppmv K–1. From 1960-2008, the trend in the ratios of annual global CO2 emissions to annual increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not differ significantly from zero (Fig. 1). The mean emissions/concentration-growth ratio over the period was 15.5 Gt CO2 ppmv–1, which, multiplied by 223 ppmv K–1, gives 3450 GTe CO2 K–1, the quantum of CO2 emissions necessary to raise global temperature by 1 K.
Figure 1. Near-zero trend in annual emissions/concentration-growth ratios, 1960-2008. Data and methods are described in the Annex. Spikes caused by volcanic eruptions are visible. Excluding effects of major eruptions makes little difference to the outcome.
Total global CO2 emissions from 1960-2008 were 975 Gte CO2 (Boden et al., 2011). Accordingly, CO2-driven warming expected over the period, by the present method, was 975 divided by 3450, or 0.28 K. Allowing for the non-CO2 fraction, some 0.40 K warming over the period, equivalent to 61% of observed warming, was anthropogenic, not inconsistent with the estimate in IPCC, 2007 that at least 50% of observed warming from 1950-2005 was anthropogenic. However, inconsistently with (1), this method yields a CO2-driven warming that is only 61% of the central estimate derived from the IPCC’s general-circulation models.
Implications
On the assumption that the coefficient in the CO2 forcing function, cut from 6.3 to 5.35 in Myhre et al. (1998), is now correct, one implication of the present result is that the climate-sensitivity parameter λ appropriate to a 50-year period is not 0.44 K W–1 m2, as the models suggest, but as little as 0.27 K W–1 m2. Since the value of the instantaneous or Planck sensitivity parameter λ0 is 0.31 KW–1 m2 (IPCC, 2007, p. 631 fn.), temperature feedbacks operating during the period of study may have been somewhat net-negative, rather than appreciably net-positive as implied by (1).
If feedbacks operating over the short to medium term are indeed net-negative, there is no warming in the pipeline from past emissions; in the rest of this century CO2-driven warming may be little more than 1 K; anthropogenic warming from all sources may be less than 1.5 K; and supra-centennial-scale warming may also be significantly less than currently projected. If so, all attempts at mitigation will prove cost-ineffective, and the cost of adaptation to future warming will be well below current estimates.
References
Boden, T., G. Marland, and R. Andres, 2011, Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2008, available from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
Conway, T., & P. Tans, 2011, Recent trends in globally-averaged CO2 concentration, ww2.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global.
Garnaut, R., 2008, The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Australia, 680 pp, ISBN 9780521744447.
IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.
Myhre et al., 1998, New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters25:14, 2715–2718, doi:10.1029/98GL01908.
Ramanathan, V., R. Cicerone, H. Singh and J. Kiehl, 1985, Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change, J. Geophys. Res.90: 5547-5566.
Solomon, S., G.-K. Plattner, and P. Friedlingstein, 2009, Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, PNAS 106:6, 1704-1709, doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106.
Tans, P., 2012, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, 1958-2008, at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Dr. Patrick Michaels for having drawn his attention to the near-zero-trend in the annual CO2 emissions/concentration-growth ratios that is confirmed here.
Annex: supplementary material
Values of the climate sensitivity parameter λ
If net temperature feedbacks exceed zero, the climate sensitivity parameter λ is not constant: as longer- and longer-acting feedbacks begin to act, it will tend to increase between the time of a forcing to the time when equilibrium is restored to the climate 1000-3000 years after the forcing that perturbed it (Solomon et al., 2009). Illustrative values of λ are given below.
The sensitivity parameter derived from the present result and applicable to the 49 years 1960-2008 is 0.27 K W–1 m2.
Where temperature feedbacks sum to zero, the instantaneous value λ0 is 0.31 K W–1 m2 (derived from IPCC (2007, p. 631 fn.: see also Soden & Held, 2006).
Garnaut (2008) talks of keeping greenhouse-gas rises to 450 ppmv CO2-equivalent above the 280 ppmv prevalent in 1750, so as to hold 21st-century global warming since then to 2 K, implying λ262 = 2 / [5.35 ln{(280 + 450) / 280}] = 0.39 K W–1 m2.
As explained in the text, the IPCC’s implicit climate-sensitivity parameter for the 21st century is λ100 = 1.56 / [5.35 ln(713/368)] = 0.44 K W–1 m2.
On each emissions scenario, the IPCC’s estimate of the bicentennial-scale transient-sensitivity parameter λ200 is 0.49 K W–1 m2 (derived in Table 0), a value supported by IPCC (2001, p. 354, citing Ramanathan, 1985).
The implicit value of the equilibrium-sensitivity parameter λequ is the warming currently predicted in response to a CO2 doubling, i.e. 3.26 K (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, Box 10.2), divided by the forcing of 5.35 ln 2 = 3.71 W m–2 at that doubling. Thus, λequ = 0.88 K W–1 m2.
Additional tables in the annex (which cannot reproduce properly here in blog format) are in the PDF file for this paper:
monckton_climate_sensitivity (PDF)
I see in the Global Warming Projections Graph there is not a hockey stick to be seen!
From the abstract:
“suggesting that”
“perhaps”
“may lie below”
Such weasel words have long been decried on this blog so what’s different about this one?
A thought provoking article, thank you.
My apologies for reposting my comment from elsewhere but it does seem relevant as it provides some practical empirical evidence;
“It is said that we can observe a rise in temperatures over the past 150 years according to GISS. It goes back much further than that as I demonstrated in this recent article where I set the latest BEST figures to 1753 against the older record of CET to 1660 and my own extended CET to 1538
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
From that we can reasonably postulate;
1) that GISS from 1880 was merely a staging post of an existing upward trend not its starting post.
2) .We can observe several notable temperature increases in the past greater than today
3) that the 400 year upward trend has lots of wavelets of natural variability contained within the boundaries of the trend
4) Whilst not included in this article I would observe that the rising trends of the past such as the Minoan, Roman and MWP lasted many hundreds of years, then came suddenly back down to earth before they started rising again.
5) that these considerable fluctuations throughout recorded history all occurred at 280ppm makes me wonder if additional co2 above this concentration has limited additional effect on temperatures.”
tonyb
Two comments:
First: Forcing
The equilibrium sensitivity parameter λ taken here is not contemplating feedback mechanisms (Planck, water vapour, lapse rate, albedo, clouds). Overall it is a negative feedback that dampens (reduces) the primary warming effect about which Lord Monckton is writing in this post.
It can be represented in a loop system well known by control engineers:
Greenhouse gases → Infrared absorption ∆FGHG → Forcing GS → Temperature change ∆T
↑ ↓
← Feedback GF ←
If temperature changes are observed, they are the result of both primary forcing and feedback according to the transfer function: ∆T = GS•∆FGHG / (1- GF•GS)
And of course other forcing mechanisms are taking place at the same time, cyclic or not, large or weak, who actually knows?
Second: carbon emissions
Let’s have a look at a mass balance:
Total emitted carbon since 1750 up to 2009 (Source: Boden et al. , CDIAC, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html):
350’000’000’000’000 kg carbon (for CO2 multiply by 44/12= 3.67) or 2.91•10^13 kmole.
Mass of air: 1013 mbar over 510’072’000 km2 corresponding to 5.268•10^18 kg or 1.82•10^17 kmole.
Expected CO2 concentration increase if no other carbon sink is available: (2.91•10^13/1.82•10^17) = 160 ppm
Observed concentration increase since begin of industrial era: 388 – 280 = 108 ppm
It can be interpreted that 108/160 = 68% of the total emitted carbon remained in the atmosphere and 32% were absorbed as additional biomass or as carbonates in sediments.
If carbon emissions are growing less as a consequence of economic recession in the Western World and as a result of changes in the energy mix they are still very high and pile up every year.
The big question remains: are anthropogenic carbon emissions having an effect large enough to change drastically the climatic conditions for life on Earth.
– Warmists say yes, it will be a catastrophe;
– Deniers say no, nothing of it is right;
– Skeptics say: prove it!
– Heretics say: they have some effect, but not of such importance. We can adapt. It’s not urgent. There are other priorities.
My earlier comment:
Ooops! the feedback loop did not show well: see the diagramm on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6905434/Block_Diagram.png
The peerless peer strikes again!
I agree with the general thrust of Monckton’s piece, but am not sure his Fig.1 is correct. When I plot the annual data on emissions (in GtC) from CDIAC (via the Global Carbon Project, Le Quere et al) against the increases in the atmospheric concentration also in GtC (from Tans, Mauna Loa), I get a poor linear fit but with a DECLINING trend which is also very statistically significant:
y = -0.0112x + 2.8823
R² = 0.0243
p=0.000000
That seems like good news to me, because it means that the emissions are growing faster than the atmospheric increases, which means in turn that the globe’s biospheres are absorbing the rising emissions at a faster rate than is ever admitted by the true believers.
This is a seriously strange analysis, seeming designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten the reader. At times it is seriously, but I am sure not deliberately, misleading. For example, Monckton accounts for warming in the pipeline going into the 21st Century, but neglects any warming in the pipeline at 2100. Any potential warming in the pipeline is the ignored in the subsequent section, which bizarrely does not proceed directly from CO2 concentrations to temperature change, but via emissions. The utility of this emissions detour seems to be included solely to permit the claim that this is a novel analysis.
“If feedbacks operating over the short to medium term are indeed net-negative, there is no warming in the pipeline from past emissions”
This can be replaced without loss of meaning, by:
“If feedbacks operating over the short to medium term are indeed net-positive, there is warming in the pipeline from past emissions”
Both sentences are logically correct, but provide no evidence to advance the argument. How is the sea-ice albedo feedback working for you this year?
An interesting corollary would be to investigate the relationship between a reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions and a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration (for the premise of every single mitigation policy is that first and foremost a reduction in CO2 concentration will result from a reduction in CO2 emissions, after a time lag).
Kurt in Switzerland
Abstract
Global CO2 emissions per unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration provide an independent constraint on climate sensitivity over the timescale of the available data (1960-2008), suggesting …..
=====================
No neophyte lasted through this statement, I guarantee it.
Or, stuck around long.
This mathematics is irrelevant because it assumes the earth emits IR as if it were an isolated black body in a vacuum. No professional process engineer or experienced experiment physicist accepts this is possible because convection and radiation are coupled..
The real GHE is from the reduction of emissivity of the Earth’s surface in GHG IR bands by ‘Prevost Exchange’. The GHE temperature rise is because the Earth has to radiate from fewer energy transfer sites, mostly the ‘atmospheric window’ and non self-absorbing IR side-bands.
The value of the GHE is effectively fixed by the first ~900 ppmV water vapour. There can be no CO2-AGW except in the most arid of deserts.
Since there was at most 0.3 degrees Celsius global warming from all sources combined even over the 1930s to now, to ascribe 0.4 degrees to anthropogenic causes over 1960-2008 is implausible.
Average global temperatures were only around 0.3 degrees Celsius at most higher in the last several years than during the late 1930s. That is seen when using data not heavily adjusted by the CAGW movement:
1) Northern hemisphere average = only around 0.25 degrees Celsius warming over that time period, as seen at
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig72.jpg
as discussed within
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part4-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-185.php
2) Southern hemisphere average = about 0.2 degrees Celsius warming from the late 1930s to the late 1970s, followed by 0.2 degrees Celsius from the start of the 1980s through now, as seen at
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
plus
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg
within
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part2-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-183.php
3) Arctic = actually slightly cooler in the 1990s than in the late 1930s as seen at
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
as fits also actual historical sea ice maps at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
While month-to-month oscillations are higher near the turning points of the 60-year ocean cycle (30 years peak-trough) than in between, recent years are not much different in annual average ice extent than part of the 1990s as seen at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
4) Tropics near the equator = next to nil warming over the 1930s-2000s time period, at most around a tenth of a degree or so, as seen at
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
plus
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig30.jpg
within
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part2-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-183.php
The trick is simultaneously avoiding both of the two Big Lies of the CAGW movement on modern temperature data:
a) For temperatures prior to the 1980s, use publications of the 1970s-1980s before the subsequent era of politicized, dishonest “science.” What is illustrated and discussed in the prior links also matches the large 1930s->1960s temperature decline seen in graphs in magazines of the time before history was rewritten, such as
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40530_DSCN1557_nat_geog_1976_1200x900_122_75lo.JPG
and
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o30PNIBahS0/T2KTNlu3RsI/AAAAAAAAAkY/cItxzMamChk/s1600/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg
Such also fits U.S. National Academy of Science data published in the 1970s ( http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering ) and the modern Russian dataset by Vinnikov ( http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig44b.jpg ), not having the same enviro-activists involved.
b) For temperatures from the 1980s to now, use satellite data to avoid skewing by UHI and warmist-convenient errors/”adjustments” in such as interpolation between surface stations.
The overall result additionally fits how sea level rise was slower in the latter half of the 20th century than the first half (“1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ as http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml notes).
In that context, add in consideration of natural factors in warming, and substantially less than the 0.3 degrees Celsius total net warming could have been caused by all anthropogenic factors combined even over a period of the 1930s to now, let alone over the 1960s to now.
There was solar activity rise from 1.000 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 for the cycles from 1964 to 1996 A.D. in average relative inverted cosmic ray counts seen at cosmicrays.oulu.fi . (After the late 1990s, solar activity started to decline overall, but that is consistent with how global average temperatures have been flat to relatively cooling since then, at a plateau of the 60-year ocean cycle).
Incidentally, the widely-reported supposed divergence between cosmic ray trends and cloud cover trends in the past several years is only a result of GISS and the ISCCP cloud cover group headquarted at GISS being as conveniently false on cloud cover as they are on adjusted temperatures, as discussed at http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
ALL of these projections are little better than speculation. They should be treated as such.
If, for instance, CO2 concentration lags temperature, then the above work is probably wrong. That’s the way science works. It isn’t a problem. The problem is that the alarmists take something that could be true and treat it as if it were absolute gospel. They then pile more speculation on top and expect us to take really drastic action on that basis.
richard telford:
Lord Monckton provides a clear and cogent analysis (as he often does). Its main conclusion is substantiated and is
This is an important conclusion because
(a) it provides an empirical observation of a serious error in the climate models (they increase estimated warming by use of positive feedback when they should reduce estimated warming by use of negative feedback)
and
(b) it leads to a novel estimate of climate sensitivity derived from empirical data instead of model curve fitting.
But at August 31, 2012 at 2:05 am you do not address the arguments and/or evidence provided in the analysis. Instead you start by saying
“Seriously strange analysis”? I assume that means you cannot fault it but you don’t like its conclusions. Your response is the only thing which seems “seriously strange” to me.
And the analysis is not “misleading”. Your error in suggesting it is “misleading” is demonstrated by your illustration. Please explain how there is “warming in the pipeline at 2100” when – as you admit – “Monckton accounts for warming in the pipeline going into the 21st Century”. His account says,
“If feedbacks operating over the short to medium term are indeed net-negative, there is no warming in the pipeline from past emissions” so there would be no “warming in the pipeline at 2100” for the same reasons.
And please explain the relevance of your question
Frankly, if your post is the best you can do as a ‘warmist’ response to the analysis then you would have done better to have avoided making a post.
Richard
I am an empiricist; I only trust hard, measured data. On the subject of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, the only thing that can actually be measured is total climate sensitivity; how much do global temperatures rise as a result of a given rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere. In theory we can measure total climate sensitivity. We can measure how much CO2 concentrations rise; we can measure how much atmospheric temperatures rise, assuming they are still rising. All we need to do is to prove how much of any observed temperature rise is due to the change in CO2 concentration.
What I cannot understand is why there is so little interest in making an attempt to actually measure total climate sensitivity. If we could actually measure it, it would be like a Michelson/Morley moment; it would settle whether CAGW exists for all time.
The basic fact is, the global temperature record over the last century and more — and many “skeptics” have pointed this out, with graphs — shows global cooling from about 1880 to 1910, warming from about 1910 to 1940, cooling again from 1940 to 197(5), and warming again from 1975 to near 2000 (and now cooling again). There is even a well-known theory about this (involving multidecadal ocean oscillations, on top of an apparent recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, since the 17th century). A good number of researchers have pointed out that the CO2 atmospheric concentration has gone up throughout that period, and have reasonably claimed that therefore CO2 cannot be blamed for the up and down temperature record. Believers — and that is all they are, believers — only muddy the debate with their attempts to distinguish between “forcings” and “feedbacks”, in that up and down temperature situation.
The period 1960 to 2008, considered by Christopher Monckton here, is from the middle of a cooling period to a little past the end of a warming period, so temperatures have gone both up and down in that period, while CO2 has definitely continued to rise. Does he think this is an optimal test of CO2 “forcing”? In this, he is ignoring a basic fact in the longer temperature record that speaks against any CO2-driven “climate sensitivity” at all, and apparently finds what so many others have pointed out, simply from looking at those wider up and down periods: That the temperature is NOT driven by CO2, period. I think they did by simple observation better than Mr. Monckton has done here with the sorts of naive equations (dT = λ dF) favored by the incompetent consensus scientists. “Lukewarm” believers like him curry (whoa — Judith Curry is another one) to the consensus theory, instead of decisively breaking with it, as they should.
If you ignore the simple evidence of the up and down temperature record vs. the monotonically rising CO2 — solely in order to maintain there is, there MUST BE, a “greenhouse effect”, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 — then you are all too likely, in your fevered belief in that dogma, to dismiss any claims of definitive disproof of that effect. How could such disproof have been missed, by all of climate science, all these years? If, on the other hand, you don’t ignore the ample, indeed overwhelming and simple, evidence just noted, against the greenhouse effect, put forward time and time again, then you probably already know by now that there is such definitive evidence. The only trouble is, you will have to admit that climate scientists have been, and stubbornly continue to be, fundamentally deluded by their (clearly) false theories, and that there is therefore — and regretfully, considering the attention of the world is focused upon it — no competent climate science in the world today.
We all make mistakes, even embarrassing ones like this one of mine. But people need to start learning from their mistakes, rather than stubbornly passing them down to the next generation. There is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing CO2.
Since the 1975-2005 warming was just a part of natural AMO/PDO positive cycle, indistinguishable from 1910-1940 period, all these calculations are useless. Just see the model projections: exponential curve copying the Keeling curve, nothing as real world. All these lambdas and formulas are trying to fit the radiative fantasy playstation models onto the 30-year warming trend.
Oh and the cold water appears in the NINO region again. Who would say that?
The climate is always warming or cooling. It’s called natural variability. It’s what the planet does. Spitting a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere isn’t going to change what the planet wants to do.
These attempts to estimate climate sensitivity are baseless and futile. Scientists should focus on working out how natural variability works. When they can nail that, then everything else will fall into place.
OT, breaking news:
A Moment of Silence, For the Fall of Europe
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman):
I am replying to your post at August 31, 2012 at 3:58 am .
With respect, your post misses the point of Lord Monckton’s analysis in his article above.
Lord Monckton often assesses ‘mainstream’ climate information and arguments with a view to determine if the ‘mainstream’ conclusions are validly derived. His above analysis is an example of this procedure and it provides an important finding.
His above analysis indicates the ‘mainstream’ analysis of climate sensitivity uses an erroneous assumption of positive feedback when empirical data indicates a negative feedback exists in reality. Correcting for this error induces the ‘mainstream’ projection of future global warming to be a trivial degree of warming.
This correction is important. It requires a response from those who support the ‘mainstream’ to
(a) demonstrate that Lord Monckton’s analysis is wrong
or
(b) to admit their own methods indicate that fears of dangerous AGW are unfounded.
But you say many people (including me) say observed changes to global temperature are explicable by apparent climate cycles (notably a ~900 year cycle and a ~60 year cycle). But so what? Discussion of such apparent cycles distracts from Lord Monckton’s analysis and its important conclusion.
And you also say many people (including me) say there is no clear evidence that atmospheric CO2 concentration is a significant determinant of global temperature and much evidence suggests it is not. But so what? Discussion of that also distracts from Lord Monckton’s analysis and its important conclusion.
Simply, contrary to your assertion, Lord Monckton has not made a “mistake”: he has provided an analysis which indicates the ‘mainstream’ method uses an erroneous assumption.
Richard
****
richard telford says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:05 am
How is the sea-ice albedo feedback working for you this year?
****
The sea-ice albedo feedback is small & localized at very high latitudes. Only at lower latitudes (say, below 65 deg) does it become significant.
Jim Cripwell- “What I cannot understand is why there is so little interest in making an attempt to actually measure total climate sensitivity.”
Sherwood Idso in 1998 and Willis Eschenbach recently both made the attempt.
One method takes the measured temperature difference between winter and summer at one location, divided by the measured difference in total solar irradiance at the top of atmosphere (or the measured difference in total solar irradiance at the surface) at the same location between winter and summer. Repeat in as many locations as measured data is available.
The result is 0.1 C per W/m^2 or less, indicating strong negative feedback mechanisms are in play.
Off topic, but important
Richard Black is leaving BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19422041
Louise says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:42 am
From the abstract:
“suggesting that”
“perhaps”
“may lie below”
Such weasel words have long been decried on this blog so what’s different about this one?
So Louise, you admit that most of global warming science is fraught with weasel words. Looks like you’re starting to understand the value of skepticism.
While scientific debate over carbon will no doubt continue for some time, it seems utterly obvious that CO2 emissions will be reduced, importantly or not, along with harmful emissions in a very big way in the coming years. Looking at the enormous nuclear power building boom currently being planned and undertaken, whereby China alone is anticipating 600 reactors in the next 30 years and 1800 reactors by turn of the century, it’s seems clear to me that electricity will be produced
in the future with few emissions, that fast reactors will turn that “nuclear waste” first into gold (fast reactors burning our current stockpile of “nuclear waste” can provide all the power this country needs for 1000 years) and then into a small pile of low radioactive matter,easily stored and returning to background levels within a few generations. We have plenty of uranium that can be mined and an inexhaustible supply that can be extracted from seawater, at a cost that won’t bankrupt the consumer. There are even new reactor designs that can operate as non-baseload
generators.
And few would doubt that practical and affordable batteries will arrive in the relatively near term, removing auto emissions from the picture.
So, in a sense, debate about carbon and its effects is only important as a means of preventing any more costly and self defeating “solutions” like solar and wind from bankrupting the country and achieving virtually nothing. The world is becoming emission free despite, rather than because
of the antics of the hysterical warmists, out to save the world from itself , much in the same fashion as the very similar fundamentalist religious reformers of the 1880’s. Warmists are today’s
evangelists, saving the world from the sins of mankind. They just avoid all that God stuff.
They need a real job.