By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the midst of finishing its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the topic. Based on a series of content leaks, it seems as if the AR5 has so much internal inconsistency that releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.
The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. New and mutually consistent re-assessments of this important parameter are appearing in the scientific literature faster than the slow and arduous IPCC assessment process can digest them (presuming it even wants to—given that they are making the current AR5 look pretty bad).
Further, even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science, the vast majority of the rest of the IPCC’s report will also have to be changed as it is highly dependent on the magnitude of the climate sensitivity.
By now, though, it’s too late in the game (the final report is due out in early 2014)—the cows have all left the IPCC’s barn on these subjects and it’s too late to round them all up and rebrand them.
The First Order Draft (FOD) of the IPCC’s AR5 was leaked/made public back in December 2012. In the FOD, the IPCC recognized the significance of the earth climate sensitivity, calling it:
[T]he single most important measure of climate response because the response of many other climate variables to an increase in CO2 scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature.
The IPCC went on to assess the current scientific knowledge as to the magnitude of the climate sensitivity this way:
Despite considerable advances in climate models and in understanding and quantifying climate feedbacks, the assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007] that climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence. [emphasis in original]
The IPCC’s “mostly likely value” in the FOD is 3.0°C. This is interesting in and of itself because according to the same First Order Draft the average climate sensitivity produced by the climate models used by the IPCC is 3.4°C, which is already some 13% higher than the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees.
If the IPCC thinks there was something systematically wrong with the models it was using, then it should just come out and say it. The fact that the IPCC (currently) will not do so does not exactly inspire confidence in its ability to stand up and criticize. In reality, the average climate sensitivity of a collection of results published within the past 2-3 years suggests that the value is closer to 2.0°C, and recent observations of the pace of global temperature rise hint at a value even a bit lower than that.
The IPCC has come under growing pressure from the scientific community—especially members of the commission directly involved in climate sensitivity research—to reflect these new, lower estimates.
There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing.
According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered. Here is how The Economist describes what is in the new IPCC draft concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity:
Both the 2007 IPCC report and a previous draft of the new assessment reflected earlier views on the matter by saying that the standard measure of climate sensitivity (the likely rise in equilibrium temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration) was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises.
If this is true, the combination of the IPCC lowering the low end of the range of possible climate sensitivity values and the IPCC deciding not to provide its assessment of the “most likely” value strongly suggests that the average climate model sensitivity of 3.4°C is even further removed from the science on the topic and less justifiable. Just how far removed the climate models really are is kept under wraps by the IPCC by its no longer supplying a “most likely” value. If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.
Because, as the IPCC admits, the change in many other climate variables “scales with the increase in global-mean surface temperature,” the climate impacts derived from the model projections (which essentially is what the IPCC is all about) are also (substantially) too high.
The IPCC has three options:
- Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
- Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
- Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3.
On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
Scary thought.
Maybe (just maybe) the AR6 will have an update to these important issues, after another lustrum or two of no warming has had time to make its effects felt.
“GlynnMhor says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Maybe (just maybe) the AR6…”
IMVHO the chance of there being an AR6 is, at this time, best described as “very slim” if not anorexic!
Hoisted on their own petard. Sensitivity will be found to be even lower once the ocean cycles and solar variation effects are properly quantified and included.
I do hope you’re correct, Green Sand.
But I fear the parasitic paradigm will burden us for another decade before the reality becomes unmistakable.
I don’t think this can possibly be right. Did you reverse these two?
BTW & OT: I really enjoyed your Carbon Tax Temperature Savings Calculator, incorporated by reference herin
This is exactly the kind of effort needed to demonstrate the insanity of climate mitigation strategies. Lord Monckton does it with long (but eloquent) posts. Your approach is better IMHO.
BTW & OT, part 2. Thanks to Joanne Nova for the write-up and link to your calculator.
BTW & OT, part 1.5 (correction).
“herin” should be “herein”. [never post in haste, or after more than 2 glasses of wine].
Gavin will fiddle up the temperature of the globe just in time to save the high estimates. Combined with a little cooling of the past.
Some history books will have to be corrected. The Dust Bowl was obviously just dusty, not hot. Unternehmen Barbarossa got stuck when liquid oxygen started raining down on the Wehrmacht. There, fixed that. BTW everyone was happy in those days of eternal frost. Nobody needed fridges. In fact, nobody had a fridge. Coincidence? There ain’t no such thing as coincidence.
The Team engages in government-funded group grope “science”.
Get ready for the doomers to concede that the models are worthless. But they’ll say “so what? The ‘established physics’ still holds, and we’re still moving headlong toward doom.” Yeah, because the ocean has eaten the heat or something.
No, fact is the current 15 year temperature stall, and the current lack of any semblance of a connection between CO2 & temperatures… puts this “established physics” in question.
The climate is clearly not responding in the way that the “established physics” indicated it would. The “established physics” is incorrect, or something else about the warmists’ thesis is terribly wrong. Maybe “Gaia” is a homoeostatic system with lots of mechanisms to keep temperature within narrow limits. Much like the body of a mammal. Who knows? But one thing, I look at the temperature evidence, and I don’t see any major perturbation. Now we have a 15 year stall which is inconsistent with theory, and before that, for well over a century, we see the temperatures at low and higher CO2 times rising and falling at the virtually the same rate (so CO2 is having NO effect): http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html
@ Alan Watt
“more than 2 glasses of wine”
Well that explains it.
(3.4 – 2.5) / 2.5 * 100 = 36%
(3.4 – 2.0) / 2.0 * 100 = 70%
4. Shred all copies, recycle and reissue as extra soft double ply tissue with perforations for the publics convenience.
“Climate sensitivity” to a doubling from fictitious “pre-industrial” levels would be around -0.00000001 C.
To arrive at this figure you of course have to ignore all the evidence that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentration at all time scales.
Next reduce those ludicrous figures for DWLWIR slowing the cooling of the earths surface by 71percent. LWIR doesn’t effect the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporativly cool.
Now as the troposperic lapse rate created by convective circulation is near the adiabatic limit, there is little need for ajustment here. However speed of convective circulation and mechanical energy transport from the surface should be increased for higher radiative gas concentrations.
The ERL argument can be safely ignored as it is junk science. In a moving atmosphere, warm air masses are transporting energy high above the level of maximum IR opacity, where they always radiate more than the air at the altitude they are rising through.
You should find that radiative gases act to cool the atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
The IPCC however should continue to do static atmosphere calculations and assume surface IR absorption based on emissivity. Otherwise they won’t get paid.
ippc climate sensitivity = [agenda x income] -[regard for truth x ECS].
Dunno, maths seems perfect to me.
estimate 2.0 to 4.5
@John West
Thank you. I see now I did not read carefully enough. I took the phrase “the science” to mean measured temperatures and the sample ECS values to be plugged into the models.
Just using common sense (you know, that ability which is above all other areas), the predictions within a non-linear chaotic system, which by their nature become wider over time the further ahead you go, should be illegal as they are worse than astrology.
That said, there is a slightly linear element to the CO2/temperature relationship which does not exist in models but records, CO2 has risen by 50%, the temperature has risen 0.8C which is not all due to the CO2 officially. Therefore as we know no delay mechanism (what’s that Sooty, the deep oceans, come on, that’s a myth) then without a new law or two of physics to be discovered (like the ones in James Hansen’s mind) the sensitivity has pretty much been established around a level of 1, ie neutral. Expecting more than that actually dismisses the entire 1850-2013 data altogether, to quote Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre,
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
QED
Here’s my recommendation. Scral the IPCC. Immediately.
Put yourself in their position. If you were on the IPCC gravy train would you rather:
(a) Keep taking the money for the next decade whilst looking foolish
(b) Become unemployed
The IPCC is a Watermelon organization and must be disbanded without delay.
Excellent, concise summary of where things are at re AR5 – and easily comprehended by those without degrees in physics or maths.
This is the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back here!
The IPCC has three options:
1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
4. “It’s worse than we thought. 98% of the scientists in our pocket agree. The oceans are becoming acidic or alkaline. We’re all gonna die! Think of the children! Gaia demands we act! We must employ the precautionary principle immediately.”
It is notable that none of the impacts are significantly different from 0. I.e., doing nothing.
The IPCC should sequester AR5 in the deep ocean so it can be fully cooked by all the atmospheric heat that is hiding therein.
Well of course what should happen is that this political animal should be put out of our misery, having been totally discredited, finally and far overdue.
But we know that the real agenda still exists and won’t go down for the count so easily. So they’ll find a way to crank up the propaganda machine and fight desperately for the power they desire.
“The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.”
??? —- doesn’t even crack the top 10! (that’s a factorial)
Rodney Dangerfield moment.
The real question is how many late-Holocene hominids will even notice?
I think the IPCC will have to get rid of the climate sensitivity value altogether. This number appears to me to be little more than the correlation between rising temps and rising CO2. As long as both were rising, the sensitivity appeared high. But when the earth quit warming, the sensitivity gets lower because the correlation gets worse. The longer the earth temps fail to rise the worse the correlation and the lower the sensitivity.
So the claim will have to be that it isn’t so important. Probably simple as removing a few paragraphs. then we’ll see a “new consensus” in the message that the heat is deep in the ocean, or that the problem now is acidification.
Anything to keep the CAGW message alive.
regarding:
The IPCC has three options:
1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
We’re betting on door number 3.
I’m betting on a 4th option; an AR5 that enables the IPCC Bureaucracy to survive. I went on record with it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/newsbytes-the-economist-reveals-sensitive-ipcc-information/#comment-1367711
At the moment, RSS has a flat slope for 16 years and 7 months; Hadsst2 has been flat for 16 years and 4 months; and HadCRUT3 has been flat for 16 years and 2 months. It is quite possible that when the report is released in early 2014, all three will have flat periods of 17 years or be very close to it. The people who come up with the report need to keep this fact in the back of their minds if they do not want to appear too out of touch with reality.
We should keep the IPCC around for a bit to help us through the next 95,000 year period of glaciation. But their headquarters are in New York City, eh? Well that will have to be moved a bit further south.
http://sublimeobsessions.blogspot.ca/2013/07/an-inconvenient-fact-ice-age-in-which.html
Werner Brozek says:
At the moment, RSS has a flat slope for 16 years and 7 months.
hasn’t the RSS been flat before for almost that long?
1979 till 1995, or 16 years.
What’s different now?
Angech–
You have a great model! We can test that.
But I don’t think the feds (or the IPCC) will fund our work!
I posit that Misters Knappenberger and Michaels are tools of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaging in a campaign of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) in advance of the release of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).
The publication of the AR5 showed convincingly, with no uncertainty and without doubt the IPCC’s Director, staff, writers and reviewers deftness (subterfuge) for committing Fraud on a grand scale.
They did it! It is written. They own it.
It is written, “God Forgives.”
We humans, … are not God.
WE, do NOT forgive!
WE, do NOT forget!
May the headstones of the Gettysburg IPCC Director, Staff, Writers and Reviewers own these words … on their headstones.
QED
Green Sand says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm
“GlynnMhor says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Maybe (just maybe) the AR6…”
IMVHO the chance of there being an AR6 is, at this time, best described as “very slim” if not anorexic!
I agree that there will almost certainly be no AR6, but that is nothing to do with science. The political position and activity has moved on from the ‘settled science’ and has no more need of the IPCC. Politically, proving the IPCC wrong is yesterday’s battle which the CAGW proponents feel they have won. All the ‘green taxes’, ‘environmental regulation’ and Common Purpose/Agenda 21 items will be in place. The only thing that can upset the progress is the actual climate; the concern the Earth may be getting colder accounts for the shrillness of the debate and the current efforts to finish getting all aspects of energy governance in place. What the climate ‘scientists’ do not appear to realize their gravy train is coming to an end – there is no need for more papers/research on ‘climate’ indeed by generating results they may be a threat to the political position, so expect funding for climate ‘science’ to collapse in the near future.
The IPCC has a real pack of (sea ice) trouble etc You can say that again!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php LOL
The IPCC HMS Titanic has struck an ‘iceberg’.
Maybe the socialists in Norway will try to truth stamp IPCC and Gore with another Nobels peace prize?
@ Brent Hargreaves says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:54 pm
“The IPCC is a Watermelon organization and must be disbanded without delay.”
Classic post !
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Some people and organizations are starting to use their “little grey cells”!
An extract: “On a final note, the problem of large government climate change assessments being scientifically outdated even before they are released is not atypical of “group science,” which is hugely expensive, grossly inefficient, and often is designed to justify policy. We noted the same thing in our comments on the recent draft report of the U.S. effort at assessing climate change impacts, the “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), stating:
To the extent that the recent literature ultimately produces a more accurate estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity than does the climate model average, it means that, in general, all of the projections of future climate change given in the NCA are, by default, some 40% too large (too rapid) and the associated (and described) impacts are gross overestimates.
Our recommendation is that an alternative set of projections be developed for all topics discussed in the NCA, incorporating the latest scientific findings on the lowered value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without the addition of the new projections, the NCA will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
And to think, these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.
Scary thought.”
@ tallbloke
Pssst! The phrase coined by The Master is “hoist with his own petard”. A petard is a bomb, not something you hang on.
JimS July 26, 2013 at 7:29 pm wrote
We should keep the IPCC around for a bit to help us through the next 95,000 year period of glaciation. But their headquarters are in New York City, eh? Well that will have to be moved a bit further south.
Or their headquarters building will have to be made higher–approximately four miles higher.
Channeling a bit here, obviously a bit outside of the IPCC’s charter, it seemed reasonable to ask the question:
“What were the ends of the last interglacials like?”
MIS-5e, the last interglacial back in the record was apparently quite the extreme little post-MPT interglacial. A detailed recounting may be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
Within that may also be found a discussion of MIS-11 and MIS-19. Post-MPT interglacials like MIS-1, the Holocene, which also occurred at an eccentricity minima.
This discussion yields 2 thermal pulses right at the very end of MIS-5e, one at the very end of MIS-11 and 3 at the very end of MIS-19.
Recently, a high resolution study of sediments from Lake El’gygytgyn refine the Holsteinian interglacial thusly:
“Here we present a detailed multi-proxy record of the climate and environmental evolution at Lake El’gygytgyn, Far East Russian Arctic during the period 430–395 ka covering the marine isotope stage (MIS) 12/11 transition and the thermal maximum of super interglacial MIS 11c. The MIS 12/11 transition at Lake El’gygytgyn is characterized by initial warming followed by a cold reversal implying similarities to the last deglaciation. The thermal maximum of MIS 11c is characterized by full and remarkably stable interglacial conditions with mean temperatures of the warmest month (MTWM) ranging between ca. 10–15 C; annual precipitation (PANN) ranging between ca. 300–600 mm; strong in-lake productivity coinciding with dark coniferous forests in the catchment; annual disintegration of the lake ice cover; and full mixis of the water column. Such conditions persisted, according to our age model, for ca. 27±8 kyr between ca. 425–398 ka. The Lake El’gygytgyn record closely resembles the climate pattern recorded in Lake Baikal (SE Siberia) sediments and Antarctic ice cores, implying interhemispheric climate connectivity during MIS 11c.
“Because of the similarity of the earth’s orbital parameters between the Holocene and MIS 11c, the latter is considered a close paleoclimatic analogue for the present interglacial (Loutre and Berger, 2000, 2003).
“Several so-called “super interglacials” have been identified in the Quaternary sediment record from Lake El’gygytgyn (Melles et al., 2012). Among these “super interglacials”, marine isotope stage (MIS) 11c and 31 appear to be the most outstanding in terms of their temperature, vegetation cover, in-lake productivity, and in the case of MIS 11c also duration(Melles et al., 2012). Quantitative climate reconstructions for MIS 11c and 31 at Lake El’gygytgyn imply that temperatures and annual precipitation values were up to ca. 5 C and ca. 300mm higher if compared to the Holocene (Melles et al., 2012).
“In close correspondence to the observed changes in in-lake productivity and vegetation, MTWM increases to ca. 15 C and PANN to >600mm (Melles et al., 2012; Fig. 3i, k), thus completing a coherent picture of a significant climate amelioration in a time span of only ca. 1 kyr at Lake El’gygytgyn. Following the climate amelioration between ca. 425–424 ka, a setback to a slightly less productive environment and a somewhat colder and drier climate between ca. 424–420 ka is indicated by a decrease in in-lake productivity indicators, spruce pollen contents, fluxes of terrestrial OM, MTWM, PANN, and an increase in the flux of allochthonous clastic matter (Fig. 3).
“A significant increase in in-lake productivity indicators, tree and shrub pollen contents, MTWM, and PANN at ca. 420–418.5 ka marks the beginning of relatively stable, long-lasting optimum climate conditions of MIS 11c at Lake El’gygytgyn, which lasted from ca. 418.5 to ca. 402 ka (Fig. 3).
“A remarkable feature during this phase is the concomitant occurrence of peak TOC and TOC/TN values centered at ca. 401 ka, reaching up to 3.4% and 25, respectively (Fig. 3b, c).
http://www.clim-past.net/9/1467/2013/cp-9-1467-2013.pdf
I can only hope that you are still with me here. The single rapid thermal excursion at the end-Holsteinian which was somewhere on the order of a thousand years or so.
The talking-point here is that the ends of even eccentricity minima post-MPT interglacials are populated with from 1 to 3 thermal excursions.
With 2 such thermal excursions known from the orbitally incorrect but nevertheless most recent post-MPT extreme interglacial, MIS-5e:
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
(You may have to copy the string above and open another tab to find)
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gröbern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples)
Within such a signal to noise climate environment one must consider the latest positive, and now negative, phases of the PDO, at the very least.
With the sun gone all quiet on us at the half-precession cycle old (and a few centuries change) Holocene, a wise hominid might also consider consideration of how many end-extreme-interglacial-thermal-pulses the Holocene might be due.
If only one, like MIS-11, is that what we just managed to live through?
If two, the second one yet to come, necessarily meaning that we might have two, like MIS-5e did, what is it, precisely, that you propose?
If there are to be three, like MIS-19 had, what can we do about the next two, assuming we just went through end-extreme interglacial thermal pulse (ala MIS-11) numero uno?
And then there is the most enigmatic question of all known hominid time. Assuming you could extend the presently half-precession cycle old Holocene what is it, exactly, that you would do? Regardless of whether or not the Holocene will span 1/2, 1, 1.5, or even 2 precession cycles, like MIS-11 might have……..
Why would this not be a fair question?
@Ian W –
I wouldn’t be too sure that the worldwide focus is shifting away from CAGW, or that it will do so very soon. The alarmies are very creative at finding ways to extend their meme in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, the EU still hesitates to drop it, and you have der Fuehrer here in the US bulling right ahead with talk of “carbon pollution” and not-so-veiled threats against skeptics.
One may hope that the Liberal-National party in Australia wins the election there in September, and that when they do they do a thorough housecleaning of the alarmists from Australia’s bureaucracy, its universities, the CSIRO and other scientific institutions. If that happens it may be appropriate to take heart.
The IPCC is a joke – a laughable exercise in incompetence, bias and mean-spiritedness, and an utter waste of resources bestowed upon people who would be better suited to cleaning bus station rest rooms and hospital bedpans – but they still present a danger to science, to liberty and the world economy, zand will until they are put permanently out of business.
Propaganda does not change reality. The IPCC is between a rock and hard place. The IPCC and I suppose many of us are assuming either a continuation of the plateau with no warming or slight warming, rather than significant cooling. The IPCC and I suppose many of us are ignoring the solar cycle 24 change and how the planet’s climate has changed in the past when there was a similar solar magnetic cycle change.
The planet’s sensitivity to a forcing change is a problem. It is most definitely too high in the general circulation models. There is no other explanation for a plateau of no warming for 16 years. The planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes which is validated by Lindzen and Choi’s two papers that analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation changes vs ocean temperature changes to determine the planet’s sensitivity to a forcing change. That fact however has implications as to what caused past very strong cyclic climate change. i.e. A very strong cyclic forcing mechanism is required to produce cyclic abrupt climate change as the planet resists forcing changes. One of the arguments for high climate sensitivity given at Realclimate and parroted at Skeptical Science was if climate sensitivity is not high they cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle. Again the answer to what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle is a very strong cyclic forcing mechanism. No one looked for a strong forcing mechanism as everyone assumed the planet amplifies forcing changes which is not correct. Back to the solar magnetic cycle 24 change.
The second problem is what caused the warming in the last 70 years. The regions that warmed in the last 70 years are not the regions that were predicted to warm based on the general circulation models. The IPCC settled for any warming as good enough to keep pushing the political agenda. They ignored the scientific questions that should have been asked when the warming pattern obviously did not match the predicted pattern. The anomalous pattern of warming indicates there is one or more fundamental errors in the CO2 forcing mechanism beyond sensitivity and that some other mechanism caused the majority of the warming in the last 70 years. Rather than working to solve a scientific puzzle they worked to come up with a zillion reasons why any warming would be a bad thing.
It would appear the IPCC and many of us do not believe significant cooling is possible. It is difficult to imagine how the IPCC would respond to global cooling.
1) Sorry we were just kidding.
2) Were did that come from?
3) Should have listened to the deniers. Most of us were unaware planetary temperature (in the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years) has cyclically warmed and cooled correlating with solar magnetic cycle changes.
4) It appears based on the observed cooling, that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. It appears there are multiple fundamental errors in the general circulation models. We are working away to find the errors.
Eliza says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:10 pm
The IPCC has a real pack of (sea ice) trouble etc You can say that again!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php LOL
The WUWT Sea Ice reference page still shows the old version. Can Anthony change the link to the updated version?
The Second Order Draft (SOD) was leaked, not the FOD
Insofar as folks have introduced the topic of sea ice, see:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/26/north-pole-now-lake/?intcmp=features
Then links to an old story about last summer (2012):
http://www.livescience.com/26789-arctic-cyclone-sea-ice-melt.html
I know nothing about the source (LiveScience) but they claim there is
“An Arctic cyclone, which can rival a hurricane in strength, is forecast for this week, ..”
WUWT?
Chip and Paddy claim that the AR4 “has so much internal inconsistency”. Must of rubbed off those guys.
“…even if the IPCC is able to do an adequate job of assimilating this evolving and quite convincing science…..By now, though, it’s too late in the game..”
“There are some indications, though, that the IPCC times may be a–changing. According to The Economist, which claims to have seen the most recent draft of the IPCC’s AR5, the IPCC’s assessment of climate sensitivity has now been altered.”
Why not wait until it comes out, instead of speculating on a series of leaked drafts?
————————————————————
“..these national and international assessments are undertaken to justify policy actions.”
What policy actions? The world community has done basically nothing to reduce GHG emissions!
Now THAT’S scary.
1.Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
2.Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
3.Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.
4. Do nothing more, give the policy makers and rent seakers the current draft as they paid for, and mislead the taxpayers.
This essay makes the critical mistake that the IPCC actually wants something that resembles true scientific best information.
The Consensus will not define AR5,
AR5 will define the Concensus.
IPCC will shut down so there can be no corrections, no debate on corrections.
AR5 will be the Gospel, the Deuteronomy, the Revelation.
All Heretics will be exiled.
Gavel in the Inquisition! There is a World to be saved!
The leaks have had a great effect. It has forced them to look at issues pointed out by sceptics and probably will end up toning down their alarm. You see, if there were now leaks they would simply release and by the time sceptics pointed out problems it would have already been trumpeted by the media and things moved along.
Observations trump
theoryhypothesis every time.DirkH says:
“Gavin will fiddle up the temperature of the globe just in time to save the high estimates. Combined with a little cooling of the past.”
Already in hand , don’t worry about that..
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/really-giss-dishonesty-continues-in-post-hansen-era/#comment-84102
You will see that since February, the anomalies for 2002 up to 2012 have been shifted upwards by about 0.05C.
eg. the 2007 el nino anomaly has changed from about 0.88 to 0.93 and the rebound trough in 2008 has been changed from about 0.15 to about 0.23
Why? ???
How much have earlier records been pushed down I wonder ?
Global mean surface temps have gone up by ‘0.8C’ since 1850. What proportion of this rise has the IPCC conceded is due to natural climate variation as we came out of the Little Ice Age? ……..Ignoring all the ‘necessary adjustments’, UHI, soot, land use changes, thermometer changes etc.
Expect a new thermometer deep ocean program where all the instruments will be placed as near to deep sea volcanic vents as necessary. The missing heat will be found. Siting issues – unverifiable. 🙂
Other_Andy says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Werner Brozek says:
At the moment, RSS has a flat slope for 16 years and 7 months.
hasn’t the RSS been flat before for almost that long?
1979 till 1995, or 16 years.
What’s different now?
From 1979 to 1995, or 16 years, the slope was still positive at 0.0029. Now the slope is actually very slightly negative for 16 years and 7 months. At no time has RSS been negative for that long.
In reply to:
Village Idiot says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm
What policy actions? The world community has done basically nothing to reduce GHG emissions!
Now THAT’S scary.
William:
The Western countries have most definitely done something in response to the IPCC’s scary predictions.
The Western countries have wasted trillions of dollars on scams that have made almost no difference in atmospheric CO2 emissions in the countries where the scams were installed. CO2 emissions in Western countries have increased if the CO2 content of imported goods is included. Western countries have just managed to increase the loss of manufacturing jobs to Asia.
A good example of a super duper scam is the conversion of food to biofuel which has resulted in massive deforestation and increased the price of food for all nations. The conversion of food to biofuel is madness and will result in food wars if it is not stopped.
As you note world emissions of CO2 have increased. However, if the planet resists forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will and has caused the biosphere to expand.
Plant’s of course eat CO2 and thrive when CO2 increase. There is for example a 40% increase in cereal crop yield when CO2 doubles. When atmospheric CO2 is raised C3 plants can and do produce less stomata which enables them to reduce water loss. The reduction in plant trans-respiration water loss will and has reduced desertification and leaves more water at the plant’s roots for nitrogen fixing synergistic bacteria. Win-win for the biosphere.
It is surreal that the atmospheric increase in CO2 and the slight warming at higher latitude regions is one of the most beneficial environmental changes man is making to the environment.
The warmists are fighting the wrong war. The environmental issue is habitat not CO2 emissions. To have surplus money to spend on habitat protection and conservation countries need to be successful, to have industry, to have jobs. Cheaper energy more jobs. Wasting trillions of dollars on green scams has increased the deficit and reduced funding for all programs. The liberals do not get the concept of limited funds to spend. Indefinite deficit spending ends in tears. A series of Greece and Detroit like collapses.
The reason the warmists are fighting the wrong war is primarily the incorrect IPCC science and a lack of understanding concerning costs and engineering issues related to the green scams.
If the increase in atmospheric CO2 was truly an issue the only solution would be a massive change to nuclear power, war time like restrictions on the economies of all countries, and a massive drop in living standards in the Western countries. That type of policy ‘change’ would require military action to enforce and to get agreement from all countries. The citizens of Western democratic countries would not support the massive reduction in standard of life and a massive conversion to nuclear power.
There has been absolutely no realistic discussion of what it would take to reduce CO2 emissions by say 60% for the entire world not just for Western countries.
My view is that the atmospheric control system that damps out natural fluctuations is near 0 K CO2 climate sensitivity.
There has been AGW, from Asian aerosols reducing the albedo of low level clouds. This led to the 1980s and 1990s heating but has now saturated. It lead to the ocean temperature rise
What we are seeing now in the reduction of TPW and the turn down of OHC and air temperature is the effect of operation of other parts of the control system.
CO2 is automatically eliminated from the temperature effects.
Seems to be an urgent need to introduce an extended twelve month assessment review before releasing a failed before publication AR5! This will keep IPCC scientists scrambling for their cut of the “extended” research funds and so employed for an extra 12 months ?, or more, if luck holds and funds kept flowing it could be further extended, as they gravely ponder why the models aren’t living up to the job that was given them, a tweak here an adjustment there, and you never know what they might be able to get away with, before admitting the inevitable, that they really don’t know,…. puzzled, concerned, thus requires much more research funding!!
And unless a hiatus/pause in funding intervenes, I guess they will hope that the weather will co-operate, that mother nature serves up some super variable that can be used [exploited] to scare the pants off everyone!!
No matter what the weather will eventually do, if they can just spin it right AR5.1 might just continue the gravy train until some new scam can be developed for AR5.2.1 take three..
After all we must keep those insiders and THE INDUSTRY rewarded/paid at the level and manner to which they demand to be accustomed too, and at least until IPCC Mark II can be justified by the UN agenda commissars.
This could not happen though, no one can be that stoopid!!
Any engineer who has ever dealt with positive feedback just knows that high levels of positive feedback are highly unlikely in any real system. So, as a matter of simple common sense you would need an extraordinary argument to justify a figure even as high as 2°C. Personally I would need my arm twisted behind my back by unquestionable data and unanimous agreement by ivory tower academics to even consider a sensitivity greater than 1.5°C.
So, we know that most of what they are modelling is just chaotic natural variation which cannot be modelled except as (1/f) “noise”. And so we know these unbelievable levels of positive feedback are just the result of blind senseless curve fitting … which given the nature of noise will slowly and surely come down toward a figure below 1.5°C.
So this whole IPCC clownery is a bit like watching Men In Black for the third time … we all know exactly what is going to happen … but it is still fun to watch.
‘releasing it in its current form will be a major fiasco.’
that depends on what the update is intended to do , the chances are very good it will support the need for a IPCC, that is check one , the chances are very good it supply ‘political’ required ‘proof ‘ that is check two and the chances are there will more than enough in it for the AGW faithful to spin to their friends in the press, that is check three .
Remember they said themselves they do not do science so its ‘scientific validity ‘ is no measure of its ‘worth ‘
In other words its can be fact free nonsense that defines reality , but still be far from a ‘fiasco’ for those whose who support ‘the cause ‘
Other_Andy says:
… hasn’t the RSS been flat before for almost that long?
Werner Brozek says:
From 1979 to 1995, or 16 years, the slope was still positive at 0.0029. Now the slope is actually very slightly negative for 16 years and 7 months. At no time has RSS been negative for that long.
I’ve always loved the way the warmist zealots were incensed by the pause – to the sceptic 16 years without warming is neither here nor because ups, downs, pauses humps, valleys … these are all precisely what you expect from a system with (1/f) noise.
But to the warmist whose whole career advancement is contingent on the belief that one of these random trends was caused by us … it was the end of the world.
First they round it out … but then it got so long that any rounding that got rid of the pause also destroyed the impact of the 30 year warming trend.
So then they denied it existed “global warming has not stopped” … but Canute like the sceptical tide kept coming in.
So then they tried to explain it as “something we always expected” … but to argue that natural variation was causing the lack of warming … meant they had to stop denying the huge contribution of natural variation.
So, then they just said “but it is not cooling”.
Now it has started cooling
So lately I have seen another argument to prove themselves “right” … which is that “they always predicted climate change” … which is slowly morphing into “we always predicted natural variation” … which is just a very long and convoluted way of them using long words and lots of Greek/Latin pretend made up words to say …
The scientists were always right because science is by its very nature sceptical … so all us science plebs (obviously I joke) at WUWT were clearly by (their) definition wrong. Because now climate scientists are the sceptics.
hand me the monkey wrench!
You have contributed an excellent look into the scientific mess the IPCC has created Pat and Phil. Thank you. While we see through the bad science behind the IPCC forcing position and know that CO2 is not a pollutant or a significant green house gas, our political leaders, the media and environmentalists accept and act upon the IPCC conclusions without question. Billions of dollars flow to the IPCC scientists and their research organizations. Our scientific societies and publications debate the details but never question the concept of CO2 forcing as the culprit behind catastrophic global warming. And when we question the IPCC Report we will be dismissed as crack pots or paid pawns of the fossil fuel industry. Knowing all this, you fine gentlemen continue to work toward exposing the scinetific establishment’s folly of continuing to promote Co2 forcing. I salute you.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
July 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm
“If the “most likely” value were to be assessed at 2.5°C, then the climate model average would be 36% too high compared to the science. If the “most likely” value were to be 2.0°C, then the model average climate sensitivity would be some 70% too high.”
I don’t think this can possibly be right. Did you reverse these two?
I think you might want to go back and re-read, Alan. The point made was, these suggested “most likely” values do not correspond to the model average of 3.4°C. The model average is 36% higher than 2.5°C, and 70% higher than 2.0°C.
Oops, I should clarify: the sensitivity of the model average is higher.
I have commented on this before. the timing of AR5 presents real problems for the IPCC.
Depending upon which data sets are used, the pause in the rise of temperature anomalies is between 16 to 22 years. The release of AR5 will coincide with the ‘magical’ 17 year period when data length is claimed to be long enough to be significant. Assuming that 2013 and early 2014 does not show any rapid rise in temperature anomalies, the report will be released coinciding with what even the proponents iof the ‘conjecture’ claim to be a significant lengthy main temperature set which shows no warming for 17 years.
Further, again assuming no significant warming in 2013/early 2014, by the time of the release of AR5, or by the beginning of 2015, the observed temperatures will below the 95% projection of even the coolest of the ensembe model runs. Within the next year or so, we will be drop out of the scenario C model projection. Just imagine the laughter if the IPCC were to present a report claiming rthat action is needed to halt dangerous warming coinciding with the time that observational temeprature records sho that the Earth’s global temperature anomaly is below that projected for a complete halt of all CO2 emissions!
It is an inescapable fact that the longer the pause in warming, the lower the Climate Sensitivity muct be. How can the IPCC release a report which does not reflect this and the fact that the latest evidence suggests a Climate Sensitivity of below 2.5deg C, if not below 2degC? As the pause in temperature anomaly rise continues there will be more and more studies suggesting low Climate Sensitivity. One can expect to see a lot iof papers between 2014 and 2017 re-assessing Climate Sensitivity more towards the low end of the IPCC’s current estimations. The fifth assessment will be consider as obviously flawed, if it becomes patently inconsistent with the latest evidence/reports on Climate Sensitivity and will be entombed in a constant battle to justify it’s position in the light of the barrage of recent studies pointing to significantly lower Climate Sensitivity.
Personally, I doubt that AR5 needs substantial re-writing. It is just the emphasis of the conclussions that need attention. They need merely to be framed in less certain terms, and need merely to accept that presently we do not know the level of Climate Sensitivity, it is inherently uncertain but the probability distribution now no longer suggests that it will be more than 3degC (or perhaps 2.8degC, or even 2.7degC, if really bold). If they want to be really bold, they can still stick to the past estimate range and state that recent studies now suggest that the probability of the distribution is such that it is unlikely to exceed 3degC, and more likely to be below 2.3degC (or may be even 2.2degC), without actually putting a figure on it.
As long as they maintain a risk that Climate Sensitivity will be more than 2degC, then they can still justify action. By emphasising probabilities they can assert that there is a not insignificant risk that Climate Sensitivity will be somewhere between 2.2degC and 3degC such that action to curb emissions is still required.
The real issue is how are they going to deal with extreme weather events, and the recent heat waves.
William Astley: “It would appear the IPCC and many of us do not believe significant cooling is possible. ”
The key word here is “significant”. This is in fact a concept born out of model of variation based on Gaussian noise. In Gaussian noise one can assign levels of “significance” as in a threshold which we not expect to be crossed by 5%, 0.01% or whatever level we choose.
However, climate variation is not Gaussian … instead it is 1/f. The difference is that a signal drifts, so there cannot be any concept of a “significant” level because the theoretical level of long term noise is infinite. So, there is no single level which is “significant”.
Instead, significance must be defined within a time period. “There is less than a y% expectation of warming/cooling of greater than X°C within a time period Z.
Gaussian noise is simple, the statistics is simple, the concepts are simple and when it can be used it is the preferred way to think of natural variation. That is why science courses tend to avoid 1/f noise, but climatic noise is not Gaussian it is a form of 1/f noise and one just cannot use “noddy” statistical ideas like “significance” that derive from Gaussian noise.
So e.g. if you ask “is significant cooling likely in the next year”, or “is significant cooling likely within the next decade/century” … you could get a sensible response from those who understand natural variation (better with a scale for that trend). But if you ask “is significant cooling possible” … the proper answer is that we expect cooling because a trend is as natural to 1/f noise as is the concept that Gaussian noise will sooner or later return to the “baseline”. So as we expect trends in 1/f noise whenever we suspect natural variation we expect to see (short term) trends so, without stating a scale or timescale, a trend is never significant.
I should perhaps have added to my above post a further problem faced by the IPCC, namely that climate is local/regional, not global.
Irrespective of what may be happening globally, much of Northern Europe is cooling. The UK, according to CET, has seen a fall in temperatures of 0.5degC since 2000. Hence in the UK there is not simply a pause in the ruise of tempeature anomaly, but a significant fall given that (it is claimed that) the 20th Century warmed by about 0.7 or 0.8degC. So most of the past century warming as been eradicated. Perhaps more significantly, as far as winter temperatures are concerned CET suggests that these have fallen by nearly 1.5deg C since 2000. The upshot of this is that people are not experiencing global warming, but rather regional cooling and this presents a PR and a political problem for ‘the Cause’.
Much of Northern has experienced similar. This is material since Europe has been one of the strongest advocates for decarbonisation. The public is gradually and slowly becoming aware of the consequences of the decarbonisation agenda, namely high energy costs causing many to face fuel poverty, and industrial uncompetitiveness creating a very slow rebound from the economic depression in Europe and a cap on wages and the risk of job losses.
All of this makes it difficult for the politicians to sell manmade global warming. The MSM is just awakening to the plight and one can therefore expect the 5th Assessment to be more openly scrutinised in the press. Should Northern Europe continue to cool and should the enrgy policies of EU states get into trouble, one can expect the IPCC to be in for a rough ride if its report is far divorced from reality.
These factors additional pile pressure on the IPCC to be more honest, if not to succumb to public ridicule. The ‘Cause’ would truly be lost if MSM were to start ridiculing the IPCC, and the next step from there, is for the press to look into the gravy train. I firmly consider the IPCC needs to have some semblence of realism in its report, and politicians themselves require this since they will be the focus of attention should the MSM start suggesting that AGW was never settled, never certain and much of it a hoax. Don’t forget that judgment will be based on hindsight. Someone will look at the thermometer record since 1850 and point out that there were periods of warming, and periods of cooling quite independent of CO2 emissions, and periods of warming and cooling are natural and to be expected when reviewing climate. They will question why anyone could have been as stupid to consider that CO2 was a mjor player.
Mike Haseler says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:11 am
////////////////////
Mike
I have read your comments with interest.
If you just stop and think of what planet Earth has been through these past 4.5 billion years, and how remarkably stable the known climate is, it is almost certainly the case that there must be negative feedbacks at play.
Accordingly, if the ‘theoretical’ warming response to a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC, if you were to take a gut shot, I suspect that most reasonable people would consider that Climate Sensitivity must be less than 1.2degC. I am sceptical of the entire concept, but I would wish to see overwhelming evidence before I consider that I would be persuaded to accept a Climate Sensitivity figure of 1degC, or more..
Just from knowing how planet Earth has survived this long notwithstanding the fire and brimstone it has gone through, runaway global warming sounds nonsense in the extreme. All our data is flawed, much of it is not fit for the purpose to which it is being put, we have no proper grasp on natural variation and its bounds, and we do not know and understand all the feedbacks.
Other_Andy says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:38 pm
//////////////////////////
Other_Andy
You are right, it has been flat before.
This is material, since RSS suggests that there is no first order correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature, unless the Super El Nino (in and around 1998) which coincided with the only warming (which was a step change) in its entire 33 year record was in some way driven by CO2 (which as far as I am aware, is not cliamed).
Accordingly, if one were to review the 33 year record of the Satelitte data (RSS and UAH) one would be forced to conclude that Climate Sensitivity based purely on that data appears to be zero or so close thereto that it can not be currently measured by empirical observational evidence of the resolution posssessed by the Satelitte measuring equipment.
Village Idiot says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Very well chosen ID. Congrats
The IPCC may well re-phrase AR5 to improve clarity for ‘decision makers’. They can hardly do an about face, but will seek to give themselves room to manoeuvre in AR6, whilst at the same time reinforcing the message that the underlying warming trend remains and will return even more strongly after a period of natural variability.
However, the very real danger exists for the IPCC that prolonged and possibly increasingly steep cooling to 2030 and beyond will leave the IPCC and their cohorts in complete dissaray.
The MSM is increasingly showing signs of deserting the sinking co2 ship with a recent UK television program bringing news about a quiet sun and a potentially cold future. I have noticed that this has had an impact on a number of people at work and it wouldn’t take a lot more to produce a sea change in public opinion, producing a significant sceptic majority amongst the voters some time before the shielded from reality politicians finally learn they have been skilfully manipulated by Green Peace, the WWF, the IPCC and other watermelon organisations.
The real question for me is how wide an area for manoeuvre will the IPCC try to create in the air brushed final release of AR5. Will they leave enough room to allow for the possibility of cooling ?
Ultimately I think the question of sensitivity to co2 forcing will be discarded as effectively irrelevant.
Might I make a suggestion concerning the “presentation” issues we have to deal with in CAGW, GW, CC or whatever it’s latest incarnation is?
The Alarmists call the current situation a “pause” (those that accept that there is a flattening of the global temperatures in the first place) which of course implies it will continue rising at some point in the future. The Met Office and Ed Davey (Minister for DECC UK) used this semantic trick formally in their recent pronouncements. We “deniers” sometimes use this phraseology as well, possibly without thinking too closely, thus appearing to go along with the meme. This has the effect of “confirming” the Alarmist message to the vast majority of the population who maybe have but a passing interest in the subject (for now) but who are the targets for the Alarmists.
There is a vast difference in perception from a MSM headline that reads “Global Warming Paused” to “Global Warming has Stopped”.
I believe that technically and semantically the warming has “stopped” (for some years now) and unless we know for certain it will continue then should that not be the word we use to describe the situation?
I am not advocating the use of tricks or untruths (the other side are our masters on that front) only that we remain wary of falling into the traps prepared for us.
I do not have a technical background and so if my understanding of the current hiatus is wrong then ignore the post.
Werner, Mike and Richard.
Thanks for the replies.
So, according to the warmists CO2 (And positive feedbacks) controls the Earth’s temperature. As CO2 goes up so does the temperature.
Between 1979 and 1996, CO2 increases by 25 ppm (More than 7% increase), there are several El Ninos and the temperature stays the same.
What is their explanation?
Then we get a huge El Nino around 1997-98, CO2 drops by 3 PPM and the temperature goes up by 0.3 C in 1997-1998 (Surprise?!).
Background: The period 1990–1994 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession and on top of that there was an especially intense El Niño event in 1998..
From 1999-2013, CO2 rises by 30 PPM (almost 10%) and the temperature stays the same.
And they say that CO2 (And positive feedbacks) controls the Earth’s temperature…?
I have said this before and I repeat, CO2 atmospheric residence time is far more important than the sensitivity rate. The IPCC use 100-200 years, the actual figure is between 5 and 10 years. Using the IPCC guess in models makes far more difference than doubling the CO2 content. Using the correct figure shows that our input is not significant.
Absolutely perfect. Well done.
The residence time of the average atmospheric CO2 molecule is 5 years, but the average residency time of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere is 100 to 200 years. There is a difference in the concepts although they use the same term, residency.
Although a new study released in Nature Climate Change yesterday said the CO2 level residency time is more like 300,000 years. There is another term, weathering, which geologists have used successfully for a long time, but when the term is transferred to climate science, all kinds of unbelievable results pop out of the models used by the warmers.
Temps are currently rising as though the CO2 sensitivity per doubling is 1.2C to 1.4C.
By the year 2100, CO2 levels will likely be higher than the straight doubling level so tack on another 0.3 to 0.4C for temperatures by the year 2100. The log relationship of temperatures to CO2 will then keep temps close to stable even with increased CO2 after the year 2100.
But climate science also has control of the observational data. There are many years available to adjust the historic temperature records by the year 2100. They could get it up to 3.0C at the rate they are adjusting it currently.
To be honest, I think the temperature adjustments have kept them in the game for now. Without the adjustments, IPCC AR5 might never have happened or maybe it would have just been a wrap-up report, noting that temps will rise but it will not be a significant problem.
This science is going to be around for a long time unless we get the warmers out of the business of also controlling the temperature history.
Chad Wozniak says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:39 pm
@Ian W –
I wouldn’t be too sure that the worldwide focus is shifting away from CAGW, or that it will do so very soon.
Perhaps I was not clear.
The ‘useful idiots’ and fame seekers in climate ‘science’ have done their job and are now of no further use to the politicians. there is no continuing political requirement for the IPCC and the climate ‘science’ coterie as the ‘science is settled’ and the efforts now move forward along the Common Purpose of implementing Agenda21.
Not for the first time I wonder how far AR5 will go in relating the rise of CO2 to deforestation, particularly in Amazonia, and whether they will spend any time examining the effects on climate of the loss of so much CO2-absorbent rainforest’ given the uge amount of the earth’s surface covered when the losses began.
There is an interesting paper on the local effects of rainforest loss in Amazonia, which postulates a significant rise in both precipitation and local temperatures as a direct result. The paper, by Marcus Heil Costa and Jonathan A Foley (link from vol 13 of the JOURNAL OF CLIMATE), dates back to 1998; I’d be very interested to know what current research into deforestation says about the consequent rise in atmospheric CO2, and whether this topic is covered by the IPCC.
I’m very much a lay person but this loss would seem to me to be a far more likely cause of the rise in this trace gas than immeasurable and cyclical ‘AGW’
“Combined Effects of Deforestation and Doubled Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on
the Climate of Amazonia”
http://swp.gmu.edu/silvacarbon/sites/default/files/CombinedEffects.pdf
In reply to:
Mike Haseler says:
July 27, 2013 at 1:23 am
William Astley: “It would appear the IPCC and many of us do not believe significant cooling is possible. ”
The key word here is “significant”. This is in fact a concept born out of model of variation based on Gaussian noise. In Gaussian noise one can assign levels of “significance” as in a threshold which we not expect to be crossed by 5%, 0.01% or whatever level we choose.
However, climate variation is not Gaussian … instead it is 1/f. The difference is that a signal drifts, so there cannot be any concept of a “significant” level because the theoretical level of long term noise is infinite. So, there is no single level which is “significant”.
William: Significant cooling from the standpoint of the public and the scientific community, a reduction of average planetary temperature of at least 0.5C with the majority of the cooling occurring in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Significant in terms that the cooling would reverse the majority of the warming in that occurred in the last 70 years. Significant in terms of how the cooling would change climate theory: the cooling would indicate there are one or more fundamental errors in the general circulation models.Significant in terms of its affect on the media’s communication of the climate change science. The IPCC was completely incorrect.
Your above comments appear to be irrational/not scientific and not related to the analysis of this physical problem. This is a physical problem. What has happen in the past and will happen in the future is determined by the mechanisms (how the planet responses to different forcing changes) and the internal forcing changes (volcanic eruptions, ocean current changes, anthropogenic changes, geomagnetic field changes and so on) and external forcing changes (solar changes and orbital change affects on solar and solar changes) on the earth.
Past planetary temperature changes (which happened for physical reasons) is a clue to what will happen (how the sun can and will vary) and how planetary temperature can and will change in the future. Look at how temperature has changed in the past (see Greenland Ice Sheet data last 11,000 years). As I stated above the pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not agree with the pattern of warming that the general circulation models predicted for an increase in atmospheric CO2. The Northern hemisphere (excluding the tropics) warmed twice as much as the global as whole and four times as much as the tropical region of the planet. As atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 forcing should be the same throughout the global with the most amount of warming occurring in the tropics as that is the region of the planet were there was the most amount of long radiation emitted to space prior to the CO2 increase. The warming in the last 70 years does not match the pattern for CO2 forcing.
That observed pattern of warming in the last 70 years, matches the pattern of warming which occurred in the past when the sun was in a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum. The sun was in a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum during the last 70 years.
You are not thinking in terms of the physical cause of the planetary temperature change in the last 70 years and what caused past planetary temperature changes in the past and how much and how rapid planetary temperature has changed in the past. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, that is a fact. Look at Richard Alley’s graph of how temperature has changed on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the last 11,000 years.
The most amount of warming in the 70 years has been on the Greenland Ice sheet. The Greenland Ice sheet has warmed and did warm when the sun is in a grand maximum (high number of sunspots, short cycles, high velocity solar wind, high number of solar wind bursts caused equatorial coronal holes) and then cools when the grand maximum is followed by a Maunder like minimum.
The solar magnetic cycle is currently abruptly changing, moving towards a Maunder minimum. The planet cools significantly when the solar magnetic cycle enters a Maunder minimum. The Maunder like solar minimum will last for 30 to 100 years based on what has happened in the past, from the proxy record of the solar magnetic cycle. The cooling period is longer 50 to 150 years as the solar magnetic cycles are lower weaker when the solar cycle restarts.
There is no point in discussing how much cooling will occur if the next Maunder like minimum is followed by what causes a Heinrich event. Heinrich events can terminate interglacial periods. The cooling is unimaginably rapid and large.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PersistentSolarInfluence.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
Surface winds and ocean hydrography in subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in the production rates of cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500” year cycle. … ….during which drift ice and cooler surface waters in the Nordic and Labrador Seas were repeatedly advected southward and eastward, each time penetrating deep into the warmer strands of the subpolar circulation. The persistence of those rather dramatic events within a stable interglacial has been difficult to explain.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy
Precision measurements of 14C/12C ratios in annual rings of the long-lived bristlecone pine have provided a continuous, proxy record of long-term changes in the level of solar activity through the last 11,000 years: since the end of the last Ice Age24. As such, these data now extend the length of the historical, written record of solar activity by a factor of about thirty: and the eleven-year signal, though severely attenuated by smoothing in the exchange processes of the terrestrial carbon cycle, can be detected, albeit with difficulty, throughout. A more obvious and climatically more significant feature of the long record is the recurrence of repeated Maunder Minimum-like depressions in the overall level
of solar activity, each persisting for thirty to about 100 years.
An independent verification of these insights into solar history has come from the analysis of 10Be in polar ice and deep-sea cores4,25,26. Since the 10Be and 14C records are subject to quite different types of internal modulations, we can at first assume that features common to both of them point to the Sun as the most likely cause.
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
Further to my post above, here’s a link to the website of a professional geologist working in relevant areas, who seems broadly in agreement with my thoughts on this:
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
I wonder if this gentleman posts here at WUWT. I see that no doubt for professional reasons, he prefers to keep his scepticism under wraps. http://geologist-1011.org/
” The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. ”
Nope. The central issue is the energy budget at the TOA. And long-time averages of the in-coming and out-going fluxes.
I beg his pardon – Timothy Casey BSc has his name in the strapline, where I missed it.
His is an interesting site, and I’d love to see a guest post here on deforestation by him.
Quote from this page: http://geologist-1011.net/
“The articles presented here on this site review the science that refutes these claims, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, and one must ask how competant scientists could possibly dream up such obvious fiction. The modern “environmentally” motivated “science” of anthropogenic global warming is either based on incompetance and charlatanism or lies and dishonesty. I will endeavour to leave the interpretation to you. However, suffice it to say that such a pitiful excuse for science as we see in modern “environmentalism” compells us to ask for the material evidence every single time an assertion is claimed to be scientific. We may yet ponder how a single lobby outperforms and outclasses all other pseudosciences put together for sheer diversity and volume of brazen disinformation.”
The problem is that “stopped” implies no resumption. More neutral terms are “flatlined” or “plateaud” or “gone sideways” or “diverged increasingly from projections.”
As in the previous 4 IPCC reports the body of the report will contain a myriad of studies on one side of the story and the other but the “executive summary”, or whatever they call it, will contain blatant lies and distortions to further the cause. And we know that is all the lame stream media, the big smoke, and the watermelons read and act on, so….
William Astley says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Your Propaganda does not change reality.
It appears based on the observed cooling, that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover
No, that doesn’t appear to be the case: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cocmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
” Sensitivity will be found to be even lower once the ocean cycles and solar variation effects are properly quantified and included.”
I agree with Tallbloke .It is like basing the heat sensitivity of your house on the hair dryer but ignoring the furnace .
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 5:19 am
The sun was in a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum during the last 70 years.
No, it was not: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
AR5 will be built around “CO2 causes bad weather” meme
– I predict that AR5 managers are planning to get 1 or 2 “CO2 causes extreme weather events” papers published in Nature “we will publish any vague climate scare story” Magazine (and others).
– That way they can build AR5 around that even though the papers will too young and too spurious to have been properly analysed.
[snip -attempt to inject “slayer” argument into this thread – mod]
Expect the IPCC to add to the summary for policy makers about the ‘urgent need to set up a global deep sea temperature monitoring network’ as the heat most likely is in the deep sea. They will refer to a couple of paid for papers and that is how they will justify their continued existence until at least AR6. The failure of the models will be put down to
the dog ate my homeworkthe deep oceans ate the heat. And that my friends will be that. They get another term in office.The IPCC may in fact be the most public exhibit of Skeptical Science Syndrome.
Skeptical Science Syndrome is based on reality can not exist. Only what I project can exist. And I have mysterious ways of projecting. NO common person can understand, only a select few can comprehend those mysteries.
Dan Hughes says:
July 27, 2013 at 5:30 am
” The central issue of climate change science is the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase as a result of a doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. ”
Nope. The central issue is the energy budget at the TOA. And long-time averages of the in-coming and out-going fluxes.
This is a classic example of what my senior manager taught me to avoid when I was an apprentice engineer (50yrs since).
He always said “when you have a problem go to the source of power first and work your way forward.” There are some classic UK Met off statements that fail everytime on the premise. EG: The changes in the jetstream are causing wild weather. My boss would say “why did the jetstream change ?”
Now which of the two statements above is looking at the source.?
Sam the First says:
July 27, 2013 at 5:26 am
What a brilliant site. If you are reading today Tim, well done.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 5:19 am
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy
There are 2 interesting names among the authors.
…Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or
Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world….
If I were the IPCC I would:
– only accept papers from up to, say, 4 years ago.
– produce a report full of the usual ‘It’s getting worse!” scares
– include a short weasel-word section somewhere at the bottom of page 598 saying that:
“Recent work suggests that sensitivity may be somewhat less than anticipated. This work is still under consideration, and so has not been included in this paper…”
Village Idiot–
Have you ever heard of Mass v. EPA and the EPA endangerment finding, which are why you will soon not be able to get a permit for a coal-fired power plant? The Supremes deferred to IPCC in the first case and the second was based on the 2009 National Assessment.
William Astley says:
July 26, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“Western countries have wasted trillions of dollars”
I don’t know where you get your figures, but they’ve spent/wasted peanuts in the great scheme of things. And as you point out, nothing has worked; a) Governments don’t prioritize the problem b)Governments don’t know how to tackle the problem while keeping in power.
“There has been absolutely no realistic discussion of what it would take to reduce CO2 emissions by say 60% for the entire world not just for Western countries.” Agreed. GHG levels will not be controlled as the current science suggests they should
Excessive warming of the globe (from whatever source) will not be a problem for the environment, but for Society.
That’s scary.
The leaders of the IPCC will not accept anything that does not continue the current charade. I believe they will change the emphasis to the oceans. After all, it is the perfect time. The timing of the ARGO float delivery is perfect to pick up the cyclical warming of the deep oceans just like the timing of satellites picked up the cyclical warming of the atmosphere.
The media will fall into line and politicians will be more than happy to change the goalposts. However, a significant cooling of the atmosphere might give them problems. Very cold winters will turn the average person against the profiteers.
***
Mike Haseler says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:11 am
Any engineer who has ever dealt with positive feedback just knows that high levels of positive feedback are highly unlikely in any real system. So, as a matter of simple common sense you would need an extraordinary argument to justify a figure even as high as 2°C. Personally I would need my arm twisted behind my back by unquestionable data and unanimous agreement by ivory tower academics to even consider a sensitivity greater than 1.5°C.
***
Exactly. Natural systems in general have almost unfailing negative feedback. One has to purposely & carefully “construct” a system to produce overall positive feedback.
The only major positive-feedback aspect of earth-climate is the snow/ice-albedo feedback. This is important during glacial periods, but the overall negative-feedback of the entire climate system eventually overrides it. The snow/ice-albedo effect during the interglacial is small except locally/temporarily on winter-snow-covered continents and polar sea-ice, but larger during glacial times when glaciers & sea-ice are much further equatorward & semi-permanent.
This study should be highlighted as much as possible:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
It demonstrates that the predicted enhanced GHE has not changed over this a 14 year period except for variations in clouds. Any bets on whether this paper makes it into AR5?
PS. You have to love the caveats. Anyone think these were required before getting approval for publication?
In George Orwell’s 1984, the government of Oceana had a number of creative ways of dealing with a recalcitrant reality which didn’t cooperate with the government’s statements:
1) The ministry of truth would change history so that it would agree with whatever government said. They could make poverty worse in the past so that it would appear better today. Isn’t that kind of like “adjusting” the temperatures of the past downward to make the present appear warmer?
2) The government of Oceana could also just say that something was true regardless of reality. For example they could just say 2+2 =5 and anyone who disagreed would be tortured until they agreed. Today under the NDAA act the government can transfer a “covered person” to a foreign country (where torture is not prohibited) and question that person until he says whatever the government wants him to say.
So how far are we from 1984?
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 27, 2013 at 6:17 am
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
William:
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
The solar magnetic cycle 24 change will have an astonishing impact on the climate wars and science in general.
What do think the media and public’s reaction will be to significant global cooling, a reversal of the warming of the last 70 years?
I hear no response for you as to why sunspots are turning into pores. Why do think that is? What is going to happen next? Is 1108 a sunspot?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20130726_hres.jpg
Is solar magnetic cycle 24 going to lead to a deep, deep Maunder like minimum?
What do you think caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the below graph that just happens to correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes?
Did you miss this paper? Curious that you are ignoring the solar observations. Sunspots are turning into pores. What could that mean?
“Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum? (William: Duh. Is that a rhetorical question? A pore is different than a sunspot. Look at the most recent solar picture. Pores, no sunspots and the pores are disappearing. Where will it end?)
But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http:// users . telenet .be/ j . janssens/ Spotless/Spotless .html). The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].
Recent Sunspots: Tiny Pores Without Penumbrae…. ….A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.”
Are you aware that the most amount of warming in the last 70 years was on the Greenland Ice sheet? Curious that the CO2 mechanism and the general circulation models cannot explain why the warming in the last 70 years is regional not global and the regions that warmed are the same regions that warmed in the past when there was a solar magnetic cycle grand maximum.
Modulation of planetary clouds by solar magnetic cycle changes caused warming in the past and did again in the last 70 years.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The planet has started to cool and the sun will be anomalously spotless by the end of this year. Curious that you have not read any of the theoretical work related to what causes a Maunder minimum.
Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover:
There is high correlation of the reduction in planetary cloud cover in the regions that experienced warming in the last 70 years and there is correlation of solar magnetic cycle changes with the reduction in planetary cloud cover. The paper you link to provides an explanation of the mechanisms and acknowledges that both Svensmark’s SKY laboratory experiment and Kirkby’s CERN experiment support the fact cosmic ray flux causes an 10 fold increase in cloud nucleation formation.
From the paper you provided a link to:
The findings of a low level restriction to the CR-cloud correlation by Palle´ & Butler (2000) were later confirmed by Marsh & Svensmark (2000), hereafter referred to as MS00. A monthly time-series of globally averaged ISCCP low (>680 mb/<3.2 km) cloud and CR flux anomalies over the period of June 1983 to December 1994 similar to that presented in MS00 is shown in Figure 1a. MS00 also performed an analysis of local scale (individual ISCCP data pixel) correlations: a reproduction of these results is shown in Figure 1b. MS00 claimed that 15.8% of the globe showed a statistically significant positive correlation between low cloud changes and the CR flux, with a probability (p) value of achieving these results by chance of p < .001%.
It appears there was a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum in the last 70 years. As this paper notes the estimate of the relative magnitude of the current recent grand solar maximum from cosmogenic isotope deposits is dependent on past estimates of the geomagnetic field intensity and orientation.
As we are in the middle of the climate wars there is a push to reduce the estimated magnitude of the recent grand solar maximum. Sun-gate?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov
…We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics-based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux. A list of grand minima and maxima of solar activity is presented for the Holocene (since 9500 BC) and the statistics of both the length of individual events as well as the waiting time between them are analyzed…. …Solar activity on multi-millenial time scales has been recently reconstructed using a physics-based model from measurements of 14C in tree rings (see full details in Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2006a). The validity of the model results for the last centennia has been proven by independent data on measurements of 44Ti in stony meteorites (Usoskin et al. 2006b). The reconstruction depends on the knowledge of temporal changes of the geomagnetic dipole field, which must be estimated independently by paleomagnetic methods. Here we compare two solar activity reconstructions, which are based on alternative paleomagnetic models: one which yields an estimate of the virtual aligned dipole moment (VADM) since 9500 BC (Yang et al. 2000), and the other a recent paleomagnetic reconstruction of the true dipole moment since 5000 BC (Korte & Constable 2005). We note that the geomagnetic dipole moment obtained by Korte & Constable (2005) lies systematically lower than that of Yang et al. (2000), leading to a systematically higher solar activity reconstruction in the past (Usoskin et al. 2006a). While the geomagnetic reconstruction of the VADM by Yang et al. (2000) provides an upper bound for the true dipole moment, the more recent work of Korte & Constable (2005) may underestimate it. Thus we consider both models as they bound a realistic case. We note that the Yang et al. (2000) data run more than 4000 years longer and give a more conservative estimate of the grand maxima.
See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:35 am
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
No, I don’t get that, because if you are proven incorrect, you will not concede that but come up with some excuse why things didn’t work out. You have already offered some.
The solar magnetic cycle 24 change will have an astonishing impact on the climate wars and science in general.
So you claim, but perhaps not the way you think. It is much more likely that it will show that the sun has nothing to do with the climate.
What do think the media and public’s reaction will be to significant global cooling, a reversal of the warming of the last 70 years?
what has that to do with solar activity?
I hear no response for you as to why sunspots are turning into pores. Why do think that is? What is going to happen next?
I have explained several times that sunspots are not turning into pores. What is happening is that the pores do not assemble into spots as much as they used to. The reason for that is at present not clear.
Is 1108 a sunspot?
There is no 1108 on the Figure you showed
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20130726_hres.jpg
Is solar magnetic cycle 24 going to lead to a deep, deep Maunder like minimum?
As I have been advocating this is a real possibility.
What do you think caused the cyclic warming and cooling in the below graph that just happens to correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes?
No graph.
Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover:
There is high correlation of the reduction in planetary cloud cover in the regions that experienced warming in the last 70 years
Actually not, here is a plot of cloudiness in Norway the past 1000 years http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png Note that the cloud cover was smallest during the Little Ice Age.
It appears there was a grand solar magnetic cycle maximum in the last 70 years.
No it does not appear so.
See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.
Their Figure 3 is at the top of Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf as you can see, their reconstruction is at variance with the latest 10Be activity by Steinhilber et al. and I have direted you already to several newer papers that conclude that recent activity was not unsually high, e.e. Berggren et al, Muschler et al., etc.
In reply to:
Village Idiot says:
July 27, 2013 at 8:29 am
William Astley says:
July 26, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“Western countries have wasted trillions of dollars”
I don’t know where you get your figures, but they’ve spent/wasted peanuts in the great scheme of things. And as you point out, nothing has worked; a) Governments don’t prioritize the problem b)Governments don’t know how to tackle the problem while keeping in power.
William: Western Governments will be forced to prioritize their problems. Western governments have run out of money. Do you understand what happens to countries and cities that continually spend more than they take in, in taxes? See Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Detroit, and so on. There are 100 US cities that face bankruptcy. Do you think that might affect the US?
A trillion dollars has spent on green scams 2004 to 2011. Result of spending a trillion dollars on green scams: Almost no difference in world carbon emissions.
The green scams cost estimates do not include the cost for power grid upgrades (doubles the cost of the green scam) and energy storage (doubles or quadruples the cost of the green scam if there were a viable storage solution which there is not. As there is no economic storage solution, wind and solar are not viable.)
See Germany: Tilting at Windmills
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-07/-1-trillion-speaks-louder-than-un-talks.html
Sometime in the two weeks before the UN climate conference in Durban, the world passed $1 trillion mark in clean energy investment since 2004. That’s a trillion dollars in solar and wind power plants, in bioenergy production facilities, in smart meters and smart grids, in assets, public markets, research and development.
Even for the energy world, it’s a big number, and one that grew quickly. The world invested $52 billion in clean energy in 2004, and $243 billion last year. That’s a 29 percent compound growth rate, sufficient for total yearly investment to double in less than three years. It’s capital deployment that has increased every year even with tremendous macroeconomic headwinds and uncertain policies in Europe and the US. Last year’s $243 billion is right about halfway to the yearly investment which Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates is necessary to slow climate change. (William: The trillion dollars spent 2004 to 2011 has made almost difference in carbon dioxide emission in the EU if the carbon content if imported goods is included.)
William:
Green scams: Germany the post child of the problem.
Economist June 19, 2013
Energy – Tilting at Windmills
…This kind of nimbyism is only one of many problems facing Germany’s Energiewende. The literal transalation is energy change or turn, but this is more of a revolution, designed to convert Europe’s biggest industry economy so it runs larger on renewable energy. (William: Sounds good eh? The Germans have come up with a nifty word for getting from A to B, unfortunately they do not have a magic wand to create money to pay to get from A to B. Now the articles discusses the problems.)
By 2022 all nuclear power plants will, which now produce 16% of the country’s electricity, are to be shut-off… …Businessmen say the Energiewende will kill German industry. …(William: You think?) … The problem is that most wind and solar power is generated a long way from the parts of the country where the nuclear power plants are to shut-off… so new electrical grids have to be built… …Germany needs 4000 km of new transmission lines by 2022 of which less than 300 km have been constructed… …A second problem is that many source of renewable energy (William: Wind and Solar for example) are intermediate. … Bulk electricity storage is still in its infancy (William: No technical solution, the proto solutions more than double the cost of ‘green’ scam energy. The cost solar in Germany is four times as expensive as the most expensive modern newly constructed nuclear power plant and twelve times the cost of a modern nuclear power plant that is being constructed in China. Solar and wind of course requires storage which there is not solution.)
…The result is a web of grotesque distortions. On sunny days Germany pushes its excess power into the European grid at a loss. …. On cloudy days Germany relies ever more on brown coal. Last year its CO2 emissions rose.
…. The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users. Household fuel bills have gone up by a quarter (25%) over the past three years, to 40%-50% above the EU average (William: And twice the US average). And because the contracts guaranteeing renewable are set for 20 years, the problem gets worse as more supplies (William: Green scams) come on stream. …the cost of Energiewende will double over the next decade….. … the number of officially “energy-intensive” firms (William: energy-intensive” firms do not have to pay for the green scams) has risen from 59 in 2003 to 2,000 today. Between them they use around a fifth of German’s electricity.
Leif said:
“http://www.leif.org/research/Norway-Cloud-cover-Reconstr.png
Note that the cloud cover was smallest during the Little Ice Age.”
Well of course it was, in Norway.
The jets shifted well to the south leaving Norway more often under polar high pressure cells.
But the global cloud cover would have been greater due to the more meridional, equatorward jets generating longer lines of air mass mixing.
Once Leif considers events below Top of Atmosphere his command of solar science ceases to be helpful. Hence his inability to accept solar variations in wavelengths and / or particles altering atmospheric chemistry to change the vertical temperature profile above the tropopause differently above equator and poles.
The fact is that jet stream and climate zone changes do occur and are generally correlated with solar activity subject to modulation from the oceans.
The only way latitudinal movements can occur is if the gradient of tropopause height between equator and pole changes. There is no other way it could happen.
That gradient can change either from the bottom up at the equator when Sea surface temperatures change or from the top down at the poles when the level of solar activity changes.
The logic is incontrovertible and accounts for all the climate observations that I am aware of.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Well of course it was, in Norway.
Well, the Norwegians think that the olar influence is strong in Norway
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/11/30/how-sunspot-cycles-impact-temperatures-norway-and-earths-north-atlantic
The logic is incontrovertible [sic] and accounts for all the climate observations that I am aware of.
If ‘incontrovertible’ then not falsifiable and thus not science.
Perhaps you should expand your awareness to include some more reality.
One quick nitpick:
The response of the average surface temperature to CO2 is not even really a central issue to the most popular theory of climate change. It’s an indicator. If we look at the doomsayers’ predictions, they’re really about regional effects happening on a global scale, not the average. If we look at other theories, it’s not even relevant.
I think a better measure could be constructed by looking at the regional weather-systems, running Fourier transforms on their precipitation over the course of climate-cycles, and watching how those Fourier series change. If precipitation tends to drop, or be concentrated seasonally rather than spread out (with the Fourier series dominated at the low end), then we are looking at desertification or harsher seasons, generally bad news for the ecosystem. It would address the main issues directly, I think, and be less model-dependent.
Will all this really matter once Obama and the democrooks finish turning America into Detroit?
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:11 am
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:35 am
Planetary temperature observations and solar cycle observations will of course prove one of us incorrect. Do you get that?
No, I don’t get that, because if you are proven incorrect, you will not concede that but come up with some excuse why things didn’t work out. You have already offered some.
William:
Let’s clarify how we differ in terms of mechanisms, predictions, and methodologies to used to arrive at the conclusions. Whether you personally agree or disagree with what I assert is irrelevant. You’re quoting of incorrect climategate type papers which are irrelevant and a distraction. Use whatever paper and observation you believe is correct and make a prediction. You have made no predictions that are falsifiable. You have provided no physical explanation of the anomalies.
We all get that there is a climate war going on.
Provide an alternative explanation for the observations, the observational anomalies, and make a falsifiable prediction. That is the process of science. If you cannot provide an alternative explanation, if you cannot provide a falsifiable prediction admit that you cannot.
It asserted that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover rather due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Observations to support that assertion is past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The warming in the last 70 years was primarily in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics. The Northern hemisphere warmed twice as much as the earth as a whole and four times more than the tropics. This pattern of warming that is observed in the last 70 years, is the same as previous warming periods which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes when there was a grand solar cycle maximum. The previous warming periods were all followed by a cooling period at which time the sun entered a Maunder minimum.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
As atmospheric CO2 is almost equally distributed in the atmosphere by latitude the potential for CO2 forcing is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to the CO2 increase is proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Due to the two CO2 mechanism issues the general circulation models predicted the most amount of warming on the planet should be in tropics.
The most amount of warming in the last 70 years was on the Greenland ice sheet which is the same region that cyclically warmed the most when there was a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum.
A logical consequence of the above assertion is the warming in the last 70 years is reversible, due the solar magnetic cycle 24 change.
I provided a theoretical explanation of what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. I can, if anyone is interested provide more details concerning either the mechanism, the explanation as to what has happened in the past, or what will happen in the future. Furthermore I assert that there are eminent and significant changes both to the solar magnetic cycle and planetary temperature. These are of course falsifiable assertions.
The point I am trying to make is the assertions and predictions made are significant (the reversal of global warming, significant cooling, and an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle), paradigm changing, front page news, and so on. The predictions will only be front page news if they come true, I get that. It does not however matter whether you personally agree or disagree with predictions, only if they come true. Do you get that? I am not trying to beat you at a debate. I believe I have solved a scientific puzzle. You do not understand there is a puzzle. I believe I understand your paradigm and I sincerely emphasize with your feelings. That does not however change what will happen in the future.
You have not explained the latitudinal temperature anomaly or the fact that sunspots have been replaced by pores. You have not made any predictions that can be falsified. You have not explained the cyclic warming and cooling on the Greenland ice sheet that has happened in the past which correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
You have not explained what is currently happening to the sun. You have not explain or even acknowledge there is a latitudinal temperature anomaly. You have not explained or even acknowledged that there is cyclic climate change which correlates with solar magnetic cycles changes.
I have provided a mechanism explanation for all past and current anomalies (including all anomalies listed above) and have made a prediction as to how the sun will change and how planetary temperature will change which is falsifiable. You have stated you do not know what is happening to the sun, you have made no solar predictions, and you have made no predictions concerning how planetary temperature will change.
I have asserted that the current solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect. The error is fundamental and explains a very long list of astronomical anomalies. The error is related to what happens when very large objects collapse. The anomalous observations concerning quasars and quasars’ affect on spiral galaxy evolution is an extreme example of the mechanisms which occurs when a massive object collapses. A quasar is just a very, very, massive example of the mechanism. There are sets of mature astrophysical papers that layout the unexplained anomalies concerning both spiral galaxies, the evolution and structure of spiral galaxy, the evolution of quasars, and the relationship of quasars to spiral galaxy structure and evolution. The assertion that there is a fundamental error in the solar and stellar model related to the production and cyclic change of magnetic fields is directly related to quasar observations and quasar theoretical work concerning the MECO hypothesis which is explained in detail in peer reviewed papers. The point of this summary is the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect is not a guess, that change in mechanism is required to explain astronomical anomalies, in addition to unexplained magnetic field anomalies of the earth and other planets. I found and solved the puzzle by looking for anomalies and leveraging off of the MECO work and observations. The anomalies all disappear when the correct mechanism and theory change is made.
That appears to be a different methodology to approach the problem rather than to accept the mechanism that is provided to the student and to attempt to make an incorrect mechanism explain what has happened or to ignore the existence of the anomalies.
Observations indicated the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying linearly. It is asserted the reason for this observation is the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes at the solar tachocline has been interrupted.
I have quoted peer reviewed papers that assert the sun was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 8000 years during the last 70 years. I have provided a detail explanation of the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. If the above assertion is correct the planet will significantly cool. The cooling will occur in the regions that warmed in the last 70 years.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
You have made no predictions that are falsifiable.
Since the Sun is not responsible for climate change, the prediction is simple: the lack of correlation between solar activity and temperatures will continue. Easy to falsify, so perfectly good science.
past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
I wish it were so, however it is not.
Greenland ice sheet which is the same region that cyclically warmed the most when there was a grand solar magnetic cycle minimum.
Warmed the most at grand minimum?
the warming in the last 70 years is reversible
Of course it is reversible, all climate cycles are, but that has nothing to do with cycle 24.
These are of course falsifiable assertions
There have already been falsified.
I believe I have solved a scientific puzzle.
You have not given any indication that you have, only assertions.
You have not made any predictions that can be falsified.
Sure: the lack of correlation will continue.
You have not explained or even acknowledged that there is cyclic climate change which correlates with solar magnetic cycles changes.
Because there isn’t any. It is that simple.
I have provided a mechanism explanation for all past and current anomalies
Nowhere in your numerous and verbose and nauseating postings have you provided any such mechanism or explanation.
I have asserted that the current solar magnetic cycle model is incorrect.
Assertion is just opinion. and the details you present border on nonsense.
It is asserted the reason for this observation is the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes at the solar tachocline has been interrupted.
Assertion is just opinion and there are no indications that that has happened. What is happening is that all ropes are shredded [now and in the past and at all times] by traversing the convection zone, then reassembled at the surface to form sunspots. The re-assembly appears [ti use your favorite word] to be less efficient of late, as it also was during the Maunder Minimum.
I have quoted peer reviewed papers that assert the sun was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 8000 years during the last 70 years.
We all have quoted peer reviewed papers, some assert this, some assert that. Here is one of mine http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf that touches upon the matter. How many peer-reviewed papers do you think have proven beyond any doubt that CO2 is driving the climate?
If the above assertion is correct the planet will significantly cool.
The planet may cool for other reasons as well, if it even cools.
William Astley, not long ago Anthony asked you to stop posting essays in comment threads. Could I please reiterate that? Your personal climate wars and pompous pronouncements (reminiscent of a 19th century English preacher with a captive audience) are wearing out my “scroll down” button.
The IPCC should change its name to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Catastrophe.
William Astley says:
July 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Observations to support that assertion is past cyclic warming and cooling of the Greenland Ice sheet which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
To dispose of this wrong claim once and for all, plotting Greenland Ice Temperatures and The latest cosmic ray proxies [for solar activity – and according to you for cloud cover, plotted upside down from figure 2C of the paper cited below] show no consistent correlation on the time scale of the Grand Minima and Grand Maxima: some times the peaks and valleys agree, sometimes they don’t, as is typical for uncorrelated sequences: http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Temp-Cosmic-Rays.png The cosmic ray data is the newest available: “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreua, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Manna, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms” peer-reviewed and published by the prestigious Publications of the National Academy of Science. The authors are the world’s foremost experts on cosmic rays and their proxies: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118965109
So, I’m sure that you, if honest, will not repeat that false claim henceforth.
Leif said:
“Well, the Norwegians think that the olar influence is strong in Norway”.
It is, mostly because the Gulf Stream warms up after a period of high solar activity which is associated with stronger El Ninos.
But the issue was about cloudiness, not temperature so what is your point?
“not falsifiable and thus not science.”
Easily falsifiable. I’ve previously given you multiple examples of events that would falsify my propositions. I’m still waiting.
“Perhaps you should expand your awareness to include some more reality.”
Mere projection on your part.
Leif referred to a paper which says:
“The new cosmic radiation record enables us to derive total solar irradiance,”
But it isn’t TSI that matters. It is the change in the mixture of particles and wavelengths (the content of solar output) that matters because that change affects upper atmospheric chemistry.
Magnetic, solar flux and cosmic ray issues are merely proxies for the change in the content of solar output rather than having any direct effect on climate themselves. I do not know how reliable they are as proxies.
I have built a model that will tell you the temperature anywhere on Earth at any time.
All you do is input todays temperature, your location, the location and date you require the answer for.
It can use raw or adjusted data.
Example
I put in the temperature today for London UK and It told me the maximum temperature for New York on January 1st 2014 will be between -150F and 150F.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 27, 2013 at 11:40 pm
It is the change in the mixture of particles and wavelengths (the content of solar output) that matters
We have no measurements of the ‘mixture’. We do have measurements of the flux of particles and of ‘wavelengths’, if need be by reliable proxies going back centuries. Since there are no measurements of the ‘mixture’ you have nothing to hang your ‘theory’ on.
At some point increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is going to have a negative effect on global warming because it will be replacing other more effect greenhouse gasses.
Leif apparently cannot spell ‘incontrovertible’ hence his use of the term [sic] as here in his previous comment when he quoted my use of the word:
“incontrovertible [sic]”
See here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incontrovertible
Leif said:
“Since there are no measurements of the ‘mixture’ you have nothing to hang your ‘theory’ on.”
Observation, dear fellow, observation. Plenty to hang a hat on but the data to provide proof is currently lacking.
Some feature of solar activity causes changes in the global air circulation.
We know that tropopause height depends on stratosphere temperatures.
We know that stratosphere temperature depends on ozone chemistry.
We know that the net balance of ozone creation / destruction ozone changes with variations in solar activity.
I suggest that someone gets measuring.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Leif apparently cannot spell ‘incontrovertible’
Nonsense, what I said was a copy-n-paste job. The [sic] part was to point out that you really said that word [which is astonishing], which according to the dictionary means ‘not open to question’, hence not falsifiable, hence not science.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm
I suggest that someone gets measuring
You have that backwards. You must already have those measurements in order to assess if the effects you claim are even physically possible or plausible. It is like saying ‘I think Jupiter shine causes global warming, so someone better get measuring’.
Leif said:
“The [sic] part was to point out that you really said that word [which is astonishing], which according to the dictionary means ‘not open to question’, hence not falsifiable, hence not science”
So you think that basic physics allows latitudinal climate zone shifting without a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles? How would that work?
“You must already have those measurements in order to assess if the effects you claim are even physically possible or plausible”
We have measured a cooling stratosphere and mesosphere when the sun is active and a slight warming when the sun has been less active for a short while. There are measurements showing an increase in ozone above 45km when the sun is quiet,
Something related to solar variability clearly affects the ozone creation / destruction balance. It isn’t TSI so it could be any combination of a wide range of processes capable of affecting that balance. All of those processes involve particles or wavelengths of specific types.
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible. Unless of course you wish to deny the existence of solar related processes that affect the ozone balance.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:49 am
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible.
Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. And you haven’t, so…
Stephen Wilde says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:49 am
The existing science indicates that the effects I claim are possible and plausible.
Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. And you haven’t, so…
“Only when you run the numbers can your statement be considered valid. ”
Well you admitted that the relevant numbers do not currently exist.
Running the numbers hopefully produces proof.
In the meantime any statement that is plausible or possible is valid.
In place of the numbers we can evaluate the proposition by observing changes in trends over time. On that basis my proposition is looking increasingly likely to have substance.