New study: ‘…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed’

Warming since 1950s partly caused by El Niño

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 11, 2013) – A natural shift to stronger warm El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years, according to new research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

“Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we’ve seen since the 1950s,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAH’s Earth System Science Center and the new study’s lead author. “But we also found that because the globe has had more frequent La Niña cooling events in the past ten or fifteen years, they are canceling out some of the effects of global warming.”

The paper detailing this research, “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes During 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model,” is scheduled for publication in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, and is available online at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.

The results also suggest the world will warm by 1.3 C (about 2.34° F) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is only one-half of the warming expected by most climate researchers.

General circulation climate models — such as those used to forecast global climate change — do not reproduce the tendency toward 30 year periods of stronger El Niño or La Niña activity, as are seen in nature.

Spencer and co-author Dr. Danny Braswell used all of the usual climate modeling forcings — including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas enrichment — in their study, but also plugged the observed history of El Niño ocean warming and La Niña ocean cooling events into their model to calculate the 61-year change in global ocean temperature averages from the sea surface to a depth of 2,000 meters.

“We used the observed ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) history since the 1950s as a pseudo forcing factor of the model,” Spencer said.

When they ran their ocean model without ENSO, they arrived at the same general conclusions as the more complex general circulation climate models. When they added data from past El Niño and La Niña events as only a change in ocean mixing, the model indicated a climate system that is slightly less sensitive to CO2-induced warming than has been believed.

But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.

“As a result, because as much as 50% of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Niño activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed”, Spencer said.

“Basically, previously it was believed that if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures would warm about 2.5 C,” Spencer said. That’s 4.5° F. “But when we factor in the ENSO warming, we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2.”

It was previously known that Pacific Ocean warming and cooling events come and go in roughly 30-year periods of predominance, where El Niño warming events are stronger than La Niño cooling events for approximately 30 years, followed by roughly three decades where the reverse is true.

During the period of this study, cooling events were dominant from the 1950s into the late 1970s. That was followed by a period of strong El Niño warming activity that lasted into the early 2000s. The current phase has seen increased La Niña cooling activity.
Spencer said it is reasonable to suspect that the increased La Niña cooling might be largely responsible for an ongoing “pause” in global warming that has lasted more than a decade. If that is the case, weak warming might be expected to revive when this phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle shifts back to a warmer El Niño period.

The study was the result of a debate over whether clouds can be part of an active forcing mechanism for global warming, or are just a passive response to temperature change.
“What we found is, to explain the satellite data we had to invoke a change in clouds nine months before the peak of either an El Niño or a La Niña,” Spencer said. “When the clouds change, it takes time for that to translate into a temperature change.

“We get the best fit to the observations when we let clouds cause some of the temperature change. These cloud changes are occurring before the temperature starts to respond, so they can’t be caused by the temperature changes.”

Before an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, global cloud cover decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the Earth’s surface and be converted into heat. On the flip side, before a La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling event, cloud cover increases, shading more of the Earth’s surface and reflecting an increased amount of solar energy back into space.
While changes in cloud cover intensify the warming or cooling of these ocean events,

Spencer and Braswell still found that two-thirds of the sea surface temperature changes during both El Niño and La Niña events are driven by changes in ocean mixing. But the one-third forcing by clouds turns out to be an important component, substantially changing our interpretation of how sensitive the climate system is to CO2 emissions.

– 30 –

============================================================

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model

Abstract

Global average ocean temperature variations to 2,000 m depth during 1955–2011 are simulated with a 40 layer 1D forcing-feedback-mixing model for three forcing cases. The first case uses standard anthropogenic and volcanic external radiative forcings. The second adds non-radiative internal forcing (ocean mixing changes initiated in the top 200 m) proportional to the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) to represent an internal mode of natural variability. The third case further adds ENSO-related radiative forcing proportional to MEI as a possible natural cloud forcing mechanism associated with atmospheric circulation changes. The model adjustable parameters are net radiative feedback, effective diffusivities, and internal radiative (e.g., cloud) and non-radiative (ocean mixing) forcing coefficients at adjustable time lags. Model output is compared to Levitus ocean temperature changes in 50 m layers during 1955–2011 to 700 m depth, and to lag regression coefficients between satellite radiative flux variations and sea surface temperature between 2000 and 2010. A net feedback parameter of 1.7Wm−2 K−1 with only anthropogenic and volcanic forcings increases to 2.8Wm−2 K−1 when all ENSO forcings (which are one-third radiative) are included, along with better agreement between model and observations. The results suggest ENSO can influence multi-decadal temperature trends, and that internal radiative forcing of the climate system affects the diagnosis of feedbacks. Also, the relatively small differences in model ocean warming associated with the three cases suggests that the observed levels of ocean warming since the 1950s is not a very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate sensitivity, Modeling and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

191 Responses to New study: ‘…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed’

  1. Bob Tisdale says:

    A major step in the right direction.

    Roy, how did your model account for the other major mode of natural variability, the AMO?

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Reblogged this on Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations and commented:

    A giant step in the right direction.

  3. Bob beat me to it!

    But this NOAA graphic shows the influence the AMO has on NH temperatures.

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/faq_fig2.php

  4. JimS says:

    I suppose CO2 has to be thrown into the study in order to get it published, or, am I getting too cynical?

  5. That is so correct, if one plots El Nino events versus La Nina events versus temperature changes one will find a rather strong correlation.
    ENSO, is a major factor for temperature change when the climate is in a particular climatic regime, but in order to have a more dramatic sustained change one has to look to the sun.

    I have stated the solar average parameters that are needed many times in order to achieve this result.

  6. Jim Clarke says:

    Certainly, we have a lot more to understand in the study of natural climate variability, and it would be easy to get into quantitative and chicken/egg arguments over over ENSO cycles vs. PDO and AMO and cosmic rays and so on. But the important question here is whether or not we wholeheartedly acknowledge that this work is far superior to the IPCC conclusions that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and that humans are to blame.

    If you agree that this paper represents a far superior understanding of climate variability than what the IPCC is selling, state that first before diving into the minutia. Please, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

  7. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Cmon, another case of discovering what is a known, that warm pdo.s have more el ninos and so there is global warming. Joe D Aleo has shown that the average warm PDO el nino is longer and stronger, the opposite in the cold pdo where el ninos average only 9 months and la ninas 21 months. Since el ninos spike the global temps, more el ninos mean cumulative warming
    cold pdos mean temps start down, as we have seen the past 4 years, The leveling years are the atmosphere reaching a balance from the added heat from this. Its like turning on a hot shower, the bathroom warms until it can warm no more. Shut the shower off, the bathroom cools

    How is this some brilliant finding

    Its amazing watching knowns, things observed years ago being funded and now somehow coming to light as a brilliant discovery. This is a known among nuts and bolts forecasters that have worked in this field for years.

    Simply amazing

  8. phlogiston says:

    But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.

    “As a result, because as much as 50% of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Niño activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed”, Spencer said.

    This is the way to model climate – base the modeling directly on experimental data (here satellite data). Yes – clouds CAN be included in climate modeling. But the results shown here – halving of CO2 sensitivity – show why the establishment have resisted so hard including clouds.

    Meanwhile the warmist establishment spout nonsense about aerosol cans and CFCs and ignore clouds completely.

  9. Old news.

    The bit that would be more interesting would be to confirm why there are upward temperature steps from one positive phase to the next during a warming spell such as LIA to date and probably downward steps from one negative phase to the next during a cooling spell such as MWP to LIA.

    I have proposed that the cause is solar variability affecting global cloudiness which skews ENsO towards El Nino when the sun is becoming more active and towards La Nina when the sun is becoming less active.

  10. Bill Marsh says:

    But, that can’t be true. If it is then, in order for National Geographic’s proposed rise of 22F will require us to double the current CO2 level approx 17x to …. well a REALLY high % of atmospheric content (something approaching 100% I believe). So, it can’t be true

  11. Pamela Gray says:

    We been sayin. This whole time we’all been sayin. With our snaggle tooth grin and flat Earth think’n, we all been sayin. My ol’ kin in Ireland say it. My great-great-great grandpa say it. My great-great grandpa say it. My great-grandpa say it. My grandpa say it. And my pa say it. And all the women folk been sayin it longer than that. Since a’fore the American Revolution the weather she come an she go, sometime a’blowin at our back and sometime a’blowin up our kilt. We all known it cuz we cross the ocean more’n once on nut’n but a rickety boat. Yet these here whipper snappers think they be sayin it for the fust time.

    Lord A’mighty!

  12. Patrick B says:

    Wake me up when you have shown your model has made a real prediction, within narrow useful boundaries, that future data collection confirms. Doing it twice would be even more impressive.

  13. Jimbo says:

    Half is slight!? It is these ‘slight’ amounts that are fueling the debate.

    …the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed”, Spencer said.

    …a climate system that is slightly less sensitive to CO2-induced warming than has been believed.

  14. gopal panicker says:

    models all the way down

  15. Roy Spencer says:

    C’mon Joe, we’re on the same side, dude. ;-)

    As I mention on my blog, others have indeed “known” about this, but we put actual numbers in an energy-conserving model to show that there is more radiant energy coming in during El Nino, about 0.6 W/m2 per unit MEI Index value. Without that, El Nino warmth would just be a near-surface phenomenon (because it coincides with approximately equal cooling in the 100-200 m layer), and incapable of explaining the increase in ocean heat content.

    We also quantify how much it reduces diagnosed climate sensitivity by. This goes far beyond just handwaving that “stronger El Ninos cause warming”.

    AND to get it published is no small task, given today’s peer review bias.

  16. milodonharlani says:

    Jimbo says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:06 am

    The “slightly” refers to the reduction in CS from ocean mixing alone. They found reduction by half when clouds were added in. This confirms what so many have long suspected, ie that IPeCaC leaves clouds out of its GIGO model because they knew what the result would be if included. Their lame excuses for not including clouds have never held water, so to speak, or were vaporous.

  17. Chad Wozniak says:

    I’m with Joe Bastardi and Jimbo on this – and not only unremarkable, but an apparent concession to some of the false claims of CO2 sensitivity put forth by the alarmists. Yeah, temps are sensitive to CO2 – but in reality, it’s too small to quantify accurately or attribute correctly. It seems pointless to discuss the sensitivity in this context, and it gives the alarmists an opening to say “See? We told you so! Climate is still very sensitive to CO2 even in your scenario, and you admit it!”

    I remain convnced that we skeptics need to maintain a hard line and not give ground to alarmists. Their meme is so wrong and so thoroughly discredited that I see no reason to make any sort of concession to them. If we are wrong on this, our error will be minuscule compared to the alarmists’.

  18. Richard M says:

    Time to show the trend changes since 1850:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1944/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1976/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend

    Yup, as many of us have been saying for years, the climate is driven by the oceans. I commend Dr. Roy for getting this knowledge into the peer reviewed literature. While I think the sensitivity is still a bit high it is low enough to end the alarmism and that is more important than getting a perfect answer. From where we are at it will take around 200 years to double CO2 again and with only a 1.3C temperature rise we are less than the 2.2 C of net beneficial warming found by Dr. Richard Tol.

    Congratulations Roy and Dan, great work. Now prepare yourself for the coming ad hominem attacks.

  19. Col Mosby says:

    Any mention of the theory advanced here recently that the clean air act cleared the smog
    aerosols away and led to sudden spurt of warming after 1980?

  20. Roy Spencer said:

    “there is more radiant energy coming in during El Nino, about 0.6 W/m2 per unit MEI Index value. Without that, El Nino warmth would just be a near-surface phenomenon (because it coincides with approximately equal cooling in the 100-200 m layer), and incapable of explaining the increase in ocean heat content. ”

    Exactly, which is why one needs the cloud reduction first.

    That is what led to my emphasis on a top down solar effect to kick start the cloudiness changes as per my New Climate Model which is just a summary of observed events in the correct sequence.

    True, the El Nino once in progress will add energy to the air above and in doing so widen the equatorial air masses but one has to stoke up the energy for a strong El Nino in the first place and replace the lost energy when it occurs.

    During the late 20th century warming spell more energy was entering the oceans than leaving them despite a string of powerful El Ninos.

    Now, less energy is entering the oceans than leaving them despite ENSO neutral conditions.

    The current recharge rate is much reduced by increased global cloudiness so the skids are being put under the prospects of strong future El Ninos. If we do get a strong El Nino despite the current low recharge rates the subsequent cooling will be undeniable.

    Hope I’m still alive when someone in authority ‘gets’ it.

  21. The general result of this study is perfectly consistent with other studies recently published (Curry’s work, Chylek’s work and my own works) showing that natural cyclical variability would account for 50% of the warming during the last decades. Therefore the climate sensitivity to CO2 needs to be reduced by about half.

    What remains unexplained is the physical origin of this natural variability. In fact, here ENSO is used as an input of the climate model, not as the output (as it should be). In fact, Spencer and others are “assuming” that this is just an internal unforced variability of the climate system that exists by itself. However the fact remains that the observed natural climatic oscillations are synchronous to evident astronomical cycles of lunar/solar/planetary origin.

    Thus, the observed natural variability is likely astronomically induced, as explained in my papers.

    For more details see

    Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402

    or my website.

  22. Pamela Gray says:

    Stephen, your downfall is failing to take the next step beyond your “belief”: proving your “belief” wrong. You dismiss neutral (as others have so don’t feel too bad) as if nothing is going on that neutral conditions have an affect on. However I think ENSO neutral is the new scientific frontier in climate investigation. We should be delving into this span of data as diligently as we have La Nina and El Nino because neutral incorporates such a large area on Earth and a great deal of data, maybe even more than the two extremes combined. Long live El Nado and La Nada. Possibly the elephant in the room.

  23. JohnWho says:

    “Basically, previously it was believed that if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures would warm about 2.5 C,” Spencer said. That’s 4.5° F. “But when we factor in the ENSO warming, we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2.”

    Is that for every doubling: 50 ppm to 100 ppm, 100 ppm to 200 ppm, 200 ppm to 400, etc. or just to the most current move toward doubling from 250 ppm to about 400 ppm now as it rises?

    Is there a recognized saturation point where additional CO2 makes absolutely no difference?

  24. Ulric Lyons says:

    This seems to be conflating the immediate with the cumulative effects of ENSO. For the cumulative effects, multi-year or stronger La Nina episodes should be causing and preceding the up steps in global temperature.

  25. Bill Illis says:

    The usual attack will now commence. The pro-warmers cannot settle for a climate sensitivity value that is so low and so benign if not beneficial.

  26. Mike Maguire says:

    While I agree with Joe, that those of us actually looking, are well aware of this relationship and the connection with the PDO, Dr. Spencer’s paper quantifies a mechanism and provides some unique scientifically based insight to explain what we all know.

    I disagree with comments that think this is giving some ground to alarmists. This is science, not politics. In politics you push propaganda, exaggerate and try to win a one sided battle, often distorting and manipulating. Whatever gets the job done.

    In science, you interpret empirical data and try not to care where it leads you, even if it doesn’t match up perfectly with whatever your position is. It should never be contaminated with the idea of presenting it in a manner designed to match the extreme nature of an opposing view.

  27. Londo says:

    But it seems to me that S&B assume that the head not accounted for by ENSO is coming from CO2. Where is the proof for that? Or, should I have read the paper before commenting :-)

  28. Pamela Gray says:

    A case in point about Nada a Nado. If neutral conditions are such a weak contender, say some, of climate and weather pattern variations, strong solar conditions should overtake such a weak sister. So here is your challenge solar enthusiasts. Try to prove your theory wrong like a good scientist should. Study the correlation between neutral ENSO trends, solar conditions and temperature. Lag it or not I don’t care. Your hypothesis should be that solar conditions should be the stronger and evident driver of climate and weather pattern variation under weak neutral oceanic conditions more so that at any other time. Comments?

  29. milodonharlani says:

    JohnWho says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:49 am

    For purposes of CACA debate, “climate sensitivity”, whatever its value may be, applies only to the doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. As so often noted here, the response in global temperature to CO2 concentration is logarithmic, so that most of the warming occurs in the first 100 ppm or less. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Lindzen says, adding more molecules is like painting a wall white, which doesn’t get much whiter with each new coat. Most of the effect occurs in the first one or two coats. So the next doubling to 1120 ppm would have negligible effect.

  30. Pamela Gray says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:46 am

    “You dismiss neutral (as others have so don’t feel too bad) as if nothing is going on that neutral conditions have an affect on”

    Huh ?

    I fully accept neutral ENSO as an intermediate state between El Nino and La Nina.

    The only point I made was that during the current period of neutral ENSO the recharge rate is weaker than it would have been during the period of reduced cloudiness of the late 20th century.

    And I don’t ‘believe’. I observe.

  31. Janice Moore says:

    “The results also suggest the world will warm by 1.3 C (about 2.34° F) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2,… .”

    So, Dr. Spencer does NOT believe that CO2 rise lags temperature rise. Great. (not)

    While there is some useful repetition of the knowledge about ENSO as a climate driver, the main effect of this article is to support AGW. This article does far more damage to the cause of truth than it does good. The positive testimony for AGW from a “hostile witness” (Dr. Spencer has purportedly been on the side of the skeptics of AGW) gives the article’s support a weight a friendly witness’s testimony could never have.

    It would have been better to have said nothing at all.

    What a disappointment.

    I feel like Washington must have felt when they told him about Benedict Arnold.

  32. vukcevic says:

    Roy Spencer says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:10 am
    This goes far beyond just handwaving that “stronger El Ninos cause warming”.
    That may be so, but it is unlikely to be anywhere near whole story. One or two commentators mentioned AMO factor, certainly for the N. Atlantic basin the AMO is the predominant and decisive factor.
    N. A Subpolar gyre (SPG) is a major N. A. circulatory system where the cold Arctic currents overflow are mixed with the warm Gulf Stream’s waters. The SPG’s circulation is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean, it is capable of influencing of the entire ocean circulation system Its major and highly variable component is the North Icelandic Jet current.
    WHOI: “The North Icelandic Jet is a deep-reaching current that flows along the continental slope of Iceland. North Icelandic Jet (NIJ), contributes to a key component of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as the “great ocean conveyor belt,” which is critically important for regulating Earth’s climate. As part of the planet’s reciprocal relationship between ocean circulation and climate, this conveyor belt transports warm surface water to high latitudes where the water warms the air, then cools, sinks, and returns towards the equator as a deep flow.”
    Continental slope of the North Iceland is tectonically vary active; however this is not an easy variable to reconstruct, but the surface magnetic records are a reasonable even if not very accurate proxy.
    The circulatory period of the SPG is variable, mainly in range 20+ years.
    Calculated 20 and 30 years delta for magnetic field change along the continental slope of North Iceland (NIJ current’s path) and the Leohle’s temperature anomaly reconstruction are shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT.htm
    Of course correlation may be a coincidence (correlation is not necessarily causation), but if not, to dismiss wise may not be, even if the direct operating mechanism is not readily recognised.

  33. Pamela Gray said:

    “Your hypothesis should be that solar conditions should be the stronger and evident driver of climate and weather pattern variation under weak neutral oceanic conditions more so that at any other time. Comments?”

    No.

    Solar conditions affecting cloudiness will always be the driver.

    Weak neutral oceanic conditions are just an intermediate state between El Nino (discharge) and La Nina (recharge).

    In the end what matters is the balance between solar energy in and energy released by the oceans.

    La Nada just means not much being released as compared to El Nino and not much being stored as against La Nina.

  34. Pamela Gray says:

    Stephen, you still need to consider your theory in light of correlations (if any indeed exist) between ENSO neutral, solar parameters, and temperature. Do the jets sit around and be idle in your hypothesis? What do they actually do under ENSO neutral? If your solar parameters are strong enough to push the jets this way and that, you should study jet positions, weather patterns such as blocking highs, and temperatures under ENSO neutral and see what your solar parameters are under those conditions. Have you? Or did you just concentrate on ENSO extreme events?

  35. Pamela Gray says:

    Stephen, in other words, work backwards from all ENSO conditions, not just extreme ones. By the way, I know about energy release and energy penetration under ENSO conditions. I also have read your theory about solar parameters pushing/pulling jets due to stratospheric/tropospheric expansion/contraction conditions set up by solar parameters (a very tenuous proposition at best). Your solar theory of pushing/pulling jets should hold under all ENSO conditions, including neutral. So what is the correlation working backwards when ENSO is neutral? There is lots of data. Tons of it. Work backwards from ENSO data. What does it say when ENSO is neutral about your solar theory? Come on. Spill it. What have been the solar parameters when ENSO has been in neutral territory (IE between -.5 and +.5)?

  36. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    Is Dr. Roy is explicitly calling clouds a forcing?

  37. milodonharlani says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    November 11, 2013 at 10:46 am

    El nado means the swim.

  38. Janice Moore says:

    In order to NOT break faith (as so eloquently expressed in “Flanders’ Fields,” posted today by Allan MacRae on the heart attack thread) with our veterans and those who made the ultimate sacrifice, I post this, today, on Veteran’s Day……. to THANK YOU.

    To our great U. S. Armed Forces (and our Allies), veterans and active duty,
    you can win ANY war –
    when the politicians, the media, and the public don’t betray you.

    In remembrance…

    Thank you, “Dad.” Thank you, “Mom.”

    “’Greater love hath no person than this,
    that one lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
    John 15:13.

    LAND OF THE FREE, BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE.

    .
    .
    .

    Gratefully yours,

    Janice

    P.S. @ All Enemies of Freedom: Listen up. America lives.
    Those who love Liberty far outnumber those who serve tyranny.
    Our veterans’ sacrifice of time, of health,
    of friends, of family…. WAS NOT IN VAIN.
    We will outlast the socialists.
    America is.

  39. RobB says:

    1.3C is near enough the equilibrium climate sensitivity so as many suspected, the feed backs are largely self regulating.

  40. Jim Clarke says:

    Well, my first call for civility has gone unheeded. I will try again.

    Yes, Joe and Pam, you are right. We all knew this to be true. It is no great revelation to climate realists. But, as Roy points out, they have quantified the effect and described the mechanism in more detail than has ever been done before. That’s important. That is how the game is played. IT must be published and spelled out in detail for it to be considered as a contender to the current paradigm. ‘Truth’ is a function of publishing; and while that pisses me off no end, I can no longer rationally deny it.

    And Jimbo, there is no real social/political debate if climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is half what the IPCC has been peddling. There is no crisis. There is no need for regulation or taxes or other forms of control. Alarmists may still try and pedal an ‘acidic ocean’ scam, but that is not going to resonate much with the people and the politicians, nor hold up to additional research. Look, they fired their best, scary shots and have still struggled to get traction, even when most people believed them. Cutting the threat in half takes all the wind from their sails. You may be right and sensitivity may be even less than half the IPCC estimates, but this paper is much closer to the truth and deserves to be heralded as such.

    We are a skeptical and contentious bunch, but we are all united in wishing to see the current climate change paradigm dismantled and replaced with one that is much more scientifically accurate. Such paradigm changes may happen quickly, but only after the methodical build up of evidence against the old and for the new. This paper is an important step in that methodical build up. The new paradigm does not have to be perfect. In fact, it can’t be perfect, but it can be a whole lot better than the one we have now.

    Do we really want to trash the developing new paradigm because it may not be perfect in our eyes? Isn’t it better to take a “Yes! And…” approach, than a “Well but…” or “Who cares?” approach?

    I, for one, greatly appreciate Spencer and Braswell’s heavy lifting on this.

  41. Pamela Gray says:

    Clouds reflect solar irradiance back to space. Clear skies let it in and at depth in the oceans. So as a gatekeeper to oceanic warming below the surface that is later discharged under calmer wind conditions in various locations on the globe, clouds do indeed form part of the driving force behind land temperatures. What drives the clouds? The chicken or the egg? Could this be a leaky closed loop system (each cog being a driver of the next with energy leaking out to space here and there) that is kept at a variable pace with solar energy being let back in at various amounts to top off the tank so to speak?

  42. Pamela Gray says:

    Roy, I was being tongue in cheek. I hope you don’t mind. I truly do admire your work and glad you are on our side. Very glad. Besides, I can’t even get my dog to listen to me.

  43. Roy Spencer says:

    Ulric, that’s the point of the study….to examine the cumulative effects of ENSO during the ~30 yr periods when either El Nino or La Nina are stronger.

  44. DonV says:

    Ok so you got half the picture. Now add in the CUMULATIVE (ie. integrate under the curve) total solar irradiance, and CUMULATIVE solar magnetic events (to trigger cloud formation) and low and behold you’ve reduced the ‘apparent’ “forcing” of CO2 to a big fat zero. Instead you’ve proven that CO2 is being ‘driven’ by temperature not ‘driving’! (Thank you prof. Salby)

    OK NOW you’ve got the picture right!

    Thank you for this work, small wins are a blessing too. Lets limp towards admitting the obvious truth. Dr. Spencer, was the pending publication of this article why you were so unnecessarily hard on Willis theory recently? Willis proposed that CLOUDS had a direct SHORT term temperature balancing affect. You are admitting that CLOUDS have a long term heat reflecting temperature balancing affect. Not exactly the same (one requires no math on the temperture record, the other requires averaging temp. differences yr-to-yr which reduces their meaning to exactly . . . . NOTHING!) but the end result is that WATER not CO2 is the big GHG that controls the thermostasis in our climate system. And as long as there is LOTS and LOTS of water on the earth, it can NEVER overheat or undercool! (is that even a word?)

    Why spend ANY time at all looking at long term trends of a few tenths of a degree, when it is obvious that the climate systems is self-regulating, (as long as that big ball in the sky behaves). C’mon, the SUN is at the center of our solar system and is the source of our heat – NOT CO2 – and WATER is the reason our little ball is BLUE – CO2 only absorbs/reflects in the infrared and even at that only a fraction as effectively as WATER does.

    In order to participate in “Green House Gas ‘Warming’ “, CO2 has to absorb IR light energy. In order to absorb it has to have an extinction coefficient at the wavelengths of interest. In addition, IT MUST BE PRESENT AT A CONCENTRATION THAT IS HIGH ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER ABSORBING MOLECULES. (Yes there is a concentration term in Beers Law) Not only does CO2 have a fraction of the extinction coefficient as water does in the infrared, but it’s ridiculously miniscule concentration when compared to water renders it’s contribution to the GHG effect virtually meaningless! (ESPECIALLY IN HIGH HUMIDITY REGIONS – LIKE CLOUDS!)

    IF CO2 had the “forcing” you concede that it has, THEN wouldn’t we see the seasonal variability that is measured presently in the average annual seasonal variability across the globe? Wouldn’t we see a direct long term drift that parallels the long term upward drift of CO2′s concentration? Wouldn’t we see continued upward movement on the masticated mashed up, “adjusted”, ‘temperature anamoly” “data” instead of a long term 17 yr. hiatus to any temp change at all? Please explain again why CO2 concentration is still rising, but with NO downward pressing signigicant PDO events to speak of over the long term, surface temperature has “on average” remained unchanged? but instead has spiked up and down in any given year or season, with no rhyme nor reason that can easily be seen correlating to spikes or dips in CO2?

    I see the correlation in your paper of temp being influenced by clouds and a large portion of the “forcing” being attributed to “natural variability”. I fail to see the evidence to support your continued attribution of the remaining “unexplained forcing” to CO2.

    Respectfully,
    Don V

  45. Pamela Gray says:

    Phlliiifffffftsplaatttttspraaayyyy! Cough hack gag!!!!! El Nado! The Swim! Hilarious!

  46. Bruce says:

    I don’t what this is all about: the change in ocean temperature down to about 2000M is at most 0.1 degree C for the period in question. If Spencer believes one can measure this with any accuracy, then I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.

  47. Roy Spencer says:

    …and we don’t claim this study gets “the answer”. As others have suggested, it might well be there are other climate forcings we have not included. We just examined how inclduing ENSO as a pseudo-forcing reduces estimated future warming by 50%.

    Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ??? ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.

  48. Roy Spencer says:

    Bruce, you really need to read my blog post, where I state that *assuming* the ocean temperatures can be believed, then…

  49. milodonharlani says:

    DonV says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:42 am

    Earth’s climate is homeostatic, or at least has been for the past 543 million years, but it has apparently experienced runaway global cooling in the more distant past, when the sun was about six (Marinoan) to 22% (Huronian) weaker than now. The long-lasting Huronian global glaciation (2400 to 2100 Ma) may have been triggered by the oxygen catastrophe. But long-term even these extreme Snowball or Slushball Earth incidents were regulated & balmier times resumed.

  50. milodonharlani says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:43 am

    Hope that wasn’t your coffee being launched keyboardward.

  51. Pamela Gray says:

    Naw. It’s 5:00 somewhere.

  52. Jim Cripwell says:

    Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

  53. Pamela Gray says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:19 am

    I’ve pulled it all together here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    Conceptually rather than quantitaive but it sets out real world observations over the past three climate regimes and shows how they can fit together.

    Its strange how often I post links but very few read them. I suppose that is normal.

  54. “WATER not CO2 is the big GHG that controls the thermostasis in our climate system”

    Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/

  55. Pamela asked:

    “What does it say when ENSO is neutral about your solar theory? Come on. Spill it. What have been the solar parameters when ENSO has been in neutral territory (IE between -.5 and +.5)?”

    Totally different timescales.

    I start from the millennial solar cycle and then work down to ENSO variability which is just a couple of years or so. Periods of La Nada make little difference in the broad scheme of things.

    I see that you have read my stuff after all but I don’t agree that the top down solar effect is tenuous. Lots of recent evidence coming to the fore about variations in UV affecting air circulation.

    No one has yet pointed out that any part of my sequential narrative is incorrect. Indeed I know it isn’t having observed three successive climate regimes.

    The only things left to argue over are the precise mechanisms.

  56. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Fresh from the MISPWOSO (Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious). When I first heard about global warming back in 1989-1990 I dismissed it almost instantly because the first thing that occurred to me was that more heat = more evaporation which = more clouds which = higher albedo, which = less insolent solar radiation which = less heat, which = lowering the temperature, which is a natural regulator of global temperatures.

    Thank you Dr. Spenser for doing the hard work to lead others, who must be painted into a corner before they will reason this intuitive concept out on their own, to this understanding.

  57. Tim says:

    Didn’t a recent report suggest that El Nino events were more likely in a warmer climate. It doesn’t take a huge leap of the imagination to see what the next claim of the IPCC will be. CO2 causes more El Nino’s due to its heating effect which then causes more warming, end result CO2 indirectly caused all of the warming.
    While I think the science here is interesting, modeling the quantitative effects of the atmosphere has been very unreliable to date so i’m skeptical about the exact figures. It also assumes that the CO2 is the cause of non ENSO warming rather than just stating half of the warming caused by ENSO, which shows a biased premise on which the paper was undertaken.

  58. anthonyvioli says:

    Roy Spencer says:

    November 11, 2013 at 11:47 am

    …and we don’t claim this study gets “the answer”. As others have suggested, it might well be there are other climate forcings we have not included. We just examined how inclduing ENSO as a pseudo-forcing reduces estimated future warming by 50%.

    Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ??? ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.

    This is the most important part of everything you said Roy.

    ENSO is simply one component, a paper that establishes AMO and Solar as well could drop the C02 sensitivity even further.

    Wouldn’t that be a kick in the guts..

  59. Having re discovered the 60 year cycle perhaps Roy and the rest of academia will one day rediscover Lambs 1000 year cycle . For a reasonable ,empirical, transparent cooling forecast based on the recent peak being a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles see several posts including the last one at ..
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    Here’s a summary of the conclusions for the NH and Global temperatures . I would be interested to see Roy’s estimates for similar future dates,
    “In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario”

  60. SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION

    MECHANISM ONE

    .

    One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:

    A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

    This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.

    This makes much sense to me.

    NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
    NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER

    To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.

    UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.

    This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.

    Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.

    This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.

    MECHANISM TWO

    A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.

    Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.

    MECHANISM THREE

    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase in summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.

    In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.

    MECHANISM FOUR

    High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.

    One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.

    Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.

    These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.

    THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.

    NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:

    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

    SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION

    MECHANISM ONE

    .

    One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:

    A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

    This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.

    This makes much sense to me.

    NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
    NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER

    To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.

    UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.

    This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.

    Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.0) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.

    This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.

    MECHANISM TWO

    A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.

    Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.

    MECHANISM THREE

    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.

    In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.

    MECHANISM FOUR

    High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.

    One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain

    volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the

    magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.

    Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.

    These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.

    THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the

    climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.

    NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:

    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in

    the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR)

    bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

  61. more soylent green! says:

    I’ll bet the actual sensitivity to CO2 is even less than this once UHI and land use changes get a better accounting.

  62. Eliza says:

    I.m with Bastardi here and also better to put up AMO/solar/temp graphs that are actually updated to at least 2012, 1999 is way out date thanks.

  63. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    DonV says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:42 am
    “… Dr. Spencer, was the pending publication of this article why you were so unnecessarily hard on Willis theory recently?”

    The denigration all non-professional efforts? That was some outrageous crap.

  64. One simple but important question that must be reconciled is, if CO2 drives the temperature why is it that CO2 follows the temperature rather then lead it.

    Therefore due to the above ,it stands to reason CO2 cannot be the cause for the climate change to change.

  65. If you include the obvious 1000 year cycle contribution to the 20th century temperature rise the CO2 sensitivity is too small to distinguish from the natural cycles.

  66. Eliza says:

    BTW when are we going to see October 2013 UHA Temp data graphs? Always thank you Dr Spencer for your efforts there…

  67. Green Sand says:

    60 yr cycle in HadSST3 30 year rate warming:-

    http://tinypic.com/r/242sqko/5

    Significant increase in the max rate of warming the peaks of 1880s and 1940s but very little change between the 1940s and 2000s peaks? Should be interesting to see at what level the next trough forms?

  68. DonV says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too.

    I agree if all that mattered was water as a “gas” in our atmosphere. But your explanation is severely limited because of one simple fact. Water is not present in our atmosphere as just a gas! FAR FROM IT.

    Water is THE ONLY UNIQUE MOLECULE that is present in the atmosphere in ALL THREE STATES OF MATTER (and may even be present in its own unique fourth state as a liquid crystal). That fact all by itself changes everything. Why? Because at each phase change in the atmosphere, water either must absorb are release latent heat to obey the laws of physics. And that ALL BY ITSELF makes water the dominant molecule in regulating thermal balance. Water can all by itself, absorb more energy, transport more energy, over longer distances, packaged in a condensed phase, then release that energy to cool the earth off where it needs cooling, or maintain temperature stasis where it is cooler.

    Your assertion that the gas constant governs water may be true about water in its gaseous form, but fails to include the most important piece of the puzzle – PHASE CHANGE in the atmosphere. The gas constant does not include or comprehend liquid or solid water contributing to the energy balance. Nowhere in PV = nRT does it include “and then it changes phase and is no longer bound by this equation”.

    I have read your climate theory essays. I don’t know about the links of solar radiation to ozone to latitudinal shift in jet streams to long term heating and cooling . . . . that all may be true and may explain the tenths of a degree long term drifts in annual temps. . . . but over the short term AND long term the regulating molecule that keeps life bearable down here where we live is WATER in all it’s life promoting forms.

  69. Bruce says:

    Roy, if your are suspicious of the accuracy of the ocean temperature data, why do simulations on data whose veracity you do not fully accept?

    You may have come to approximately the right conclusion, however. Bruce

  70. Steven Mosher says:

    more soylent green! says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    I’ll bet the actual sensitivity to CO2 is even less than this once UHI and land use changes get a better accounting.

    ###########

    wrong. Even if UHI explained 50% of land warming it would not change sensitivity that much as land is only 30% of the total.

    the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.

    a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts

  71. geran says:

    “The results also suggest the world will warm by 1.3 C (about 2.34° F) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is only one-half of the warming expected by most climate researchers.”

    New model factor = 0.5

    Some time in the future…

    New model factor = 0.25

    Some time in the far future…

    New model factor = 0.125

    (I wonder if all the climate “modelers” will get it….)

  72. Werner Brozek says:

    “Basically, a portion of El Nino warming is radiatively forced, probably due to a decrease in low clouds allowing more sunlight in”

    Is there any evidence that the decrease in low clouds is caused by an increase in sun spots as per Svensmark?

  73. Joe Born says:

    Hey, guys, Dr. Spencer never said he and Dr. Braswell had come up with the Unified Field Theory. They’ve accomplished the feat of getting published a study that is not congenial to the climate establishment. Kudos is in order.

    That said, it seems to me that for a study of this type (one-dimensional first- or second-order model with a scalar response and a small-vector stimulus) it would not be arduous to publish the complete data and code so that we can see for ourselves exactly how closely his actual work matches his verbal description of it.

    I hasten to add that I don’t think for a moment he even considered misrepresenting what he did. But latent ambiguities are almost unavoidable in this type of thing; it was only by his placing the spreadsheet on the web several years back, for example, that I was certain what he meant by his “simple model,” and I’m sure that others’ understanding of this current work will benefit from an exhaustive disclosure.

  74. Steven Mosher says:

    jim

    ‘Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.”

    1. Beenstock have shown no such thing.

    2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero

  75. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roy Spencer says: “ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.”

    Thanks. That answered my question (Roy, how did your model account for the other major mode of natural variability, the AMO?).

    Regards.

  76. Mike Jonas says:

    What Roy Spencer has done is clearly a step forward from the IPCC model versions. But it’s still only a model, and the mechanisms behind ENSO are not known, so we should be very cautious with this paper.

    On the plus side, the paper does explain a lot of the model’s logic, so we are able to make some sort of reasonable judgement of its findings.

    On the negative side, there are a number of potentially important factors which are not mentioned, and which could invalidate the findings. One would be the hydrological cycle (evaporation, precipitation, etc) which is under-represented in climate models and presumably also in Roy’s. Roy appears to have added only clouds, not the full hydrological cycle. Another would be the major ocean cycles – AMO, PDO, etc – and no doubt there are other important omitted factors.

    My feeling is that the major finding of the paper – a much smaller ECS – is too unreliable, and that we should continue with the null hypotheses that (a) we don’t know what the value of ECS is, and (b) we don’t even know if there is an ECS.

  77. geran says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero
    >>>>>
    Glad you left out “negative”….

  78. DonV says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    I agree and in one of my essays I deal with it.

    The phase changes of water do indeed provide a more effective method of shifting energy than the adiabatic uplift and descent cycle that operates in the background.

    The net effect of those phase changes is to enable system equilibrium to be maintained with less work needing to be done by the adiabatic cycle. In other words the necessary circulation changes can be less violent.

    It is still the gas constant for our specific atmospheric mix of gases that controls it all though because it specifies the amount of kinetic energy needed at the surface to both hold up the weight of atmospheric mass AND achieve top of atmosphere radiative balance.

    That kinetic energy also determines the size and speed of the water cycle so we come full circle.

  79. milodonharlani says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    How did you derive ECS ~= 2*TCR?

    Even IPeCaC shows, at least in this example, ECS ~= 1.75*TCR:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm

    Steven Mosher says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Sure CS for a doubling of CO2 can be close to zero, if not for doubling from 280 to 560, then for from, say, 1200 to 2400, at which level any theoretical increase would be practically immeasurable.

  80. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Mike Maguire -
    Attempting to find middle ground between a position that is patently false (significant CO2 forcing in climate change) and one that is obviously correct (CO2 forcing indistinguishable from zero) is what is political. Sticking to our guns concerning the fallacy of AGW is not political – it’s simply honest.

    I am reminded of how astronomer Tycho Brahe tried to compromise between an Earth-centric and a Sun-centric (i.e., Copernican) solar system by claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth and the other planets orbited the Sun. Such compromises only produce garbage theories. Facts don’t bend, and you can’t be “half pregnant.”

  81. To see a negative CO2 sensitivity over thousands of years see Fig 4 at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  82. Pamela Gray says:

    Stephen, you do not have a falsifiable entry point into your theory. If the correlations between solar indices and jet indices do not match, as you say is the case now and then, you retreat to the bottom up half of your theory, citing natural intrinsic variation as the source of climate/weather pattern variation trends. Okay so let’s talk about the half and half nature of your theory. So tell me, just how strong do the solar indices have to get before they can overtake intrinsic sources of temperature trends? Or if you want, how weak do the intrinsic sources of temperature trends have to get before solar indices take over? And do the two halves (top down and bottom up) of your drivers of temperature trend take on a double whammy when in sync? What does the data say about that?

  83. Chad Wozniak says:

    Re my previous post above – would summarize by saying there’s no compromise possible between a lie and the truth – all you get is, at best, is a half-truth.

  84. vukcevic says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    But it’s still only a model, and the mechanisms behind ENSO are not known, so we should be very cautious with this paper.

    It is worth noting that there is a correlation between the ENSO and the sub equatorial Pacific
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm

  85. vukcevic says:

    It is worth noting that there is a correlation between the ENSO and the sub equatorial Pacific tectonics
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm

  86. John says:

    I hate to ask a dumb question but I’m just starting to wade into the carbon dioxide emissions and global warming data. Just quickly looking at the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, it looks like it’s absorbing mostly longer wavelength (low energy) IR and in a relatively narrow band. As the concentration of CO2 increases you will get diminishing returns as you run out of photons to absorb in that radiation band. In addition, the pathlength of the atmosphere is pretty long so it can probably absorb most of the radiation at a pretty low concentration. It seems mathematically after a certain threshold concentration of CO2 is attained it’s contribution to additional warming should approach zero. How do the current models deal with this physical limitation?

  87. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    “What Roy Spencer has done is clearly a step forward from the IPCC model versions. But it’s still only a model, and the mechanisms behind ENSO are not known, so we should be very cautious with this paper.”
    And anything Dr. Roy says, in fact.

    Just to compare the rock solid logic straightfroward of McIntyre the non professional, to Dr. Roy’s evasiveness, gives a clue.

  88. mikef2 says:

    Guys…..when negotiating, you don’t go all out to totally destroy your opponent. When its obvious that your adversary is flailing around, obviously lost, you offer him an open door to escape through with some form of self respect intact. This paper allows alarmists to mumble that they may have inadvertently overstated CO2 sensitivity, sorry, but we meant well. Hence it got published. Of course you did old chap, now, shuffle off through that open door, don’t call us, we will call you. Once they all mumble this, the next published paper goes further, dropping sensitivity even further. Baby steps folks, baby steps.

  89. Jim Cripwell says:

    John, you ask “How do the current models deal with this physical limitation?”

    I cannot answer the question, but one thing I can guarantee for you. If you ask the question on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc, you will get all sorts of answers. none of which I believe are true. Judith usually has an open thread each weekend. Why don’t you come over and try at the end of this week?

  90. Joe Born says:

    John: “As the concentration of CO2 increases you will get diminishing returns as you run out of photons to absorb in that radiation band.”

    Not my bailiwick, but I’m told that the continued (albeit diminishing) reduction in long-wave-infrared escape occurs in the skirts of the rejection bands, where a great deal of concentration is required to result in a small amount of absorption. I.e., it’s true that there are bands at which the first kilometer of atmosphere is already essentially opaque, but there are adjacent bands where the probability of a photon’s traversing the entire atmosphere unmolested remains significant and sensitive to further CO2 concentration.

  91. Jim Cripwell says:

    Steven \Mosher you write “2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero.”

    I agree it cannot be zero, but I fail to understand why it cannot be close to zero, when it is impractical to measure it. All we have are guesses as to what it’s value is.

  92. Fjodor says:

    Mosher – it can be zero, if increased co2 increases the biosphere on both land, Ocean and in the air (spores/pollen, etc), which again changes albedo enough to offset the blackbody response of co2.

    Not enoug Research here, i feel.

  93. Roy

    I appreciate that you have looked into this but I have to say as a trained physicist and a working engineer, I’m actually embarassed by physicists when it comes to Co2 forcing and this dubious concept of Climate Sensitivity.

    Simply put the supposed effect is due to a given power density of 4W/m2 for Co2 doubling heating a surface (in fact, 4W/m2 is directly for water – 70% of the effect according to Jim Hansen)

    So why do we not see characterisation curves for IR heating at 15 microns? Where are all the experiments starting for high power densities down to lower ones showing the heating of water. Where are the curves showing the relationship and the losses, the real effect? HIgher power densities have been tested on milk for making bacteria inactive but no holistic approach appears to have been taken to produce (as far as possible) a forcing curve. A REAL forcing curve, not the idealistic logarithmic emission curve with no corrections for real surfaces in an atmosphere.

    Only when this is done do we start to link the concept of sensitivity to the climate because you have the data and the curves.You don’t work from the system downward. There are too many competing variables.

    This is basic science. Start by looking at the parts then build it up.

    If we as sceptics, keep trying to model the climate and do all this other XBox type stuff then we are just as bad as the theoreticians who have a grip on the current thinking and policy.

    People need to start doing some experiments.

  94. Gail Combs says:

    Joseph Bastardi says: @ November 11, 2013 at 9:49 am

    ….How is this some brilliant finding.

    Its amazing watching knowns, things observed years ago being funded and now somehow coming to light as a brilliant discovery. This is a known among nuts and bolts forecasters that have worked in this field for years.

    Simply amazing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Joe, we here at WUWT have been aware of this for years. And as you said it has been known among nuts and bolts forecasters for many years. Now we have a Pal an actual peer-reviewed paper to stuff in the Warmist’s faces complete with data.

    That it managed to get through peer-review is what is amazing. :>)

  95. Gail Combs says:

    Darn it I did the strike off and it did not work…

  96. Janice Moore says:

    @Gail (re: 2:05pm)… thus proving that such things (whatever the glitch, here) can happen even to the best of us.

  97. Arno Arrak says:

    To bring ENSO in as a cause of warming is nonsense. That multivariate ENSO index they use is a mishmash of empirically chosen variables that follow but do not predict ENSO activity. If you must track ENSO use Nino 3.4 that has a physical meaning. Secondly, ENSO is cyclical and there are equal numbers of both El Nino phases and La Nina phases. The apparent balance may shift if the equatorial counter-current for some reason is blocked,causing an El Nino modoki in mid-ocean, but the rule that there is one La Nina for each El Nino does not change. And then they just babble on about ENSO-related radiative forcing proportional to MEI. That is abject nonsense and should have been sufficient reason for rejecting the paper. In the mix they also use anthropogenic and volcanic forcings, both non-existent phenomena. For an explanation of why there is no volcanic forcing read my book. Anthropogenic forcing does not exist because there is no such thing as greenhouse warming. Its absence is easy to confirm.Today there is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before but there is no warming whatsoever. This has been going on for 15 years and will continue. There was a similar no-warming period of 18 years in the eighties and nineties that official temperature curves covered up with a phony “late twentieth century warming.” But GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC have decided to stop showing that fake warming and aligned their data for that period with satellites. This was done secretly last fall and no explanation was offered. To get the total of no-warming years add this to the current 15 years and you find that there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 33 years. Can anyone believe that greenhouse warming might still have existed more than 33 years ago? Not I. I am just sorry that these guys are so uninformed about climate science despite supposedly being practitioners of this esoteric craft. Not to mention editors who allowed this nonsense go through.

  98. Jim Cripwell says:

    mickyhcorbett75 you write “People need to start doing some experiments.:

    I agree, EXCEPT, it is impossible to do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere. The correct conclusion to come to is that science, physics, cannot tell us what happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels. If the IPCC had been run by people like you and me all those years ago, that is what the conclusion would have been, and all this nonsense would never have happened.

  99. Jim

    I agree that on the Earth’s scale it gets difficult. BUT the proposed forcing effect can be tested. It is simply IR heating of a surface in contact with an atmosphere. I mean I worked in the space industry for almost a decade and you can buy and use solar simulator lamps, that are able to shine a UV-visible spectrum on a spacecraft in a vacuum chamber, in order to test the solar panels and any heating effects. So IR shouldn’t be hard

    Plus like I said scientists in the food industry uses ~1Kw/m2 to heat up milk to kill bacteria so it isn’t like heating water in a controlled way is hard either.

    The problem is that people are thinking too big whilst missing the real details.

  100. Keith says:

    Fancy running a sweepstake on how many hours will pass before the APJAS editor carries out a pre-publication retraction and then resigns in shame at letting this paper nearly get through the gates? Put me down for 48.

  101. JJ says:

    Roy Spencer says:

    As I mention on my blog, others have indeed “known” about this, but we put actual numbers in an energy-conserving model to show that there is more radiant energy coming in during El Nino, about 0.6 W/m2 per unit MEI Index value.

    And you got it published.

    Thanks.

  102. Matthew R Marler says:

    But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.

    It is good to see the cloud cover getting more attention. It would be nice to think that the authors had been reading Willis Eschenbach. Still, this is just another model. If it makes predictions for the future, or other out of sample data, then it can be tested.

    With the Earth surface being warmer now than in 1950, it’s possible that sensitivity to future CO2 is even lower.

  103. milodonharlani says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    November 11, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Thanks for the comparison in your Fig 4 between reconstructed CO2 levels & paleoclimatic proxy temperature observations during the Holocene. Would you attribute the apparent rise in CO2 during the LIA to a lag effect from the oceans heated during the preceding Medieval Warm Period?

  104. Bill Illis says:

    The ENSO affects the global temperature.

    That is the most obviously true statement there is regarding the climate. I mean, other than the Sun heats the Earth, there is no more clear example of a fact that cannot be disputed than that.

    Now why climate science finds it so hard to work with can only be described as deliberate wilful ignorance. Which is the worst thing that can be done in science period.

  105. Matthew R Marler says:

    Joseph Bastardi: How is this some brilliant finding

    It permits a quantitative estimates of the ENSO cloud effects and the purported CO2 effect, and the 9-month lag is new. Whether it is “brilliant” depends on how well the model does against out-of-sample data. And it has been published in the peer-reviewed literature where more graduate students are likely to find it and write about it. Now that it has been publlshed, there is a good chance that it will be elaborated in fairly obvious ways, such as separating N and S hemispheres, adding other known and hypothesized energy flows, and so on.

    Surely you would not object to newer nails being introduced into the market place just because everyone already knows that nails are useful?

  106. ““We get the best fit to the observations when we let clouds cause some of the temperature change. These cloud changes are occurring before the temperature starts to respond, so they can’t be caused by the temperature changes.””

    ==============

    Hmmm, “when we let clouds cause some of the temperature change” — interesting.

    What would happen if you don’t let CO2 do any of the warming?

    Oh yeah, I forgot, nothing gets published at all.

  107. Matthew R Marler says:

    Jim Cripwell: Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

    Like everyone else, Beenstock et al (whose paper prompted me to buy two new books on that statistical technique) may be wrong. Their model is strictly a vector autoregressive model with no energy flows or other physical phenomena that might be in the full causal picture. This model here quantifies for the first time the actual energy flows controlled by the cloudiness changes produced by ENSO. Others, perhaps including Spencer, can go farther now that this has worked as well as it has and has been published. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that one paper is ever going to be so influential as to settle the policy and scientific debates. I think that Spencer and Braswell are to be applauded for taking a good step forward.

  108. John says:

    I’ll give Judith’s blog a try on Friday. Thanks Joe, I’ll take a look at that but not so sure that’s a good explanation as water absorbs a great deal of energy around those wavelengths as well. Which would further diminish the impact of increasing CO2 levels.

  109. Jim Kress says:

    AND, half of a small number is yet a SMALLER number …

  110. Matthew R Marler says:

    Steven Mosher: a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts

    That depends on assumptions, and even then requires a derivation rather than a bald assertion. And the time scale matters: if the response of the surface to a doubling of CO2 is fast, then TCS of the surface is the ECS of the surface (thereabouts), and if the response of the deeper ocean requires another 1,000 years to be nearly complete, the entire public policy debate is changed. The history of the climate is a series of transients, and the concept of the “equilibrium” has never been shown to be pertinent to a system that can’t have an equilibrium.

  111. Matthew R Marler says:

    Steven Mosher: 2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero

    It depends on the state of the climate at the time that CO2 concentration is rising. Starting where the climate is now, it is possible that doubling the concentration from 400 to 800 will have no net effect on global mean temperature.

  112. FrankK says:

    Without wanting to sound too critical but a 40 layer one dimensional model mmmmm! That will assume a constant effect over the entire three dimensional globe or at a minimum over the region or zone that ENSO is operating which seems a stretch given the model’s limited dimensionality. Or am I missing something (not saying ENSO does not have an effect)? But has the model been verified and validated or is this another tongue-in-cheek simulation.? Can’t say I’m overwhelmed by the results or conclusion. Not all that convincing at present it just seems to want to confirm the IPCC that sensitivity is less than previously thought.

    But like someone said “baby steps”. Next step change it to two dimensions and then maybe 3D. There you are – plenty of future work for attracting additional grants Dr Spencer.

  113. tomwys says:

    Jim Cripwell says:
    November 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    “… The correct conclusion to come to is that science, physics, cannot tell us what happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels.”

    Not quite, Jim! For the last 17 years, CO2 has been added to our atmosphere, from 360 to 400 ppm. Insofar as global atmospheric temperature is concerned, the answer is quite clear, and I can tell you EXACTLY what happened: Nothing!!!

    On another tack, check out the cumulative Snow Cover Extent (SCE) as well as cloud cover. For the past few years, Asia has led the record books, and snow/ice cover reflects incoming sunlight at wavelengths that CO2 does not, and cannot, re-radiate. Thus that energy is lost to the planet, and atmospheric temperatures react accordingly.

    Put more floating ice into the southern ocean (2 record years in a row) and you cover absorbing water, even at shallow angles (when the Sun returns) with albedo – same result as above.

    Needed: More Meteorologists and fewer climate pundits!!!

  114. Gary Meyers says:

    @John, Here is a good graph for you to ponder.
    http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3677.html#pid3677

  115. climatologist says:

    But models are notoriously unreliable, aren’t they?vanloonha@yahoo.com

  116. Mac the Knife says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    You noted “What we found is, to explain the satellite data we had to invoke a change in clouds nine months before the peak of either an El Niño or a La Niña,” Spencer said. “When the clouds change, it takes time for that to translate into a temperature change.”

    Is the 9 month gestation the .pregnant pause of climate change, before the next ‘child’ is arrives?
    MtK

  117. Brett Keane says:

    Many thanks, S and B. This is another big step back towards sanity. Brett Keane, NZ

  118. GlynnMhor says:

    1.3 degrees per doubling is very close to the calculable sensitivity of 1.23 degrees.

    http://climatephys.org/2012/06/28/climate-sensitivity-and-the-linearized-response/

  119. John says:

    Thanks Gary, looks like there is enough carbon dioxide up there right now to scavenge most of the available photons in the CO2 bands. I suppose a spectral analysis from space of the Earth would confirm if that is the case….

  120. Implicit in the argument that is made by the authors of this paper is the assumption that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is a constant. This assumption is, however, neither proved nor provable. In view of its non-provability, TECS does not exist as a scientific concept.

  121. Doc Snow says:

    Dunno where the idea comes from that “General circulation climate models — such as those used to forecast global climate change — do not reproduce the tendency toward 30 year periods of stronger El Niño or La Niña activity, as are seen in nature.”

    They do–and other ones, too, which may or may not be seen in nature. See, for instance, this paper:

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/atw0901.pdf

  122. Ulric Lyons says:

    Roy Spencer says:
    “Ulric, that’s the point of the study….to examine the cumulative effects of ENSO during the ~30 yr periods when either El Nino or La Nina are stronger.”

    Your:
    “A natural shift to stronger warm El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years,”

    seems counter-intuitive to me, as El Nino episodes discharge upper OHC and La Nina episodes recharge upper OHC. From the recharges would should see the OHC do step up changes most strongly from 1976, 1989/90 and 2001/02, i.e. following stronger/longer Nina episodes, and to lesser degree from 1986:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears_1971-2000_climo.shtml
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-1D-model-Fig-51.jpg

    And seen from a solar forcing perspective, El Nino episodes are a response to a weaker solar output, which reinforces the evidence that Nino episodes are times of net heat loss so cumulative effects would be negative. 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Nino episodes: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg

  123. mickyhcorbett75 says on November 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm:

    “Roy
    If we as sceptics, keep trying to model the climate and do all this other XBox type stuff then we are just as bad as the theoreticians who have a grip on the current thinking and policy.
    People need to start doing some experiments.”

    = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Yes, mickyhcorbett75, If only – if only people would understand how. They all seem to feel it necessary to involve the ‘so called’ greenhouse gas (GHG) CO2. – However that is not necessary, at all, because the global warming theory (GWT) according to “The Kiehl & Trenberth energy budget plan 1997” (and later editions) 324 Watts per square meter (W/m²) of “Back Radiation” is being absorbed by the ‘surface’.
    Well then, as you and I and indeed all (or most) human beings have a body temperature (T) of around 37º C which is well above twice that of the ‘average’ surface temperature (ST), which is said to be ± 15º C. – And, furthermore, as I do believe that as long as we have a temperature that is above that of 0 K, we all must emit IR radiation accordingly. Furthermore it is reasonable to assume that the walls that hold up the ceiling above your head are also capable of absorbing IR radiation as they (the walls) will probably be made up from some kind of “surface material”.

    If you possess one of these newfangled IR – non contact – thermometers, which by the way are very accurate down to 0.1 or 0.2º C, then now is the time to use it to measure the T of any one of the four walls of your own choosing. – Is T, say between 22.4 to 22.5º C? Well, whatever it is, do invite someone else into the room, the spouse perhaps – oh you may as well invite a couple of friends and neighbors in too. – Ah, if you get too eager and invite more than just a few people, don’t forget to keep a check on the ‘T Ceiling’ (TC) as well as on ‘T Wall’ (TW) as convection from many bodies may make it warmer up there.

    If you find that the walls do get warmer from “body IR radiation”, it may be necessary to do a “check experiment” against an outside wall, please let me know as it will be time for me to eat my hat.

  124. Dave says:

    Thank you Dr.s Spencer and Braswell for your persistence through peer review to publication of your research.

  125. John says:

    Glynn,

    Those equations don’t take into account the limited spectral response of Co2.

  126. Doc Snow says:

    “If you find that the walls do get warmer from “body IR radiation”…”

    Maybe you should get your spouse to selectively remove/add clothing while checking T(spouse) with IR thermometer?

    Pretty sure removal will raise T(sp)–as measured, of course, not necessarily as he/she experiences it–while the addition of clothing will lower T(sp), since the radiated IR will be greater in the former case–I have the impression that the surface of clothing is generally cooler than the temperature of the underlying skin, so by Boltzmann’s law it should radiate less…

    Just sayin’. ;-)

  127. RoHa says:

    @ Col Mosby

    The Clean Air Act was passed by Parliament in 1956. Seems a long pause between that and the 1980 warming.

  128. Bill Marsh says:

    “Secondly, ENSO is cyclical and there are equal numbers of both El Nino phases and La Nina phases. ”

    I don’t believe this is an accurate statement. There have been more La Nina events in the last ten years than El Nino, for example.

  129. RoHa says:

    Hmmmn. Another model. Maybe it’s OK, but I’ll stick to my belief in the Weather Gods for now.

  130. HanSolo says:

    Is the 1.3C equilibrium or not? In Spencer’s blog he says that Case I (2.2C) is equilibrium so I assume Cases II and III are also. Mosher says it’s the TCR and not the ECS. Can anyone clarify?

  131. JJ says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.

    a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts

    Roy Spencer says:

    The first case (CASE I) uses only the RCP radiative forcings (also used by the latest crop of IPCC climate models) to see if we get about the same climate sensitivity as those models get (under the VERY important assumption that those are the ONLY forcings causing warming since the 1950s)… In that case we get about 2.2 deg. C of equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, somewhat below the average of the IPCC models.

    Emphasis mine.

    The balance of Roy’s description of Roy’s paper steps that down to 2.0C for CASEII, and 1.3C for CASEIII, all ECS, not TCR.

    A 1.3 ECS translates into a 1.3 ECS … thereabouts.

  132. hswiseman says:

    Roy Spencer versus Mark Hertsgaard on CNN Tonight discussing Haiyan..talk about casting your pearls before swine.

  133. SAMURAI says:

    Looking at historic PDO cycles, the correlation between Global Warming cycles/Warm PDO cycles and Global Cooling/Cool PDO cycles is quite robust.

    The two major 20th century warming cycles 1910~1945 and 1978~1998 took place during Warm PDO phases, and the 1945~1977 global cooling phase corresponds precisely to a cool PDO cycle.

    The current PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in July 2008 and from 2009, the UAH cooling trend is -0.37C/decade. Obviously this short time period is much too short for statistical significance, but the lack of warming for the the past 17 years shows that something is seriously wrong with CAGW assumptions, especially in light of 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 emitted over the past 17 years with NO tropospheric warming and FALLING temperature trends for HADCRUT4 since 2001. Nothing is adding up for the CAGW theory.

    If you combine PDO phases and solar activity cycles, it becomes apparent that CO2′s contribution to total global warming is much less model assumptions. if the weak solar phase is also calculated into the mix, with a good chance for a Grand Solar Minimum cycle starting from 2020, there is an excellent chance global temperatures could very well fall for the next 70 years.

    I think Lindzen’s calculation of CO2 climate sensitivity being around 0.6~0.7C is going to be the most accurate projection, which begs the question, why is CAGW still being taken seriously?

    Why indeed…..

    And so it goes…..until liberty and reason are restored…..

  134. Werner Brozek says:

    hswiseman says:
    November 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    Roy Spencer versus Mark Hertsgaard on CNN Tonight discussing Haiyan..talk about casting your pearls before swine.

    Here it is. (3 minutes) I found it a bit frustrating to watch.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/11/12/exp-pmt-roy-spencer-mark-hertsgaard-climate-debate.cnn.html

  135. HanSolo says:

    Hertsgaard is an utter shyster.

  136. hswiseman says:

    If Dr. Spencer thought the paper would function as some type of olive branch to the AGW crowd, his interaction tonight on CNN with the skank-pie Mark Hertzgaard from The Nation should rapidly disabuse him of the notion. Hertzgaard considered the mere presence of Dr. Spencer on television as “journalistic malpractice”. A knock on the door in the middle of the night followed by a beating and a long car ride is only a matter of time if Hertzgaard had his druthers.

  137. milodonharlani says:

    In the brave new world of thought control, speaking the truth is journalistic malpractice. Accepting the 97% lie at face value was a mistake, IMO, except perhaps Dr. Spencer feels that the questions asked in the bogus survey to gin up fake consensus were so uncontroversial that he had to go along with the results, however obviously disingenuously polemical.

  138. Leonard Lane says:

    After going through all this, I am swayed that Joe Bastardi, Chad Wozniak, and thisisnotgoodtogo
    are correct.

  139. Smoking Frog says:

    milodonharlani says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:08 am
    For purposes of CACA debate, “climate sensitivity”, whatever its value may be, applies only to the doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. As so often noted here, the response in global temperature to CO2 concentration is logarithmic, so that most of the warming occurs in the first 100 ppm or less. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Lindzen says, adding more molecules is like painting a wall white, which doesn’t get much whiter with each new coat. Most of the effect occurs in the first one or two coats. So the next doubling to 1120 ppm would have negligible effect.

    That’s incoherent. If the response is logarithmic, it should be the same for each doubling, but you seem to be saying that the response is only logarithmic up to the doubling 280->560, after which it is negligible.

  140. Like the IPCC models I’d be happier with these claims, if the simulation had started at the beginning i.e 1910.By omitting the period to 1940, the simulation avoided explaining the o.5C rise 1910-1940. This was a permanent rise which had to be accounted for for the rest of the century and took 30 years to resurface through the transport delay of the oceans and caused the 1970-1997 rise.

  141. Stephen Richards says:

    Joseph Bastardi says:

    November 11, 2013 at 9:49 am

    It isn’t Joe. Roy has been leaning further and further to the AGW side of the argument over recent years. I wonder why ?

  142. milodonharlani says:

    Smoking Frog says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    That’s not what I’m saying at all.

    It’s logarithmic all the way. The vast majority of warming occurs in the first 100 ppm. Each doubling after has progressively less effect, but is already so small as to be negligible.

  143. steveta_uk says:

    Alexander Biggs, on Dr. Spencer’s own blog, he stated this:

    (Although not in the paper, we also found that the model explains the warming before 1940 as a response to stronger El Nino activity back then, as well as the slight cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s from stronger La Nina activity).

  144. Smoking Frog says:

    milodonharlani says:
    November 12, 2013 at 12:05 am
    That’s not what I’m saying at all. It’s logarithmic all the way. The vast majority of warming occurs in the first 100 ppm. Each doubling after has progressively less effect, but is already so small as to be negligible.

    “It’s logarithmic all the way” contradicts “Each doubling has progressively less effect.”

  145. richardscourtney says:

    Roy Spencer:

    Congratulations on your achievement at getting this paper published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. That achievement is another indication of the slow fading away of the AGW-scare.

    The publication of your paper is an important step forward (in terms of ‘back to the future’) in the process of returning climate science to study of climate behaviour and away from the assumption that atmospheric CO2 is the “control knob” of climate behaviour.

    I write to support the post of anthonyvioli (at November 11, 2013 at 12:25 pm) who thanks and congratulates you for your explanatory post at November 11, 2013 at 11:47 am. It makes the point I would have made were it not that you posted it yourself saying

    …and we don’t claim this study gets “the answer”. As others have suggested, it might well be there are other climate forcings we have not included. We just examined how inclduing ENSO as a pseudo-forcing reduces estimated future warming by 50%.

    Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ??? ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.

    Indeed so. As you say, the important points are
    1.
    Your attribution of “ENSO as a pseudo-forcing” reduces the possible attribution of atmospheric GHG forcing by about half to a new value of about 1.3°C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
    2.
    And if other effects (e.g. AMO, indirect solar) can also be attributed then it is reasonable to suppose that there is probably additional reduction to the possible attribution of atmospheric GHG forcing.

    Assuming those other effects provide a further halving of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) then the result would be an ECS of less than 1.0°C from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This would agree with empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations which indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    And, importantly, if climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because natural climate variability (e.g. from ocean thermal transport) is much larger. When something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    Richard

  146. Brian H says:

    Interesting that the CO2 lag after SST change is also nine months. Twice is coincidence, three times is a trend/enemy action.

  147. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jürgen Michele says:

    It is correct:
    Rising moist air may initiate a tornado or a tropical storm, if the surrounding is “ready” (high moisture in the surrounding air )for it.
    See Alamaro:
    http://web.mit.edu/alamaro/www/WMA_April_2006.pdf
    Alamaro, M., Michele, J., Pudov, V.: “A Preliminary Assessment of Inducing Anthropogenic Tropical Cyclones Using Compressible Free Jets and the Potential for Hurricane Mitigation,” Journal of Weather Modification, Vol. 38, P. 82-96, 2006.

  148. Ian Wilson says:

    Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Are Global Mean Temperatures
    Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric
    Tides? Energy & Environment, Vol 24,
    No. 3 & 4, pp. 497 – 508

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/?p=e4bc1fd3b6e14fd8ab83a6df24c8a72d&pi=11

    Wilson and Sidorenkov find that there are four extended pressure features in the summer MSLP anomaly maps that are centred between 30 and 50 degrees S and separated from each other by approximately 90 degrees in longitude. In addition, they show that, over the period from 1947 to 1994, these patterns drift westward in longitude at rates that produce circumnavigation times that match the 18.6 year lunar Draconic cycle. These type of pressure anomaly pattern naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure that pass over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years. These moving regions of higher/lower than normal atmospheric pressure increase/decrease the MSLP of the semi-permanent high pressure system, temporarily increasing/reducing the strength of the East-Pacific trade winds. This leads to conditions that preferentially favor the onset of La Niña /El Niño events that last for approximately 30 years. Wilson and Sidorenkov find that the pressure of the moving anomaly pattern changes in such a way as to favor La Niña over El Niño events between 1947 and 1970 and favor El Niño over La Niña events between 1971 and 1994. This is in agreement with the observed evolution of the El Niño/ La Niña events during the latter part of the 20th century. They speculate that the transition of the pattern from a positive to a negative pressure anomaly follows a 31/62/93/186 year lunar tidal cycle that results from the long-term interaction between the Perigee-Syzygy and Draconic lunar tidal cycles.

  149. Ulric Lyons says:

    Roy Spencer says:

    “Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ???”

    What about the direct solar effects that drive ENSO?
    http://snag.gy/nf9SK.jpg

  150. JJ says:

    Chad Wozniak says:

    I’m with Joe Bastardi and Jimbo on this – and not only unremarkable, but an apparent concession to some of the false claims of CO2 sensitivity put forth by the alarmists.

    What a stupid thing to say about a paper that caps CO2 sensitivity at ~25% of alarmist claims, and shows the path toward lowering that cap further.

    Stephen Richards says:

    It isn’t Joe. Roy has been leaning further and further to the AGW side of the argument over recent years. I wonder why

    My guess would be that it has something to do with what you’re smoking.

    This post should be stickied up top. Far too important to be buried so quickly.

  151. beng says:

    ***
    Steven Mosher says:
    November 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.

    a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts
    ***

    Mosh, the transient effects of any GHG are immediate (a couple days). The added “heat” can’t be stored in land OR water — LW from GHGs can’t get past the surface significantly. Obviously there is a TCR & ECS for SW forcings on earth’s climate (albedo, clouds), but only solar SW can penetrate the ocean & be “stored”.

    Yes, I’ve read about “ocean diffusivity” in the basic calculations, but that smacks me of the myriad of other tuned, vaguely determined parameters, like aerosol or cloud effects.

  152. JohnWho says:

    milodonharlani says:

    November 12, 2013 at 12:05 am

    Smoking Frog says:
    November 11, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    That’s not what I’m saying at all.

    It’s logarithmic all the way. The vast majority of warming occurs in the first 100 ppm. Each doubling after has progressively less effect, but is already so small as to be negligible.

    If logarithmic “all the way”, then there is never a time when additional CO2 doesn’t have some effect, even as it gets extremely minor. Well, all the way until we have a pure 100% CO2 atmosphere.

    I originally asked the question because I am under the impression that this concept discusses CO2 in a “pure state” with no other gasses also absorbing IR radiation. With the other gasses present in our atmosphere, there is only so much radiation left for CO2 and there is a point where it absorbs all it can: a “saturation” point. Are we close to that or am I under a misunderstanding?

  153. JJ says:

    beng says:

    Mosh, the transient effects of any GHG are immediate (a couple days).

    You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

  154. John Whitman says:

    Roy Spencer on November 11, 2013 at 10:10 am

    “. . .

    AND to get it published is no small task, given today’s peer review bias.”

    - – - – - – - -

    Roy Spencer,

    Congratulations on the publication of the research.

    For the benefit of those who wish to understand and work to correct gate keeping / bias in peer review, a synopsis of the story of the ‘no small task’ it took to publish your research is just as important as the research itself . . . maybe more important.

    Please tell us what you can about the experience of getting the paper published. It might inspire others who might be discouraged.

    John

  155. Don Easterbrook says:

    So the bottom line here is that doubling of atmospheric CO2 will CAUSE a global temperature increase of 1.3 C (~ 2.34° F), i.e. CO2 will precede warmer temperature. Although I’m a big fan of Roy, I’m not a big fan of models proving much of anything in the real world. Models do what you tell them to do, so their results must be confirmed by real world data. When I look for cause-and-effect relationships in data over geologic time, I see a total lack of correlation of CO2 and temperature. That doesn’t mean CO2 has no effect at all, but it does mean that it is so small as to be insignificant relative to what is really driving climatic changes. All you have to do is look at temperature changes at almost any time scale, years, centuries, millennia and you will see that CO2 is not really a significant factor at all. I’ve published many such examples (just Bing or Google my name and you will find more than you want to know) so I won’t repeat them here. The point is that the magnitude of temperature changes in the geologic past is so many times greater than could possibly be caused by CO2 and the rates of temperature change are so rapid that trying to attribute much of anything to CO2 seems pointless. It’s much like attributing the behavior of an elephant to a flea riding on its back.
    But what if you double CO2? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny (~0.039%) and its effect so small (~3.5%) it’s almost as good as doubling nothing—you still end up with nothing (the total change of CO2 in atmospheric composition is 0.009%). And trying to lever it by putting in a big water vapor factor doesn’t work because water vapor hasn’t increased since 1947 when CO2 emissions began to soar.
    Try correlating any measureable change in temperature with CO2 just in the past century and you will see temperatures rising just as fast from 1915 to ~1945 without significant rise in CO2 as temperature rising from 1978 to 1998 when CO2 was increasing. And, of course, if you try relating CO2 rise from 1945 to 1977 with temperature, you get a negative correlation, i.e. temperatures went down while CO2 was rising. If you look at the sudden 1977 transition from cool to warming temperatures, it happened in a single year, not slowly with rising CO2. The same is true for more than 40 periods of warming and cooling since 1500 AD as seen in Greenland ice cores. So regardless of any theoretical warming effect of CO2, it is so small as to be totally overwhelmed by natural causes and therefore not really a relevant factor in climate change.
    So what has Roy’s model told us about CO2 and global warming? Can the model results be confirmed by real time data? Does it have any impact on the cause of global climate change? As much as I admire Roy and his work, I’m afraid that the geologic record of many, many temperature changes far greater than anything possibly caused by CO2 conclusively shows that CO2 is not a relevant factor in climate change.

  156. JohnWho says:

    @ Don Easterbrook

    From Dr. Spencer: “…we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2.”

    Does this mean that 1.3 C is directly attributed to CO2 or that that is the maximum left over that could be attributed to CO2 and as we add other factors it will progressively decrease?

    If “could be”, then he is moving the goal post closer to your “CO2 is not a relevant factor in climate change” comment.

    Just wondering out loud.

  157. Don Easterbrook You are exactly right . The problem is that the academic community and IPCC and the politicians are locked into thinking about climate from the viewpoint or output of models – built with the assumption that we know the physical mechanisms controlling climate and that CO2 is the main driver. Unfortunately most of the posts on this thread even from those who are anti the AGW paradigm are still approaching the climate question from the same physical mechanism mindset – they simply think that they can build a better model with lower CO2 sensitivity..The modeling approach is not only wrong because the models are structured incorrectly but inherently useless because the initial conditions cannot be quantified precisely enough to produce useful believable outcomes
    The discussion needs to move to other more empirical forecasting paradigms along the lines of yourself ,Scafetta or that of my cooling forecast at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    ,

  158. Ulric Lyons says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    “The discussion needs to move to other more empirical forecasting paradigms along the lines of yourself ,Scafetta”

    Scafetta’s forecast includes 40-50% CO2 forcing and is hypothetical not empirical.

  159. I refer to Scafetta’s as empirical because he starts off with a power spectrum analysis of the data to see what quasi cycles are actually there. If he extended his analysis to include a millennial cycle the amount of forcing due to CO2 would more or less evaporate. He is a full time academic and like
    Spencer and everyone else in academia he would have difficulty getting published if he carried his approach to its logical conclusion. The way science is structured and funded these days -in many fields ,not only in climate science ,it is difficult to do anything other than to make marginal changes to the current consensus paradigm. As I said in the link above.
    “The entire vast UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National economies is a prime example of the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961 he said :
    “In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. “

  160. milodonharlani says:

    JohnWho says:
    November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am

    The effect may already have become so minor as to be swamped by H2O in most environments, such as the moist tropics. The logarithmic effect becomes effectively negligible at some point, possibly already reached, except perhaps in very arid environments such as the poles. In any case, sinks sooner or later will absorb the one, two or three molecules per 10,000 in dry air added to the previous one, two or three by increased T or human activity.

    However some scientists seem to think that extremely high levels of CO2 (~10%) do have an effect, as that’s one hypothesis for the end of Snowball Earth episodes. IMO, climate science needs more realistic experimentation & unbiased observation & fewer GIGO models.

  161. Ulric Lyons says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    “If he extended his analysis to include a millennial cycle the amount of forcing due to CO2 would more or less evaporate.”

    Well not really, unless you expect a millennial cycle to only poke it’s nose up in the last quarter of the last century. He had not been able to model all of the recent warming, justifying a large CO2 forcing component, which unfortunately puts a strong warm bias on the forecast.

  162. Not so – the general warming trend from the LIA including much of the 20th century warming is due to the millennial cycle – see Figs 3 and 4 on the last post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  163. Ulric Lyons says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    “the general warming trend from the LIA including much of the 20th century warming is due to the millennial cycle”

    That is illusory, there is no trend on CET from say 1730 to 1930: http://snag.gy/2q2kT.jpg
    the bulk of the warming is from 1988 onwards. Fig 4 in your post needs to be thought about first, for example the warm spike at 3300-3200 BP is a very cold period in the temperate zone, and 4800-4400 BP was a very warm period in the temperate zone, so the warm peak on your Fig 3 has been derived from a Greenland proxy, which is inverse to the temperate zone. After all the only two time that the River Nile froze in the last two thousand years was in 829 and 1010 AD.

  164. My post says
    ” A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
    I believe this to be the case The Christiansen proxy set has a good arealspread of different types of NH proxy data ( Check the original, ) The Fig 4 is important to show the millennial timing of the latest 2 or 3 cycles – the most recent are the most likely to be currently relevant to the next 1000 years.

  165. milodonharlani says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    November 12, 2013 at 11:34 am

    At the risk of sounding like a Warmunisto who says all weather & climate events are consistent with CACA & expected, even if completely opposite to prior predictions or projections, IMO the Nile freezing in 829 & 1010, ie during the first phase of the Medieval Warm Period, fits. These dates & other observations in the region “indicate the Azores anti-cyclone extending regularly into central Europe even in winter, thereby drawing north-easterlies across Egypt” (Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change, 1998, edited by Issar & Brown).

  166. If you look at Fig 3 you will see that the variability about the moving average is very considerable. note e.g the sharp cold snap in the early 9th century close to the date you refer to,
    I use figs 3 and 4 for forecasting the general trends. The decadal forecasts are based on reversing the trends of the last century and the neutron count data as representing solar activity trends.
    Substantial Annual anomalies may well occur at any time due to Enso events and volcanic eruptions.

  167. Ulric Lyons

    I clearly showed the long slow thaw in my article of the same name when I reconstructed CET from 1538 to its instrumental start in 1659.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    The 1730 start date is from outside the main period of the LIA and was an extraordinarily warm decade on a par with the 1990′s according to Phil Jones.

    tonyb

  168. Ulric Lyons says:

    Dr Norman Page:

    That warm spike around 1000 AD in the Greenland ice core proxy is the inverse to what the temperate zone was doing. If you look carefully you will see we are roughly at a level with ~4600yrs ago, a period of similar warmth in the temperate zone, and also a period of rapid cultural expansion.

  169. Ulric Lyons says:

    climatereason:

    How about CET 1706 to 1987 then: http://snag.gy/UehSu.jpg

  170. Tonyb says:

    Ulric Lyons

    I must point out that my iPad automatically changed your first name to “uptick!”. No wonder, as do I detect a slight upwards trend?

    1706 was still within the remarkable warming period. Start it during the real lia which was 1690 decade and see where it goes

    However I just made the comment on the spencer temperature trend thread that the current cet anomaly is exactly the same in 2013 at plus 0.3 c as the satellite record today, thereby showing a 0.3 c warming over the 240 years of the 1772 Hadley cet record.

    Cet has lost virtually all the gain made during the 1980/90 period. It’s not exactly scary if you can look back far enough
    Tonb

  171. Russ R. says:

    ““Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we’ve seen since the 1950s,” said Dr. Roy Spencer”

    Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone tells me that the results of a computer model conclusively demonstrate something they’ve been arguing for years.

  172. Check the Christiansen paper Fig1 and Table 1 linked earlier. The data he uses has a good spread over much of the NH .The peak at 1000 is therefore well documented for the NH

  173. james griffin says:

    As the planet has been cooling for around 10,000 years and this and several other Holocene’s have all had temperatures warmer than today it s amazing that we have got this far with the AGW nonsense. Remember a few things…there has never been a warming of the Troposphere, climate models are biased towards warming…..and CO2′s ability to create heat is logarithmic so it cannot overheat the planet.

  174. Ulric Lyons says:

    Tonyb says:
    “Start it during the real lia which was 1690 decade and see where it goes.”

    Yes it warms rapidly, then stays flat for centuries. I don’t buy the idea of a long slow thaw through CET. I also don’t buy Mann’s CET reconstruction for the 1200′s either:
    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/6.jpg

    That has come from the wrong interpretation of Greenland and Baffin Island cores:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577

  175. Ulric Lyons says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    “Check the Christiansen paper..”

    Yes lots of polar locations, and check Fig 3 for non polar locations, there’s some with cooling around 1000 AD.

  176. John Whitman says:

    Don Easterbrook on November 12, 2013 at 7:21 am

    ” . . . So what has Roy’s model told us about CO2 and global warming? Can the model results be confirmed by real time data? Does it have any impact on the cause of global climate change? As much as I admire Roy and his work, I’m afraid that the geologic record of many, many temperature changes far greater than anything possibly caused by CO2 conclusively shows that CO2 is not a relevant factor in climate change.”

    - – - – - – - -

    Don Easterbrook,

    You have provided a view toward a critical deficiency in the model.

    The prior geological knowledge (on all of its timescales) that should be a necessary basis for the model (its priors) appears to be lacking. Therefore it is reasonable to think the model does not have sufficient available knowledge as its grounds.

    John

  177. Don Easterbrook says:

    RE the CET (Central England Temp) record.

    The CET record from 1650-2013 is indeed remarkable. Virtually every known warm/cool period shows up very nicely if you expand the vertical scale a bit so you can see the variable temps. In a nutshell, here is what it records:
    1650-1700 Maunder Minimum cooling
    1700-1735 Warming
    1735-1770 Cooling
    1770-1780 Warming
    1780-1820 Dalton Minimum cooling
    1820-1835 Warming
    1835-1845 Cooling
    1845-1875 Warming
    1875-1895 Cooling
    1895-1900 Warming
    1900-1920 Flat
    1920-1950 Warming
    1950-1975 Cooling
    1975-2005 Warming
    2005-2013 Cooling

    All of these warm/cool periods are well known from other records.

  178. Ulric Lyons says:

    Don Easterbrook says:
    “RE the CET (Central England Temp) record.
    All of these warm/cool periods are well known from other records.”

    See how many of those warming and cooling periods are the inverse of what Greenland was doing:
    http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
    Use the actual figures for more precision would help:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

  179. Ulric

    Perhaps I am reading your comments out of context. What is the point you wish to make about CET and about Greenland?

    Tonyb

  180. Ken Gregory says:

    Roy Spencer writes;

    In that case [Case 1] we get about 2.2 deg. C of equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, somewhat below the average of the IPCC models.

    The first few columns of Table 9.5 from AR5 here;
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanESM/Table9.5_AR5.jpg
    shows the mean equilibrium climate sensitivity for double CO2 of the 30 climate models evaluated by the IPCC is 3.2 deg. Celsius.

    Well, 2.2 C is only 69% of the model mean of 3.2 C. I would say that is a lot below, not “somewhat below”, the average of the IPCC models.

    All the senior IPCC scientists are adamant that cloud cover can only change in response to a temperature change, that is, they only changes as a feedback response. This paper shows that clouds change before a temperature change, so act as a forcing agent. This is an extremely important result.

    The ENSO process causes clouds to change, causing a temperature change.

  181. Ulric Lyons says:

    climatereason says:
    “Perhaps I am reading your comments out of context. What is the point you wish to make about CET and about Greenland?”

    In this instance the chronology of the MWP, was it Crispin Tickell who chose to use the warm period in Greenland as a direct proxy for Central England from 1195 to 1375? I’m sure I saw somewhere that Lamb noted a cooler period for England starting from around 1200.

  182. milodonharlani says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    November 12, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Based upon the chronicles, I’d say the 1250s started to show signs of climatic deterioration. The early 1300s were also bad, but there were still warm decades mixed in during the waning century-plus of the Medieval Warm Period.

    Every centuries-long “warm” & “cold” “period” naturally has counter-trend fluctuations annually & by decade. But the depths & peaks in the LIA or Dark Ages Cold Periods are cooler than those in the Roman, Medieval or Modern Warm Periods. Climatic parameters change constantly naturally, fluctuating annually & by decade, which is weather, & by the averages of decades, centuries, millennia & longer intervals & over various regions, which is climate.

  183. Gail Combs says:

    JohnWho says: @ November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am
    It’s logarithmic all the way…..

    I originally asked the question because I am under the impression that this concept discusses CO2 in a “pure state” with no other gasses also absorbing IR radiation. With the other gasses present in our atmosphere, there is only so much radiation left for CO2 and there is a point where it absorbs all it can: a “saturation” point.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Math models can be used to describe physical responses over a limited range.

    On Saturation Point: Support for the saturated greenhouse effect… “…a new paper that supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect…. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature…. “

  184. tonyb says:

    Ulric Lyons

    I am currently engaged in reconstructing CET from 1659 to 1086 and am presently at 1538. Obviously it gets much more difficult as I go further back in time. I definitely agree with the CET cooling around 1200 which lasted sporadically for some time, although we can then pick up again on warming during much of the 1300′s, then probable cooling towards the end of the 14th century but then renewed warmth again.

    As has been noted elsewhere, warm periods such as the MWP can be punctuated by frequent downturns and similarly the LIA is punctuated by many upturns (such as the 1700 to 1740 period.)

    Dr Mann’s chronology appears incorrect which is why I try to compare His and Lambs reconstructions in my article.

    tonyb

  185. Smoking Frog says:

    JohnWho says:
    November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am
    If logarithmic “all the way”, then there is never a time when additional CO2 doesn’t have some effect, even as it gets extremely minor. Well, all the way until we have a pure 100% CO2 atmosphere. I originally asked the question because I am under the impression that this concept discusses CO2 in a “pure state” with no other gasses also absorbing IR radiation. With the other gasses present in our atmosphere, there is only so much radiation left for CO2 and there is a point where it absorbs all it can: a “saturation” point. Are we close to that or am I under a misunderstanding?

    The only misunderstanding I’ve talked about or really can talk about is the idea that if the response is logarithmic, this means that “each doubling has progressively less effect.” It’s not true. With logarithmic response, each doubling has the same effect, because:

    log(2x/x) = log(4x/2x), i.e., log(2) = log(2)

    What’s true is that each increase of the same size has progressively less effect. For example, 560->840 has a smaller effect than 280->560 (note that 840-560=280).

  186. Smoking Frog says:

    Oops. looks like I didn’t terminate the boldface. Just testing now to see how this message appears. If it appears in boldface, I apologize.

  187. Ulric Lyons says:

    tonyb:

    Mann’s error was in saying that the Arctic and the north temperate zone temperatures move in unison. Unfortunately this false model has infected the whole of contemporary climate science.

    And I would like to thank you for the vital work you are doing in collating historical records to allow greater accessibility to our weather history, it often only takes one, well done.

  188. JohnWho says:

    @ All who have responded to my post of November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am -

    Thanks you for your responses.

    I am getting the feeling that there is a consensus (hate to use that word) that there is a “saturation point” regarding atmospheric CO2 although the exact amount of CO2 that reaches the saturation point remains under discussion. 400 ppm may well be beyond that point, however.

    In a perfectly stable, nitrogen and CO2 only example, the logarithmic numbers would hold true up to 100% CO2. However, in an ever-changing, turbulent, chaotic environment such as the Earth’s atmosphere which also includes water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, we might not come even close to the mathematically computed model CO2 warming.

    Am I getting, uh, warmer?

    :)

  189. I would just remind everyone again that the IPCC have given up on estimating CO2 climate sensitivity
    By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
    “The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
    In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
    The whole idea of climate sensitivity to CO2 is illogical because CO2 follows temperature. – it is like trying to calculate the sensitivity of the sun to the tan.

Comments are closed.