By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry just published a blockbuster paper that pegs the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average surface temperature is expected to rise in association with a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration—at 1.64°C (1.05°C to 4.05°C, 90% range), a value that is nearly half of the number underpinning all of President Obama’s executive actions under his Climate Action Plan.This finding will not stop the President and the EPA from imposing more limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels. A wealth of similar findings have appeared in the scientific literature beginning in 2011 (see below) and they, too, have failed to dissuade him from his legacy mission.
The publication of the Lewis and Curry paper, along with another by Ragnhild Skeie and colleagues, brings the number of recent low-sensitivity climate publications to 14, by 42 authors from around the world (this doesn’t count our 2002 paper on the topic, “Revised 21st Century Temperature Projections”). Most of these sensitivities are a good 40% below the average climate sensitivity of the models used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Lewis and Curry arrive at their lower equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate by using updated compilations of the earth’s observed temperature change, oceanic heat uptake, and the magnitude of human emissions, some of which should cause warming (e.g., greenhouse gases), while the others should cool (e.g., sulfate aerosols). They try to factor out “natural variability.” By comparing values of these parameters from the mid-19 century to now, they can estimate how much the earth warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions.
The estimate is not perfect, as there are plenty of uncertainties, some of which may never be completely resolved. But, nevertheless, Lewis and Curry have generated a very robust observation-based estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
For those interested in the technical details, and a much more thorough description of the research, author Nic Lewis takes you through the paper (here) has made a pre-print copy of the paper freely available (here).
In the chart below, we’ve added the primary findings of Lewis and Curry as well as those of Skeie et al. to the collection of 12 other low-sensitivity papers published since 2010 that conclude that the best estimate for the earth’s climate sensitivity lies below the IPCC estimates. We’ve also included in our Figure both the IPCC’s subjective and model-based characteristics of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. For those wondering, there are very few recent papers arguing that the IPCC estimates are too low, and they all have to contend with the fact that, according to new Cato scholar Ross McKitrick, “the pause” in warming is actually 19 years in length.
Figure 1. Climate sensitivity estimates from new research beginning in 2011 (colored), compared with the assessed range given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the collection of climate models used in the IPCC AR5. The “likely” (greater than a 66% likelihood of occurrence)range in the IPCC Assessment is indicated by the gray bar. The arrows indicate the 5 to 95 percent confidence bounds for each estimate along with the best estimate (median of each probability density function; or the mean of multiple estimates; colored vertical line). Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates. The right-hand side of the IPCC AR5 range is actually the 90% upper bound (the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95 percent confidence bound of their estimate). Spencer and Braswell (2013) produce a single ECS value best-matched to ocean heat content observations and internal radiative forcing.
[Note: an earlier version of this posted listed the number 12 in the title – the correct number is 14, and the title has been changed to reflect that]
References:
Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi: 10.1002/env.2140.
Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change, 104, 324-436.
Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012. Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L24702, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053872
Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1.
Lewis, N. and J.A. Curry, C., 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 focring and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamic, 10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, 47, 377-390.
Loehle, C., 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling, 276, 80-84.
Masters, T., 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics, doi:101007/s00382-
McKitrick, R., 2014. HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.
Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415-416.
Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.
Schmittner, A., et al. 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 334, 1385-1388, doi: 10.1126/science.1203513.
Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.
van Hateren, J.H., 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but:
Just this morning I tried to look up a list of climate sensitivity papers. Wikipedia of course has a whole bunch… but so far as I could tell, every single one of them supported the IPPC estimates. I don’t recall seeing anything of the CS papers which show (2.1) or less……
Guess you’re looking in the wrong place.
Yes, that would be Wikipedia, the lair of the weasel William Connelly.
Wankerpedia is a leftist propaganda outlet. If you don’t believe me, try to find the Jamestown experiment with communism. It’s been wiped from the record, leaving but a single reference to a “communal workload,” as opposed to communal ownership of farmland (communism). I trust Wankerpedia as far as I can toss a live bull up a silo.
Just check how Wikipedia says the so called Right wing dictators are “Dictators” and how Left wing Dictators are “Leaders” “Statesman”
Why would you want to toss a live bull up a silo?
I have a list here as well,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sensitivity
Thanks Poptech, I knew there was a complete list somewhere. I already did not trust wiki when it comes to climate, now I can use the comparison as an example of their bias.
The lesson? Don’t quote Wikipedia as a source!!!
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/no-wikipedia/
It’s worse than you thought.
Here are 20+ more observation-based, peer-reviewed papers finding even lower CO2 climate sensitivities, plus additional unpublished estimates:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/observations-show-ipcc-exaggerates.html
Excellent!
Good article, it tells you right up front what the bottom line is, written in language a non-scientist can easily grasp, no technical acronyms, the variability is given in terms of degrees C which everyone knows. I would have liked to see what time frame is expected for the doubling of the earths CO2 so the reader has a time length to associate with the 1.64°C. Most people don’t know how long that is expected to take.
Hi Steve
Let me try an example.
The last century temp increase 1.0C. For the same period the CO2 at about half of doubling, the CS at about 2C.
If temp increase at 0.7C instead 1.0C for the same period than CS at 1.4C instead of 2C.
Maybe this a clearer angle to understand why so much data adjustments and fudging under the most rediculous excuses happening every other day lately 🙂
Some do not agree but it does not have to be exactly a doubling to count for a doubling at a given moment.
In a natural term, anywhere before the anthropogenic era, you would have to wait for about 10K years to observe a doubling of CO2 …..and that will be only during a warming trend to be fair. So about 10K years if you are at the begining of a warming trend…..Confusing…yes…:)
For the current condition if it continues, a considered doubling would be while the CO2 at about 540ppm to 570ppm….
cheers
That’s an interesting fact you state. The 3% additional to natural CO₂ production caused by men speeds up the CO₂ concentration by a factor of 50. I never would have thought that to be possible. Confusing…yes.
/s
Whiten,
Thanks for your straightforward calculation.
As an Engineer it escapes my logic system that, given years of temperature and CO2 content data, it is so difficult to arrive at a reasonably accurate sensitivity number. Only a devious mind can make something so complicated with all that data, Sure one can believe that heat is occasionally hiding in the ocean, but it should wash out over 1 Hundred plus years.
Of course this ignores the fact that there have been extremely long periods of CO2 increase without corresponding temperature rise, this should give any reasonable person pause to cling to the theory of an ironclad relationship.
Also if the relationship were valid, one also needs to explain the huge spikes in temperature up and down that totally mask the correlation. Is the sensitivity that weal?
Luboš wrote up a time frame for when we might reach the doubling :
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/09/one-half-of-co2-doubling-achieved.html
IPPC AR4 multi-model mean reaches +3.0C in 2082, about 22 years after CO2 doubling (560 ppm) is reached in 2060 (under the A1B scenario).
IPPC AR5 multi-model mean reaches +3.0C in 2094, about 21 years after CO2 doubling (560 ppm) is reached in 2073 (under the RCP 6.0 scenario).
So, the lag is 22 years for the short-term feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, lapse rate) and the medium-term ocean heat uptake lag and then another 150 years or so for the long-long-term feedbacks like albedo/glacial melt to kick in for another 0.2C or so.
The problem is, there is NO climate sensitivity to CO2/GHG concentrations. The historical climatic record shows this to be quite clear then again who cares about data when it comes to AGW theory.
Past historical climatic data shows CO2 has always followed the temperature never has led it which suggest the GHG effect is a result of the climate not the cause. It will increase as the temperature increases but is a result not a cause.
Looking at the recent past (1900-2000) temperatures fail to correlate to CO2 concentration changes. Falling at times or steady as they are now for 18 years and counting while CO2 concentrations continue to increase.
Yet the scientific community despite all of the data, can not separate itself from the fact through data that the CO2/CLIMATE correlation just is not there.
What will they say when global temperatures start to drop later this decade in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions while CO2 concentrations continue to rise? Will they still be in denial ? I think yes given what has taken place up to date.
Totally agree…………..
That bothers me about this conversation also.
Since, in the past, temp changes first and then CO2 level, then we have no history to show that either a doubling of CO2 would cause warming or a halving of CO2 would cause cooling. Simply stated, it never has before, so why are we so sure it is happening now.
Seems there might be a problem with the idea that warming increases CO2 which then increases warming which then increases CO2 some more … until??? (Or the opposite: cooling decreasing CO2 which decreases temp, etc.)
What confuses me to no end is the GHG nonsense was started by Arrhenius (1896) and was refuted by Wood (1909). Apparently Arrhenius never even bothered to do the lab work. You can replicate Wood’s refutation in just about any nominally equipped high school lab. Why wasn’t that the end of it? How can the current generation of ‘scientists’ be ignorant that GHG went out like phlogiston and aether a hundred years ago?
Disbelieving the reincarnation of a ‘phlogiston theory’ that is espoused by the funding politicians is not the way to get research grants. From acceptance of the ‘theory’ forward all research is on the basis that Arrhenius was completely correct, so observations have to be fitted to that assumption like a succession of epicycles built one upon the other and they in turn become the set in concrete assumptions for the next level of politician funded research.
Could you please give links to each of those papers? I’m really interested in reading them. It’s often the case that the seminal work in the most interesting. Thanks.
Jake J September 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm
R.W. Wood, Philosophical Magazine (1909 Vol. 17, pp. 319-320) – good luck finding this, maybe in a library?
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
Some think Wood didn’t actually prove/demonstrate anything useful:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
Note: the above link includes Wood’s original notes on the experiment. Our very own Willis joins the doubters club:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
These guys think they refuted Wood:
http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
So I guess the climate ‘scientists’ can claim Wood’s refutation of Arrhenius is at best doubtful and all their calculations of radiative forcings justified. Although, please note, they have not actually measured anything. This is all computer games, based on the assumption that Arrhenius was right after all. There is lots of info about this if your patient enough with Google and can discriminate the CAGW advocates.
Jake J September 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Looks my initial response to you got lost in cyberspace. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to search for all the stuff I had listed for your attention. But…
R.W. Wood, Philosophical Magazine (1909 Vol. 17, pp. 319-320) – BIG library is probably best bet for this
The following link will give you much to Google:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
This link contains the text of Wood’s experimental notes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
Good hunting!
Ian W September 26, 2014 at 5:11 am
LOL. Agree!
Thanks much, Michael. It’ll take a while, but I’m going to have a look. I really appreciate your reply.
p.s.: Michael, do you have a link to Arrhenius too?
Jake J September 27, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Google: arrhenius 1896 paper
Top result should be: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
It’s called negative sensitivity. Insensitivity?
ummm errrr ahhemm….
Consensus?
Yes, we all agree that we aren’t sure.
So what are we doubling from? From 1959 it would be about 320 ppm x 2 = 640 ppm. Or are we talking from now – 400 ppm x2 = 800 ppm? Didn’t see it in the post, maybe it’s in the links. Basically we are doubling from what year?
Pick your year, it doesn’t matter. Any place you start, if you double the CO2 at that current place, you should increase temperature by the ECS value. According to our current understanding, and dynamic feedbacks not withstanding.
I had the same question until I thought about it a bit. Presumably it does not really matter if the sensitivity can be assumed to be a constant. You simply have to choose a baseline. If we choose today’s level then the temperature increase will be over the next 200 years assuming 2 ppm increase in CO2. If we choose 1959, then in 120 years from now the temperature will have increased 1.6C from the 1959 temperature.
Regardless we will below the dreaded but arbitrary 2C threshold.
I think the usual approach is to base it on pre-industrial 280 ppm levels, with a doubling being an increase of 280. We’ve already upped that by 120, to get to 400 ppm, so we’re 43 percent of the way to a doubling. So we’d have 57 percent of the 1.64C figure when we hit the full doubling, which would be 0.94 C. But the ECS isn’t reached until the thousand-year ocean lag catches up, so what we’ll actually face is the transient climate response, which is generally about 4/7 th’s of the ECS, which means the 1.64 C ECS represents an increase of about 0.53 C from the present day.
Given that temperate-zone temperatures increase about 1 C for every 90 miles you move toward the equator, we’re looking at about a 45 mile shift in climate.
It’s not that simple since the effect is inverse logarithmic. At 400 ppm we are actually almost exactly halfway through the first doubling (from pre-industrial levels) from a temperature point of view, so one would expect anothe 0.7 degrees warming at 560 ppm, and about 800 ppm to be required to reach the dread 2 degrees C.
As long as that 45 mile shift doesn’t take me into the Fens, or the North sea, I am cool with that 😉
@ur momisugly J. Philip
The best estimate I gues it will be from 270ppm – 280 ppm as a start point for a doubling, which makes the doubling at about 540ppm to 560ppm…and the half doubling at 395ppm to 420ppm about..:)
Read my above reply to Steve and check if you could calculate the CS for the moment under the figures given.
Temp change for the period of half doubling is at about the one you can estimate from the time of Industrial Revolution to about now [as the now been the period of 395-420ppm]. I let you to figure that out..:)
cheers
As Garymount noted, Lubos does the math in a simple and easy to understand manner:
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/09/one-half-of-co2-doubling-achieved.html
Thanks whiten, I think I’ve got it…
@ur momisugly my above reply [whiten]
I think I have a mistake with my maths….. 395-420ppm actually is not a correct mathe result….should have been 405-420ppm. So sorry.
I was not trying a fudge the numbers, honestly..:)
cheers
Just to put things into perspective the Earth has experienced Co2 at 6,000ppm. My guess is that with population stabilization in the second half of this century and new technologies and efficiencies we are unlikely to get to 850ppm. I really don’t know what all the fuss is about.
The natural log of 2 is 0.693. e^0 = 1 gives no change . e^0.693 would give 2. Half a doubling would be e^0.3465 = 1.414. Multiply 280 by 1.414 and you get 396 ppm for half a doubling.
They say it is logarithmic. So multiplying ANY CO2 amount, by ANY factor, is supposed to add SOME constant times the log of that multiplier factor to the mean global / lower troposphere / whatever Temperature. The some constant depends on the base of the logarithm system you use, and the value of the climate sensitivity.
So 1 ppm going to 2 ppm (CO2) is supposed to do the same, as 100 ppm going to 200 ppm, or any other numbers in a 1:2 ratio.
Well it doesn’t do that of course because it isn’t really logarithmic. At best we might say it is NON-LINEAR.
Well we can’t even say that because they don’t always both go in the same direction. CO2 can go up while Temperature goes down, or verse vicea, or neither or both.
So the whole concept is nonsense. But it makes for lots of papers. Linear is as good as anything, and no relation at all, works about as well.
Exactly! And is there a law about a system increasing in energy or heat where it takes more energy to get the same temperature or heat result. For instance, it takes more fuel to move a car from 90 to 100 MPH, then it does to move a car from 50 to 60 MPH.
As I recall, a doubling of CO2 would increase the surface flux by about 3.7 watts. I think that doubling of watts factor is the logarithmic relation being referred to – 280 ppm CO2 leaves us at 14.5C, 560 ppm increases the wattage by 3.8 watts, 1120 increases that to 7.6 additional watts, 2240 ppm increases the origianl by 11.4 watts.
Temperatures are not the same thing as watts- black body temperatures increase as the fourth root of the wattage flux, so temperature sensitivity would be somehwat less than that wattage doubling factor.
No, the “slow walk back” can never work. While CS for CO2 doubling is at best a dubious metric, unless it has a “-” before the figure it cannot possibly be correct.
No paper using the “basic physics” of the “settled science” can ever break the “0.0 barrier”. The foundation assumption of 255K being raised 33K is in grave error. Nothing of any real scientific value can be built on this foundation.
The only use these “slow walk back” papers have is political, and even here the value is limited.
Constraints like this are the biggest stumbling block for the power hungry. What will Obama and his ilk do once they start getting cramped by the scientific constraints contradicting their wild unsubstantiated rhetoric? My guess is that they follow their past pattern of abuse and try to get their will imposed by the courts, without defending the scientific basis. That’s what they have done with the EPA, scientific constraints have no bearing when the courts will dodge the issue.
If they run out of global warming, they’ll just make up another crisis, the only solution for which is world socialism.
Maybe the appearance of these papers will help convince the “warmists” that the “deniers” don’t deny that the climate system is affected by the build-up in CO2, just that it may not be as alarming as it’s being characterized, which, of course, has been the position of most of the “deniers” from the beginning.
We have a consensus that the models are useless…….The science is settled!
Thanks, Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger.
Your clarity is appreciated. This is a complex subject,
And, yes. It seems that every new effort to evaluate climate sensitivity yields lower figures.
The current US Federal Administration has no need for this data (or any other data for that matter). They’re on their mission to save the planet and no amount of science will stop them.
Hopefully this article will prove to have utility if and when we get a new Administration. However, I’m far from convinced the new guard will be any different 🙁
Given that the heat-retention of CO2 declines logarithmically to concentration, I find it baffling that climate sensitivity to doubling of concentration of CO2 is given as a constant. Even if we take the alleged feedback mechanisms into account, surely the feedback would also decline.
There is probably some simple mathematical explanation for this, but, since my mathematical talents are limited by the number of my fingers, I am simply puzzled.
Yes, they do, in fact water saturation is also logarithmic. Thus increasing CO2 yields ever less increasing feedback. The climate sensitivity is a variable dependent on H2O and CO2 concentration which is to a large extent temperature dependent IE any feedback to CO2 falls with increasing temperature and thus is self limiting. It turns out of course that over land, and at the poles where evaporation is limited (because its either too cold, or there is no surface water) the dry air does not exhibit any feedback and thus would reflect CO2 influence only, less the negative feedbacks in play – ie lapse rate and atmospheric hole radiative feedbacks.
Not only that, but we know that at about 33 degrees over water the climate reaches a saturation point where the dew point is always below the prevailing temperature. The result is that temperature over water cannot reach much above 33 degrees without creating a thunderstorm. This is a massive non linear negative feedback which instantly sends the climate sensitivity into zero or even negative territory. Climate sensitivity not only is a variable, it changes markedly with temperature and free water availability and therefore by time, latitude and geography, and it exhibits energy saturation as well.
This is Not by any means a simple scalar number, its a complicated, non-linear time and space dependent variable that is probably unknowable.
That is the point of logarithmically declining. 50 to 100 means plus 50ppm gives say 1 degree C. 400 to 800 ppm means plus 400 ppm gives the same 1 degree C. But it is likely all sheer speculation, with lots of sciencey sounding words behind it.
@ur momisugly David A.
Very interesting point.
The way I understand it, doubling is just the easier way to put the CS definition in the context of the measuring it in the orthodox estimate of climate science, and it requiries that a starting point from a given climate condition is considered…….
But back to your point…. the real meaning about the doubling, I think, stands simply in that way because the estimate of the 1.5 to 4.5C with the famous average of 3C is established through the fact that the most change of temp in a climate equilibrium is at about 4C, coinciding with a change of about 200ppm of CO2.
In a long term warming trend, moving from the Ice Age to the Holocene Optimum the temp seems to change by 4C for a change of about 200ppm of CO2 from round about of 200ppm to 400ppm.
200ppm happends to be a value for a doubling…..it just happends.
It could be more accurate to see the estimate for actually what it stands for, not actually for a doubling of CO2 but for a change of CO2 emissions by 200ppm.
In this way no problem to consider the CS in a cooling trend while actually the CO2 change is a reduction.
That is how I see it..anyway.
The numbers 200 and 400 for the ppm are a bit of a round-up, just for the sake of clarity with the argument…. it is more like 180-200ppm for a starting point to 360-400ppm.
So while considering for example a starting point in our current condition of 280ppm, the climate sensitivity should be calculated not for a doubling [at 560ppm] but for an increase of about 180-200ppm [at 460-480ppm].
This covers only the part of the doubling……
I could be wrong with this, but in the end to me it seems that the CS as it stands defined and estimated is not very convincing and used with a tendency to propagate an AGW in the case of some natural warming ocuring.
cheers
The warmists (aka ‘true believers’) may try to find technical errors or omissions in these findings. Actually there’s nothing wrong about them trying to prove these findings wrong. That’s the way science is supposed to work. More power to them to find flaws in these findings, in order to further the science of “climate sensitivity”.
But we know how Lysenkoism works. Aided and abetted by their government sponsors and the MSM, if can’t find fight these findings technically, then they will try to smear, distort and discredit the authors with ad hominem and other personal attacks.
I hope these latest findings, published in peer-reviewed journals by competent researchers, represent a “turning point” in the climate skeptics’ struggles to reveal the true nature of the ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ issues.
Yes, our climate has been slowly warming for the past couple of centuries. And, yes, greenhouse gases play an important role in warming the atmosphere and surface of our planet.
But now it is becoming clearer that CO2 is most likely _not_ the serious threat it has been claimed to be. Rather, water vapor and aerosols are main agents for these warming (and cooling) effects. The effects of CO2 are relatively small, and the current warming is not unprecedented, which supports the idea that the Earth’s climate is very stable and robust towards the kinds “climate disruptions” reported in the MSM
To win this debate on technical grounds, the warmists will have to provide compelling proof that man-made CO2 has caused or will cause catastrophic climate disruptions on a global scale.
No such compelling proof has yet been presented.
When the draft version of AR5 was being discussed last year, I commented that the position the IPCC were adopting would soon appear to be absurd, since as long as the ‘pause’ continues there will be more and more papers dicussing climate sensitivity, with ever lowering figures/estimates for climate sensitivity.
I observed that the time when the IPCC report will be judged, was not on publication, but rather it will be in late 2015 when the next major climate summit is scheduled. As long as there is no El Nino before then, it will be apparent that AR5 has over played its hand, since the best current research (and I know that is saying something when we are talking about climate science which is not renowned for quality or robustness), will all point to a climate sensitivity of less than 1.7, perhaps more likely between 1.3 to 1.7, ie, the papers published between 2013 and late 2015.
We can already see that taking shape now. 2014 is looking like it will be a reasonably warm year with the on/off El Nino. May be it will develop, and give the warmists some slack, but may be it will not,
I consider that the 2015 climate summit is already beginning to look difficult, and this summit may be the last throw for the alarmists, especially if cooling begins to kick in post 2015 thereby really putting the cat amongst the pidgeons for AR6 and the 2020 climate summit.
Interesting times are ahead. .
“As long as there is no El Nino before then…”
El nino is likely coming. Weak to perhaps moderate. See Joe Bastardi..NOAA currently sees 65 percent chance….
I tend to agree. Furthermore, even though they do not say so in so many words, it seems to me that the movers and shakers at the UNEP (the primary “source” of 40+ years of doom and gloom) already recognize this – although I doubt they will ever say so, in so many words.
What I find interesting are the changes in the word-salads that emanate from the UNEP (and/or one or more of its many tentacles). Consider, for example, the “output document” from Rio+20, over two years ago. As I had noted in my quick ‘n dirty analysis by word count of this 300+ page “Outcome Document”, the final score was climate change 22, sustainable/sustainability 400 (“carbon* scored a mere 3, btw!)
As I had written at the time:
From what I’ve read of Stern Report v. 2.0 (aka “The New Climate Economy” [Pls. see: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/un-enters-us4-5-trillion-twilight-zone/ ] which was conveniently released just in time for this highly staged (including the pre-meeting demonstrations in N.Y.C.) so-called climate summit, the tone surrounding the obligatory mantra of “dangerous climate change” is relatively upbeat.
And in yet another just-in-time-for-this-one-day-summit (undated!) document, which I had stumbled across courtesy of the good folks at IISD … yesterday, I found:
This glossy publication (in remarkably plain language, considering that it’s a UN document) emanates from the highest level of this ever-increasing hierarchy: United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB). But here’s the thing … the words put into Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s mouth in the Foreword include:
What’s not to like about that, eh?!
In short, with each passing paper, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the powers that be at the UN don’t give a tinker’s damn what the science says. IOW, they use it (and the scientists who produce the papers) merely as a convenient prop.
And as long as they can continue to get scientists on board on the inside – along with an army of activist “journalists” on the outside – they’ll simply shift the ground and/or emphasis. Again.
Sorry … let me try that again:
I tend to agree. Furthermore, even though they do not say so in so many words, it seems to me that the movers and shakers at the UNEP (the primary “source” of 40+ years of doom and gloom) already recognize this – although I doubt they will ever say so, in so many words.
What I find interesting are the changes in the word-salads that emanate from the UNEP (and/or one or more of its many tentacles). Consider, for example, the “output document” from Rio+20, over two years ago. As I had noted in my quick ‘n dirty analysis by word count of this 300+ page “Outcome Document”, the final score was climate change 22, sustainable/sustainability 400 (“carbon* scored a mere 3, btw!)
As I had written at the time:
From what I’ve read of Stern Report v. 2.0 (aka “The New Climate Economy” [Pls. see: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/un-enters-us4-5-trillion-twilight-zone/ ] which was conveniently released just in time for this highly staged (including the pre-meeting demonstrations in N.Y.C.) so-called climate summit, the tone surrounding the obligatory mantra of “dangerous climate change” is relatively upbeat.
And in yet another just-in-time-for-this-one-day-summit (undated!) document, which I had stumbled across courtesy of the good folks at IISD … yesterday, I found:
This glossy publication (in remarkably plain language, considering that it’s a UN document) emanates from the highest level of this ever-increasing hierarchy: United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB). But here’s the thing … the words put into Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s mouth in the Foreword include:
What’s not to like about that, eh?!
In short, with each passing paper, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the powers that be at the UN don’t give a tinker’s damn what the science says. IOW, they use it (and the scientists who produce the papers) merely as a convenient prop.
And as long as they can continue to get scientists on board on the inside – along with an army of activist “journalists” on the outside – they’ll simply shift the ground and/or emphasis. Again.
Thank you. Very clear.
The other issue that has not been mentioned to date is that if you just use the lower troposphere satellite temps from RSS/UAH and the weather balloon radiosonde measurements, the sensitivity drops another 0.4C or so down to 1.2C.
19 years without warming.
Why it seems that actual warming will be a rare and exciting event, something already outside the experience of today’s children ….and many college students as well.
I commend Lewis and Curry for their work. I am not a scientist, but it seems strange to me that there are so many “possibles,” “uncertainties,” and “estimates,” in a field of science where so many “experts” on one side claim “the science is settled.” I don’t believe anybody in climatology actually has the faintest idea of the impact of CO2 on global temperatures.
“I don’t believe anybody in climatology actually has the faintest idea of the impact of CO2 on global temperatures.”
Yes indeed, not only that but they seem to be obsessed with the concept that CO2 can only change the “average” or “equilibrium” temperature. It’s seems totally out of the realm of possibilities to climatology that CO2 may only affect the response time (how long it takes the temperature to change after the arrival of an energy source) of components in the system.
Increasing average temperatures (regardless of the cause) increase the amount of CO2. Increasing CO2 merely changes the response time. Because of the massive thermal capacities of the Oceans (very slow response time) increases in the response time of the gases in the atmosphere have NO EFFECT on the average temperature. This is consistent with the observations. The alternate proposition that CO2 levels RESPOND TO average temperatures AND ALSO determine average temperature is ludicrous (OK, I tried to find an innocuous phrase for that, I could have referred to bovine effluent).
In electrical engineering this would be the difference between analyzing a DC circuit and an AC circuit, but those concepts (response time, delay time, RMS (root mean squared) voltage/current/power) seem to be totally alien to the climate science community. They insist that the system is in “equilibrium” and that CO2 in the atmosphere (with a minuscule thermal capacity) is the thermostat….
It’s very much like making a computer model that says if I throw an ice cube into the room temperature water in my bathtub all of the water will freeze…. No understanding at all that the thermal capacity of the ice cube can’t do much of anything that lasts and within a few minutes I will probably need a magnifying glass to find the remains of my initial ice cube.
Cheers, Kevin
Kevin,
The climate models are scalar models, they ignore time completely. In effect they assume that you can take the net effect of multiple feedback responses (oscillations) with different time lags and then add them together to achieve a scalar estimate of the average total response to a step input.
In electrical engineering terms this is like saying that the AC response will be the same as the DC response (the DC analysis is a scalar response). Take an amplifier give it a gain of 3 put 1 volt in and I’ll get 3 V out.
Seems reasonable doesn’t it? Until of course your realize that the input to the climate feedback isnt a constant is a complicated noise characteristic, so now take that same amplifier and put in the positive feedback path several feedbacks all delayed by different times and then put a 1 Volt square wave and sweep the frequency, and you can be pretty sure what comes out wont be a square wave and it wont be 3 volts at all frequencies. and there is a pretty good chance that with a loop gain of 0.7 or so at some frequency or another it’s gonna be an oscillator
Climate modelling with scalar models is like modelling an RF amplifier using only DC analysis.
Why is Ferenc Miskolczi’s 2007(?) paper Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres always overlooked in these discussions? He was talking about a saturated greenhouse effect controlled by water vapour years before anyone else and, I believe, lost his job at NASA over it because it contradicted the prevailing view.
Because his theory has nothing to do with this argument. This argument accepts that the CO2 Greenhouse effect is real as proposed by the IPCC but that the climate forcing due to CO2 is low.
I tell people these days “You know the earth is an open system heat engine…. Heat in at the equator and out at the poles drives climate, not even accounting for the energy input from the solar wind… Mans CO2 signal is in the noise compared to the energy that moves around the earth system…. Its similar to if you left a door open on either end of your greenhouse. How warm does it get then(if you fart)?” Usually you can see a light going off in their eyes!
How many papers with sensitivity above? How many papers below? But this good we are actually discussing the details where there _is_ a scientific discussion. And remember, the Lewis/Curry paper is only another factoid, not necessarily the correct value.
Yes, but are these 14 papers on sensitivity actual scientific papers or are they “Claim:” scientific papers?
That’s the problem with constantly downplaying the importance of most other published research by doing things like attaching the word “Claim” in front of them in blog posts. It becomes hard to then turn around and make a credible appeal to *any* published research for support.
Published research isn’t an ‘à la carte’ menu.
WTF are you talking about? Did you fail to read the citations? They are all published in peer-reviewed journals.
Just because they are pal-reviewed and passed the gatekeeping of the journals does not make them “science”.
Like it or not peer-review is not a critical component of scientific method. It is just part of our current scientific bureaucracy. Repeatable observation and experiment are what is critical to science.
Given that each of these papers are based on the 255K assumption, none can truly be considered science.
Why are you accusing well-known skeptics of pal-review?
You mean someone checked the spelling of the jargon words?
Obviously that is what was meant.
Woe to be a Climate Modeler today. Morale must be tanking. Heavy drinking. Are there any Climate Modelers’ Anonymous groups out at LLNL? Boulder? NYC?
Cheer up there is always Wall Street and Finance for physics-math quants. Just because quants didn’t do so well in 2008, doesn’t mean you still can’t get rich and retire before the economy blows up again.
Climate Modelers please remember:
http://i58.tinypic.com/23t1elu.jpg
If climate sensitivity is claimed to be greater than zero, why hasn’t the Earth warmed in the past 2 decades?
Those trying to “work within ” the IPCC formulaic box of CO2 and aerosols are what controls a steady-state equilibrium, then points to huge unknown in aerosols since CO2 is well-known. Further, Ocean heat content changes are important, “in the box.” But no one can measure or even estimate it without huge uncertainties. See their equation: ECS= Fco2* dT/(dF-OHC)
If you think outside the box and question the physics upon which CO2 forcing is based, then according to Mosher, you should be excluded from the climate science discussion. You are a “denier” that CO2 is relevant or something like that. Any one who has suggested CO2 follows dT is a denier, to be excluded from the debate. Hogwash. It is the debate he wants to have, because beyond it, is a vast wasteland of What If’s, where there can never be a “consensus”. Such as, what if MGT is really correct? What if CO2 follows dT (i.e., Henry’s Law rules over Arrhenius). What if the sun is really in control?
That to me, Mosher sounds like a Ptolemaic disciple scolding the technorati-mathematicians to find better ways to keep the epi-circle magic working for an Earth-centred universe.
Natural variability. We have weak solar activity and are in a phase where the El Nino frequency is lower. All other things being equal we should be experiencing noticeable (statistically significant) cooling.
However, the fact that natural variability is able to offset ghg-enhanced warming does suggest climate sensitivity is lower than estimated by the CAGW advocates. Using a very simple energy balance model, it’s possible to show that the “no-feedback” temperature response to a doubling of CO2 is ~1.2 deg C. It’s beginning to look very much as though the true sensitivity isn’t too far off this figure.
John Finn,
Please post empirical, testable, measurable evidence showing the specific amount of global warming due to human emissions.
I would like to see those measurements.
dbstealey, John Finn has been asked this many times but runs away. He’s only capable of making baseless assertions. He’ll now run to Jo Nova’s blog and post the same crap there.
Radiative transfer equations are able to produce very accurate calculations of emission spectra for earth’s atmosphere and for any concentration of ghgs. Output from MODTRAN, for example, for any given atmosphere (tropical, arctic, moist, dry) can produce a plot which is virtually an exact match of the real measured emission spectra.
The line by line calculations suggest that a doubling of CO2 will result in a TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) forcing of ~3.7 w/m2. The question is how much will this increase the surface temperature of the earth. This is where the debate lies. If we assume no feedback (positive or negative) then we can use a quick ‘back of the envelope’ calculation to get a rough estimate, i.e.
Earth’s average surface temperature is ~15 C which means, again on average, it emits ~390 w/m2. At TOA ~240 w/m2 is emitted to space. This is equivalent to the solar energy received by the earth. So, at equilibrium we get 240 w/m2 coming in and 240 w/m2 going out.
The outgoing 240 w/m2 is driven by the surface flux of 390 w/m2, i.e. every watt/m2 from the surface results in 0.62 watt/m2 emission from the TOA. Right, if we now double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we know we will reduce the Outgoing energy by 4 w/m2 (~3.7 w/m2) so now we’ll still have 240 w/m2 coming in but only 236 w/m2 going out, i.e. we will have an imbalance so that
Energy in is greater than Energy out = Warming
To restore equilibrium, the surface temperature will need to increase. Since every 1 w/m2 from the surface results in 0.62 w/m2 the surface will need to emit another 4/0.62 w/m2 or 6.5 w/m2 to restore equilibrium. The new surface flux, therefore, will be 396.5 w/m2 which represents a temperature increase of ~1.2 degrees C.
Now you can argue the feedbacks. IPCC say strongly positive; Lindzen and others say ZERO, negative or weakly positive
Nice, simple theory. Using simplistic single point, single curve, simple averages for an ideal flat-surfave “earth” using simple approximations of an “average” (no water, no clouds, no snow, no changes in state) earth exposed to a constant flat flux. Very clear, very simple, and very wrong.
And none of it is measured . All is conjecture and linear extrapolations.
Oh – The measured global average temperature rose, stayed steady, or fell while CO2 was steady.
Or the measured global average temperature rose, stayed steady, and fell while CO2 rose.
John Finn,
You seem to have missed the word in my question: “measurements”.
As in, please provide testable measurements based upon empirical [real world] observations. Measurements, john. Not calculations. Not computer programs. Not pal reviewed papers. Not assumptions. Observational evidence, please. They have repeatedly measured global warming. It is around 0.7ºC. Now we need measurements of the human portion.
See, when you post speculation like you did, there may well be other factors of which you are not aware. “Unknown unknowns”, if you like.
Real world measurements take care of that problem. Where are they?
So if you don’t mind, please post measurements showing the specific tenths, or hundreths of a degree of global warming specifically caused by human activity, out of the total global warming over the past century and a half of about 0.7ºC.
Simples, no? Just post those measurements. Quantify how much global warming human emissions cause.
Now, if you can’t supply any such measurements, then the obvious conclusion is that every assertion of AGW is nothing but speculation. Conjecture. Opinion. Isn’t that right? My conjecture is that global warming is all natural — and my conjecture is just as valid as yours. More valid, really, because my conjecture is based on the Null Hypothesis. Yours is based on Belief.
You’re asking everyone to drastically alter Western industrial civilization based on… speculation; on a guess. On a conjecture. On an opinion. On an evidence-free assumption.
Science is all about measurements, John. Without measurements, you are just guessing. Shooting the breeze. Playing chin music. But it sure isn’t scientific evidence. In fact, there is no evidence? Is there?
So, John, I hate to put it this way, but you need to put up or shut up. Post those real world, testable measurements . Or, admit that you are merely speculating about something that you want to believe in.
The ball is in your court, John. Return service, or game over.
“All other things being equal we should be experiencing noticeable (statistically significant) cooling.”
There is a time lag. But, if you cannot see that a peak has been reached here, and we are going to be heading down for the next several years, then you are just putting off accepting the inevitable.
Most temperatures are not measured out in the boondocks, but near human habitation. Any measured increases in temperature could be mistaking the results of waste heat from industrialization with natural background increases.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html
A planet with an advanced civilization would measure warmer than the same stone age planet even without any additional greenhouse effect.
Why bother about the equilibrium sensitivity, relaxation time is centuries, plenty of time to cover the earth with thorium electricity plants, IPCC agrees with me:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig9-1s.gif
Yes TCR is more relevant. ECS will take a thousand years to attain. Such long period of time, natural forces would have cancelled the effect.