Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.
The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.
The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.
The following is a Google translation from the German EIKE site with an overview of the main findings of the paper, followed by a link to the full paper [in English].
Assessment of global warming due to CO2 and solar influence
Currently climate sensitivity (discussed for example here ) is claimed by the IPCC mid-value to be 3.0 C (AR4) as the most probable value, but others have determined much lower values of 1.73C or 1C or even 0.43C. Prof. Hermann Harde, renowned physicist and Spektral analytiker has determined from his new paper the climate sensitivity is [0.6 C]
Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Hermann Harde* , Experimental Physics and Materials Science , Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg , Germany
Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, In Press
Abstract
CO2 concentration, based on a combination of thermally and solar induced cloud feedback.
Based on the HITRAN-2008 database [4] detailed spectroscopic calculations on the absorptivities of water
vapour and the gases carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the atmosphere are presented.
The line-by-line calculations for solar radiation from 0.1–8 mm (sw radiation) as well as for the
terrestrial radiation from 3–100 mm (lw radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and
CH4 spectra with water vapour lines the influence of these gases significantly declines with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are
observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on global warming.
based on actual data of the water vapour content, which is considerably varying with altitude above ground
as well as with the climate zone and, therefore, with the temperature. The vertical variation in humidity
and temperature as well as in the partial gas pressures and the total pressure is considered by computing
individual absorption spectra for up to 228 atmospheric layers and then integrating from ground level up
to 86 km altitude.
atmosphere and therefore on the geographic latitude and longitude, is included by considering the Earth
as a truncated icosahedron (Bucky ball) consisting of 32 surface elements with well defined angles to the
incident radiation, and assigning each of these areas to one of the three climate zones.
by the atmosphere itself, as well as their variation with temperature are derived from radiation transfer
calculations for each zone.To identify the influence of the absorbing gases on the climate and particularly the effect of an
increasing CO2-concentration on global warming, we developed an advanced two-layer climate model,
which describes the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere as two layers acting simultaneously as absorbers
and Planck radiators. Also heat transfer by convection and evaporation between these layers is considered.
At equilibrium each, the surface as well as the atmosphere, deliver as much power as they suck up from
the sun and the neighbouring layer or climate zone.
considering multiple scattering between the surface and clouds. It also includes the common feedback
processes like water vapour, lapse rate and albedo feedback, but additionally takes into account the
influence of a temperature dependent sensible and latent heat flux as well as temperature induced and
solar induced cloud cover feedback.
budget scheme of Tremberth et al. [20], which at a reference CO2 concentration of 380 ppm and a ground
temperature of 16 °C can well be reproduced.
and the lower atmospheric temperature are calculated as a function of the CO2 concentration. From the
temperature variations, found at doubled CO2 concentration, the CO2 climate sensitivity and air sensitivity
are derived.
are extensively discussed. While the albedo- and to some degree the lapse rate feedback are adopted from
literature, the water vapour feedback is derived from the sw and lw absorptivity calculations over the
different climate zones. With an amplification at clear sky conditions of 1:5 and at mean cloud cover of
1:2 these values are smaller than assumed in other climate models [27, 28].Since it is found that with increasing CO2 concentration the air temperature is less rapidly increasing
than the surface temperature, the convection at the boundary of both layers rises with the concentration.
As a consequence more thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. Similarly, with
increasing temperature also evaporation and precipitation are increasing with the ground temperature.
Both these effects contribute to negative feedback and are additionally included in the simulations.
A special situation is found for the influence of clouds on the radiation and energy budget. From
measurements of the global cloud cover over a period of 27 years it is deduced that the global mean
temperature is increasing with decreasing cloud cover [25]. However, it is not clear, if a lower cloud
cover is the consequence of the increasing temperature, or if the cloud cover is influenced and at least to
some degree controlled by some other mechanism, particularly solar activities. In the first case a strong
amplifying temperature induced cloud feedback had to be considered, this for the climate sensitivity as
well as for a respective solar sensitivity, whereas in the other case the temperature induced cloud effect
would disappear for both sensitivities and only a solar induced cloud feedback had to be included due to
the solar influence.
on the climate and solar sensitivity can be derived from model simulations, which additionally include
the solar effect and compare this with the measured temperature increase over the last century. These
simulations, considering both effects, show that the observed global warming of 0.74 °C [51] can only
satisfactorily be explained, when a temperature feedback on the clouds is completely excluded or only has
a minor influence. Otherwise the calculated warming would be significantly larger than observed, or the
thermally induced cloud feedback would have been overestimated. With a combination of temperature and
solar induced cloud feedback we deduce a CO2 climate sensitivity of CS = 0.6 °C and a solar sensitivity,
related to 0.1 % change of the solar constant, of SS = 0.5 °C. An increase in the solar activity of only 0.1
% over 100 years then contributes to a warming of 0.54 °C, and the 100 ppm increase of CO2 over this
period causes additional 0.2 °C in excellent agreement with the measured warming and cloud cover.
From our investigations, which are based on actual spectroscopic data and which consider all relevant
feedback processes as well as the solar influence, we can conclude, that a CO2 climate sensitivity larger
1 °C seems quite improbable, whereas a value of 0.5 – 0.7 °C – depending on the considered solar anomaly
– fits well with all observations of a changing solar constant, the cloud cover and global temperature. A
climate sensitivity in agreement with the IPCC specifications (1.5 – 4.5 °C) would only be possible, when
any solar influence could completely be excluded, and only CO2 induced thermal cloud feedback would
be assumed, then yielding a value of 1.7 °C.
variations over some time period and, therefore, have to solve complex coupled nonlinear differential
equations with countless parameters, for tracing the climate sensitivity this is of no significance. We
calculate an equilibrium state and can average over larger local variations, for which a partitioning into
three climate zones is quite sufficient. In addition, a simple energy balance model, focussing on the main
physical processes, is much more transparent than any AOGCM and can help to better understand the
complex interrelations characterizing our climate system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Slowly, slowly the co2 CS consensus creeps toward 0.000K. The consensus creeps on the other hand just shriek louder with every drop.
Took the words out of my mouth, Henry. When I look at the evidence, I see the alarmist point of view springing leaks all over the place. When I look at the MSM, I see the climate establishment in rude good health, kicking ass left right and centre.
To be honest, they don’t seem to need a scientific underpinning. They are The Good People, and that is all they need to sway the public.
Some questions you might like to ponder upon.
What is the calibre of the peer reviewers at the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Science?
Why did Dr Harne not submit his paper to a better recognised journal dealing with this type of research?
Is a two stage cylinder with few inputs of various forcings sufficiently robust to determine climate sensitivity?
I like WUWT but wonder sometimes if posters are too uncritical
Many apologies the journal is the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change
This momentum of recent months is like a train travelling down hill. Slowly at first. Chug….Chug….Chug. But eventually unstoppable.
It’s only unstoppable if you take the Leftists feet off the brakes.
Is this the new publication that was discussed here recently?
Let’s see if the paper gets the wide audience it deserves.
This is a pay-to-publish ‘vanity’ journal by a predatory publisher. Anyone could pay to have something published in it. It’s not peer-reviewed. It’s not even edited well. It won’t get a wide audience at all especially after it’s been published in a ‘journal’ like this. Why do you think it ‘deserves’ a wide audience?
I was reading ScientificOnline’s publishing requirements – it doesn’t seem predatory at all.
They have a peer review process, apparently, which can take a couple of months. They espouse openness of the published works – not to access of publishing works.
”
Q3: What is the publishing procedure?
A3: All published journals of SOP are under strict peer review. Your article will first be with editors to make sure it is within the scopes and fields. Then it will be with peer reviewers. Only if their comments are ‘Accepted’, will SOP publish your article. Please revise your article according to their advice if necessary.
Q4: How long is the publishing procedure?
A4: Because the time length of peer review is unpredictable, SOP will take care of your article as quickly as possible. Generally it takes no more than 8 weeks to publish journals out of contribution. At the meantime your cooperation and understanding are highly valued. Please keep an eye on your Email box and account to make sure your article is taken care of.
”
“Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change(ACC) is free to all scientific researchers around the globe as an Open Access journal. ACC pays attention to academic research of theory and practice in the field and gives high priority to original articles, encouraging authors to further create in atmosphere change and climate change.”
I think the list of predatory publishers maybe should not include them. I have found nothing about them publishing anything for money.
Scientific Online Publishing is on the list ‘predatory’ publishers
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/
You think they are going to be obvious about being predatory?
What guarantees the list as accurate?
According to your claims they are “a pay-to-publish ‘vanity’ journal by a predatory publisher.”
Apparent Truth: they don’t take money for publishing
Your claim: “It’s not peer-reviewed.”
Apparent Truth: They take 8 weeks or so to do peer review and publish nothing without review.
And one web-site listing the publisher as predatory doesn’t make it truth, IMHO. Doesn’t mean it is a lie – I just can’t find anything to support that claim – and they don’t justify the inclusion (that I’ve seen).
What do you mean they don’t take money for publishing? Read their FAQ. (notice the poor English. So much for ‘proof-reading and editing’ *grin*)
Q5: Do I have to pay for my articles?
A5: As an Open Access publisher, SOP charges nothing from readers or any academic institutions. However, SOP needs certain sum of payment for experts and editorial board to maintain first-class publishing quality. SOP also keeps our website running to increase visiting and download numbers of your article as well as to make your research outcomes known to all. Meanwhile SOP proofreads and edits every article with full meticulousness. Obviously all above is capital required. Thus you may need to pay a little number of money to make SOP better. Of course we can’t make a fortune out of it. And under affluent circumstance, SOP will publish your articles for free.
http://www.scipublish.com/faq
They CLAIM they do ‘strict peer review’. They can’t even proof-read their own website, let alone do peer-review. Look at the editorial board by the way. Harde’s paper was grammatically awkward, clumsily written and had clearly not been peer-reviewed or even proof-read.
LOL! I just looked up the Service address of Scientific Online Publishing.
498 W. Alton St., Nashville, IL 62263, UNITED STATES
It’s a single family home in a residential area in Nashville Illinois. It shares the same address as a Chinese company which sells anticorrosive paint.
http://www.trademarkia.com/map/sina-cova-86002760.htm
Nothing suspicious about that publisher at all. *grin*
We don’t need papers like this to show climate sensitivity has been grossly overestimated. For the past 20 years CO2 concentration has continued to rise while temperatures have not.
Since CO2 isn’t a poison, has benefits for crop yields etc and the link to catastrophe appears to be broken all the hugely expensive CO2 reduction measures should be put on hold immediately while smart, honest, impartial people look over all the data.
‘Green’ activists cannot be trusted to do what’s best for society any more than investment bankers or religious zealots can. Their demands and actions need to be scrutinized more in the future.
But tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States, who seems to be just another Leftist politicized assembly. Their rulings of late have been despicable.
Save your breath. All SCOTUS said was that Congress will have to rein in EPA, since Congress granted EPA nearly unlimited regulatory rulemaking powers.
Roberts & Kennedy debatable. Kennedy let a Connecticut city condemn property for Pfizer. Roberts, Obamacare. ‘Nuff said.
‘‘Green’ activists cannot be trusted to do what’s best for society any more than investment bankers or religious zealots can.’
Brilliantly put – I intend to use this phrase whenever climate change policy is raised in discussion.
Thanks Jaffa.
Agreed
You’ve only listed 2 unique groups there, not three.
Bingo jaffa!
My first impressions are that it is good to see a spectroscopy expert involved, it appears to be thorough and it doesn’t appear to contain the usual warmist caveats, so it may be refreshingly objective. As many of us suspected, the system responds to warming by increasing convection and other negative feedbacks.
It is also good to see that solar effects are not dismissed out of hand. I doubt if the warmists will welcome this significant contribution to their knowledge and understanding.
Wow, just wow. Speechless that it has been allowed to be published!
Agreed – Wow!
To fix this paper to meet the IPCC’s forecasts/guesses, you need to use their own unique statistical methodology, or even better some Mannian maths.
Look, it doesn’t count. What does he know, he’s not a ‘climate scientist’.
I think you mean ‘Climate Scientist®’.
Better stick to Climate Scientist™ Use of the registered trademark symbol requires a certificate of registration which is issued by the federal government. The ™ symbol may be used without registration. No point in giving the Feds a reason to harass people more than they already do.
“Climate Scientist” is a contradiction in terms.
Yes, ‘Climate Scientist’ is an oxymoron.
But Mr Mann is a CO2-Moron.
Ralph
I’ve read enough articles here on WUWT discussing evidence that the climate can be sensitive to… something… and change drastically and in a hurry; a decade or so. I’ve just not seen anything other than models that indicates the extreme sensitivity is due to changes in CO2.
Can someone equipped to understand such things tell us lesser lights how the author arrives at the parameterization by which he (I assume, necessarily) deals with clouds?
Let me try and help.
There is data on climate for the last hundred years showing a warming of about 0.8C more or less.
There is an estimate also of the most impact of short term natural variability on climate, like the sun the clauds etc.
What the author is actually saying is that for the observations and this kinda of impact of the Sun and the rest of the short term variations to match, the 0.6C CS for a doubling is the best….actually the higher possible.
If the CS is to be considered higher ( as a number) than the impact of the Sun will be less significant as been actually observed to have been according to the climate data for the last century, or probably since 1850.
Actually this possible to stand that way only if CS considered to be lower than 1.4C.
Higher than 1.5C and closer to 3C CS for a doubling The Sun actually means nothing as to be considered.
As the 1.5C to 3C CS for a doubling seems to be a too hot an estimate than when you go for a lower one you have to consider the Sun and similar short term variations while you try to have a good CS estimate.
In a lower CS estimate there is no such room FOR A RANGE as WITH 1.5C to 4.5C with an average of 3C,
it will be something like 0.5C to 0.7C with a 0.6C average……..That’s one of the problems with the small numbers…no much room for large ranges…
Is a b.tch of a thing….I know..:)
That is my understanding….. I stand to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.
…….
Stricly for the ones that may be rejoicing to the ever lower CS of 0.6C:
It is really a very low sensitivity indeed but for it to be true we must have a real expectation of AGW, a small one but never the less an AGW, technically is a very clear math cut AGW.
It has only one outcome possible for it to be true according to the current climate behavior show by the climate data, a clear 1.2C warming at 560ppm from the point of 280ppm, with the possible play of some kind of a hiatus for a considerable time before a warming gets to that point. More than enoughy room there to play a hiatus….at least up to 460ppm to 480ppm CO2. It requiries only another 4C warming up to 560ppm
50% of that 1.2C warming (a 0.6C) will be due to and a result of CO2 emissions….anthropogenic one.
That can be called only one way…the AGW one.. A 0.6C AGW, but never the less an AGW.
Sorry for the spoiling.
cheers
Correction in the above comment:
“It requiries only another 4C warming up to 560ppm”
Meant actually 0.4C instead of 4C as put above.
Should have put it as:
“It requiries only another 0.4C up to 560ppm”
Sorry about that
That’s a quality publication you’ve got there. The editors’ board really reads like the who’s who of climate science:
http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/editorials
Racist
What? Did I miss something?
[Reply: Yes, the comment was removed. ~mod.]
and who leads the IPCC?
just asking.
isn’t his background in railroads?
I thought he was an erotic novelist…
He’s both. A real savant.
Are you arguing that China and India are technologically incompetent?
They have successful space programmes.
Or are you suggesting that the world’s largest CO2 emitters may be funding science that breaks the Western Hegemony on environmental norms?
In which case you may have correctly identified the day AGW died.
Here’s hoping
You make an interesting point. The editorial board is mainly China and India. Even more interesting is how the better established board of “Science” is almost entirely UK and USA – 8 of 11 positions. It probably says more about the publishing industry than the quality of the periodical.
All I see are meteorologists, geophysicists, geologists, environmental and civil engineers, a ‘proper’ climatologist, and a biochemist.
Yeah, what a total bunch of noobs.
/sarc
yes, looncrace –
its not that specialists, that compulsive neurotics who know all ’bout evrything and calling us laymen!
Its the grant majority of layman to vote / to decide!
convince me – I’m a layman!
and be good at it!
there’s millions of us!
So the paper is wrong then?
Your point?
Having delved into the CAGW/CACC mire for some 15 years with a PhD in a relevant subject matter, 35 years of academic and private sector due diligence [my colleagues would tell you I have finely tuned bullshit detectors], and with a good picture of the Who’s Who in your post, any of those mentioned, individually or collectively, suffice to discredit any paper or publication related to climate “science’.
So what’s your point in the context of this thread?
The publishers of this “Journal” are on the 2014 list of predatory publishers.
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/
Why would any serious scientist totally ruin their credibility and integrity by publishing in a non-peer-reviewed vanity journal by a predatory publisher like this? Unless paying to have it published was the only way he could get it published at all?
Get ready. The warmists, and those who support the agenda expecting future financial reward, will soon pull all stops as they see control and money evaporate.
Already the anti-carbon lobby in the UK is saying, ‘climate change is irreversible, but we must still bring down ‘carbon emissions’ because its affecting health’. Watch this space, the next tranche of ‘scientific evidence’ against CO2 etc., is all going to be ‘medical’.
Which, in fairness, probably has more provenance.
CO2 has medical impacts! Aarrgghhhh!
Calm down a minute.
Try breathing into a bag.
“Try breathing into a bag.”
Very good, sir! You win the day!
What negative health affect does additional CO2 have?
Breathing pure CO2 will lead to hypoxaemia, fatigue, confusion, acute respiratory and cardiac failure, followed by brain death. Apart from that there are no known health effects.
Breathing pure H2O will lead to hypoxaemia, fatigue, confusion, panic then acute respiratory and cardiac failure, followed by brain death. Apart from that there are no known health effects.
Breathing pure Ar will lead to hypoxaemia, fatigue, confusion, acute respiratory and cardiac failure, followed by brain death. Apart from that there are no known health effects.
Breathing pure N2 will lead to hypoxaemia, fatigue, confusion, acute respiratory and cardiac failure, followed by brain death. Apart from that there are no known health effects.
Breathing pure He will lead to hypoxaemia, fatigue, confusion, acute respiratory and cardiac failure, followed by brain death. Apart from that there are no known health effects. Side effects of breathing He include the funny noises emitted by clowns, six-year-olds at parties, and many CAGW government-paid so-called scientists attending conferences in exotic expensive tropical locations also paid for by their governments.
Your comment is true, but does not lead us further in the debate. There is much more N2, Ar, H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. Should we ban the inert and noble gasses because we cannot breathe if they contaminate the atmosphere?
Bob Ryan, if the atmosphere is pure CO2 then we may have other issues as well.
Being on the wrong planet, for a start.
Intriguingly, the symptoms you quote also apply to breathing pure N2. Let’s try to keep that at less than 800ppm too.
Bob Ryan:
You amuse. You come here and try to demonize CO2 with a quip. We are scientists and we know better.
Yup, goes for any gas you care to think of apart from oxygen and even that, like fine malt whisky, is better diluted. Though to be fair, there are many gases, including CO, H2S and HCN that will seriously damage your health at 400ppm. So, a little CO2 sniffing is unlikely to impair wellbeing – taken in moderation of course.
David A, a quick search offered this.
Humans Exhale between 35,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2.
5,000 ppm occupational safety standard (time weighted average for an eight-hour workday
within a 40-hour work week) for an industrial workplace.
http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/CO2inbuildings.pdf
I believe that breathing pure O2 (at STP) will have about the same effect as with CO2.
It’s not the CO2 that kills you; it’s lack of oxygen. Geez!
The CO2 level in most households is around 800 ppm. In many greenhouses, CO2 levels are augmented to between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm while studies show that the physiological impact such levels have on humans working there are found to actually be beneficial.
Leave it to the climate mongers to get it wrong.
Most of the studies I’ve seen show problems starting around 1000PPM, mostly relating to cognitive functioning. The medical concerns are far more important than any global warming aspect of CO2, but don’t really require immediate action – we could just install CO2 scrubbers in our homes until outdoor levels are reduced if it really comes to that 😉
The CO2 level in your lungs, when you exhale, is about 40,000 ppm!
Here is a human translation of that editor’s note:
The parameter called “climate sensitivity” was invented to account for the assumption that the global average of atmospheric temperatures might be raised in a certain manner by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. To this end, various forcings were defined, based on certain physics-based and mostly plausible assumptions, which would cause this temperature increase by way of a departure from [the previous] equilibrium. One of many required factors is climate sensitivity, which states how many Kelvins of warming will occur when the CO2 concentration doubles.
(The original German is clumsy and stilted – no wonder that Google Translate got lost.)
It would also help to remove the hard line breaks from the text of the paper.
Thank you, I also thought the editor’s note was mightily garbled. Google MT would be screwed, however, even if the German original were perfect. There ain’t no such thing as “machine translation.”
OT: And there is of course no such thing as “un-difficult” German…. You know, as in the proverbial “”Kurzes Einfuehrung” [short introduction] in German grammar: one volume for the rules, followed by four volumes of exceptions…. Wenn ich das so sagen darf…
One has to have some empathy for the poor Google translation machine…. 🙂
Typo/Transcription alert?
I think the 0.43 should not have been repeated, but should be 0.60 C°. From the abstract at http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846 :
My internal pedant points out I should have copied the one digit precision in the abstract, i.e. 0.6 C°. My apologies to it and its host.
I noticed the same thing. In order not to be too easy a target for attacks, 0,43C should be corrected to 0,6C
The 0.43C climate sensitivity [Cs in the paper] is not a typo, as explained below on page 38 of the paper:
All results for the individual and collective feedbacks on the climate and air sensitivity are listed in
Table 7. The upper ten rows show the data calculated under clear sky conditions, the lower 14 lines
the results under mean cloud cover. Comparison of respective rows without and with overcast clearly
demonstrates the dominant influence of clouds, causing a significant reduction of the sensitivities, as long
as the thermally induced cloud feedback is excluded. So, with water vapour, lapse rate, albedo, convection and evaporation feedback CS even diminishes to only 0.43 ˚ C.
This is the retrieval mode for decent climate scientist (so they still find work after the Fraud is completely uncovered). Most likely, and I dont have a clue, just guessing… Climate sensitivity to increased C02 (on Earth)is probably zero at higher levels (400ppm) and higher at lower levels (<180ppm) for obvious reasons (plants need to survive). At very high levels 3000ppm ect it seems to be related to extremely cold periods(ice ages), Stand to be corrected.
@Eliza
You say:
“Climate sensitivity to increased C02 (on Earth)is probably zero at higher levels (400ppm) and higher at lower levels (<180ppm) for obvious reasons (plants need to survive). At very high levels 3000ppm ect it seems to be related to extremely cold periods(ice ages), Stand to be corrected."
———————
The problem is always the estimate of CS.
The whole Earth system is expected to react to any energy increase outside the natural pattern as in the case of AGW.
Different CS means different scale of response….how can I put this…if you compare for example the 3C CS for a doubling with the 0.6C CS the system will have a different response. In the case of 3C the system will respond too little too late no much strength. With a lowering of CS the system responce becomes much stronger and quicker…for example in the case of 0.6C the system will start responding to the CO2 warming once that warming gets to be at about 0.2C AFTER THE CENTURY MARK, which actually coincides with the point that the last century warming getting to 0.8C….the full responce mean that the system will propagate a -0.6C impact from that point on for the next 150 years at least. So the system response will tend to cool the climate by -0.6C and the reminding warming to be added according to the 0.6C CS will be at about another 0.4C….
0.8C +(-0.6C) + 0.4C= 0.6C WARMING FROM THE 1900 TO ABOUT THE TIME OF 560ppm….meaning a cooling of 0.2C about from the present till then. That is still 0.4C above the system tolerance of 0.2C…a paradox really.
Under this explanation for the CS= 0.6C still to be true, the system should respond in such a way that the CO2 emissions must not get past the 440ppm to 450ppm.
So the 3000ppm you mention, as far as I can tell is impossible, and totally alien under the cicumstances with a 0.6C CS.
With the 3C CS the responce will be at a bout a 0.6C to 0.7C of a accumulated extra wearming solely due to the CO2 emissions wich more or less is about the same time as in the case of CS at 0.6C (according to the data) but the strength of the responce is nearly nil ( most a 0.1 to 0.2C max responce as the most variation in climate to be observed only due to CO2) wich is insignificant to the 3C warming in the case of CS=3C.
The 3000ppm is much easy to be immagined in this case.
The point made is that in higher CS a most tolerant system expected to the warming in the AGW senario…. in a lower CS less tolerant the system is towards the AGW.
So all depends in the actual CS value…….As far as I can tell any CS below 0.8C makes no sense through the numbers…same for any CS above 1C to 1.4C, for doubling of CO2 that is..
Above 1.5C and moving upwards to 4.5C, as in the case of the official orthodox estimate, the climatic condition will make some sense with the numbers but expected to be too hot, much more than the reality is allowing, so the above 1.5C no possible anymore according to reality, these CS estimates can't fit anymore with reality.
Hope that makes some sense..:-)
cheers
You’re making the classic mistake of assuming all warming is the result of added CO2 in your calculations. At most, I find that about 45% can be attributed to all GHG additions (mostly CO2). This is in the idealized model, with 1.41W/m^2 forcing (currently), building from earlier forcing, and the inclusion of no negative feedbacks… so… it’s over-doing it.
Of the 0.8C rise, 0.4~0.6C was natural (from the sun, or internal heat flying the American flag and achieving liberation). So we have seen ~40% of the CO2 effect from doubling – which is good, because we are 38% there. That makes for a low CO2 sensitivity of 0.6. But, if you ignore any external inputs and claim all warming is from CO2, the sensitivity must be >= 1.2C.
@loorenz
Thanks for your reply.
I see that maybe I have been not very clear with my comment you replied at….but what I said in my comment and my calculations are not based on the clasical mistake you mention…read carefully.
I did consider the warming due to CO2 emissions in regard to the CS=0.6C only as much as 0.2C in regard to the 0.8C warming experienced…so the figure that you consider as 0.4~0.6C as natural I have considered as ~0.6C……read carefully. Probably very hard to get the point I was making.
Let me try it from another angle..
What I said:
“As far as I can tell any CS below 0.8C makes no sense through the numbers…same for any CS above 1C to 1.4C, for doubling of CO2 that is..”
Meaning that 0.8C~1.0C CS is a number with less error than 0.6C CS…while compared to what you say 0.8~1.0C CS is equivalent to your ~40% and the 0.6C CS is equivalent to ONLY ~26% (0.2C of the 0.8C experienced) and not as it seems you do considered at ~ 38% warming due to CO2.. 38%~40% is equivalent 0.8~1.0C CS
What I was saying was that the 0.6C is less correct than the 0.8~ 1.0C CS.
The system response is big in the case of 0.8~1.0C CS, but smaller than in the case of 0.5~0.7C (aka 0.6C) CS which ranges very close to impossibility.
Lower the climate CS less tolerance in the system for any extra warming due to CO2.. THAT WAS THE POINT.
Numbers are too small, a little variation means a big error…….
I assure you I have not made that clasical mistake you mention… please read carefully….. there could be any other problems or mistakes with my calculations but the one you mention is not the case.
Please let me know if something still not clear enough.. I get lost my self with my own thoughts sometimes while CS considered..is a very complicated subject..:-)
thanks again.
cheers““““““““`-+
The standard problem with calculating the solar influence is the assumption of validity of the Group Sunspot Number coupled with the assumption of a recent Grand Maximum. Both of these assumptions have been shown [see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Keynote-SCOSTEP-2014.pdf ] to be wrong, so the solar influence is much smaller than assumed, regardless of the contribution of CO2.
It totally amazes me to still find new papers using questionable solar indices. I understand lag time between first draft and final publication but I would think we are getting to the point that it no longer would show up in research. Is it just plain laziness, not want to wait for an official corrected indices or are we seeing examples of bias?
Leif, your keynote is a true scientific tour de force, tightly wrapping up in one paper a lifetime of related solar and geomagnetic research and knowledge. Pages 31 & 38 – thank you! I appreciate it – it will be referenced often down the road.
However, the “standard problem” regarding solar influence that you just stated in your comment & conclusion above is not overtly addressed in your keynote, and the data presented therein do not logically lead to your conclusion. There is no information in your keynote that invalidates the solar Modern Maximum as the main cause of “global warming”.
Solar activity during the Modern Maximum of 1936-2003, as measured by the annual average GSN, http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls, was 31% higher for the 68 years from 1936-2003 than the annual average GSN during the previous 183 years.
That is not the way to do comparison. Doing it your way you’ll find that the averaged revised GSN fo 1724-1796 was 29% higher than the average GSN for all the other years since 1700. You should not compare the average of a cherry-picked local maximum with the overall average. On this plot http://www.leif.org/research/New-GSN-since-1700.png I find it hard to believe that the 20th century activity was in any way GRAND.
Not if you believe in energy conservation. Accounting for the variation of sea surface temperatures during solar cycles requires more energy input than can be provided by the variations of solar irradiance that reach the top of the atmosphere during solar cycles. Further, it is not clear at all that the author assumed that irradiance was related to sunspot number, however, he did assume that irradiance increased.
The 68-year solar modern max epoch from 1936-2003 had an annual average GSN of 73.5. The 68 years prior to 1936 had an average GSN of 42.8.
That was a 72% increase in the average annual sunspot output from one 68 year period to the next 68 year period.
I wouldn’t call that grand either. I’d call it GREAT! The GREAT Solar Maximum of the 20th century.
The 50-year solar 19th century max epoch from 1825-1875 had an annual average GSN of 63.6. The 50-years after that had and average GSN of 36.9.
That was a 72% decrease in the average annual sunspot number output from one 50-year period to the the next 50 year period.
Amazing the games one can play by cherry-picking periods.
lsvalgaard
October 14, 2014 at 3:00 pm
After the first warming phase of the Modern Warm Period (following the last cold snap of the LIA, ie the Dalton Minimum), there occurred the first counter-trend cycle of the secular warming, c. 1879 to 1915, so not surprising that average GSN was lower in the interval 1875-1924 than during the prior 50 years (1825-74), which included recovery from the Dalton.
The non-surprising point is that solar activity goes up and goes down and every one of the last three full centuries have had its maximum and none of them were particularly GRAND or GREAT in relation to the others. This should be contrasted to the myth of the grand modern maximum illustrated by Figures 1 and 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
From the standpoint of climatology, I find SSN lows more telling than highs, whether grand maxima or not. The Little Ice Age consisted of three long stretches of low SSNs (Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima), or four if you include the Wolf Minimum, which occurred during what’s generally considered the transition out of the Medieval Warm Period, but was followed by warmth associated with higher SSNs. Also, the reversion to LIA-like climate (late 19th & early 20th century) early in the Modern Warm Period, after its first blast of warmth in the mid-19th century, coincided with lower SSNs. Conversely, the rapid, strong rebound (early 18th century) from the depths of the LIA during the Maunder coincided with higher SSNs.
In this case, IMO a strong argument can be made for a mechanism connecting correlation & causation.
What would be the effect on Earth’s atmosphere and by extension its climate at any level, global/regional -assuming for a moment this were possible- of turning off the sun, and then after a while turning it back on?
If that has no consequences -unlikely I would have thought- that would be very interesting, indeed. If it does, why is it that what would appear to be not inconsequential periodic fluctuations in the sun’s activity, have as little influence on climate as your research suggests?
milodonharlani October 14, 2014 at 3:10 pm
After the first warming phase of the Modern Warm Period (following the last cold snap of the LIA, ie the Dalton Minimum), there occurred the first counter-trend cycle of the secular warming, etc etc
Is a circular argument as you use assume a priori that the sun drives those large climate swings.
We turn the sun off every evening [i.e. night] and then back on [i.e. dawn]. Not much consequence.
I assume nothing. I note that climatic swings correlate with the observed variation in SSN. It was colder during the low SSN intervals (Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima, plus late 19th & early 20th century) & warmer during the intervening & subsequent periods of higher SSN. Beyond just correlation, plausible physical mechanisms have been proposed & investigated experimentally & observationally to account for the connection. Pretty persuasive to me.
milodonharlani October 15, 2014 at 8:01 am
It was colder during the low SSN intervals (Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima, plus late 19th & early 20th century)
and early 21st, right? Oh, wait, perhaps that is CO2 at work.
Only in “adjusted” data has the early 21st century been as warm as the late 20th century. At best, temperature has stayed the same, while CO2 has apparently risen monotonically. And IMO it’s going to get colder even as CO2 keeps going up.
CO2 doesn’t correlate well with actual temperature. If anything, it’s an effect, not a cause. In the past, temperature has risen with falling CO2, risen with rising CO2 (as after the PDO switch in 1977 until ~1996), stayed the same with both rising & falling CO2, fallen with rising CO2 & fallen with falling CO2. The conjecture that CO2 is the control knob on climate was born falsified.
GASTA also goes up & down while CO2 stays about the same, as during the 1940s & early ’50s.
So Figure 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf is persuasive to you. It isn’t to me. But, I realize that it is hard to argue with someone who is so persuaded as you.
lsvalgaard commented
Lief, how comfortable are you that we’re detecting and counting all of the significant energy put out by the Sun?
I don’t know which is Fig. 20. The figures don’t appear to be labelled. Is that on page 20?
I’m easy to argue with, somewhat harder to persuade. I’d like to see the variation in the UV component of TSI.
I’ve long been a fan of Piet Hein, since reading his “A Maxim for Vikings”. These seem apropos:
Experts have
their expert fun
ex-cathedra
telling one
just how nothing
can be done.
‘Experts’ (1966)
The road to wisdom?—Well, it’s plain
and simple to express:
Err
and err
and err again
but less
and less
and less.
‘The Road to Wisdom’ (1966)
Problems worthy
of attack
prove their worth
by hitting back.
‘Problems’ (1969)
Mi Cro October 15, 2014 at 10:44 am
Leif, how comfortable are you that we’re detecting and counting all of the significant energy put out by the Sun?
Very comfortable.
milodonharlani October 15, 2014 at 11:07 am
I don’t know which is Fig. 20. The figures don’t appear to be labelled. Is that on page 20?
Yes, of course.
I’m easy to argue with, somewhat harder to persuade.
Yet, you are persuaded that the so-called grand minima control the climate. Go figure.
I’d like to see the variation in the UV component of TSI.
UV scales with TSI [and is itself a tiny part of TSI]. We have a very good record of the energetic part of UV [the EUV], see http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Keynote-SCOSTEP-2014.pdf
I don’t call them grand minima, just minima, which is what they’ve been called for a long time. There were three or four of them during the LIA (depending upon start date for that cold interval) & none since. If another one occurs, then global climate is liable to get cooler. IMO Milankovitch Cycles come closer to “controlling” the climate, but solar activity certainly seems to matter as well.
Thanks for UV reconstructions.
“We turn the sun off every evening [i.e. night] and then back on [i.e. dawn]. Not much consequence.”
Whaaaa? Significant consequence in my book. Don’t have the average worldwide diurnal temperature variation on the top of my head and a fifteen minute google search refused to tell me (bet I could find it in ten minutes in a 1970 meteorology textbook). Anyway, clearly several degrees C in twelve hours. If it can do that in hours, why can’t miniscule variations over centuries do the same?
24 hours
Day time average rising temp and following night average falling temp are just under 18F.
No consequence for the climate. Or do you really believe that the day-night cycle is the cause of global warming or the lack thereof? That must be a new one.
Some physicists here and elsewhere have pointed out that the CO2 molecule will bump into another molecule and give up its extra energy before it radiates the energy. This means that convection is the dominate process in the lower atmosphere (where the atmosphere is so dense).
I am thinking that the climate “sensitivity” to CO2 is vanishingly small. Perhaps even zero.
Yes and it seems as time goes by climate sensitivity is getting smaller and smaller.
Eventually a paper will come out stating the truth i.e. climate sensitivity to CO2 of ZERO.
My luke warm friends have the exact same problem as the alarmists, i.e. explain the lack of warming of the last two decades.
“My luke warm friends have the exact same problem as the alarmists, i.e. explain the lack of warming of the last two decades.”
Couldn’t be easier:
Natural variation >= AGW
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
This paper builds an in-depth physics model and ignores the oversimplifications taken for granted by most of climate science. The alarmism simply cannot be supported when a thorough physics model, including spectroscopy, is used to examine the data. Our Professor Brown recently pointed out the pitfalls associated with oversimplifications.
“Editor’s note: The “climate sensitivity” said quantity was invented to carry the presumption in meaningful ways into account that the global mean temperature of the atmosphere could possibly be driven in a certain way by increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air. To this end, forces defined (postulated) called. “Forcings”, whose influence, by means of certain physically based and mostly plausible assumptions, to accomplish this increase as migration out of balance. One of the factors is required for the climate sensitivity. It indicates how much K (° C) doubling the heating of the CO2 concentration rises.”
In other words, as always, they start out by assuming that there is a ‘climate sensitivity’ to more atmospheric CO2 before looking, that an increase in CO2 does lead to a rise in global temperatures. Same old circular reasoning. This continued approach will never get us anywhere.
A paper that tries to isolate downward shortwave radiation from longwave radiation? What a novel concept!
Do they use solar from the TOA or at the surface? It’s the surface that matters.
Indeed, and it is the long term absorption of SW radiation into the oceans that drives long term climate responses. In the oceans the residence time of a small increase can accumulate energy daily for years. In the atmosphere a balance is established daily.
I still don’t see correlation between CO2 and temperature – CO2 increases temperature goes down, CO2 increases temperature goes up, CO2 increases temperature goes down.
The sun and oceans do seem to correlate with temperature, though. What am I missing here?
At the risk of being ‘that guy’…
There are a couple of extraneous letters in ‘significant’ in the post title.
Spelling: The Lost Art
Good catch. That one got by me, probably because it’s in the title.
The 1st graph tells you all you need to know about the greenhouse gas effect–it is the H2O nothing else matters.
Groundbreaking in the sense that climate science is no longer the handmaiden of the Hansen/Gore/IPCC confirmation bias and no longer has to genuflect to the CAGW meme and its self-righteous proponents.
Margaret Smith – The main relationship is that atmospheric CO2 concentration depends on sea temperature since its solubility in water decreases as the water temperature rises. The current rise in atmospheric CO2 is probably partly due the earth warming up after the LIA.
Yes, that I know. But that has nothing to do with humans. Sea temperature influencing air temperature is pretty obvious to us in the UK who are kept mild in winter due to the Gulf Stream.