Annual report on global temperature change to December 2014
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Global warming is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. The divergence between prediction and reality is now severe. Despite revisions in the terrestrial datasets calculated to cause an unmeasured increase in the warming rate of recent decades, the gulf between the exaggerated predictions in the models and the far less exciting observed reality is in danger of becoming an abyss.
All five major monthly global surface or lower-troposphere anomaly datasets, the latest being HadCRUT4, have now reported their results for 2014. Time, then, for our WUWT annual update on temperature trends. As usual, we shall look at the three principal terrestrial surface datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC) and the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH).
First, to determine the underlying global warming trend as fairly as possible it is necessary to allow for the ocean-oscillation cycles of 30 years’ warming followed by 30 years’ cooling . The Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere & Ocean at the University of Washington says that the year 2000 marked the transition from the positive or warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to the negative or cooling phase:
Using JISAO’s dates and taking the mean of the three terrestrial temperature datasets, the global temperature record from 1890 to 2014 inclusive shows warming during the positive PDO phases but more or less stable temperatures during the negative phases, illustrating very clearly the influence of the PDO on temperatures:
The warming trend of 0.92 Cº since 1890, equivalent to less than three-quarters of a degree per century, occurred almost entirely within the two positive PDO phases.
To establish a fair estimate of the recent trend, one must take the same number of years either side of a phase-change in the PDO. Thus, the period from 1987 to 2014 has 14 years’ positive and 14 years’ negative PDO. The trend on the mean of the three terrestrial datasets since 1987 is 0.41 Cº, equivalent to less than 1.5 Cº/century:
On the combined RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from the surface trend:
Taking the mean of all five datasets gives the fairest indication of the underlying global warming trend, which is less than 1.4 Cº/century, or below half the central rate predicted by the IPCC on its “business-as-usual” scenario in 1990:
The individual graphs for each of the five major global-temperature anomaly datasets for the period 1987-2014 are now given, so as to dispel the usual accusations that the data have been cherry-picked:
Starting the trend in 2001, at the turn of the millennium, shows the effect of the negative phase of the PDO in slowing down the warming rate. The rate from 1987-2014 was 0.39 Cº, equivalent to 1.38 Cº/century, but the rate from 2001-2014 was just 0.03 Cº, equivalent to 0.24 Cº century. It is possible, of course, that the gradual decline in solar activity after the near Grand Maximum of 1925-1995, peaking in 1960, may have contributed to the slowdown in warming:
Last year I reported that the trend from 2001-2013 was zero. So the current year has kicked up the warming rate by about a thirtieth of a degree.
There has been no full-blown el Niño Southern Oscillation event since 2010, when McLean, de Freitas & Carter reported that it is the ratio of the frequency of el Niño to that of la Niña events, and not global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, that has proven to be the prime determinant of global temperature variability in recent decades. However, el Niño conditions were prevalent (just about) during the second half of 2014. This may have been enough to cause the slight uptick in what could otherwise have been a flat trend.
CO2 concentration (the characteristic gray dog-tooth curve in gray on the graphs) has continued to rise at its established rate of about 2 ppmv yr–1, but neither the previously-committed or “in-the-pipeline” warming imagined by the IPCC nor the new warming driven by continuing greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has driven global temperature up at an alarming or dangerous rate.
The continuing absence of global warming, first admitted by the IPCC in February 2013 in the person of its climate-science chairman, Dr.Pachauri, has at last led the IPCC to abandon the computer models on which it had previously relied without question. It is worth recalling, at Fig. 2, the graphs from the second-order or pre-final draft (upper panel) and final draft (lower panel) of the Fifth Assessment Report to demonstrate not only how substantial the reduction in the mid-range estimate is but also how visibly far below the models’ predictions the IPCC’s new best estimate is:
Figure 2. Near-term projections in the pre-final or “second-order” draft of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (upper panel) show the mid-range estimate of 0.7 K over 30 years. In the final or published draft (lower panel), the former mid-range estimate became the high-end estimate of the new range, and the IPCC’s “expert assessment”, replacing for the first time its reliance on models’ output, was to the effect that about 0.4 K global warming would occur over the coming 30 years.
This new and much-reduced best estimate, equivalent to 0.13 K decade–1, is a little below the 0.14 K decade–1 that was observed over the preceding 30 years, despite continuing increases in CO2 concentration. The IPCC is now actually predicting a standstill, or even a little slowdown, in the rate of global warming.
Now that a full decade has passed since January 2005, the benchmark month for the predictions of near-term global warming to 2050 in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, it is time to take stock with a comparison between the rate of temperature change the IPCC predicted by the IPCC in 2005 and the rate of temperature change that has been observed:
The IPCC’s prediction is that there should have been a sixth of a degree of warming over the past decade. However, there has barely been any at all.
Considering that governments have placed heavy reliance upon the IPCC, and that the environmental-extremist movement has repeatedly said that it was more certain about the future course of global temperature than about anything else in science, the failure of global temperatures to keep pace even with the IPCC’s latest and much-reduced global-warming projections is remarkable.
The failure extends upward even to the climatically-crucial mid-troposphere, where the predicted temperature “hot spot” (which I had the honor to name) has not appeared in observed reality, despite some disfiguring revisionist attempts to make it appear ex post facto.
The failure is evident in all 73 of the models examined by Christy (2013), not only confirming the models’ propensity to exaggerate warming but also reinforcing the observations showing that there has been no global warming for a decade and a half, since theory would lead us to expect a near-tripling of the tropical surface warming rate in the tropical mid-troposphere if there had been any global warming, but no such tripling has occurred:
The question arises: why were very nearly all runs of very nearly all models so very wrong? And why were the errors, almost without exception, in the direction of monstrous but profitable exaggeration?
What are the models missing? Obsessed with radiation from greenhouse forcings and questionable temperature feedbacks, they ignore or poorly parameterize many important climate processes and undervalue the net cooling effect of the following events:
Ø the “parasol effect” of growth in emerging nations’ unfiltered particulate aerosols;
Ø the non-radiative transports such as tropical afternoon convection;
Ø evaporation from the surface, which is observed to occur at thrice the rate per degree of warming that the models predict;
Ø the decline in solar activity since 1960;
Ø the recent fall in the ratio of el Niño to la Niña oscillations;
Ø the current 30-year “cooling” phase of the Pacific Decadal oscillation;
Ø the cooling effect of the recent double-dip la Niña;
Ø the ending late in 2001 of an 18-year period with less global cloud cover than normal (Pinker et al., 2005); and
Ø the natural variability that has given us many long periods without warming in the past 150 years.
All of these influences (of which only the first is manmade) could well have exercised between them a cooling effect enough to match the warming influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The models, however, either did not make sufficient allowance for these thermostatic influences or tended to exaggerate the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, or both.
The models have been tuned to base their predictions almost exclusively on Man’s influence. Also, the models’ handling of temperature feedbacks may have led to an undue tripling of the global warming rate via the use of a system-gain equation borrowed from electronic circuitry – an equation that has no place in the climate (Monckton of Brenchley et al., 2015, Science Bulletin 60(1): www.scibull.com).
The models’ undue focus on and exaggeration of a single and probably minor cause of warming, while undervaluing or altogether neglecting natural net-negative forcings, has been their undoing.
But the central reason for the models’ error is that they were tuned and inter-compared and tuned again until they all told more or less the same story of ever-faster warming and ever-more-lurid disasters. The curse of intercomparison has brought the models more and more into line with one another and farther and farther away from observed reality.
The very small fluctuations in global temperature over the past 750 million years, and especially over the past 810,000 years, when absolute global mean surface temperature varied by little more than 3 Cº or 1% either side of the long-run mean, rule out the absurdly extreme feedback loop gains implicit (and very carefully unstated) in the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity:
More worryingly for the credibility of the IPCC, even the direct warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that should have occurred if its basic understanding of climate dynamics were right has not been observed.
The CO2 radiative forcing over the period 2005-2013 – if the IPCC is right – should have been 5.35 ln(400 ppmv/378 ppmv), or 0.30 W m–2. The IPCC assumes that CO2 accounts for just 70% of all manmade greenhouse-gas forcings, so make that 0.43 W m–2. Then, to allow for warming “in the pipeline”, at around 0.6 of the 2.8 K that the Fourth Assessment Report predicted for this century, bring up the total predicted manmade forcing since 2005 to 0.48 W m–2.
Multiply this alleged manmade forcing by 0.31 K W–1 m2, the instantaneous or Planck climate-sensitivity parameter. Even ignoring any feedbacks of any kind, the total global warming that should have happened since 2005, according to the IPCC’s methodology, is 0.15 K. With feedbacks, make that at least 0.2 K. Yet none has happened.
Two years have passed since the Qatar climate conference at which the inadvertent delegate from Burma announced, to shrieks of astonishment, horror, and dismay from his fellow-delegates, that there had been no global warming for 16 years, and that perhaps it was time to call in some independent scientists to do a review of the science to make sure that these increasingly unimportant climate conferences were still heading in the right direction.
At that time, The Pause was very little known, for it did not fit the official story-line and had gone almost entirely unreported in the mainstream news media. So the delegates shrieked in fury, and in fear that their gravy-train had finally toppled over the Stanton curve at more than the mandatory 15 mph.
How long will the now well-known Great Pause continue? Professor Lindzen answered that one during an important lecture in Colombia four years ago. He said the probability of the world being warmer than the present in 50 years’ time is one-half. It is as likely that the world will not be warmer than today as it is that it will be.
For it remains possible that our true influence on the climate is so minuscule that the continuing diminution in solar activity that is now widely expected will be more than enough to neutralize all our greenhouse-gas forcings for many decades to come.
Finally, many have commented that calling the long failure of global temperatures to rise the “Great Pause” suggests that global warming will one day resume. In truth, we don’t know whether we’re heading up the mountain or down the mountain. So let us from now on call it the “Great Shelf”:
For in the light of the evidence presented here it is to the Great Shelf that the current international program of costly, ineffective measures to make minuscule global warming go away should be permanently consigned.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well I read somewhere that the “Burmese Python” was actually some British Lord in disguise; well at least he was sitting in dis guys chair at an open mike.
Well you leave a vacancy while you fuel up at the bar, and you are just inviting British Lords to use the premises while you are indisposed.
And thank you for the 2014 wrap up MofB.
g
I gotta go; this place just got invaded by a flock of geese; well geezers anyhow. I just hope they don’t ask what I do here.
I’m sure they are not NASA types, but maybe medics of some sort.
G
MofB: Where did you earn your University degree in Physics?
I believe it was at http://www.degrees-r-us.com
…
They’re running a special on PhD’s ….$19.95 with a coupon.
Ad hominem, the fallacy of choice from a warmist. Be a good boy and drink your hemlock, Sock.
Probably the same place you’re making money on the merry go round of vat taxes from carbon credits. Your not located in Denmark by any chance?
I’m relabeling it from Hoaxahagen to FRAUD o Haven
That must be where you got yours, then?
Neat. Never occurred to me Socrates (the real one) was executed with the poison hemlock of carrot family. To me hemlock was the western hemlock tree, Tsuga heterophylla.
Now, I’d rather refrain from going as down as our Socrates.
I don’t find your comment in the form of an ad hominem attack useful. Which part or parts of the analysis or data above do you believe to be in error? Would you please point to specifics/data from other sources for us that invalidate the facts presented here?
warrenlb, please state the specific items in MoB’s article with which you disagree.
+1 That’s all that needs to be said to drive-by insinuations like warrenlb.
The warrenlb’s always attack the messenger when they can’t attack the message.
jajajaja I knew it wouldn’t take long…
Hey TROll, warrenlb… where did YOU earn YOUR degree in physics?
We’ve seen it all before, you gutless wretch.
The same goes double for you, David Socrates, since you are not only an anonymous little troll, but you are persistent.
Why, thank you very much Mr. Robertson.
It never takes long because there is a red- robed troupe constantly patrolling websites such as this, ready to pounce on any hint of deviation from AGW orthodoxy.
The only difference from the Monty Python sketch is that we ALWAYS expect them.
Thank you for your pleasant inquiry. Cornell University. And you’re welcome.
the league of ivy
sigh . . .
warrenlb
So, you are claiming that Cornell University teaches the fallacy that the truth of an argument is affected by the qualification(s) of the argument’s presenter.
I cannot accept that Cornell teaches such a gross falsehood and would require evidence before I would accept that claim. Hence, I also don’t believe you when you claim you graduated in physics from Cornell University.
Richard
warrenlb did not disagree with anything in the article he read well enough to comment on.
It is not reasonable therefore to assume that he has any disagreement with the article at all.
It is obvious that warrenlb was inquiring about the Lord’s education merely to praise that institution.
M Courtney,
You forgot to add: “/sarc”.
Great Warren! We’d all love to read your dissertation or thesis.
RWTurner, that’s a great challenge! We can see how warrenlb thinks, since he’s too frightened to submit an article here…
…unless, of course, he’s overstepped in his claims.
I spent a lot of time in university and a lot of a students time is spent alone, with the books. 50 minutes with the professor twice a day then off on your own for the rest of the week (per class). I have spent thousands of hours in study, alone, with the books. All the University experience does is give you a piece of paper that says you once studied a subject, sometimes long ago and largely forgotten now.
I study subjects on my own now for the purpose of learning the subject, for the purpose of working with my knowledge gained to solve real world problems. I most likely have spent enough time in studies over my years to earn 3 PhD’s.
I have a piece of paper for an MS in Computer Science from almost 35 years ago.
Except for those extraordinary Climate Models, we all know that nothing has changed in computers in last 3 and 1/2 decades.
Computer science is my specialty. 35 years ago I was standing in line, at Simon Fraser University, behind the guy who didn’t do a test run of his code on the mainframe first before sending a run of his code to the printer and having streams of paper exiting the printer.
garymount,
I know that guy. He put the page-break character in a loop. Then he had to refold a lot of paper. Young folks have never seen this – unlike snow!
GaryMount?
What is a Gary Mount?
Studying on your own is fine, excellent. It is those darned homework sets, hourly’s, mid-terms, lab reports, presentations, and above all Final Exams that this program lacks. Sure, you may have learned the same things Degree Holders learned, but can you establish this?
WarrenLB,
Maybe since you have a degree in Physics from Cornell you could explain to me how TOA temperatures could affect surface temperatures. You can say, “Re-radiation!” and then I will say, “Sadly, no, thermalization mid-troposphere instead.” You can say, “Shoulders of the bands!” and then I will say, “Sadly, no, saturation within a couple of meters of the surface.”
What else will you say?
At some point, every scientist and engineer has to become an autodidact. In fact, the goal of their education is to produce life long learners. You ask: “can you establish this?” It’s actually pretty easy. garymount uses his learning to solve real world problems. The solutions, as outlined on his CV, will speak louder than a freshly printed degree.
garymount’s statement that he has spent enough time studying to earn three PhDs could be true as long as you consider only PhDs that can be done in three years. 😉
Of course, the ”experts” have an impeccable record of always being right, particularly CAGW alarmist experts. They never get anything wrong. Experts with PhDs coming out their behinds. Same place they make their pronouncements.
Eamon.
When all else fails, attack the man.
Michael S,
If you noticed, that is all these people have. If it were not for their ad hominem logical fallacies they wouldn’t have anything to say.
Dbstealey nailed it
..
For example
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/25/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment/#comment-1846618
“Bart, I knew it, just knew it. Have I got the jamoke pegged, or what? ”
…
Name calling is considered “ad-hominem”
Ad hominem is 2 words, not one. If you are going to use the term, learn to use it correctly.
Since the jamoke doesn’t understand the term, it can hardly be called offensive.
Still, the label fits.
warrenib to MofB — Where did you earn your University degree in Physics?
I will take it upon myself to answer for MofB — The same place Shakespeare earned his degree in English literature.
Eugene WR Gallun
@warrenlb,
Back atcha: Where did you earn yours? And in what? Theology?
I notice that you have nothing whatever to support your hit ‘n’ run comment.
Anthony invites readers to submit articles, and he doesn’t play favorites or limit the articles to any particular point of view. There are just more intelligent, thinking people on his side of the issue, so skeptical scientists like Lord Monckton post a lot of good articles.
So, warrenlb, why don’t you submit your own article — instead of taking your juvenile pot-shots from the peanut gallery? Let’s see you defend your own True Belief for a change. I would love to see that train wreck!
“So, warrenlb, why don’t you submit your own article”
I’d like to see that too, but not just for entertainment. One of these days, one side is going to be wrong.
>One of these days, one side is going to be (proven) wrong.
I said that to a commie friend of mine. One of us has been led astray. He never presents science or facts, just emotion and a desire for one world government. I explained to him that he would not be one of the overlords, just probably receive a ticket for a nice train ride. He said that was fine by him, as long as we get the world gubment. So sad. Otherwise a bright guy.
Which one of the 7 parameters in Lord Monckton’s Pocket Calculator Calculation, that out performs all the IPCC climate models, is dependent on Lord Monckton having a degree in science? How would the equation or the parameters change if Lord Monckton had a MA in History as opposed to a Bsc in Physics?
Why don’t you attack the arguments? Maybe because you can’t?
I don’t find your comment in the form of an ad hominem question useful. Which part or parts of the analysis or data above do you believe to be in error? Would you please point to specifics/data from other sources for us that invalidate the facts presented here?
warrenlb: I wonder why you think a degree in physics might somehow be necessary to understand the science of global warming?
Thank you again Christopher. Excellent.
Slightly off topic, but just as I was about to type a longer reply, I’ve been stopped by significant UK earth tremor here in East Midlands between Stamford & Grantham. Is CAGW to blame? Our dog has gone bananas.
Obviously caused by El nino, or CAGW, or fracking, or out-of-control wind turbines. Settled.
No fracking allowed yet in the UK. Excuse fail!
Fracking was the Arkansas/ West Virginia excuse. For the amusing details, read that example in The Arts of Truth. Might be relevant to the ongoing realtime UK debate.
You’re just feeling minor earth tremors due to evil fracking.
It’s probably a result of geothermal energy plants.
Some interesting scaling in the plots with CO2 and temperature. CO2-concentration plotted in a way that implies a warming between 0.8 degree C (surface) and 1 degree (tropospher). During av period with an increase in CO2 level ~ 60 ppm. Which translates to an increase in forcing of 0.42 w/m2.
Implication: 0.42 w/m2 should give an increase of temperature of 0.8 + degrees C.
Some really interesting TCR number follows from that.
Whoever said climate sensitivity must be low?
Are you of the opinion that 100% of the 0.8 deg C is from CO2?
Could be even more than 0.8 degrees C, if you realize that if the downward trend of the LIA continued (with the precession of the equinox) until today, it would be closer to 0.9 degrees.
So what caused the LIA? And do you believe that 100% of the warming is due to CO2?
The warming in the first half of the 20th century was not possibly from CO2, so you are obviously wrong Mr. Socrates.
@DavidSocrates
Well, if you are right (and I doubt that), we should be really thankful for all that “evil” anthropogenic CO2. Otherwise, we would be in the midst of a very uncomfortable climate with a lot of starving and extreme weather, because there is more extreme weather in cooler periods! See here for example:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130926/srep02770/full/srep02770.html
John M
..
“So what caused the LIA? ”
…
Re-read my post, and pay close attention to what i put inside of the parenthesis
“if the downward trend of the LIA continued (with the precession of the equinox) “.
Oh! My God! David Socrates believes in the existence of the Little Ice Age!!! Now the Hockey Stick is really busted!!!!!
Eugene WR Gallun
“…with the precession of the equinox…”
You’re right, I missed that. I guess my eyes didn’t believe anyone in 2015 would think the LIA was caused primarily by the “precession of the equinox”.
In any event, do you think the warming since the “precession of the equinox-caused LIA” is 100% due to CO2?
John M,
Planet Earth is clearly telling us that climate sensitivity is very low. Despite the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, the planet’s temperature (T) has fluctuated only a *very* tiny 0.8ºC — in more than a century and a half!
That is nothing. Even if we take the government’s temperature record at face value, that minuscule fluctuation is almost unprecedented in it’s small fluctuation over that long time frame.
But at least ‘rooter’ has attempted an argument based on facts, which is far more than our usual 2 trolls did. I respect him for that.
The author of this post implies 100% of 0.8 degrees is from CO2. Implies an TCR of 7 (!) degrees.
One cannot use these graphs to read across from CO2 concentration to temperature change.
And Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015) said climate sensitivity must be low, because the paleoclimate was remarkably stable, implying either a small feedback sum or a feedback amplification less extreme than that provided in the inapplicable Bode system-gain relation. If climate sensitivity were high, there should have been a lot more warming in the past two decades than there has been.
Well, why then don’t you scale your graphs accordingly. Scale them to reflect your calculations of climate sensitivity.
That remarkably stable paleoclimate, does that include the warm MWP?
Rooter,
It is clear that you have a fixation on the CO2 overlay and are intent on manipulating the discussion in the direction of the inference you want to make rather than anything the author “implied”, but since you seem to be the great keeper of the graphing scales, perhaps you’d like to comment on what this graph and scale “implies” the temperature anomoaly should have been in 2014.
Since you seem to be of the opinion that all graph scales should be taken literally, and are quite offended when they’re not used the way you think they should be, I anxiously await your critique.
Hmm…
Last week I was floundering around trying to get an image to post and failed miserably.
Now, I was perfectly content to paste in a simple link, et voilà, the image appears!
Sigh…I think I may just go back to papyrus and a quill pen. 🙂
Rooter,
That graph is from a recent publication by one Michael Mann.
And my question still is relevant.
John M:
What is the problem with that graph? That the scaling is better and implies lower climate sensitivity?
Don’t you like lower climate sensitivity?
If you like the scaling, then maybe you can tell me what it implies about the temperature anomaly in 2014 with co2 levels of 400 ppm.
Since you appear a bit on the purposely obtuse side, I can tell you what it implies to me…a temperature anomaly much higher than was observed.
And you’re right, why in the world would someone publish such a graph in Jan 2015, but then we can’t all be climate scientist geniuses.
Does John M not like the correlation between CO2 and temperature?
Seems that you’ve now gone from being purposely obtuse to being vacuously abstruse.
If you mean to imply that I don’t think CO2 has any impact on temperature, then you are wrong. It does appear, however, that the good Professor Mann took a brain-break when he put together that graph. Since you seem so intent on policing graphs and the scaling of axes, I thought you’d go right at it, but I guess your outrage at CO2 overlays is…selective.
With regard to CO2’s impact on climate, I put it in the same category as dietary salt’s impact on blood pressure…no doubt, it can have some impact, but the science is by no means “settled”, and it certainly doesn’t mean I should yield to the “experts” without questioning the level of certainty regarding the quantitative impact, given that they don’t really know.
Frankly, since I don’t know what the hell you meant by your comment, that’s the best I can do.
So to summarize: John M think it is objectionable to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature. It is objectionable to use a scaling that implies lower climate sensitivity.
Why? Because it makes him think than teemperatuer will continue to rise?
I’m sorry you are so befuddled by my simple questions that you now have to resort to speculating about my imaginary thoughts. Perhaps your emotional investment in needing to rigorously attach (“correlate”) CO2 to rising temperatures have caused you to conflate qualitative and quantitative issues. I will stand by my previous comments with regard to the state-of-play of CO2 and temperature. Read in particular my dietary salt analogy. And to be more clear, since this seems to be required with you, I fully expect temperatures to keep rising over a multi-decade timeframe, just not to the extent that the subject causes me to suck my thumb and cry myself to sleep.
Now, back to my questions of you:
1)Do you think all of the temperature rise since 1880 is due to CO2?
2)When you look at Mann’s graph, what does your ability to read graphs tell you the anomaly should have been in 2014?
Note that the answers to these simple questions do not require you to imagine what I or anyone might think.
Only a fool would ask such a question. Climate sensitivity is not determine by what anyone says.
The bigger question is whether there is such a thing as climate sensitivity to CO2, because that assumes that climate is orbiting a CO2 attractor.
Chaotic systems are not bound to increase simply because one of the attractors is increasing. Would earth’s orbit change if Jupiter doubled in mass? You have to be orbiting the attractor before it makes any immediate difference.
Otherwise, if you are orbiting a different attractor, increasing the CO2 attractor has no effect, other than to slightly change the odds that you will be thrown out of orbit around your current attractor, to orbit a different attractor.
That is why earth’s climate is so stable. Our climate is orbiting some long term attractors that remain virtually unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. These attractors are so large than no change in any other attractor can throw us out of orbit.
Thus, the notion of climate sensitivity is a myth. Created from the assumption that climate is a linear system. Founded in the naive mathematics of the 1950’s, that believed we could predict everything using linear programming models.
Even if a huge meteor impacts the earth and wipes out 90% of the life on earth, with the resultant change in temperatures and atmospheric composition, within a relatively short period of time the climate returns to where it was before.
rooter
You say seemingly to yourself
It would help those who read your musings to yourself if you were to explain the “discrepancy” you are pondering and if you were to say what “graphs” you are considering.
Of course, there is nothing unusual in the thoughts you post being “self contradictory”, but if you post thoughts to here then it would be good if you were to say what those thoughts are about.
Richard
rooter
You ask
I answer: the real world says climate sensitivity is low.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Richard
Mr Courtney is right, as ever. See also Spencer & Braswell (2010′ 2011).
Then again; why the discrepancy between the low climate sensitivity and the scaling of these graphs? That is self contradictory.
Warren LB should understand that several of those writing here, have contributed reviewed papers to the learned journals. And when we do so we are never asked what our qualifications are. What matters is the quality of our research. The standard technique of the followers of Saul Alinsky is that they have had insufficient instruction in logic, so they resort to fallacies such as the ad-hominem fallacy, a shoddy sub-species of the fundamental logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi.
Rooter – perhaps you could have a separate conversation with David Socrates to explain to him your views on the non-existence of the Little Ice Age.
Have a seperate conversation with Monckton who says paleoclimate was remarkably stable. How well does a warm MWP and cold LIA fit into that remarkably stable paleoclimate.
Rooter will find its answer to its question about the stability of the pas 1000 years’ climate by reading our paper at scibull.com and noting the interval of paler lunatic temperature change inferred from Jouzel et Al. (2007).
rooter,
2 °C/Wm^-2 IS a pretty interesting number. That can’t be right … let’s see … ah:
Well Monckton, here’s this plot from above:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg
Is it not your intent for us to read that plot and infer something about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change?
You point out another discrepancy. In this graph the scaling is quite different.
Another issue is of course from where does these forcing estimates come. Impossible to check.
rooter,
For anthro forcing he appears to be using ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/C0), then dividing by 0.7. I think he comes up with the deltas by regressing on monthly data and multiplying the slope by number of years in the interval. When I do it against annual data, I get reasonably close to his calcs:
Interval ΔCO2 Δ"Anthro"1890-1924 11.32 0.29
1925-1946 7.29 0.18
1947-1976 22.56 0.54
1977-2000 36.49 0.79
2001-2014 28.86 0.57
Where ΔCO2 is in ppmv and Δ”Anthro” in W/m^2.
Applying the 70% assumption across 125 years of history is not the most defensible thing in the world to do, but this article has worse issues. For me, it went completely off the rails with: Then, to allow for warming “in the pipeline”, at around 0.6 of the 2.8 K that the Fourth Assessment Report predicted for this century, bring up the total predicted manmade forcing since 2005 to 0.48 W m–2.
… which is just silly to the extreme. How can the planet be expected to reach an equilibrium temperature range if F is still has a positive delta? At an ever-increasing rate no less?
The anthro proportion does not follow from that Brandon. My question was where does the forcing estimates come from?
Well Gates,
What inferences would you make? For instance, what would you infer from the first two segments of the graph, the period from 1890- 1946?
Alan Robertson
Your question to Gates is not fair because he cannot copy&paste an answer from elsewhere.
Richard
rooter,
Then I’m missing some nuance in your question because it’s evident to me that Lord M. is using IPCC-published formulae and estimates for his calcs.
Alan Robertson,
That the calculated anthropogenic forcing alone does not adequately explain multi-decadal temperature trends.
Mr Gates shows a graph of mine that shows no CO2 scale and no CO2 data and, therefore, tells us nothing directly about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature change. Instead, it demonstrates in a visually simple way that in the 20th century the two periods of quite rapid warming were coincident with the naturally-occurring positive or “warming” phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
From the fact that during the negative or “cooling” phases of the PDO there was no drop in temperature suggests some underlying factor or combination of factors that is exerting a gentle upward pressure on global temperatures. However, the graph tells us nothing about what that factor or combination of factors is.
Monckton,
For each interval, the graph shows an estimated anthropogenic forcing trend. Based on the text of your essay, I infer that you arrived at those calculations by applying the formula 5.35 * ln(C/C0) / 0.7. From there we’re just one constant away from estimating transient climate response across the entire 125 years of the instrumental data. This being such an obvious next step, I don’t see that it’s at all out of bounds for me to suggest that your plot is saying something about the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
And yet no attempt has been made to quantify PDO’s net effect on global temperature.
Well yes, that’s what happens when one begins an interesting analysis and fails to complete it.
Rooter will find the forcing estimates in the graph of PDO intervals by noting the changes in CO2 concentration over the intervals, deploying the CO2 forcing function in Myhre et Al. (1998) and adjusting for other anthropogenic forcings by the method described in our paper at scibull.com using values to be found in IPCC assessment reports, then verifying the results against the table of anthropogenic forcings inIPCC (2013).
Out of curiosity, how many sets of temperature data are used to determine the change in climate? It seems like every time a new “record” is set, a different data set is used.
Once again facts trump propaganda. Thank you Lord Monckton
Would .4 K or .7 K of potential global warming be much? How would that really affect temperatures?
Victoria — .4K or .7K of potential global warming would [affect] the temperature by .4K or .7K. The question you meant to ask is — how would it affect the environment and consequently mankind?
Based upon past historical warm periods the effects on the environment would almost certainly be highly beneficial to mankind.
Eugene WR Gallun
Thank you 🙂 How warm would it really get? Would that increase make for more heat waves? Worse heat waves?
@ur momisugly Victoria, I am not being cynical or sarcastic but the answer is probably (from what I have learned on this and other sites) : How many blossoms are going to bear fruit on an apple tree next spring?
Well my little trolls. They have people with degrees over at the IPCC and here is what a top expert said of them –>>> “Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”! http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/28/top-swiss-avalanche-expert-werner-munter-calls-ipcc-report-a-scientific-farce-piss-take/
Gotta love that one. 🙂
Besides, Lord Monckton is using government funded data sets to make his point.
Encore! Encore!!!
…but that’s the entire point, the climastrologists don’t believe what they say. They don’t believe their studies, their graphs, their models or their papers. They know they are liars. Everything they do is a lie and they get paid for it. This is the true definition of evil: To cause harm to others for benefit. They are evil people. To use euphemisms is far more they they deserve.
I feel sorry for the sheeple who believe the liars. They have been duped, but cannot admit it.
Thank you, Lord Monckton.
Open ended loop with zero credit for -ve feedback mechanisms…what do you get, runaway predictions leading to crash and burn. Have to love the Christy work. Then you have the idiotic question: “where did you earn…” Unbelievable arrogance.
I am flattered that “Warren LB” is so impressed with my scientific acumen and flair that he wonders where I got such a first-class degree in physics.
I got it from the same people who issue birth certificates in Hawaii. It’s genuine, really it is, officer. Cross my heart and hope to die. My graphic artiste did it with her John Bull printing set, layer by layer, in only 24 hours. A bit of a rush job, and it shows, but we couldn’t very well keep the White House counsel waiting when she flew in to collect it or she might have worked out what was going on.
In the Classical tradition (my degree is in Classical Architecture from Cambridge), we are taught to recognize nonsense a long way off, rather than swallowing the Party Line du jour.
Oh, and one does not require a degree in physics to plot the graph of a dataset or to determine the least-squares linear regression trend on the data. That’s statistics 101, not physics.
However, the reviewed paper I have written with three distinguished colleagues in the Science Bulletin does contain a certain amount of math and physics: for in the Classical tradition we are taught that one does not have to have approved Socialist training in a subject to acquire a modest proficiency in it.
If one is interested, one can learn. I am interested; I have learned; and, on being asked recently for a list of my academic publications on climate for a book to which I have contributed, I found there were 14 of them. Not bad for an amateur, and about 14 more than very nearly all the enviro-activitists who know the Party Line and nothing else.
Had you been a physicist, they would have complained that you are not a climatologist.
Had you been a climatologist, they would have complained that you were funded by Big Fossil.
Anything, anything at all but address the facts presented.
I’m neither a mathematician, nor a calculator, but I assert that 2+2=4. Complaining that I’m neither a mathematician nor a calculator, and hence my assertion moot, would be absurd. Yet they persist….
And 10+10 is 100, and 2+2 is 11, or 10, and so on.
@MoB. We’ll see with Common(unistic) Core”
I may not always agree with you, but I do love reading your essays.
Very kind. Agreement in science should only be reached when the truth is demonstrated. Till then, there is no dishonour in informed disagreement.
Yes, a B.A. in Classics and a degree in Journalism Studies from Cardiff, I believe.
In which peer reviewed Science Journal did you publish?
Ah, I forgot that part.
Complain he’s not a physicist, unless he is, then;
Complain he’s not a climatologist, unless he is, then;
Complain what he said isn’t in a peer reviewed science journal, unless it is, then;
Complain about funding by Big Fossil.
Anything, but anything, to avoid dealing with the facts presented.
What’s 2+2?
The type of temperature graphs and the method used here appeared in Energy & Environment for September 2014 in my paper “Political science: the dangers of apriorism in intergovernmental climatology”. My most recent published paper is in the first January 2015 edition of the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I have also been published in Science and Education, in the UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, in the Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute of London, in the Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists, and in Coordinates, the journal of marine navigation, as well as in several academic books on the climate.
However, only true-believers in the Party Line look at the qualifications and publication record of a contributor to the scientific debate rather than looking at the argument he is presenting. Does Warren LB have any queries or doubts about the information provided in the head posting? If not, then he is off topic.
Warren, I do not usually join into such demeaning foodfights. For the reasons why, see my substantive post below.
But you really do take the troll cake. So, what are your degrees, and with what distinction?
In the spirit of fair disclosure, mine are AB in mathematical economics summa cum laude, JD cum laude, and MBA Baker Scholar. All of course from an insignificant west Cambridge, Massachusetts University. Aka Harvard.
So you have just been called, in pokerspeak. Fold or show. If you fold, please go away. Forever. Ad hom by query has no place here, nor anywhere else. If that is the best you can do, then realize you have already lost the ‘climate war’.
You’re really not keeping up, are you?
@warrenlb
In what peer reviewed science journal did you publish, troll? What was the significance of your publications? The only thing we can see from your posts is that you can read and that you practice the character assassination typical of leftist trolls. Anybody who knows of Lord Monckton knows his background and understands why people like you must attack him at all costs. It’s a waste of your time. I’m not wasting any more of mine reading what you have to say here, particularly since you hide behind a fictitious name. Coward.
Warrenlb, you’re moving from annoying to pathetic. My sympathies to you.
we disagree about many things.
However, we agree on this:
“If one is interested, one can learn.”
Mosher, we disagree on stuff. But not this. +10.
Monckton of Brenchley,… Oh do be careful of “birth certificates in Hawaii”. If he was not born there and instead in Kenya he may in reality be YOUR problem not ours.For if I remember correctly Kenya at the time was not yet independent, so that makes him English, British anyway. Still want to run with that
smile
michael
he may in reality be YOUR problem
When he’s done as POTUS I predict he will show up at the UN. Then he’ll be everyone’s problem 😉
Uh, Mike, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion? To paraphrase Socrates, inferior minds will always ridicule and criticize those people they perceive as being superior and those things they are incapable of understanding.
I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but the messenger is irrelevant. It’s the message that you’re supposed to find fault with, not the person who delivers it.
You can make fun of me now. That’ll show everyone that you’re not really the vacuous, hostile person you portray in this forum.
Mike says:
…that makes him English,…
So we’ve now come full circle, from King to King.
That’s hitting below the belt Mike the Morlock. 😉
“Oh, and one does not require a degree in physics to plot the graph of a dataset or to determine the least-squares linear regression trend on the data. That’s statistics 101, not physics.”
Me thinks that probably climastrologist’s abilities lie more in the arena of ‘how to lie with statistics’:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/stat3.html
Anyone with an Excel spreadsheet can download the data series you cite and use the scatterplot and trendline tools that are provided to replicate your results. No need to know whether you have a degree in Natural Science or a degree in Classical Architecture.
But that method involves trusting Excel. I wrote my own routine to determine and position the trend-lines using two distinct but equivalent equations, the had the method verified by a professor of epidemiological statistics.
I have arrived at a juncture where I consider AGW obsession to be a moral failing. Please allow me to explain. Through the aeons there has been constant climate change, and, notable climate related catastrophes. More recently, we were blessed by the 20th Century, which was an odd out, most especially its second half. The benign conditions helped to facilitate untold human progress and development, however, it also lulled humanity into a false sense of security. Nothing like it could possibly have lasted. Already, in this early quarter of the 21st Century, with a sleeping Sol, a deeply depressed PDO and onset of depressed AMO, we are experiencing warning waves which alert us to a much less benign future. This is the real climate change issue that requires urgent attention. Meanwhile, we squander untold attention and resource on “killer AGW.” All that energy needs to be redirected to address the real looming climate catastrophes of the next decades and centuries, instead of the false god of AGW.
warrenlb: Where did you earn your University degree as a Private Investigator?
James at 48.
I absolutely agree. Anyone with a knowledge of the history of the past 10,000 years can see that warmth brings plenty, cold brings famine, population migration, war and plague. We are in an Interglacial, and if the length of previous interglacials is a guide, the Holocene must be coming to an end, if now now, then not too far in the future. I am fascinated by the utter stupidity and gullibility of our politicians and institutions.
Thank you Lord Monckton for your enormous intelligence and courage.
+1 on that at James at 48. The famous experiment in which the temp is raised on the frog in the water till it dies. Except AGW is telling us how warm it is, people are wearing flip flops when it’s snowing. (must be warm snow, not like the snow from the past that was cold.) It’s a psychological ploy. The mouthpieces on here for CAGW didn’t discuss any of the issues in the body of the text. Classic religion of AGW.
People if told often enough and long enough will believe a lie, even if it is subtle, and has supposedly some authority. The planet has a fever, it was the warmest year on record. Aren’t you feeling warm if not hot? Here, have some free ice cream in July when it’s 50 F when it should be in the 90’s F. ” If you think your hot, you wouldn’t be wrong” What if you’re wrong opposing CAGW? After all ” the scientists ” say CAGW is real. …. That is the science of psychology, not of climate or weather
I’ll leave it to your imagination to think of why they are doing this.
Lord Monckton: Thanks for the superb picture of Kanchenjunga – one of the Great Mountains (actually, 3d highest) – and one of the toughest to climb, due to “rotting ice” and heat from the nearby Indian plains. Best plan is to view it from Darjeeling, while sipping some great tea. And, of course, CAGW is bullshit.
…actually, less than that (I can use bullshit to fertilize my pasture). What they pitch is far more destructive.
I was delighted to be able to track down a picture of the mountain showing the Great Shelf in sunlight. A good place to park the dead global warming theory.
Especially so, since India is helping the green movement develop a severe case of stomach acid.
…the gulf between the exaggerated predictions in the models and the far less exciting observed reality is in danger of becoming an abyss.
Indeed. As is the ‘leadership’ supporting the exaggerated predictions equally separated from reality!
From today’s news:
The Prince of Wails Calls For Climate ‘Magna Carta’ To Save The Planet!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/27/prince-of-wales-calls-for-climate-magna-carta-to-save-planet-from-global-warming/
Britannia – You have my deepest sympathies. You see… we (US of A) have a few village idiots in ‘leadership’ also.
Thanks for this important guest post. You have done something I had not seen before, and have had no time to do myself. Figuring the delta T on equisided data across the last PDO shift, giving estimated century rise of maybe 1.3C to 1.5C rounded to remove pseudoprecision (also an essay, but concerning SLR). Cancels out a (the?) major source of natural variability.
Recall my comment on your previous post here at WUWT concerning your irreducibly simple model paper. Of the five parameters therein, three are really not arguable. The generally accepted values are ‘just’ physics. I rederived r (transience faction) as 0.76 rather than your 0.82. And f (net feedback sum) as 0.3, maybe even 0.25. Independent observational logic for f~0.25 posted elsewhere, most recently in detail at Paul Homewood’s excellent blog a couple of days ago. No need to repeat again here for troll exactitude. Both simple derivations also work backwards from other newest energy budget observational approaches to ECS, of which Lewis and Curry is the most exacting, but not the only one reaching very similar conclusions (e.g Otto, Loehle, backdoor Annan, even steam engineer Guy Callendar in 1938). Your equation then computes an ECS on the order of ~1.5-1.7 depending on f. (Essay Cloudy Clouds points to the biggest unknown.)
This all fits nicely together. ECS is an equilibrium on time scales longer than the 100 years you calculate here. There is no agreement on how much longer. Hanson argued for a millennium in order to max CAGW. Perhaps 250 years? 500? Even the Ocean pH and Henry’s Law/Le Chatellier Principle appear to equilibrate on time scales of 400-800 years. Any who do not know what those physical chemistry principles are, read my book. The additional change beyond TCR is logarithmic slowing, related to things like net ice sheet albedo and ocean thermal mass. Most climate change occurs within a century. Any unclear commenters should read essay Sensitive Uncertainty.
So, your new observational information posted above fits perfectly well with results from your irreducibly simple equation, granted the three physics parameters, but using the two ‘free’ parameter estimates that foot to a great deal of post AR5 literature on this key issue. A very nice reconciliation of much theory and observation in a simple, none GCM way. Bravo. All of course within the rather signficant uncertainties in temperature estimates. See essay When Data Isn’t or the 2014 GISS kerfuffle for those, albeit a bit OT.
Regards. Well done.
“On the combined RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from the surface trend:”
Mr Istvan has indeed spotted that removing the PDO leaves a realistic trend that is half that predicted by the IPCC. And we don’t know whether some of the warming in that trend is natural. It is possible that more than half is natural.
The time to equilibrium is dependent on the system gain: the higher the gain, the longer the time. But we find system gain to be very low and possibly negative, so that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline from our past sins of emission.
On the IPCC’s system gain (which should have been cut from 3 to 2 in line with its reduction in the feedback sum from 2 to 1.5), half the warming would occur in the first 100 years; the rest over as many as 3000 years.
So, whichever way one stacks it, it is extremely difficult to make out that there will be a dangerous warming rate.
When you say the system gain may be negative, do you mean it is a “loss” rather than a “gain” or do you mean there is a phase reversal. Minor point I know Christopher, just though clarification would help.
G
George E Smith is right to question my suggestion that system gain is negative. I had meant to say it was sub-unity. Very well spotted.
george e smith is one of the most underappreciated readers here. I read his comments whenever I see one because he’s always thinking about what someone wrote — not a common commodity in today’s internet world, where emotions often rule.
Rud Istvan is another one I always read. It’s great knowing that really intelligent folks gravitate here, to the Best Science & Technology site on the internet. As Yogi Berra said, you can see a lot just by looking.
Well Christopher, I knew that you knew what you meant; but some others might not appreciate that a lower gain is often referred to as negative, when people are thinking of gain in terms of dBs for example, rather than an algebraic gain ratio.
Quite often in feedback amplifier technology, we are dealing with “forward gains” of a million maybe (120 dB in Voltage terms), and then the “closed loop gain” simply reverts to 1/beta.
But of course not in a system where the forward gain might be -3dB or 70% if dealing in Voltage terms.
So I do get a little jittery when thinking of low gain systems in conventional feedback terms.
I prefer to think of them as systems which have their own species of le Chatalier’s Principle operating (as in Chemical reactions); or Lenz’s law in electro-magnetic Induction.
As a general principle of real physical systems, any perturbation or deviation from an equilibrium or steady state condition, result sin the system reacting in exactly the manner required to suppress the instigator of the perturbation.
Here’s an example you might appreciate; Suppose there was this giant slumber party, with a whole bunch of toffs sitting around idling away the time.
Along comes some perturbationer, and grabs an available open microphone and declares: “Everybody wake up now; it’s time to go home, and today’s descension of the sky has been cancelled for lack of interest !” Well le Chatalier’s principle says someone else who is awake, will hustle the disturber of the piece, off to some quiet location, so that the perturbed, can go back to sleep.
Not really feedback you see, but just a natural reluctance for the horse to drink, even when led to the water.
In our atmosphere, it seems that modulation of the cloud cover, is the natural restorer of the proper order.
G
Some years ago, I did a multi-segment linear trend least-squares fit to the Hadcrut global temperature over the full Hadcrut period (~1850+). IOW, I optimised continuous linear segments (ie, the ends of adjacent segments met) to the temperature data without reference to the PDO or any other data. The optimisation was by both date and time (ie, the segment ends were free to move both vertically and horizontally). The result was very similar to the 2nd chart in MofB’s article. IOW, the segments derived from the PDO phases can also be derived without reference to the PDO. To me, this would suggest that the ‘picture’ obtained by MofB is valid, and not just an artefact of the method.
TY. I concur with your conclusions, but as you have noted not all the details.
From a political perspective, only the big general conclusions matter. All the messy uncertain details need to be left politically behind. Science is settled or not. There is an ‘immediate’ CAGW problem, or not. ‘Immediate’, because BRICs like Chindia are not buying ‘immediate’, and that is where the bulk of the future climate mitigation action is. Nobody can undo the past.
I predict Paris will be worse than Copenhagen, despite OBummers best efforts.
” I predict Paris will be worse than Copenhagen, despite OBummers best efforts. ”
One can only hope.
The issue is the theory of global warming appears to be at least 50% wrong.
So, what makes up that 50% inaccuracy. It is one or more of the following:
–> the physics of how GHGs warm the atmosphere may be wrong (there is only about 8 billion things per second which could be wrong with this if you know what I mean).
–> the water vapor feedback may not be 7.0% per 1.0C increase in temperatures (the actual data to date which I track every month says something like 2.5% to 4.5%).
–> cloud albedo feedback may not be -3.7% per 1.1C in temperatures as predicted in the theory (where did they get this from anyway. There is no weather/climate theory that predicts this. It is made up by Hansen and his early climate model numbers. The data to date is there is no cloud albedo feedback because we have positive and negative empirical results that are small figures).
–> the lapse rate feedback may not be -0.9 W/m2/1.0C but it appears to actually be a large positive number three times higher because the lower troposphere temperatures are rising far less in temperature than the surface. It is supposed to be the other way around. (I imagine this signals that the surface temperatures have been fiddled with by about 0.3C. If that is true the lapse rate feedback assumption still works).
The theory says the following temperature increase should then happen when all those feedbacks are operating as predicted. If they vary by just a tiny amount the feedback on feedback amplifier effect falls apart and nothing like 3.0C per doubling occurs. One could get no warming or one could easily get 50C of warming just by adjusting the feedback assumptions.
http://s15.postimg.org/ki1z8a43v/Global_Warming_and_IPCC_Feedbacks.png
The IPCC cannot fix these assumptions to be more realistic because the whole theory falls apart and then there is nothing to worry about. Hence, they have not really changed these numbers in almost 35 years now. Put in what the empirical numbers to date say will happen and the temperature increase per doubling falls to 1.35C per doubling.
http://s1.postimg.org/gda7aglrz/Global_Warming_and_Empirical_Feedbacks.png
Thanks for this presentation.
TCR is usually expressed as per doubling. How much CO2 is required to do half of the TCR related to doubling? Logarithms fail me there.
Mr Illis’ post is first class. The IPCC itself has realized its feedback sum (at around 2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin) was excessive, and has cut it to 1.5 (still far too high). But it then failed to recalculate its central estimate of climate sensitivity in the light of the downgraded feedback sum: that estimate should have fallen from 3.2 to 2.2 K on that ground alone. And that’s before one starts in on the feedbacks.
Monckton of Brenchley
A good job, thank you.
1. The second plot shows the five periods, split by the phase change date of the PDO from Figure 1.
Four of the five are clear, but I need to ask why 1924 marks the PDO change, and not 1922. The PDO did cross in ’24, but that only after a “rebound” up -and-down between 1922 and 1924. To my reading, I would assign 1922 as the PDO transition year, thus the cycle times become even more even: 33 years steady or cooling temperatures, 24 years warming trend up from the LIA, 30 years warming trend, 14 + ??? years of steady or declining temperatures.
2. Many observers have seen a 60-66 year cycle in global average temperatures and temperature proxies over time. In your opinion – and it would only be an opinion of course, is the PDO 55-57 year cycle close enough the perceived 66-69 year cycle to either actually be that short-term cycle, or to right now only be working in parallel to that cycle?
In answer to Mr Cook’s characteristically thoughtful question, I used JISAO’s dates for the phase transitions, since they own the PDO. Actually there is always uncertainty in the dating, and slight variation in phase lengths, because the object being modelled is chaotic and hence in many parameters quasi-periodic, as here, or even aperiodic.
“The question arises: why were very nearly all runs of very nearly all models so very wrong? And why were the errors, almost without exception, in the direction of monstrous but profitable exaggeration?”
And why will the scientists involved admit no error?
We’re still talking about a fraction of a degree that is so small…it can fall within a reading or math error
GISS is skewing the last warming round higher. In actual fact, the warming circa 1910-1940 is essentially indistinguishable from the warming circa 1970-2000.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.75
Easily provable several ways. See essay When Data Isnt. Question is how much? Not so easy.
Lord of Brenchley said:
“There has been no full-blown el Niño Southern Oscillation event since 2010, when McLean, de Freitas & Carter reported that it is the ratio of the frequency of el Niño to that of la Niña events, and not global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, that has proven to be the prime determinant of global temperature variability in recent decades.”
No, Bob Tisdale and I (independently of Bob) were the first to say that the ratio and frequency and intensity of El Ninos to La Ninas was a primary factor driving world temperature.
McLean et al. only said that the ENSO process was a factor in driving world temperatures. Only after Bob and I had argued a number of times that this ratio played a role did these authors adopt this explanation.
Thanks to Mr Wilson for this correction. I should be most grateful for a copy of the Wilson & Tisdale paper on the nino/nina ratio.