Since there has been a lot of discussion about Monckton here and elsewhere, I’ve offered him the opportunity to present his views here. – Anthony
Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
At www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org I publish a widely-circulated and vigorously-debated Monthly CO2 Report, including graphs showing changes in CO2 concentration and in global mean surface temperature since 1980, when the satellites went on weather watch and the NOAA first published its global CO2 concentration series. Since some commenters here at Wattsup have queried some of our findings, I have asked Anthony to allow me to contribute this short discussion.
We were among the first to show that CO2 concentration is not rising at the fast, exponential rate that current anthropogenic emissions would lead the IPCC to expect, and that global temperature has scarcely changed since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001.
CO2 concentration: On emissions reduction, the international community has talked the talk, but – not least because China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa are growing so quickly – it has not walked the walk. Accordingly, carbon emissions are at the high end of the IPCC’s projections, close to the A2 (“business as usual”) emissions scenario, which projects that atmospheric CO2 will grow at an exponential rate between now and 2100 in the absence of global cuts in emissions:
Exponential increase in CO2 concentration from 2000-2100 is projected by the IPCC on its A2 emissions scenario, which comes closest to today’s CO2 emissions. On the SPPI CO2-concentration graph, this projection is implemented by way of an exponential function that generates the projection zone. This IPCC graph has been enlarged, its ordinate and abscissa labeled, and its aspect ratio altered to provide a comparison with the landscape format of the SPPI graph.
On the A2 emissions scenario, the IPCC foresees CO2 rising from a measured 368 ppmv in 2000 (NOAA global CO2 dataset) to a projected 836[730, 1020] ppmv by 2100. However, reality is not obliging. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been slowing in recent years: an exponential curve cannot behave thus. In fact, the the NOAA’s deseasonalized CO2 concentration curve is very close to linear:
CO2 concentration change from 2000-2010 (upper panel) and projected to 2100 (lower panel). The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data shows CO2 concentration rising to just 570 ppmv by 2100, well below the IPCC’s least estimate of 730 ppmv on the A2 emissions scenario.
The IPCC projection zone on the SPPI graphs has its origin at the left-hand end of the linear-regression trend on the NOAA data, and the exponential curves are calculated from that point so that they reach the IPCC’s projected concentrations in 2100.
We present the graph thus to show the crucial point: that the CO2 concentration trend is well below the least IPCC estimate. Some have criticized our approach on the ground that over a short enough distance a linear and an exponential trend may be near-coincident. This objection is more theoretical than real.
First, the fit of the dark-blue deseasonalized NOAA data to the underlying linear-regression trend line (light blue) is very much closer than it is even to the IPCC’s least projection on scenario A2. If CO2 were now in fact rising at a merely linear rate, and if that rate were to continue, concentration would reach only 570 ppmv by 2100.
Secondly, the exponential curve most closely fitting the NOAA data would be barely supra-linear, reaching just 614 ppmv by 2100, rather than the linear 570 ppmv. In practice, the substantial shortfall between prediction and outturn is important, as we now demonstrate. The equation for the IPCC’s central estimate of equilibrium warming from a given rise in CO2 concentration is:
∆T = 4.7 ln(C/C0),
where the bracketed term represents a proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus, at CO2 doubling, the IPCC would expect 4.7 ln 2 = 3.26 K warming – or around 5.9 F° (IPCC, 2007, ch.10, p.798, box 10.2). On the A2 scenario, CO2 is projected to increase by more than double: equilibrium warming would be 3.86 K, and transient warming would be <0.5 K less, at 3.4 K.
But if we were to take the best-fit exponential trend on the CO2 data over the past decade, equilibrium warming from 2000-2100 would be 4.7 ln(614/368) = 2.41 K, comfortably below the IPCC’s least estimate and a hefty 26% below its central estimate. Combining the IPCC’s apparent overestimate of CO2 concentration growth with the fact that use of the IPCC’s methods for determining climate sensitivity to observed increases in the concentration of CO2 and five other climate-relevant greenhouse gases over the 55 years 1950-2005 would project a transient warming 2.3 times greater than the observed 0.65 K, anthropogenic warming over the 21st century could be as little as 1 K (less than 2 F°), which would be harmless and beneficial.
Temperature: How, then, has observed, real-world global temperature responded?
The UAH satellite temperature record shows warming at a rate equivalent to 1.4 K/century over the past 30 years. However, the least-squared linear-regression trend is well below the lower bound of the IPCC projection zone.
The SPPI’s graph of the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s monthly global-temperature anomalies over the 30 years since 1 January 1980 shows warming at a rate equivalent to 1.4 K/century – almost double the rate for the 20th-century as a whole. However, most of the warming was attributable to a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover that allowed some 2.6 Watts per square meter of additional solar radiance to reach the Earth’s surface between 1981 and 2003 (Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2006; Boston, 2010, personal communication).
Even with this natural warming, the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies is below the lower bound of the IPCC projection zone.
Some have said that the IPCC projection zone on our graphs should show exactly the values that the IPCC actually projects for the A2 scenario. However, as will soon become apparent, the IPCC’s “global-warming” projections for the early part of the present century appear to have been, in effect, artificially detuned to conform more closely to observation. In compiling our graphs, we decided not merely to accept the IPCC’s projections as being a true representation of the warming that using the IPCC’s own methods for determining climate sensitivity would lead us to expect, but to establish just how much warming the use of the IPCC’s methods would predict, and to take that warming as the basis for the definition of the IPCC projection zone.
Let us illustrate the problem with a concrete example. On the A2 scenario, the IPCC projects a warming of 0.2 K/decade for 2000-2020. However, given the IPCC’s projection that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially from 368 ppmv in 2000 towards 836 ppmv by 2100, CO2 should have been 368e(10/100) ln(836/368) = 399.5 ppmv in 2010, and equilibrium warming should thus have been 4.7 ln(399.5/368) = 0.39 K, which we reduce by one-fifth to yield transient warming of 0.31 K, more than half as much again as the IPCC’s 0.2 K. Of course, CO2 concentration in 2010 was only 388 ppmv, and, as the SPPI’s temperature graph shows (this time using the RSS satellite dataset), warming occurred at only 0.3 K/century: about a tenth of the transient warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.
Barely significant warming: The RSS satellite data for the first decade of the 21st century show only a tenth of the warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.
We make no apology, therefore, for labelling as “IPCC” a projection zone that is calculated on the basis of the methods described by the IPCC itself. Our intention in publishing these graphs is to provide a visual illustration of the extent to which the methods relied upon by the IPCC itself in determining climate sensitivity are reliable.
Some have also criticized us for displaying temperature records for as short a period as a decade. However, every month we also display the full 30-year satellite record, so as to place the current millennium’s temperature record in its proper context. And our detractors were somehow strangely silent when, not long ago, a US agency issued a statement that the past 13 months had been the warmest in the instrumental record, and drew inappropriate conclusions from it about catastrophic “global warming”.
We have made one adjustment to please our critics: the IPCC projection zone in the SPPI temperature graphs now shows transient rather than equilibrium warming.
One should not ignore the elephant in the room. Our CO2 graph shows one elephant: the failure of CO2 concentration over the past decade to follow the high trajectory projected by the IPCC on the basis of global emissions similar to today’s. As far as we can discover, no one but SPPI has pointed out this phenomenon. Our temperature graph shows another elephant: the 30-year warming trend – long enough to matter – is again well below what the IPCC’s methods would project. If either situation changes, followers of our monthly graphs will be among the first to know. As they say at Fox News, “We report: you decide.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great work, as ever.
Small point: should the date in the second line of the text immediately below the third CO2 graph be 2100, not 2000?
[Typo fixed, thanx.]
Rick Bradford says:
August 14, 2010 at 5:12 am
“……………..including the person who declared they would like to feed him a teaspoonful of DDT to punish him for his views on how to combat malaria.”
Actually Rick there used to be a chap that demonstrated the low toxicity of DDT by eating it by the spoonful. All a waste of his time because St Rachel won out in the end and a lot of people died (and are still dying) from malaria.
Uh-oh. The C02 concentration isn’t rising fast enough, therefore we must act quickly to restore it’s IPCC trend. They need the money.
Under the third graph, it should say 2100 instead of 2000, no?
“concentration rising to just 570 ppmv by 2000” – should be 2100 me thinks.
[Typo fixed, thanx. ~dbs]
“Of course, CO2 concentration in 2010 was only 388 K” – Shouldn’t that read ppmv?
[Thanx, typo has been fixed. ~dbs]
Julian in Wales
Most gases are not greenhouse gases. H2O is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas in regions which have significant humidity.
The concentration of CO2 is very low, and each molecule requires one molecule of O2 to form. So increasing CO2 has very little effect on the total number of molecules in the atmosphere.
Lord Monckton,
Thanks for this post and all your fine work challenging CAGW alarmists. Your presentations are always thought-provoking, lively, and highly enjoyable.
Lord Monckton, sir, you make an eloquent argument.
I tend to decline, however, to jump into the slog pits of arguing what, in a larger sense, amounts basically to minutia, and hold out for the answer to two very simple questions, which no one, on either the alarmist or skeptical sides of the discussion, are in any position to readily answer, but which seem to me to be fundamental to the entire issue.
1) Is there an ‘optimal’ level of CO2 partial pressure in the planetary atmospheric mix, one that is most conducive, overall, to the sustainability of life on Earth? And what are the upper and lower absolute boundaries which we should truly worry about, for the survival of the biosphere? (That second part is probably a bit easier to determine via experimentation and observation under controlled, repeatable experimentation, one would imagine)
2) Is there an ‘optimal’ overall global mean temperature, as in, does such a condition exist, or is it merely a chimera?
Unless or until these two very basic issues can be, and are addressed, in a rational, non-hysterical manner, then what passes for scientific discussion is, to this observer, not all that far removed from the random noises coming from a very animated mob, with the actually useful information being drowned out in the background noise.
That said – I’m very appreciative of Lord Monckton’s efforts to bring rational discussion to the fore, and for sites such as WUWT, for promoting such effort.
Dear M’lud,
I actually get this! Thanks for your clarity.
Okay. I await the critical responses to see what objections there may be to it.
A clarification to Julian in Wales. Most of the gas in our atmosphere is diatomic
O-O or N-N. Those are NOT called greenhouse gases although they do have a very
limited greenhouse effect. Multi-atomic gases like H-O-H and O-C-O ARE greenhouse gases.
Vulcevic says:
” Anyone offering an alternative to CO2, e is going to have a hard time”.
How about particulates, like the Asian Brown Cloud for starters. But more to the point, just because YOU think you have eliminated all but CO2, doesn’t mean that CO2 is the cause. To spend scarce resources on a potential “wild goose chase” may well do more harm then good.
Ralph:
That’s about par for RC. They did the same for yours truly when they didn’t like my contradictory analysis of Tamino’s Central England temperature predictions.
However, reality is not obliging. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been slowing in recent years: an exponential curve cannot behave thus. In fact, the the NOAA’s deseasonalized CO2 concentration curve is very close to linear
Truly reality is not obliging (this argument). Have a look at the recent trends in CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa, and they don’t look anything like linear. Of course, if you cherry pick a couple of years from the record, it’s very easy to make them look like they aren’t increasing, but when you look at the whole record from 1960, it is VERY apparent that they are increasing exponentially. But hey, don’t believe me – check for yourself: Full Mauna Loa CO2 record.
Lord Monckton,
I appreciate greatly that you are becoming more active here at WUWT.
Question – In your post you show a graph ” CO2 concentration change from 2000-2010 (upper panel)”. Would you care to comment on why, since the current severe global economic turndown of the last ~3 yrs, the COs concentration in the atmosphere hasn’t shown a dip corresponding to less CO2 emissions during the current global economic turndown? Would an atmospheric CO2 conc dip be expected?
John
HEAR! HEAR! Our Lordship! As well done as your videos in response to your detractors, specifically the sneak attack by Prof. Abrahams. And may I add I am equally impressed with your very lovely gardens. And what was that bird chirping in the background? I think its cousin is living in the woods behind our house.
Lew Skannen said at 5:39 am
….. And yet for some reason people are willing to believe that the warmists have such accurate models of the climate….
I am baffled.
Let me try to “unbaffle” you, Grasshopper. The greater majority of people are (have been) brainwashed into believing anything and everything computers put forth. The whole of the theory of human caused global atmospheric warming rests on the blind acceptance of the output of less than two dozen computer programs written (starting in the 50’s and little changed systematically since then) and modified by less than 150 people total, over the years. Most of these folks are “programmers” by trade, not climatologists. While most do take direction from espoused atmospheric “scientists” the two disciplines are diametrically apposed. One deals in the unreal digital world – computers, the other in the very real analog world – the global atmosphere. Unfortunately, most of the folks in the second group are also part of the above mentioned “brainwashed” group. I believe this to be a very serious problem, especially among the younger members in the science fields. They see “everything” as absolutes; black/white, on/off, one/zero, right/wrong and believe there is nothing that can not be “digitized” and computer analyzed. And whatever comes out of the computer is sacrosanct! It’s as strong a belief system as any religion has ever been, with its multitude of blind followers. Review and note how most of the folks here (including His Lordship) that make sense are NOT blind to other views and almost ALWAYS acknowledge how little we really know and admit/accept/agree that their conclusions might change with more info. Most here, strive for clarity, not consensus.
Windrider>
There are many ‘optimum’ global temperatures – it just depends whose perspective you’re talking about. I note, though, that warm periods are known as ‘climatic optimums’ – go figure.
It is clear that Monckton’s efforts to present and demystify the evidence for the benefit of an in-expert audience are not universally appreciated. We are supposed to rely on the academic illuminati for such wisdom, rather than be trusted with our own judgement.
He may be vilified in academia and in the cosy corridors of power but it’s not difficult to see why he enjoys such popular support , while getting so under the skin of a handful of persistent but increasingly isolated, snidey, side-swiping media ‘commentators”.
While he talks about observations & evidence, they talk about him.
“The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been slowing in recent years”
False.
Very nicely done, I really like how you mention that there is a decrease in cloud cover that can attribute most of the observed warming and showing that it is a natural cycle at work. Also thank you for showing that the IPCC’s estimates for CO2 and Temperature were horribly wrong
The reason for the IPCC projection errors are simple.
Here it from two well known climate scientists:
and there’s someone else who you might remember: James Hansen interview
Wind rider, you are free to suggest that the important question is the optimum CO2 and temperature. But I think most of us are concentrating on a different question, which is whether human beings are powerful enough and smart enough to control either of those numbers much in the first place. Otherwise, once you decide what the temperature ought to be, your only real-life way to set your personal thermostat is move to the fortunate country where it happens to be set that way for you.
david says:
August 14, 2010 at 6:25 am
Mr Monckton, I do hope you will respond to any comments critical of your presentation. Thanks.
As I read it David, that’s exactly what this presentation was doing, politely, calmy and ever so patiently, explaining and taking on board many of the questions raised by earlier presentations.
I think there’s another elephant in the room. While one could claim that CO2 levels are rising exponentially where it looks almost linear in a short period of time, this trend is only true since 1950. We have direct recorded evidence of what the CO2 levels were before that time way back to the early 1800’s where it was well over 400 ppm. Same for the 1930’s and 1940’s. CO2 levels fluctuates as does the climate. I think the alarmists are really using the recent and relatively smooth CO2 trends for all its worth. Great if you want to show exponential correlation, especially backward in time with ice core samples for example which would prove completely unreliable.
Lew Skannen says:
“It would say that the climate is orders of magnitude more complicated and complex than the stock market and our ability to record climate measurements for modelling with computers is negligible.”
Here, Here! Someone needs to keep saying this and saying it until all parties, pro or con, understand it. There are too many intercorrelated variables of unknown values and doubtfull causality to accurately predict climate. Mr. Skannen’s stock market example is excellent! Even if we knew the future values of all of the supposedly causal variables and did a curvilinear fit multiple regression analysis, multicolinearity of the data would be a problem in making an accurate prediction.
Ok, I’ve read the article, (Thank you very much Christopher Monckton of Brenchley) and I’ve read the comments. There appears to be something missing……….what could it be?………….. Oh, yeh, where are all the Monckton antagonists? Is it true they are literally too scared to debate directly? Maybe their reaction to Monckton is so prevailing that they are in the midst of a seizure or stroke and can’t come to the keyboard. Maybe it is a correct assumption they are only concerned with the title he uses and have very little retort when it comes to the actual math.
Julian in Wales says:
August 14, 2010 at 4:07 am
“Can someone tell me: are all gases greenhouse gases to some degree? For instance my understanding is that in the league of gases Co2 is not the principal player that water vapour is (by a large factor).
Water, or H2O in its various forms, as far as I can tell, is the biggest player in the climate in terms of molecules. (Many would submit that the Sun is the biggest factor for our climate, and they wouldn’t be incorrect.) It isn’t just water vapor, it is H2O in solid, liquid and gas. Given that the state of H2O isn’t static it is difficult pin down exactly how much contributes to what. For instance, (recent example) a glacier calves an iceberg.(Solid) Icebergs will reflect heat back out to space. Eventually, the iceberg may melt. (Liquid) The oceans serve as a collector of CO2 and holds CO2 for a bit and then releases it. The oceans also absorb heat. Eventually, the water will evaporate and take the form of (gas) water vapor. While clouds are a form of water vapor, they shouldn’t be confused. Clouds, similar to ice, reflect heat back out to space. Clouds cover about 40% of the earth at any given time, but does vary. Water vapor is indeed a GHG. In this function, it prevents heat from escaping back out to space. Eventually, that same H2O molecule forms to a liquid and falls back to the earth and the process starts anew. The difficult part of all of this is quantifying the effects and applying different laws of nature. One law of nature is “what goes up, must come down.”(Thank you Mr. Newton.) This applies to H2O, CO2 and a plethora of other substances. However, heat and light are not subject to such constraints, but the energy is often carried by the molecules that are. Oh, heck, I’m rambling.
Yes, H2O is a much greater player in terms of GHG, the problem is, H2O is basically a constant, while CO2 and other GHG are variables. It is impossible to quantify the percentage of the effects of the various GHG, including H2O because they exist in different levels of our atmosphere and absorb(and release) energy at different rates, but some do at the same frequencies(heat and light) as others while others do not. So, one can’t accurately state if we add X amount of CO2(or any other GHG) that we will retain Y amount of heat. Clear anything up for you?
Does pumping Co2 into the air increase the total amount of gas in the atmosphere, or does it take the place of another gas. For instance if I put on the kettle, bursta hydrogen filled ballon, or drive a hydrogen car that emits water vapour, am I contributing to green house gases?
See the above ramblings. but don’t feel guilty about drinking some tea. It’ll be okay.
How big a hole has discarding Michael Mann’s hockey stick left? Are there other reputable demonstrations of a direct causal relationship between Co2 concentrations and global heating? I know there is a lag effect, but is this accounted for by Co2 being released and absorbed by the oceans? Do warming oceans release Co2 and cold oceans absorb Co2, or is it more complex?”
Mann’s hockey stick graph was never “reputable”, thus he was never reputable. There has never been a direct relationship (casual or otherwise) demonstrated between CO2 and global heating. But there are many climatologist who make essentially the same claims. I always assumed because that’s how they
earn a livingbilk people for their money. Yes, it is more complicated, but you can essentially consider cold ocean absorbs and warm ocean releases CO2.While I had attempted to clear up some of your questions, I fear I may have missed my mark. Still, it is my hope you may find something useful in that sprawling verbiage. If you need more concise explanations, there are usually several here that can go into much greater detail than I on the various subjects I touched on.
P.S. Does pumping Co2 into the air increase the total amount of gas in the atmosphere, or does it take the place of another gas.
That is a beautiful question and can be answered on various levels, but I’ve already rambled enough and it’s Saturday!!! So, I’m going to do like Led Zepplin and Ramble On elsewhere.
There are a few people who will see Lord Moncktons picture in a post who will scroll down immediately to the comment box and say, “Ya, but Monckton isn’t a Lord.”