Senior NCAR scientist admits: "Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data…"

Viv Evans says
Just check the date that e-mail was sent: June 2000!
Yes, I had to look twice – because the Team knew then they couldn’t quantify climate sensitivity,
————-
No they didn’t know that at all. If you read properly twice you will realize that there was a disagreement between researchers over this issue, without any indication that the matter was resolved. And report text was apparently modified to reflect that fact.

What Tom Wigley is really saying is that whenever climate scientists try to estimate CO2 sensitivity from the historical climate (on any timescale), you can be sure they played around with the parametres as much as possible (and ignored as much real data as possible, including the CO2 estimates themselves if you can imagine) in order to reach their inevitable conclusion of 3.0C per doubling.
And I have seen exactly this in every paper/study/simulation I have ever delved into – hundreds of them that is – I don’t know how they can sleep at night – other than they know a big research grant is coming their way soon after because the fake study.
(really good stuff there Lucy).

Rosco says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm
…..The climate scientists have gotten away with the myth that the Sun can’t heat the Earth and “greenhouse gases” somehow account for 33 degrees C.
….Plug in 1368 W/sq m – the solar constant – into Stefan-Boltzman and the answer is ~ 120 degrees C.
How do they get away with this obfuscation of quoting averages when all that matters is maximum ?
How do they get away with the “Energy Budget” and the famous “Here we assume a “solar constant” of 1367 W m-2 (Hartmann 1994), and because the incoming solar radiation is one-quarter of this, that is, 342 W m-2, a planetary albedo of 31% is implied.”
It is this incoming solar radiation is a quarter rubbish that supports the whole of the rest of the gibberish….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That has always had me puzzled too.
Here is a chart from NASA for solar panels

Solar Insolation Levels In North America (kWh/m2/day)
SOLAR INSOLATION
…..The values of solar insolation are commonly expressed in kWh/m 2/day. This is the amount of solar energy that strikes a square meter of the earth’s surface in a single day.
Insolation levels are used to determine what size solar collector is needed to efficiently provide adequate levels of hot water. Geographic locations with low insolation levels require larger collectors than locations with higher insolation levels.
For comparison, consider the average annual insolation levels of these two extreme locations:
* Oslo , Norway = 2.27 kWh/m 2/day (very low)
* Miami , Florida = 5.26 kWh/m 2/day (very high)
http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/

Las Vegas has a yearly avg of 5.3 kWh/m 2/day and a monthly high of 7.69 kWh/m 2/day in June. Phoenix a high of 7.7 kWh/m 2/day.
Gee, Phoenix AZ had a June 2011 high of 129.9 °F and a monthly avg of 101.3 °F
Las Vegas NV had a June 2011 high of 112.0 °F and a monthly avg of 82.6 °F
120 °C = 250 °F
54.4 °C = 129.9 °F = 327.5K
38.5°C = 101.3 °F = 311.6K
129.9 °F==> 327.5K^4 x Stefan-Boltzman constant = 1.15039032 × 10^10 X 5.67 x 10^-8 = 6.5205 kWh/m 2/day a wee bit lower than the 7.7 kWh/m 2/day average they measured for Phoenix AZ in June.
Looks like CO2 is causing COOLING of the day time temperature…. /sarc>

Cardin Drake says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm
re: Jaye Bass: I hope all the big players lose their jobs ending up teaching chemistry at a high school in Albuquerque NM.
What has Albuquerque ever done to you, Jaye?
_______________________________
I was voting for the inner city in NYC, Hansen would not even have to move.

NK says: November 29, 2011 at 10:00 am

Mindful manufacturing, manipilation and mendacity means maladjusted Machiavellian and mercencary motives.
Personally, I would not confuse them with someone who gives a damn.

Well we have apparently credible data taken on top of an active volcano since 1957/58 IGY showing CO2 (in that spot) going from about 315 to today’s about 391, which my Terraflop computer says is not yet 1/3rd of one doubling, and during that time frame, the actual Terraflop computed apparent Temperature has gone up and down, and all over the place.
So that warren Meyer graph alleging a logarithmic relationship seems to me to be an extrapolation exercise in futility.
I am sure that the mathematical cognoscenti, can find the necessary parameters to fit that data to the function: y = a.exp(-b/x^2) With at least as good a correlation coefficient, as the unproven but widely assumed log function.
Going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is one doubling; so is going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm; so is going from one CO2 molecule in 22.4 litres of STP air to 2 CO2 molecu;es of CO2. Now THAT is a log function.
T versus CO2 is NOT a log function.

Bomber_the_Cat says: November 29, 2011 at 11:55 am
The 1367 W/sq.m is the radiation intercepted by the Earth’s disc.

Precisely.
When the sun is at right angles to the Earth’s surface the incoming solar radiation is 1,367 W/sq.m
When the sun is below the horizon the incoming radiation is 0 W/sq.m
Therefore, incoming solar radiation varies between 0 and 1,367 W/sq.m
The settled science energy budget [below] shows a moment in time for a location when the incoming solar radiation is 342 W/sq.m: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
The settled science energy budget does not account for incoming solar radiation varying between 0 and 1,367 W/sq over time..
Saying that 342 W/sq.m is the correct figure is obfuscation.
Saying that 342 W/sq.m is the correct figure is hiding behind misleading averages.
Saying that 342 W/sq.m is the correct figure is Kindergarten Science.

Gerhard Kramm says:
November 29, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Hello Myrrh,
Hello Gerhard, thank you for your post. I’m not a scientist and having just about got used to using Centigrade your use of Kelvin sends me to look up each figure as I just don’t use it often enough to remember and so have no ‘feel’ for it. But also, this is an argument about the figures used by AGWSF in describing the amount of ‘warming produced by greenhouse gases’, and they give these in centigrade as this is for ‘public education’. Please would you use C or also gave it when giving K. Ta.
this so-called effective temperature of 255 K [-18.2°C] for an earth in the absence of its atmosphere is a nonsense quantity. It is based on an planetary albedo of 30 %, but this is the planetary albedo for the earth-atmosphere system. It is also based on the assumption that the surface temperature is uniformly distributed, an assumption that is even not fulfilled in case of the real earth-atmosphere system. The planetary emissivity is not equal to unity. Note that the difference between the globally averaged near-surface temperature of 288 K [14.9°C] and the effective temperature of 255 K [-18.2°C of 33 K [-240°C] serves to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, the effective temperature and the globally averaged surface temperature are not comparable because these two temperatures have different meaning. From a physical point of view both temperatures are bloodless quantities.
I’m sorry, I can’t follow that. The -18°C [255 K] “based on an planetary albedo of 30 %, but this is the planetary albedo for the earth-atmosphere system.”.
Yes – that’s why I gave it. It’s the ‘standard’ figure used for Earth without an atmosphere and the figure used by AGW to give the difference in its claim that ‘greenhouse gases warm the Earth from that temperature which it would be without them.’
It is also based on the assumption that the surface temperature is uniformly distributed, an assumption that is even not fulfilled in case of the real earth-atmosphere system.
OK, but that’s a different argument to the one I’m making, interesting though it is.
The planetary emissivity is not equal to unity.
I don’t understand what that means.
Note that the difference between the globally averaged near-surface temperature of 288 K [14.9°C] and the effective temperature of 255 K [-18.2°C of 33 K [-240°C] serves to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
As you can see, your own confusion with K’s and C’s has jumbled this.. It should be ‘the effective temperature of 255 K [-18.2°C of 33°C [306 K] serves to quantify the atmospheric greenhouse effect.’
Which is what I said, – without any atmosphere the temperature is around -18°C [255 K], with our atmosphere the temperature is around 15°C [288 K], the difference between the two of 33°C [306 K] is that claimed by AGWSF to be the result of ‘greenhouse gases keeping the Earth warmer than it would be without them’.
My point is that this is a clever sleight of hand, a deliberate manipulation of the mind. Because, the figure they give of the difference is based on NO atmosphere at all, therefore, the difference actually includes oxygen and nitrogen as ‘greenhouse’ gases.
They claim that oxygen and nitrogen are not ‘greenhouse gases’. They attribute this difference only to their ‘greenhouse’ gases of water vapour, carbon dioxide. They are telling a big fib here.
To get to Earth’s effective temperature of 15°C [288 K] requires ALL the atmospheric gases. Therefore, all the atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases.
However, at the same time as lying about this difference being attributable only to water/carbon dioxide type gases, they miss out the actual dynamics of the process which our atmosphere uniquely (afawk) gives us – through the Water Cycle. Water vapour is the major ‘greenhouse’ gas. If it is taken out of our atmosphere, but leaving the rest in place, we would have a temperature of 67°C [340 K].
What I am saying is that these ‘AGW greenhouse gases’ cool the Earth. Without the Water Cycle taking heat away from the Earth in water vapour rising and condensing out into rain in the colder higher atmosphere, thereby giving up its heat, the Earth would be HOTTER than it is now. Hotter by 52°C [325 K]. Think deserts.
Let us consider the moon that nearly fulfills the instance of an earth in the absence of its atmosphere. Using the planetary albedo of 12 % and an planetary emissivity equal to unity, one obtains an effective temperature for the moon of about 270 K [-3.15°C]. Remote sensing observations performed by Monstein (2001) suggest a mean disk temperature of 213 K [-60.2°C]. Model results by Vasavada et al. (1999) suggest a mean temperature at the equator of about 223 K [-50.2°C] for one rotation, i.e., the mean temperature of the moon for one rotation is lower than this mean temperature. The model of Vasavada et al. also includes a soil model. This is important because in case of a pure local radiative equilibrium any local surface temperature would be equal to zero (or 2.7 K [-270°C], the temperature of the space) on the dark side of the moon. In such a case the mean temperature at the equator for one rotation would be 165 K [-108°C] or so. Our own preliminary estimates for the global surface temperature of the moon are of about 200 K +/- 10 K [-73.2°C +/- -263°C] (Kramm & Dlugi, 2011, in preparation). All these results suggest that in case of the moon the mean surface temperature is much smaller than the moon’s effective surface temperature. Consequently, there is neither empirical nor theoretical evidence that this effective temperature of 270 K [-3.15°C] is reasonable.
As before, I find it interesting that you have a different figure from the ‘standard’, though I can’t follow your reasoning I’m sure others here can, but I wonder if this is anything to do with the ‘flat earth Boltzmann’ calculations which NASA had to jettison to get as accurate estimates as it could for the Moon landings, in other words they worked on a three dimensional model.
Also in case of the earth in the absence of its atmosphere its mean surface temperature would be much smaller than the effective temperature of 255 K. This means that the 33 K are an inappropriate quantity. The quantification of so-called the atmospheric greenhouse effect by 33 K is, therefore, for the birds. Remember that Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2009) estimated the mean surface temperature of the earth in the absence of its atmosphere and found a value of 144 K for the case of a local radiative equilibrium. If the soil effect would be inserted, as requested by Gerlich & Tscheuschner, the mean surface temperature would be 200 to 210 K or so.
I’m not going to tackle this one, putting in celsius, because you’ve used 33 K and not 33°C again here, but, assuming you actually meant 33°C, [306 K], what do you reckon the temperature of Earth without an atmosphere would be if you calculate it as you have the Moon?
There are big differences between the Moon and Earth, the first one being the much greater size of Earth and this shows all of itself to the Sun in very quick changes, night and day, so for example such things as soil heating and degrees of retaining heat will be much better for the Earth. And, I’m assuming here that you’re taking out the water from the Earth as well as atmosphere, but maybe you’re not. In that case, if the Earth with water but without the atmosphere you’d have to factor in that water is this amazing thing with a huge capacity to store energy, so ‘without an atmosphere’ must be noted as being before and after the oceans boil dry.. 🙂
I’ll try and find the only reference I’ve seen to how the Earth’s temperature with and without atmosphere and plus or minus water cycle was calculated (as I’ve given above), but if you, or any reading this, know of such, please post. As far as I’m aware this has empirical background, geologists and such use these figures.

“”””” Myrrh says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:05 am
The AGWScienceFiction department pulled a clever stunt with temps, the ‘greenhouse gases warm the Earth by 33°C’ is actually from the temp the Earth would be without any atmosphere. This is a deliberate confusion and I haven’t found it easy to explain the sleight of hand, I hope someone else can improve on it. “””””
Well you have a right to be confused Myrrh. It is hard to find papers or citations, where they cross all the eys and dot all the tees.. For starters, that 255K number that then presumes 33 deg C “greenhouse warming, is NOT the “no atmosphere” calculate black body equilibrium Temperature at all. To get that number, they actually assume some earth albedo number of around 30%, and there is no way you can get a 30% albedo without any atmosphere, because clouds are the biggest single component of albedo. So you are right to call it sleight of hand. They can’t take away the atmosphere, and then insist on normal 60% cloud cover albedo.
I believe the claim is that the 255 K is what you get with 30% albedo (from who the hell knows where) but sans greenhouse gases. one can be forgiven for being torn apart over whether H2O is or is not a necessary but not GHG component of the atmosphere. Bottom line is they claim the whole 33 degrees is due to CO2. So without CO2 we would be a frozen ice ball. O yeah, and that frozen ice ball, would presumably have no water vapor so no clouds, so no 30% albedo, so no CO2 needed.
Sometime this year, or maybe last year, NASA did announce that their latest recommended value for TSI is actually 1362 W/m^2. I had been using 1366, and yearsago the go to number was 1353, which is in a lot of text books. Mox nix anyhow, but 342 it certainly isn’t.
At sea level you can hard boil an egg in about 4 minutes. That doesn’t mean that at 28,000 feet you can boil it n 16 or even 32 minutes. Well you sure as hell can boil it, you just can’t cook it.
I’m quite confident, that with zero CO2 in the atmosphere, we would be comfortably living with a slightly different cloud cover.

Helle Bomber_the_Cat.
you stated:
“I think others, Tom_R and davidmhoffer have already answered this. The 1367 W/sq.m is the radiation intercepted by the Earth’s disc. The area of this disc is r2 …. where r is the radius of the Earth. But the Earth is a sphere, not a disc, so its surface area is 4r2 , i.e. four times larger. So we divide 1367 by 4 to get 342 W falling on each square metre of the Earth’s surface. So 342 W/sq.m is the correct figure.”
For the purpose of clarification: this S = 1367 W/m^2 (now 1361 W/m^2) is the solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere for the mean distance of r_0 = 149.6 million km between the sun’s center and the earth’s orbit (strictly spoken of the barycenter of the earth-moon system). Since the actual distance varies from r = 147.1 million km (perihelion around January 4) to r = 152.1 million km (aphelion, around July 5), the solar irradiance, F, varies from 1407 W/m^2 at perihelion to 1316 W/m^2 at aphelion, if S =1361 W/m^2 is considered. The numbers are base on the formula
F = (r_0/r)^2 S
However, any surface element of the sphere related to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) obtains
dE = (r_TOA)^2 F cos (Theta) dOmega
where Theta is the solar zenith angle, dOmega is the differential solid angle, and r_(TOA) is the radius of the sphere. By integrating this equation one obtains
E = pi (r_TOA)^2 (r_0/r)^2 S
or, approximately,
E = pi (r_TOA)^2 S

Dr. Everett V. Scott says:
November 28, 2011 at 12:32 pm
AYZ,
Climate sensitivity to CO2 amounts to a WAG. The fact that carbon dioxide has risen by more than 40% while the global temperature has been flat for many years is strong evidence that temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide has been vastly overestimated.

Evidently, the CO2 rise stopped the post-LIA 0.6K/century warming trend in its tracks. So the sensitivity must be negative.