Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
After I published my previous post, “An Observational Estimate of Climate Sensitivity“, a number of people objected that I was just looking at the average annual cycle. On a time scale of decades, they said, things are very different, and the climate sensitivity is much larger. So I decided to repeat my analysis without using the annual averages that I used in my last post. Figure 1 shows that result for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the Southern Hemisphere (SH):
Figure 1. Temperatures calculated using solely the variations in solar input (net solar energy after albedo reflections). The observations are so well matched by the calculations that you cannot see the lines showing the observations, because they are hidden by the lines showing the calculations. The two hemispheres have different time constants (tau) and climate sensitivities (lambda). For the NH, the time constant is 1.9 months, and the climate sensitivity is 0.30°C for a doubling of CO2. The corresponding figures for the SH are 2.4 months and 0.14°C for a doubling of CO2.
I did this using the same lagged model as in my previous post, but applied to the actual data rather than the averages. Please see that post and the associated spreadsheet for the calculation details. Now, there are a number of interesting things about this graph.
First, despite the nay-sayers, the climate sensitivities I used in my previous post do an excellent job of calculating the temperature changes over a decade and a half. Over the period of record the NH temperature rose by 0.4°C, and the model calculated that quite exactly. In the SH, there was almost no rise at all, and the model calculated that very accurately as well.
Second, the sun plus the albedo were all that were necessary to make these calculations. I did not use aerosols, volcanic forcing, methane, CO2, black carbon, aerosol indirect effect, land use, snow and ice albedo, or any of the other things that the modelers claim to rule the temperature. Sunlight and albedo seem to be necessary and sufficient variables to explain the temperature changes over that time period.
Third, the greenhouse gases are generally considered to be “well-mixed”, so a variety of explanations have been put forward to explain the differences in hemispherical temperature trends … when in fact, the albedo and the sun explain the different trends very well.
Fourth, there is no statistically significant trend in the residuals (calculated minus observations) for either the NH or the SH.
Fifth, I have been saying for many years now that the climate responds to disturbances and changes in the forcing by counteracting them. For example, I have held that the effect of volcanoes on the climate is wildly overestimated in the climate models, because the albedo changes to balance things back out.
We are fortunate in that this dataset encompasses one of the largest volcanic eruptions in modern times, that of Pinatubo … can you pick it out in the record shown in Figure 1? I can’t, and I say that the reason is that the clouds respond immediately to such a disturbance in a thermostatic fashion.
Sixth, if there were actually a longer time constant (tau), or a larger climate sensitivity (lambda) over decade-long periods, then it would show up in the NH residuals but not the SH residuals. This is because there is a trend in the NH and basically no trend in the SH. But the calculations using the given time constants and sensitivities were able to capture both hemispheres very accurately. The RMS error of the residuals is only a couple tenths of a degree.
OK, folks, there it is, tear it apart … but please remember that this is science, and that the game is to attack the science, not the person doing the science.
Also, note that it is meaningless to say my results are a “joke” or are “nonsense”. The results fit the observations extremely well. If you don’t like that, well, you need to find, identify, and point out the errors in my data, my logic, or my mathematics.
All the best,
w.
PS—I’ve been told many times, as though it settled the argument, that nobody has ever produced a model that explains the temperature rise without including anthropogenic contributions from CO2 and the like … well, the model above explains a 0.5°C/decade rise in the ’80s and ’90s, the very rise people are worried about, without any anthropogenic contribution at all.
[UPDATE: My thanks to Stephen Rasey who alertly noted below that my calculation of the trend was being thrown off slightly by end-point effects. I have corrected the graphic and related references to the trend. It makes no difference to the calculations or my conclusions. -w.]
[UPDATE: My thanks to Paul_K, who pointed out that my formula was slightly wrong. I was using
∆T(k) = λ ∆F(k)/τ + ∆T(k-1) * exp(-1 / τ)
∆T(k) = λ ∆F(k)(1 – exp(-1/ τ)) + ∆T(k-1) * exp(-1 / τ)
The result of the error is that I have underestimated the sensitivity slightly, while everything else remains the same. Instead of the sensitivities for the SH and the NH being 0.04°C per W/m2 and 0.08°C per W/m2 respectively, the correct sensitivities should have been 0.05°C per W/m2 and 0.10°C per W/m2.
-w.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I said:
“Willis’s proposition requires more clouds when it is warming so that the warming is offset by the increased albedo.”
ferd berple said:
” I don’t see that anywhere in the model.”
I think it is implied by this comment from Willis:
“because the albedo changes to balance things back out.”
Furthermore the observed decrease in cloudiness during the period of a warming troposphere is also contrary to AGW theory. More warmth is supposed to give more evaporation and more clouds which is said to be a positive feedback despite any increase in global albedo.
In reality the troposphere warms when clouds decrease and cools when clouds increase. However I would argue that system energy content remains almost exactly the same because by far the vast majority of energy in the Earth system is in the oceans and the temperature of the troposphere as a whole is related primarily to the rate of flow of energy through it between oceans and space.
richard telford says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm
“You doubt” and you are “practically certain”? Is that supposed to impress me? I am impressed by facts, by logical arguments, by math, by results.
People telling me what they doubt? Not so much …
Well, I’m not sure what you call a “realistic time constant”, but let’s say it is 8
yearsmonths. [NOTE: written in error as “years”]As you can see, with a time constant of that length it doesn’t respond anywhere near fast enough to match the annual changes. Nor is it successful in replicating the overall trend in the NH. Finally, there is a large difference between NH errors and SH errors, indicating structural problems … so yes, using a larger time constant definitely and appreciably changes the results.
Actually, I’ve done that, and reported on it here and here. I get a much larger climate sensitivity (lambda) and time constant (tau) for the response of the model to the model’s forcing than I do when I look at real data … so what? I fear that just means that their models give unreasonable results.
The question is not necessarily climate sensitivity. It is what the climate is sensitive to … which is the albedo. However, the conditions for instigating an ice age are not well understood by anyone, and we have no albedo data for that time, so I can’t see how to even do the test you suggest.
Well, I’ve done two of the three things you requested, and I see no way to do the third since we don’t understand what causes ice ages, and we have no data on albedo during ice ages.
I will gladly accept your apology for your spiteful, snide, unwarranted, and untrue comments. Or, alternatively, I’m happy to ignore any future posts from you.
Your choice,
w.
mb says:
June 1, 2012 at 12:51 am
Thanks, mb. The model merely specifies what the temperature change will be from a certain change in the albedo. As a result, It can’t be used to forecast anything, because we don’t know the future state of the albedo. What I’ve done is hindcasting, because from the past albedo and the sun’s annual variations I’ve hindcasted past temperatures, with a very good degree of accuracy.
All the best,
w.
Willis said:
“The question is not necessarily climate sensitivity. It is what the climate is sensitive to … which is the albedo”
Correct as to both points.
We have a scenario whereby the system is highly sensitive to albedo because that affects the amount of energy getting into the oceans.
However, that high sensitivity exerts a negative response to ANY other forcing changes and so results in a very insensitive system overall.
The climate ‘price’ of the negative response is a shift in the surface air pressure pattern and the permanent climate zones.
Sizeable shifts from variability in sun and oceans as per MWP and LIA but miniscule from human CO2 emissions.
OK. It is now clear that the post I sent at ~12.50 your time has vanished. I am now sending it again.
Willis:
Thankyou for this. It is a direct rebuttal of KR and Latimer Alder in the previous thread who claimed need for a “two-box” model to emulate longer-term changes than the instantaneous changes. They did not have an argument as is demonstrated by – at the end of that thread – their abandoning rational argument and resorting to insult and abuse.
You now show by demonstration that they were wrong when they claimed your “one-box” model does not emulate changes other than only instantaneous changes. As you say
I note that detractors have responded in this thread by saying you need to assess very long time periods. That was predictable. This response is most clearly expressed by Richard Telford who says (at May 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm)
His assertion is wrong: you have obtained a realistic result by excluding them so his assertion is a falsehood. It is his duty to justify testing of “realistic time constants” (whatever they are). He is ‘blowing smoke’ until he shows the effect of adding such “realistic time constants” and explains the need for them.
And you disproved the arm-waving by your detractors who claimed NH and SH were different so your model “must” be wrong when you report
You state the important indication of your model when you say
Yes, you have demonstrated that
Sunlight and albedo seem to be necessary and sufficient variables to explain the temperature changes over that time period.
However, an ability to attribute a factor as a cause of a change only demonstrates the possibility that the factor is the cause of the change. An ability to attribute a factor as a cause of a change does NOT demonstrate that the factor is the true cause in part or in whole.
As I argued in the previous thread, there are other determinations of climate sensitivity than yours and – at present – there is no way to determine which is ‘right’. But your determination does not agree with what some people want to think is ‘true’.
So, you now find yourself in the same situation I have been in for a decade.
• I have been showing that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be attributed to factors other than anthropogenic CO2 (and have been vilified for it).
• You are showing the recent rise in global temperature can be attributed to factors other than the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and probably will be vilified for it).
I advise that you fasten your seat belt: you are in for a bumpy ride.
Richard
Moderator this is my third attempt to send the post I first sent at ~12.50
Willis:
Thankyou for this. It is a direct rebuttal of KR and Latimer Alder in the previous thread who claimed need for a “two-box” model to emulate longer-term changes than the instantaneous changes. They did not have an argument as is demonstrated by – at the end of that thread – their abandoning rational argument and resorting to insult and abuse.
You now show by demonstration that they were wrong when they claimed your “one-box” model does not emulate changes other than only instantaneous changes. As you say
I note that detractors have responded in this thread by saying you need to assess very long time periods. That was predictable. This response is most clearly expressed by Richard Telford who says (at May 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm)
His assertion is wrong: you have obtained a realistic result by excluding them so his assertion is a falsehood. It is his duty to justify testing of “realistic time constants” (whatever they are). He is ‘blowing smoke’ until he shows the effect of adding such “realistic time constants” and explains the need for them.
And you disproved the arm-waving by your detractors who claimed NH and SH were different so your model “must” be wrong when you report
You state the important indication of your model when you say
Yes, you have demonstrated that
Sunlight and albedo seem to be necessary and sufficient variables to explain the temperature changes over that time period.
However, an ability to attribute a factor as a cause of a change only demonstrates the possibility that the factor is the cause of the change. An ability to attribute a factor as a cause of a change does NOT demonstrate that the factor is the true cause in part or in whole.
As I argued in the previous thread, there are other determinations of climate sensitivity than yours and – at present – there is no way to determine which is ‘right’. But your determination does not agree with what some people want to think is ‘true’.
So, you now find yourself in the same situation I have been in for a decade.
• I have been showing that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be attributed to factors other than anthropogenic CO2 (and have been vilified for it).
• You are showing the recent rise in global temperature can be attributed to factors other than the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (and probably will be vilified for it).
I advise that you fasten your seat belt: you are in for a bumpy ride.
Richard
Moderator:
I have made 3 attempts to send a post that I first sent at ~12.50
All these posts have vanished. I would be grateful for your help.
Richard
Moderator:
It has appeared. Thankyou.
Richard
“What I’ve done is hindcasting, because from the past albedo and the sun’s annual variations I’ve hindcasted past temperatures, with a very good degree of accuracy.”
That is very important.
It follows that if one could accurately measure changing global albedo from whatever reason one could assess whether energy input to the oceans is increasing or decreasing at any given time.
At some stage it should then be possible to ascertain the level of albedo that represents a stable system.
Then, linking climate zone positioning to albedo level as modified by ocean cycles would give a reasonable method of anticipating regional climate changes.
Currently, I observe increasing cloudiness, greater jetstream meridionality and cooling mid latitudes with a slight equatorward drift of the climate zones.
Eschenbach appears to have a reading problem. I suggested that ” realistic time constants are *added* to the analysis”. Instead he *replaced* the short time constant with a longer time constant. Not surprisingly, a long time constant cannot replicate the intra-annual variability. But why only one time constant? There must be a range of time constants associated with different components of the system, for example surface vs sub surface ocean.
His previous work on modelled data are irrelevant to his current error as they are analyses of annual rather than monthly data. Not surprisingly, they don’t find a sub-annual time constant. This does not indicate that the models are generating “unreasonable results”. If you analyse two decades of monthly model data you will find a time constant of a couple of months, necessary to fit the annual cycle, regardless of the climate sensitivity of the model. That your method will be unable to find the climate sensitivity of the model will show that it is unfit for purpose, a cheap numerical trick.
Too bad I don’t have time now to study this in detail, it looks really, really interesting. I’d have one suggestion though – what about instead of dividing the earth to two hemispheres, dividing it to sea and land? Different sensitivities for land and sea make a bit more physical sense than different sensitivities for two hemispheres.
So it appears this very simple model shows that GST depends only only two things: TSI and albedo.
Leif can give us all we need to know (and much more) on TSI.
That leaves albedo. Various people have pointed out land use changes have had a significant impact on NH albedo (Pielke Sr in particular). Links between aerosols and volcanos and albedo are probably reasonably well understood if not well evaluated.
So we’re left with the link, if any, between CO2 and albedo. Roy’s cloud work, and some of Willis’s tropical storm work, imply -ve feedback to minimise the effects. I assume the CAGW crowd would claim increased temps result in reduced cloud formation hence increased temps. Is there an argument that increased IR capture by CO2/H2O would reduce cloud cover? If all it does is change the height of cloud cover, albedo is largely uneffected.
And what about ice? Increased temps might reduce ice/snow cover, and hence alter albedo and hence drive Willis’s curve. But that assumes the temp changed first – and Willis has shown it can’t change first – the lags are too small.
Too hard for me.
richard telford:
I am responding to your post at June 1, 2012 at 2:18 am that begins by saying:
If there is a “reading problem” then it is yours, not his.
I point you to my post at June 1, 2012 at 12:52 am. I there quoted what you had said verbatim (I note that Willis also quoted your same words in his answer to you) and I wrote to Willis saying of your words
Your entire response says of Willis’ analysis
That does NOT state “realistic time constants” and it does not justify them.
You are still ‘blowing smoke’.
Richard
Albedo changes with CO2 concentration, Willis. Albedo is all frequencies not just the visible ones. More CO2 makes the planet effectively “darker” in the CO2 absorption bands. I use the quotes around “darker” because those bands are invisible to the naked eye and require a spectrograph to “see” them.
So you were rolling CO2 into your calculation without realizing it.
Willis, I can’t comment on the formula other than that it has a delightfully convincing clarity.
As a child and country bumpkin I was always being told that nature abhors a vacuum. Not in the Aristotle sense but as a metaphor for the fact that nature always seemed to rebalance itself in the countryside around us. I’m a fan of yourThermostat Hypothesis as illustrated by tropical cloud formation. I like the idea that the climate contains homeostatic mechanisms.
The first thing I noticed in this and your previous post was that the time span, 1984 to 1998, was the same as the test case for your theory that “changes in albedo help regulate the temperature and keep it within a narrow range”, using the eruption of Pinutabo. I was suprised that only one comment in the first thread mentioned Pinutabo.
Like many others I considered this latest formula an addition to your Thermostat Hypothesis as neatly explained in an earlier post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
If “climate scientists” were truly open to new ideas they would be very excited by a hypothesis which demonstrates that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will not make the planet uninhabitable even though it might bring an end to grant money burning holes in their pockets.
Google albedo. The #2 hit (wikipedia is #1) is the link below. It is a technical definition of albedo and discusses the critical difference between bond albedo and geometric albedo.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html
My emphasis:
Ok, so I’m a little confused – on the one hand, a short term analysis clearly shows that a simple model can replicate observations but Willis seemingly accepts this is not going to demonstrate how ice ages occur, i.e. climate sensitivity over longer timescales.
Either the climate and our available data is ‘isolated’ into the now familiar cycles, and is chopped up for analysis ‘within’ those cycles – OR, the climate is taken as one big fecking cycle (i.e. ice age+ scale) with sub-cycles within and we ‘look’ at the whole thing. This seems to be the way of some of the thinking – but I feel it is wrong, the subcycles are the things to concentrate on in respect of anthropogenic influences as it is reasonable to assume that if there is a significant anthropogenic influence it will be evident within any sub-cycle? – i.e. whether the temps are going up or down, if they are going up, the AGW effect will increase the rate, if they are going down, the AGW effect will decrease the rate.
I think what Willis has done is demonstrate that short term cycles are easily replicated with a simple model but as others have commented, this is of no real ‘use’ if there are ‘other’ effects which the model does not and cannot consider.
I agree with Willis that his work appears to demonstrate a ‘low’ overall sensitivity (but only over the short timescale) and to me, this low sensitivity is reasonably logical. However, we KNOW that something(s) MUST happen to cause the KNOWN greater range in temperatures and these
something(s) must kick the sensitivity up (or down) as they occur.
I am sure folk here understand the +ve and -ve feedback analogies using a concave or convex surface respectively? (I trust I don’t need to explain this!) but the way to think of the whole climate might be to think of a rippled bowl, with crests and troughs circular and radiating out from the centre.
If you consider the depths/heights of the troughs and crests as being variable – its easy to see how the earths climate can ‘drop’ into a different ring around the centre and the climate within this ‘ring’ will be slightly different.
Taking my rather wittering analogy a stage further, the different rings (i.e. distances from the centre) could be comparable to major cycles, like Milankovich, etc…..
We all know about the change in the earths axial tilt, etc, effects of the moon-earth distance, etc,etc – if you take my analogy even further, these major astronomical/planetary type changes are tilting the plane upon which the bowl sits – thereby tipping the ball into the next trough/ring.
My (probably badly made) point is that the climate needs to be considered within each phase of its development and cannot be viewed as a whole ‘range’.
Gawd, I hope this makes sense (it made sense in my mind! LOL)
Willis,
I like the simple approach and I too think albedo is a very important factor to look at.
But, your conclusion about Pinatubo is wrong, I think. Since large volcano eruptions are supposed to cool the earth by changing the albedo, they are included indirectly in your model. If Pinatubo did affect the albedo, the temperature did follow as your model predicted. If your model had failed to predict temperatures after the eruption, it would have been a reason to question your model.
Another reference. I know I’ll meet a lot of resistance from laymen here including the author but there really is nothing new in this posting. Albedo is just another unit of measure for the earth’s equilibrium temperature and it should therefore come as no surprise that they should line up perfectly.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
My emphasis:
It can be accepted from this essay that TSI and Albedo are all you need to predict temperature change. However, this doesn’t confirm that CO2 has no effect on temperatures, as it has NOT been demonstrated that it has no effect on the albedo (in fact, we skeptics like to theorize the opposite, that it has, and it is a negative feedback). However, one would need to look at the data and say, if warmists say that CO2 is supposed to change the Albedo in a way that increases the warming above the one produced by the GH effect alone… well, why hasn’t it?
JohanS:
You make a good point in your post at June 1, 2012 at 2:57 am but, with respect, you misstate it.
Observed albedo is in the visible wavelengths so effective reflection by GHGs is not relevant to Willis’ analysis. However, as you say, it is possible that Willis’ analysis DOES include effect of increased GHGs such as CO2. I explain this as follows.
If an increase to atmospheric GHG concentration affects the hydrological cycle then the increase may alter cloud cover with resulting change to albedo. Thus, albedo is a proxy for atmospheric GHG concentration.
Please note that I am NOT claiming a change to albedo IS a proxy for atmospheric GHG concentration. I am only pointing out the possibility that it may be.
And this possibility is only one of several possibilities why an ability to attribute sunlight and albedo as the cause of global temperature change does not mean they are the cause in part or in whole.
I think Willis has shown that sunlight and albedo are the cause of global temperature change. But there are reasons why I could be wrong.
Richard
As someone mentioned earlier, this could be a classic case of Occam’s Razor at work.
Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
I have recently had personal experience in trying to solve the geological controls over the structures, which acted as conduits for mineralization into a large base metal deposit. At times, I felt very much like a ‘climate scientist’, producing ever more complex theories and models, which would never explain 100% of what we were seeing in the drill cores.
After four years of struggle, we finally had an epiphany a few weeks ago and now the explanation for what we see in our drill cores is really very simple.
I suspect Willis may have stumbled over something which has the potential to put the global warming industry out of business. If he has, the world owes him a great debt of thanks. However, as can be seen in a couple of instances here, there will be plenty of shrill objections from those only interested in maintaining the health of the hugely expensive and utterly pointless global warming industry.
PS—I’ve been told many times, as though it settled the argument, that nobody has ever produced a model that explains the temperature rise without including anthropogenic contributions from CO2 and the like
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
Graeme W says:
May 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm
BarryW says:
May 31, 2012 at 7:50 pm
So given the time frame of your calculation, the temperature rise and the .3 deg C per doubling for the NH, how much of the temperature rise is “attributable” to CO2?
Well, since my numbers fit the data very well with no CO2 involved, and furthermore there is no significant trend in the residuals, I’d say about zero is attributable to CO2 …
w.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, CO2 can affect the albedo, so it’s included. The theory is that an increase in temperature due to CO2 will result in increased water vapour being held in the atmosphere, which can manifest as clouds, altering the albedo.
So this model doesn’t impact on AGW concepts – it’s a much more empirical analysis of temperature based on how much energy from the input source (the sun) gets absorbed by the Earth (determined by albedo). Conceptually, straight forward and hard to refute. The next level of discussion is then to determine what impact various factors (such as CO2, aerosols, etc) have on the Earth’s albedo. It would be interesting is to see if there are any existing studies on that subject.
Devils advocate is a dangerous game 🙂
1. The extra water vapor in the AGW theory would show up – it is claimed and in all the models as a tropospheric hotspot – there is no tropospheric hotspot.
2. It would appear that atmospheric humidity is actually dropping rather than “rising in response to temperature.” – Moreover, a drop in humidity by reducing atmospheric enthalpy could lead to a rise in atmospheric temperature without any heat being ‘trapped’ at all.
richardscourtney says:
June 1, 2012 at 4:10 am
“You make a good point in your post at June 1, 2012 at 2:57 am but, with respect, you misstate it.”
I didn’t misstate anything. I parroted, with citations and quotes, an award-winning online physics reference used by millions of people annually. If you believe there were any misstatements I suggest you take it up with the creator of the resource whose contact information is listed at:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html