Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
David Rose has posted this , from the unreleased IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5):
‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’ SOURCE
I cracked up when I read that … despite the IPCC’s claim of even greater certainty, it’s a step backwards.
You see, back around 1980, about 33 years ago, we got the first estimate from the computer models of the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). This is the estimate of how much the world will warm if CO2 doubles. At that time, the range was said to be from 1.5° to 4.5°.
However, that was reduced in the Fourth Assessment Report, to a narrower, presumably more accurate range of from 2°C to 4.5°C. Now, however, they’ve backed away from that, and retreated to their previous estimate.
Now consider: the first estimate was done in 1980, using a simple computer and a simple model. Since then, there has been a huge, almost unimaginable increase in computer power. There has been a correspondingly huge increase in computer speed. The number of gridcells in the models has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude. Separate ocean and atmosphere models have been combined into one to reduce errors. And the size of the models has gone from a few thousand lines of code to millions of lines of code.
And the estimates of climate sensitivity have not gotten even the slightest bit more accurate.
Can anyone name any other scientific field that has made so little progress in the last third of a century? Anyone? Because I can’t.
So … what is the most plausible explanation for this ludicrous, abysmal failure to improve a simple estimate in a third of a century?
I can give you my answer. The models are on the wrong path. And when you’re on the wrong path, it doesn’t matter how big you are or how complex you are or how fast you are—you won’t get the right answer.
And what is the wrong path?
The wrong path is the ludicrous idea that the change in global temperature is a simple function of the change in the “forcings”, which is climatespeak for the amount of downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The canonical (incorrect) equation is:
∆T = lambda ∆F
where T is temperature, F is forcing, lambda is the climate sensitivity, and ∆ means “the change in”.
I have shown, in a variety of posts, that the temperature of the earth is not a function of the change in forcings. Instead, the climate is a governed system. As an example of another governed system, consider a car. In general, other things being equal, we can say that the change in speed of a car is a linear function of the change in the amount of gas. Mathematically, this would be:
∆S = lambda ∆G
where S is speed, G is gas, and lambda is the coefficient relating the two.
But suppose we turn on the governor, which in a car is called the cruise control. At that point, the relationship between speed and gas consumption disappears entirely—gas consumption goes up and down, but the speed basically doesn’t change.
Note that this is NOT a feedback, which would just change the coefficient “lambda” giving the linear relationship between the change in speed ∆S and the change in gas ∆G. The addition of a governor completely wipes out that linear relationship, de-coupling the changes in gas consumption from the speed changes entirely.
The exact same thing is going on with the climate. It is governed by a variety of emergent climate phenomena such as thunderstorms, the El Nino/La Nina warm water pump, and the PDO. And as a result, the change in global temperature is totally decoupled from the changes in forcings. This is why it is so hard to find traces of e.g. solar and volcano forcings in the temperature record. We know that both of those change the forcings … but the temperatures do not change correspondingly.
To me, that’s the Occam’s Razor explanation of why, after thirty years, millions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and millions of lines of code, the computer models have not improved the estimation of “climate sensitivity” in the slightest. They do not contain or model any of the emergent phenomena that govern the climate, the phenomena that decouple the temperature from the forcing and render the entire idea of “climate sensitivity” meaningless.
w.
PS—I have also shown that despite their huge complexity, the global temperature output of the models can be emulated to a 98% accuracy by a simple one-line equation. This means that their estimate of the “climate sensitivity” is entirely a function of their choice of forcings … meaning, of course, that even on a good day with a following wind they can tell us nothing about the climate sensitivity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Which is a wordy way of saying,
“They’re Wrong”
or, my favorite mantra,
CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE.
Honestly, Love the way they went back to the original estimate. Even that is ridiculous. Clearly 4.5 is not even in the realm of possible, and 1.5 should probably be the high side. If only climate “science” would learn the meaning of “error bars”.
Why is El-Nino a forcing?
It’s just one of many outputs.
They are so convinced that CO2 is the problem that all else is excluded including the fact that CO2 cannot be the stated problem. Also the K&T (AR4) graphic is so wrong, flat earth, 24/7 sunlight etc., using that to evaluate energy flow takes completely the wrong turn into stupidity and theories that cannot work.
Your cruise control analogy is excellent.
But suppose we turn on the governor, which in a car is called the cruise control. At that point, the relationship between speed and gas consumption disappears entirely—gas consumption goes up and down, but the speed basically doesn’t change.
I don’t think this is a suitable example Willis, as the cruise control controls the speed by controlling the flow of petrol. Admittedly an automatic gearbox would also play a part but that’s a separate issue.
I seem to recall Jame Lovelace making the same point in his book ‘GAIA’ that the Earth’s climate is governed by a control system. This is a concept that is second nature to any engineer. A well designed process control system (using proportional, integral and derivative drivers) will tamp down any process upsets and adjust the process to maintain a consistent output from the process. When I read the book in the late 80’s/early 90’s, that one point was so obvious to me. In the absence of a massive process upset (asteroid strike, CME), the Earth will regulate itself with its own control system to maintain a consistent temperature.
Thanks Willis, well said..
The most plausible explanation could be hydrogen sulphide?
As in Bad Egg Climate Scientists.
“The wrong path is the ludicrous idea that the change in global temperature is a simple function of the change in the “forcings”, which is climatespeak for the amount of downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The canonical (incorrect) equation is:
Δ T = lambda ΔF
where T is temperature, F is forcing, lambda is the climate sensitivity, and Δ means “the change in”.”
You’ve said this before, but again not quoting anyone. Whose ludicrous idea is it? Whose canonical equation? What did they say?
There’s a proposition that if CO2 is doubled, then one can try to quantify the eventual rise in temperature. That’s very different from your “canonical” equation. And the range that you ridicule is partly a recognition that the relation is indeed complex.
Sorry bloke down the pub but when on cruise control the amount petrol used will change due to driving conditions?
Wind resistance or assistance, driving up or down hills. Also the road surface?
Mr Stokes
Please can you help me by either explaining or pointing me in the direction of a paper that demonstrates the amount of industrialisation that would be required to double atmospheric CO2 levels. Along with the timescale?
Time to drag out my alternate theory of climate change.
The climate changes when factors affecting the phase changes of water (ignoring Malankovic Cycles) change. Specifically, aerosols, black carbon. organic carbon, GCRs, and perhaps a couple of other things drive climate change over decadal to century scales.
This BTW, is consistent with Willis’s Governor System, as the factors referred to affect the (water phase change) governors.
“This is why it is so hard to find traces of e.g. solar and volcano forcings in the temperature record. We know that both of those change the forcings … but the temperatures do not change correspondingly.”
Does that mean that you are optimist that the present state of the sun will not produce another cold period like the ones we experienced during the Maunder and Dalton minimums. I fear another cooling period far more than warming, I would like to be optimistic that it will not re-occur in my lifetime. The thought of mass starvation and food shortages during my old age is something I do not want to see.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Mencken
well, computer speed or memory doesn’t help much, they are still unable to give an error bar… as a result you just don’t know if a “newer ” simulation with much greater number of cells and so on is closer to reality than an “older” one….It is newer, more complex may be more sexy but…you just don’t know if it is more “real”..
It may be possible estmate error bar can be estimated .but i guess that the complexity of the estimation of error bar is one order of magnitude greater than the complexity of simulation. But it is only a guessing.
Stacey says: September 15, 2013 at 4:38 am
“Mr Stokes
Please can you help me by either explaining or pointing me in the direction of a paper that demonstrates the amount of industrialisation that would be required to double atmospheric CO2 levels. Along with the timescale?”
That’s hardly relevant to the provenance of this “canonical” equation. But there are about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and we’re emitting over 30 gigatons a year. That emission is rapidly increasing.
Willis, the 1.5-4.5C sensitivity first appeared in the Charney report in 1979, it was, as I recollect taken from two computer forecasts, one gave 2C sensitivity and the other, from none other than Jim Hansen, gave a 4C sensitivity. In a moment of scientific genius Charney decided that there was an uncertainty of 0.5C and declared the sensitivity as 3C +/- 1.5C. There it stayed until AR4 when an effort to strike more fear into the public was made by increasing the lower sensitivity to 2C, where it probably would have stayed if we hadn’t recently had a plethora of papers setting 2C as the higher level of sensitivity. You’re right, I’ve often wondered how a climate sensitivity plucked out of thin air had stayed static for 34 years, particularly as you point out, with the massive increase in computing power available to the modellers.
Awaiting your next report from your holiday in the UK with bated breath.
Stacey says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:32 am
Sorry bloke down the pub but when on cruise control the amount petrol used will change due to driving conditions?
Wind resistance or assistance, driving up or down hills. Also the road surface?
Yes, just as it does when not on cruise control.
“Can anyone name any other scientific field that has made so little progress in the last third of a century? Anyone? Because I can’t”
Not much has happened in physics, unless you believe that the god particle has been discovered,
which I don’t
The claim of 33 K ghe hence triple climate sensitivity was a mistake in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf**
This means the positive feedback claim is wrong and CS is no more than1.2 K.
However, correct all the other mistakes and do the real science job, and it’s <0.1 K.
**They implied that by taking out ghs, the surface average temperature would fall to -18 K so the difference from the present 11 K is the the. However no clouds or ice increases SW heating by 43% giving a new surface temperature average of ~4-5 deg C, a ghe of ~11 K.
I expect Hansen to apologise for misleading the World and for the names of the referees who failed to check this bad science to be made public 'Science' journal.
“Now consider: the first estimate was done in 1980, using a simple computer and a simple model. Since then, there has been a huge, almost unimaginable increase in computer power. There has been a correspondingly huge increase in computer speed. The number of gridcells in the models has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude. Separate ocean and atmosphere models have been combined into one to reduce errors. And the size of the models has gone from a few thousand lines of code to millions of lines of code.”
One would expect the same result if they were right the first time. A million variable monte carlo simulation of the apple and the tree would not have much effect on gravity.
Even GHGs work as governors in the atmosphere. The entire view that they work like a greenhouse is wrong. They work more like a climate control system. If the planet warms they increase the flow of radiation to space, and if the planet cools this flow is reduced (the basic GHE takes over).
That’s hardly relevant to the provenance of this “canonical” equation. But there are about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and we’re emitting over 30 gigatons a year. That emission is rapidly increasing.
About 3000 gigatons? So you don’t really know how much co2 is naturally in the atmosphere to less than four decimal places, even when talking gigatons.
Bet you anything you care to name that the “over 30 gigatons a year” is only a guess as well.
Nick Stokes says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 am
“That’s hardly relevant to the provenance of this “canonical” equation. But there are about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and we’re emitting over 30 gigatons a year. That emission is rapidly increasing.”
What is the estimated gigatons of the entire atmosphere?
The climate models are based on 13 mistakes in the physics, 3 of which are elementary.
I can forgive the Meteorologists because along with Climate Alchemists they are taught incorrect radiation physics.
However, for any other engineer or physicist, taught correct physics, to agree that pyrgeometers output a real energy flux is unprofessional.
This mistake triples heat input but they knock it back by incorrectly claiming Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation applies at TOA and then use double real low level cloud optical depth so as to come up with ‘agw’ that might be true if they hadn’t got the IR physics wrong.
[Will Happer warned pf that 20 years ago when he refused to lie for Gore.]
The real agw has been Asian aerosols reducing cloud albedo. That has not saturated. The problem here is that Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong and the sign of the effect is reversed and it’s from large droplets, easy to prove by experiment.
All in all this has been a disaster for science.