New study: '…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed'

I suppose CO2 has to be thrown into the study in order to get it published, or, am I getting too cynical?

But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.
“As a result, because as much as 50% of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Niño activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed”, Spencer said.
This is the way to model climate – base the modeling directly on experimental data (here satellite data). Yes – clouds CAN be included in climate modeling. But the results shown here – halving of CO2 sensitivity – show why the establishment have resisted so hard including clouds.
Meanwhile the warmist establishment spout nonsense about aerosol cans and CFCs and ignore clouds completely.

Wake me up when you have shown your model has made a real prediction, within narrow useful boundaries, that future data collection confirms. Doing it twice would be even more impressive.

models all the way down

Roy Spencer said:
“there is more radiant energy coming in during El Nino, about 0.6 W/m2 per unit MEI Index value. Without that, El Nino warmth would just be a near-surface phenomenon (because it coincides with approximately equal cooling in the 100-200 m layer), and incapable of explaining the increase in ocean heat content. ”
Exactly, which is why one needs the cloud reduction first.
That is what led to my emphasis on a top down solar effect to kick start the cloudiness changes as per my New Climate Model which is just a summary of observed events in the correct sequence.
True, the El Nino once in progress will add energy to the air above and in doing so widen the equatorial air masses but one has to stoke up the energy for a strong El Nino in the first place and replace the lost energy when it occurs.
During the late 20th century warming spell more energy was entering the oceans than leaving them despite a string of powerful El Ninos.
Now, less energy is entering the oceans than leaving them despite ENSO neutral conditions.
The current recharge rate is much reduced by increased global cloudiness so the skids are being put under the prospects of strong future El Ninos. If we do get a strong El Nino despite the current low recharge rates the subsequent cooling will be undeniable.
Hope I’m still alive when someone in authority ‘gets’ it.

Pamela Gray says:
November 11, 2013 at 10:46 am
“You dismiss neutral (as others have so don’t feel too bad) as if nothing is going on that neutral conditions have an affect on”
Huh ?
I fully accept neutral ENSO as an intermediate state between El Nino and La Nina.
The only point I made was that during the current period of neutral ENSO the recharge rate is weaker than it would have been during the period of reduced cloudiness of the late 20th century.
And I don’t ‘believe’. I observe.

Roy Spencer says:
November 11, 2013 at 10:10 am
This goes far beyond just handwaving that “stronger El Ninos cause warming”.
That may be so, but it is unlikely to be anywhere near whole story. One or two commentators mentioned AMO factor, certainly for the N. Atlantic basin the AMO is the predominant and decisive factor.
N. A Subpolar gyre (SPG) is a major N. A. circulatory system where the cold Arctic currents overflow are mixed with the warm Gulf Stream’s waters. The SPG’s circulation is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean, it is capable of influencing of the entire ocean circulation system Its major and highly variable component is the North Icelandic Jet current.
WHOI: “The North Icelandic Jet is a deep-reaching current that flows along the continental slope of Iceland. North Icelandic Jet (NIJ), contributes to a key component of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as the “great ocean conveyor belt,” which is critically important for regulating Earth’s climate. As part of the planet’s reciprocal relationship between ocean circulation and climate, this conveyor belt transports warm surface water to high latitudes where the water warms the air, then cools, sinks, and returns towards the equator as a deep flow.”
Continental slope of the North Iceland is tectonically vary active; however this is not an easy variable to reconstruct, but the surface magnetic records are a reasonable even if not very accurate proxy.
The circulatory period of the SPG is variable, mainly in range 20+ years.
Calculated 20 and 30 years delta for magnetic field change along the continental slope of North Iceland (NIJ current’s path) and the Leohle’s temperature anomaly reconstruction are shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT.htm
Of course correlation may be a coincidence (correlation is not necessarily causation), but if not, to dismiss wise may not be, even if the direct operating mechanism is not readily recognised.

Is Dr. Roy is explicitly calling clouds a forcing?

Ok so you got half the picture. Now add in the CUMULATIVE (ie. integrate under the curve) total solar irradiance, and CUMULATIVE solar magnetic events (to trigger cloud formation) and low and behold you’ve reduced the ‘apparent’ “forcing” of CO2 to a big fat zero. Instead you’ve proven that CO2 is being ‘driven’ by temperature not ‘driving’! (Thank you prof. Salby)
OK NOW you’ve got the picture right!
Thank you for this work, small wins are a blessing too. Lets limp towards admitting the obvious truth. Dr. Spencer, was the pending publication of this article why you were so unnecessarily hard on Willis theory recently? Willis proposed that CLOUDS had a direct SHORT term temperature balancing affect. You are admitting that CLOUDS have a long term heat reflecting temperature balancing affect. Not exactly the same (one requires no math on the temperture record, the other requires averaging temp. differences yr-to-yr which reduces their meaning to exactly . . . . NOTHING!) but the end result is that WATER not CO2 is the big GHG that controls the thermostasis in our climate system. And as long as there is LOTS and LOTS of water on the earth, it can NEVER overheat or undercool! (is that even a word?)
Why spend ANY time at all looking at long term trends of a few tenths of a degree, when it is obvious that the climate systems is self-regulating, (as long as that big ball in the sky behaves). C’mon, the SUN is at the center of our solar system and is the source of our heat – NOT CO2 – and WATER is the reason our little ball is BLUE – CO2 only absorbs/reflects in the infrared and even at that only a fraction as effectively as WATER does.
In order to participate in “Green House Gas ‘Warming’ “, CO2 has to absorb IR light energy. In order to absorb it has to have an extinction coefficient at the wavelengths of interest. In addition, IT MUST BE PRESENT AT A CONCENTRATION THAT IS HIGH ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER ABSORBING MOLECULES. (Yes there is a concentration term in Beers Law) Not only does CO2 have a fraction of the extinction coefficient as water does in the infrared, but it’s ridiculously miniscule concentration when compared to water renders it’s contribution to the GHG effect virtually meaningless! (ESPECIALLY IN HIGH HUMIDITY REGIONS – LIKE CLOUDS!)
IF CO2 had the “forcing” you concede that it has, THEN wouldn’t we see the seasonal variability that is measured presently in the average annual seasonal variability across the globe? Wouldn’t we see a direct long term drift that parallels the long term upward drift of CO2’s concentration? Wouldn’t we see continued upward movement on the masticated mashed up, “adjusted”, ‘temperature anamoly” “data” instead of a long term 17 yr. hiatus to any temp change at all? Please explain again why CO2 concentration is still rising, but with NO downward pressing signigicant PDO events to speak of over the long term, surface temperature has “on average” remained unchanged? but instead has spiked up and down in any given year or season, with no rhyme nor reason that can easily be seen correlating to spikes or dips in CO2?
I see the correlation in your paper of temp being influenced by clouds and a large portion of the “forcing” being attributed to “natural variability”. I fail to see the evidence to support your continued attribution of the remaining “unexplained forcing” to CO2.
Respectfully,
Don V

I don’t what this is all about: the change in ocean temperature down to about 2000M is at most 0.1 degree C for the period in question. If Spencer believes one can measure this with any accuracy, then I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.

Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

“WATER not CO2 is the big GHG that controls the thermostasis in our climate system”
Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/

Fresh from the MISPWOSO (Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious). When I first heard about global warming back in 1989-1990 I dismissed it almost instantly because the first thing that occurred to me was that more heat = more evaporation which = more clouds which = higher albedo, which = less insolent solar radiation which = less heat, which = lowering the temperature, which is a natural regulator of global temperatures.
Thank you Dr. Spenser for doing the hard work to lead others, who must be painted into a corner before they will reason this intuitive concept out on their own, to this understanding.

Roy Spencer says:
November 11, 2013 at 11:47 am
…and we don’t claim this study gets “the answer”. As others have suggested, it might well be there are other climate forcings we have not included. We just examined how inclduing ENSO as a pseudo-forcing reduces estimated future warming by 50%.
Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ??? ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.
This is the most important part of everything you said Roy.
ENSO is simply one component, a paper that establishes AMO and Solar as well could drop the C02 sensitivity even further.
Wouldn’t that be a kick in the guts..

SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
.
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase in summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
.
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.0) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain
volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the
magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the
climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in
the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR)
bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

I.m with Bastardi here and also better to put up AMO/solar/temp graphs that are actually updated to at least 2012, 1999 is way out date thanks.

One simple but important question that must be reconciled is, if CO2 drives the temperature why is it that CO2 follows the temperature rather then lead it.
Therefore due to the above ,it stands to reason CO2 cannot be the cause for the climate change to change.

BTW when are we going to see October 2013 UHA Temp data graphs? Always thank you Dr Spencer for your efforts there…

Stephen Wilde says:
Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too.
I agree if all that mattered was water as a “gas” in our atmosphere. But your explanation is severely limited because of one simple fact. Water is not present in our atmosphere as just a gas! FAR FROM IT.
Water is THE ONLY UNIQUE MOLECULE that is present in the atmosphere in ALL THREE STATES OF MATTER (and may even be present in its own unique fourth state as a liquid crystal). That fact all by itself changes everything. Why? Because at each phase change in the atmosphere, water either must absorb are release latent heat to obey the laws of physics. And that ALL BY ITSELF makes water the dominant molecule in regulating thermal balance. Water can all by itself, absorb more energy, transport more energy, over longer distances, packaged in a condensed phase, then release that energy to cool the earth off where it needs cooling, or maintain temperature stasis where it is cooler.
Your assertion that the gas constant governs water may be true about water in its gaseous form, but fails to include the most important piece of the puzzle – PHASE CHANGE in the atmosphere. The gas constant does not include or comprehend liquid or solid water contributing to the energy balance. Nowhere in PV = nRT does it include “and then it changes phase and is no longer bound by this equation”.
I have read your climate theory essays. I don’t know about the links of solar radiation to ozone to latitudinal shift in jet streams to long term heating and cooling . . . . that all may be true and may explain the tenths of a degree long term drifts in annual temps. . . . but over the short term AND long term the regulating molecule that keeps life bearable down here where we live is WATER in all it’s life promoting forms.

“Basically, a portion of El Nino warming is radiatively forced, probably due to a decrease in low clouds allowing more sunlight in”
Is there any evidence that the decrease in low clouds is caused by an increase in sun spots as per Svensmark?

DonV says:
November 11, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I agree and in one of my essays I deal with it.
The phase changes of water do indeed provide a more effective method of shifting energy than the adiabatic uplift and descent cycle that operates in the background.
The net effect of those phase changes is to enable system equilibrium to be maintained with less work needing to be done by the adiabatic cycle. In other words the necessary circulation changes can be less violent.
It is still the gas constant for our specific atmospheric mix of gases that controls it all though because it specifies the amount of kinetic energy needed at the surface to both hold up the weight of atmospheric mass AND achieve top of atmosphere radiative balance.
That kinetic energy also determines the size and speed of the water cycle so we come full circle.

@Mike Maguire –
Attempting to find middle ground between a position that is patently false (significant CO2 forcing in climate change) and one that is obviously correct (CO2 forcing indistinguishable from zero) is what is political. Sticking to our guns concerning the fallacy of AGW is not political – it’s simply honest.
I am reminded of how astronomer Tycho Brahe tried to compromise between an Earth-centric and a Sun-centric (i.e., Copernican) solar system by claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth and the other planets orbited the Sun. Such compromises only produce garbage theories. Facts don’t bend, and you can’t be “half pregnant.”

Mike Jonas says:
November 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm
But it’s still only a model, and the mechanisms behind ENSO are not known, so we should be very cautious with this paper.
It is worth noting that there is a correlation between the ENSO and the sub equatorial Pacific
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm

I hate to ask a dumb question but I’m just starting to wade into the carbon dioxide emissions and global warming data. Just quickly looking at the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, it looks like it’s absorbing mostly longer wavelength (low energy) IR and in a relatively narrow band. As the concentration of CO2 increases you will get diminishing returns as you run out of photons to absorb in that radiation band. In addition, the pathlength of the atmosphere is pretty long so it can probably absorb most of the radiation at a pretty low concentration. It seems mathematically after a certain threshold concentration of CO2 is attained it’s contribution to additional warming should approach zero. How do the current models deal with this physical limitation?

Guys…..when negotiating, you don’t go all out to totally destroy your opponent. When its obvious that your adversary is flailing around, obviously lost, you offer him an open door to escape through with some form of self respect intact. This paper allows alarmists to mumble that they may have inadvertently overstated CO2 sensitivity, sorry, but we meant well. Hence it got published. Of course you did old chap, now, shuffle off through that open door, don’t call us, we will call you. Once they all mumble this, the next published paper goes further, dropping sensitivity even further. Baby steps folks, baby steps.

Steven \Mosher you write “2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero.”
I agree it cannot be zero, but I fail to understand why it cannot be close to zero, when it is impractical to measure it. All we have are guesses as to what it’s value is.

Darn it I did the strike off and it did not work…

To bring ENSO in as a cause of warming is nonsense. That multivariate ENSO index they use is a mishmash of empirically chosen variables that follow but do not predict ENSO activity. If you must track ENSO use Nino 3.4 that has a physical meaning. Secondly, ENSO is cyclical and there are equal numbers of both El Nino phases and La Nina phases. The apparent balance may shift if the equatorial counter-current for some reason is blocked,causing an El Nino modoki in mid-ocean, but the rule that there is one La Nina for each El Nino does not change. And then they just babble on about ENSO-related radiative forcing proportional to MEI. That is abject nonsense and should have been sufficient reason for rejecting the paper. In the mix they also use anthropogenic and volcanic forcings, both non-existent phenomena. For an explanation of why there is no volcanic forcing read my book. Anthropogenic forcing does not exist because there is no such thing as greenhouse warming. Its absence is easy to confirm.Today there is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before but there is no warming whatsoever. This has been going on for 15 years and will continue. There was a similar no-warming period of 18 years in the eighties and nineties that official temperature curves covered up with a phony “late twentieth century warming.” But GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC have decided to stop showing that fake warming and aligned their data for that period with satellites. This was done secretly last fall and no explanation was offered. To get the total of no-warming years add this to the current 15 years and you find that there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 33 years. Can anyone believe that greenhouse warming might still have existed more than 33 years ago? Not I. I am just sorry that these guys are so uninformed about climate science despite supposedly being practitioners of this esoteric craft. Not to mention editors who allowed this nonsense go through.

Roy Spencer says:
As I mention on my blog, others have indeed “known” about this, but we put actual numbers in an energy-conserving model to show that there is more radiant energy coming in during El Nino, about 0.6 W/m2 per unit MEI Index value.
And you got it published.
Thanks.

Joseph Bastardi: How is this some brilliant finding
It permits a quantitative estimates of the ENSO cloud effects and the purported CO2 effect, and the 9-month lag is new. Whether it is “brilliant” depends on how well the model does against out-of-sample data. And it has been published in the peer-reviewed literature where more graduate students are likely to find it and write about it. Now that it has been publlshed, there is a good chance that it will be elaborated in fairly obvious ways, such as separating N and S hemispheres, adding other known and hypothesized energy flows, and so on.
Surely you would not object to newer nails being introduced into the market place just because everyone already knows that nails are useful?

Jim Cripwell: Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
Like everyone else, Beenstock et al (whose paper prompted me to buy two new books on that statistical technique) may be wrong. Their model is strictly a vector autoregressive model with no energy flows or other physical phenomena that might be in the full causal picture. This model here quantifies for the first time the actual energy flows controlled by the cloudiness changes produced by ENSO. Others, perhaps including Spencer, can go farther now that this has worked as well as it has and has been published. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that one paper is ever going to be so influential as to settle the policy and scientific debates. I think that Spencer and Braswell are to be applauded for taking a good step forward.

Steven Mosher: 2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero
It depends on the state of the climate at the time that CO2 concentration is rising. Starting where the climate is now, it is possible that doubling the concentration from 400 to 800 will have no net effect on global mean temperature.

Jim Cripwell says:
November 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
“… The correct conclusion to come to is that science, physics, cannot tell us what happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels.”
Not quite, Jim! For the last 17 years, CO2 has been added to our atmosphere, from 360 to 400 ppm. Insofar as global atmospheric temperature is concerned, the answer is quite clear, and I can tell you EXACTLY what happened: Nothing!!!
On another tack, check out the cumulative Snow Cover Extent (SCE) as well as cloud cover. For the past few years, Asia has led the record books, and snow/ice cover reflects incoming sunlight at wavelengths that CO2 does not, and cannot, re-radiate. Thus that energy is lost to the planet, and atmospheric temperatures react accordingly.
Put more floating ice into the southern ocean (2 record years in a row) and you cover absorbing water, even at shallow angles (when the Sun returns) with albedo – same result as above.
Needed: More Meteorologists and fewer climate pundits!!!

But models are notoriously unreliable, aren’t they?vanloonha@yahoo.com

Many thanks, S and B. This is another big step back towards sanity. Brett Keane, NZ

Thanks Gary, looks like there is enough carbon dioxide up there right now to scavenge most of the available photons in the CO2 bands. I suppose a spectral analysis from space of the Earth would confirm if that is the case….

Dunno where the idea comes from that “General circulation climate models — such as those used to forecast global climate change — do not reproduce the tendency toward 30 year periods of stronger El Niño or La Niña activity, as are seen in nature.”
They do–and other ones, too, which may or may not be seen in nature. See, for instance, this paper:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/atw0901.pdf

mickyhcorbett75 says on November 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm:
“Roy
If we as sceptics, keep trying to model the climate and do all this other XBox type stuff then we are just as bad as the theoreticians who have a grip on the current thinking and policy.
People need to start doing some experiments.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Yes, mickyhcorbett75, If only – if only people would understand how. They all seem to feel it necessary to involve the ‘so called’ greenhouse gas (GHG) CO2. – However that is not necessary, at all, because the global warming theory (GWT) according to “The Kiehl & Trenberth energy budget plan 1997” (and later editions) 324 Watts per square meter (W/m²) of “Back Radiation” is being absorbed by the ‘surface’.
Well then, as you and I and indeed all (or most) human beings have a body temperature (T) of around 37º C which is well above twice that of the ‘average’ surface temperature (ST), which is said to be ± 15º C. – And, furthermore, as I do believe that as long as we have a temperature that is above that of 0 K, we all must emit IR radiation accordingly. Furthermore it is reasonable to assume that the walls that hold up the ceiling above your head are also capable of absorbing IR radiation as they (the walls) will probably be made up from some kind of “surface material”.
If you possess one of these newfangled IR – non contact – thermometers, which by the way are very accurate down to 0.1 or 0.2º C, then now is the time to use it to measure the T of any one of the four walls of your own choosing. – Is T, say between 22.4 to 22.5º C? Well, whatever it is, do invite someone else into the room, the spouse perhaps – oh you may as well invite a couple of friends and neighbors in too. – Ah, if you get too eager and invite more than just a few people, don’t forget to keep a check on the ‘T Ceiling’ (TC) as well as on ‘T Wall’ (TW) as convection from many bodies may make it warmer up there.
If you find that the walls do get warmer from “body IR radiation”, it may be necessary to do a “check experiment” against an outside wall, please let me know as it will be time for me to eat my hat.

Glynn,
Those equations don’t take into account the limited spectral response of Co2.

@ Col Mosby
The Clean Air Act was passed by Parliament in 1956. Seems a long pause between that and the 1980 warming.

Hmmmn. Another model. Maybe it’s OK, but I’ll stick to my belief in the Weather Gods for now.

Steven Mosher says:
the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.
a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts

Roy Spencer says:
The first case (CASE I) uses only the RCP radiative forcings (also used by the latest crop of IPCC climate models) to see if we get about the same climate sensitivity as those models get (under the VERY important assumption that those are the ONLY forcings causing warming since the 1950s)… In that case we get about 2.2 deg. C of equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, somewhat below the average of the IPCC models.
Emphasis mine.
The balance of Roy’s description of Roy’s paper steps that down to 2.0C for CASEII, and 1.3C for CASEIII, all ECS, not TCR.
A 1.3 ECS translates into a 1.3 ECS … thereabouts.

Hertsgaard is an utter shyster.

milodonharlani says:
November 11, 2013 at 11:08 am
For purposes of CACA debate, “climate sensitivity”, whatever its value may be, applies only to the doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. As so often noted here, the response in global temperature to CO2 concentration is logarithmic, so that most of the warming occurs in the first 100 ppm or less. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Lindzen says, adding more molecules is like painting a wall white, which doesn’t get much whiter with each new coat. Most of the effect occurs in the first one or two coats. So the next doubling to 1120 ppm would have negligible effect.
That’s incoherent. If the response is logarithmic, it should be the same for each doubling, but you seem to be saying that the response is only logarithmic up to the doubling 280->560, after which it is negligible.

Joseph Bastardi says:
November 11, 2013 at 9:49 am
It isn’t Joe. Roy has been leaning further and further to the AGW side of the argument over recent years. I wonder why ?

Alexander Biggs, on Dr. Spencer’s own blog, he stated this:

(Although not in the paper, we also found that the model explains the warming before 1940 as a response to stronger El Nino activity back then, as well as the slight cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s from stronger La Nina activity).

It is correct:
Rising moist air may initiate a tornado or a tropical storm, if the surrounding is “ready” (high moisture in the surrounding air )for it.
See Alamaro:
http://web.mit.edu/alamaro/www/WMA_April_2006.pdf
Alamaro, M., Michele, J., Pudov, V.: “A Preliminary Assessment of Inducing Anthropogenic Tropical Cyclones Using Compressible Free Jets and the Potential for Hurricane Mitigation,” Journal of Weather Modification, Vol. 38, P. 82-96, 2006.

***
Steven Mosher says:
November 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm
the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.
a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts
***
Mosh, the transient effects of any GHG are immediate (a couple days). The added “heat” can’t be stored in land OR water — LW from GHGs can’t get past the surface significantly. Obviously there is a TCR & ECS for SW forcings on earth’s climate (albedo, clouds), but only solar SW can penetrate the ocean & be “stored”.
Yes, I’ve read about “ocean diffusivity” in the basic calculations, but that smacks me of the myriad of other tuned, vaguely determined parameters, like aerosol or cloud effects.

beng says:
Mosh, the transient effects of any GHG are immediate (a couple days).
You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

So the bottom line here is that doubling of atmospheric CO2 will CAUSE a global temperature increase of 1.3 C (~ 2.34° F), i.e. CO2 will precede warmer temperature. Although I’m a big fan of Roy, I’m not a big fan of models proving much of anything in the real world. Models do what you tell them to do, so their results must be confirmed by real world data. When I look for cause-and-effect relationships in data over geologic time, I see a total lack of correlation of CO2 and temperature. That doesn’t mean CO2 has no effect at all, but it does mean that it is so small as to be insignificant relative to what is really driving climatic changes. All you have to do is look at temperature changes at almost any time scale, years, centuries, millennia and you will see that CO2 is not really a significant factor at all. I’ve published many such examples (just Bing or Google my name and you will find more than you want to know) so I won’t repeat them here. The point is that the magnitude of temperature changes in the geologic past is so many times greater than could possibly be caused by CO2 and the rates of temperature change are so rapid that trying to attribute much of anything to CO2 seems pointless. It’s much like attributing the behavior of an elephant to a flea riding on its back.
But what if you double CO2? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny (~0.039%) and its effect so small (~3.5%) it’s almost as good as doubling nothing—you still end up with nothing (the total change of CO2 in atmospheric composition is 0.009%). And trying to lever it by putting in a big water vapor factor doesn’t work because water vapor hasn’t increased since 1947 when CO2 emissions began to soar.
Try correlating any measureable change in temperature with CO2 just in the past century and you will see temperatures rising just as fast from 1915 to ~1945 without significant rise in CO2 as temperature rising from 1978 to 1998 when CO2 was increasing. And, of course, if you try relating CO2 rise from 1945 to 1977 with temperature, you get a negative correlation, i.e. temperatures went down while CO2 was rising. If you look at the sudden 1977 transition from cool to warming temperatures, it happened in a single year, not slowly with rising CO2. The same is true for more than 40 periods of warming and cooling since 1500 AD as seen in Greenland ice cores. So regardless of any theoretical warming effect of CO2, it is so small as to be totally overwhelmed by natural causes and therefore not really a relevant factor in climate change.
So what has Roy’s model told us about CO2 and global warming? Can the model results be confirmed by real time data? Does it have any impact on the cause of global climate change? As much as I admire Roy and his work, I’m afraid that the geologic record of many, many temperature changes far greater than anything possibly caused by CO2 conclusively shows that CO2 is not a relevant factor in climate change.

Don Easterbrook You are exactly right . The problem is that the academic community and IPCC and the politicians are locked into thinking about climate from the viewpoint or output of models – built with the assumption that we know the physical mechanisms controlling climate and that CO2 is the main driver. Unfortunately most of the posts on this thread even from those who are anti the AGW paradigm are still approaching the climate question from the same physical mechanism mindset – they simply think that they can build a better model with lower CO2 sensitivity..The modeling approach is not only wrong because the models are structured incorrectly but inherently useless because the initial conditions cannot be quantified precisely enough to produce useful believable outcomes
The discussion needs to move to other more empirical forecasting paradigms along the lines of yourself ,Scafetta or that of my cooling forecast at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
,

I refer to Scafetta’s as empirical because he starts off with a power spectrum analysis of the data to see what quasi cycles are actually there. If he extended his analysis to include a millennial cycle the amount of forcing due to CO2 would more or less evaporate. He is a full time academic and like
Spencer and everyone else in academia he would have difficulty getting published if he carried his approach to its logical conclusion. The way science is structured and funded these days -in many fields ,not only in climate science ,it is difficult to do anything other than to make marginal changes to the current consensus paradigm. As I said in the link above.
“The entire vast UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National economies is a prime example of the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961 he said :
“In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. “

““Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we’ve seen since the 1950s,” said Dr. Roy Spencer”
Forgive me if I’m skeptical when someone tells me that the results of a computer model conclusively demonstrate something they’ve been arguing for years.

As the planet has been cooling for around 10,000 years and this and several other Holocene’s have all had temperatures warmer than today it s amazing that we have got this far with the AGW nonsense. Remember a few things…there has never been a warming of the Troposphere, climate models are biased towards warming…..and CO2’s ability to create heat is logarithmic so it cannot overheat the planet.

RE the CET (Central England Temp) record.
The CET record from 1650-2013 is indeed remarkable. Virtually every known warm/cool period shows up very nicely if you expand the vertical scale a bit so you can see the variable temps. In a nutshell, here is what it records:
1650-1700 Maunder Minimum cooling
1700-1735 Warming
1735-1770 Cooling
1770-1780 Warming
1780-1820 Dalton Minimum cooling
1820-1835 Warming
1835-1845 Cooling
1845-1875 Warming
1875-1895 Cooling
1895-1900 Warming
1900-1920 Flat
1920-1950 Warming
1950-1975 Cooling
1975-2005 Warming
2005-2013 Cooling
All of these warm/cool periods are well known from other records.

JohnWho says: @ November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am
It’s logarithmic all the way…..
I originally asked the question because I am under the impression that this concept discusses CO2 in a “pure state” with no other gasses also absorbing IR radiation. With the other gasses present in our atmosphere, there is only so much radiation left for CO2 and there is a point where it absorbs all it can: a “saturation” point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Math models can be used to describe physical responses over a limited range.
On Saturation Point: Support for the saturated greenhouse effect… “…a new paper that supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect…. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature…. “

JohnWho says:
November 12, 2013 at 6:25 am
If logarithmic “all the way”, then there is never a time when additional CO2 doesn’t have some effect, even as it gets extremely minor. Well, all the way until we have a pure 100% CO2 atmosphere. I originally asked the question because I am under the impression that this concept discusses CO2 in a “pure state” with no other gasses also absorbing IR radiation. With the other gasses present in our atmosphere, there is only so much radiation left for CO2 and there is a point where it absorbs all it can: a “saturation” point. Are we close to that or am I under a misunderstanding?
The only misunderstanding I’ve talked about or really can talk about is the idea that if the response is logarithmic, this means that “each doubling has progressively less effect.” It’s not true. With logarithmic response, each doubling has the same effect, because:
log(2x/x) = log(4x/2x), i.e., log(2) = log(2)
What’s true is that each increase of the same size has progressively less effect. For example, 560->840 has a smaller effect than 280->560 (note that 840-560=280).

I would just remind everyone again that the IPCC have given up on estimating CO2 climate sensitivity
By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
The whole idea of climate sensitivity to CO2 is illogical because CO2 follows temperature. – it is like trying to calculate the sensitivity of the sun to the tan.