New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon
The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.
So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.
“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.
Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
…
Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don’t agree with each other and don’t agree with empirical data.
…
Doiron says: “I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not – and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can’t validate the models – and the IPCC can’t – then don’t use them.
From James Delingpole at Breibart: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/Earth-is-safe-from-global-warming-say-the-men-who-put-man-on-the-moon
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html
PDF here: ExecutiveSummaryBoundingGHGClimateSensitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228(1)
=============================================================
TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations
Jan 2013 & Feb 2014
Detailed proof and references available at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
in Reports dated Jan 2013, April 2013, and Feb 2014
1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)
2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)
3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)
4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
5. We have developed a straightforward analysis, based on empirical data, not unproven models, which bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Feb 2014)
6. We have defined and demonstrated use of a more appropriate Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric derived from empirical data for use in regulatory decisions requiring accurate predictions of global temperature changes due to changes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
7. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014)
8. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)
9. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations should be based on empirical data-based transient climate sensitivity metrics with much less uncertainty than the inappropriate IPCC Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) metric uncertainty range that is computed from the flawed IPCC climate simulation models. (Feb 2014)
10. ECS is computed from a hypothetical, unrealistic scenario, used only for comparison of computer model results, where CO2 levels are suddenly doubled in the atmosphere and the ECS temperature change is computed over 1000 years later. It is unscientific to base CO2 regulations on ECS computed from unproven climate models, as currently planned by EPA and DoE. (Feb 2014)
11. The ECS uncertainty statistical distribution used for justifying EPA and DoE CO2 emissions regulations is based on wild speculation, not reliable empirical data. (Feb 2014)
12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)
13. Assuming an orderly market driven transition from fossil fuels to alternatives that do not emit CO2, atmospheric CO2 will remain below 600 ppm. (Feb 2014)
14. The maximum CO2 level of 600 ppm is expected to occur after 2100, probably about 2130, and will begin to decline thereafter. (Feb 2014)
15. Based on our analysis of empirical data measured over a period of 163 years, that provides a conservative TCS value of 1.6oC, the maximum expected Green House Gas (GHG) temperature rise from present levels will be less than 1.2oC (2.1oF) (Feb 2014)
16. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2-only, not the higher sensitivity to all GHG incorporated into the IPCC ECS uncertainty range. (Feb 2014)
17. CO2 emissions regulations should be based on climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions, not climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels, such as in the ECS and TCS metrics, since a large fraction of CO2 emissions each year enter our oceans, not our atmosphere. (Feb 2014)
18. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) has low uncertainty and is a more appropriate metric than ECS for predicting GHG global warming trends over the next few centuries since much of the uncertainty in ECS results from hypothesized climate changes that take place more than 300 years into the future. (Feb 2014)
19. High values of SCC computed by EPA and DoE using their flawed computational process, result from unrealistically high temperatures causing rapid melt of permanent ice sheets on the planet that have been growing for thousands, and in some cases, millions of years. The scientific reality of such speculation needs to be reviewed. (Feb 2014)
20. An independent and objective scientific review board should be convened to review the EPA and DoE methodology for computing Social Cost of Carbon used in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)
Which reminds me of a famous physicist.
The experiment is our growth in man-made greenhouse gases. The observations are of global surface temperatures. The IPCC made their central projections over the years and keep getting it WRONG. What other scientific field would put up with such garbage?
If the fear of losing grant money is not a driver, why then is it that RETIRED scientists, engineers, etc. make up a very large percentage of those who come out strongly against CAGW?
“12. A market-driven transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels must begin by 2055 just to meet energy demand as dwindling reserves of economically recoverable fossil fuels drive up their costs. (Feb 2014)”
This a fundamental problem with socialist- they think government should control markets.
Markets are driven by people. There idea is to scare people so as to control the markets.
Lazy and ill informed history see the world driven by politician, whereas it’s obvious that politicians follow social change rather than cause social change- except politicians do tend to lead us into conflicts and oppression. Politicians can take credit starting wars, genocides, and such things as France’s Reign of Terror.
In other words government is quite capable cause ruin, and little ability to much which could seen
as desirable.
The US government’s success can seen in it’s philosophy of democracy and allowing a free market. And Government against democracy and allowing a free market are places like Cuba.
And China’s economic success can be understand in government acceptance of free trade.
Whenever government accepts the alienable rights of it’s citizens, that nation always flourishes- without exception. And whenever government tries to control it’s people with “grand ideas” what follows is always disaster.
Inspired by this article, I’m now busy working on the screenplay for a movie tentatively titled “Attack of the Global Warming Sharks”. I’ve already outlined two of the major protagonists, a James Hansen type character who uses ideological mind control to direct a Daryl Hanna, girl can mutate into mermaid like form, porpoise tale from the waist down (a mutation brought on by AGW). The basic plot has the Hansen protagonist having developed a way to communicate with and control monster man-eating sharks and crocodiles, by modulating the infrasound generated by Industrial Wind Turbines, to do his bidding. The Hanna character then seeks out his sworn enemies, climate skeptics, entices them to admit their skeptical ways with her siren wiles, luring them to their grisly fates in the mouths of the monster selachimorpha and crocodylinae. Could use any ideas offered for character development, plot twists etc.
You will know that the global warming alarmist’s rat’s nest in NASA is finally being cleaned out when the dissenters don’t first have to retire before expressing their views.
“a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent”
This makes no sense. Are you talking about 1.2% of the absolute temperature scale? Or what?
Larry Geary says:
March 8, 2014 at 6:50 pm
They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science? Because I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years….I’m not clear on whether we have cause and effect, correlation but not causation, or no correlation at all between temperatures and CO2.
There’s more than one phenomenon occurring. Yes, scientists generally agree that there is a CO2 induced greenhouse effect that can be demonstrated experimentally. So there ‘s causation between burning fossil fuels (thereby releasing CO2) and rising temperatures.
But as someone already explained, higher CO2 levels can be produced by a warming earth as well, and that’s where you would get the lagged effect between temps and CO2. For example if the sun warmed the earth to a greater extent over the next millennial, atmospheric CO2 would also increase, but with a lag.
And, in the past, significant changes in the earth’s temperature were undoubtedly caused by phenomenon unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel burning causes a greenhouse effect, but obviously other factors have had much more dramatic influences on climate in the past.
Their complaint about the IPCC’s models – that they cannot be validated – applies equally to the model of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team (TRCSRT). That a model is susceptible to validatation implies the existence of observed events in the underlying statistical population but this population exists for neither the IPCC’s models nor the TRCSRT’s model.
It’s a start. After they account for ALL of the science, perhaps they will discover that CO2 change has no significant influence on average global temperature.
Consider that during the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into and recovered from an ice age (the Andean-Saharan) while the CO2 level was approximately 10 times the present.
During the last glaciation, increasing temperature trends changed to decreasing while CO2 levels were still increasing.
In the 20th century, down, up, down, up, oscillations (64 year periods) of average global temperatures were measured while the CO2 level increased steadily and progressively. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.
EMR is absorbed by ghg, mostly water vapor (and about 12% becomes thermalized). About the only effect of more ghg (increased CO2) is to move absorption a tiny bit closer to the surface.
When the actual climate drivers are included in an assessment (two drivers explain more than 90% of measured average global temperatures), the influence of CO2 change is found to be negligible.
OK, here goes a long thought from the unusual one. I am still quite a bit tired. I have not slept well for weeks, but with some nice fresh coffee I should be able to get the main thrust of this argument laid out in a reasonable fashion. I also forgot about daylight savings time, which always affects
me adversely for a few days.
My first epiphany in my climate change study came early on. The first time that I looked at a solar min max chart, it only took a minute or so to realize that the 9 year flood cycle in the Pacific Northwest was linked to the solar minimums. The realization sparked my thoughts as I realized that I might do well connecting the dots as I progressed in the study, and I became hooked into following this path to see where it would lead to. There have been further small successes along the path, and two nights ago I believe that I may have found the “key” to the Great Climate Change Argument. So, here we go. This is my 6th year putting my mind into this endeavour. Strange the 6th of anything has often had significance in my life.
The core to this has to do with the Sun, and an obvious thought that probably first came to me around 4 years ago when looking at the Solar cycle charts, and prior to coming here to WUWT to read further. The question arose inside ‘why wouldn’t the high strong solar maximums that started in the 1940s and then continued up to 2003 be the reason for the warming trend that has been experienced since the late1970s. Everyone seemed to agree that the Sun is a very stable entity, and that the relatively small change of 0.1% from max to min could not possibly account for the observed warming. On top of that the Sun cycles clearly did not appear to fit in with the pattern of the warming trend. Several times I looked at temps charts and the solar cycle chart to eke out a possible link. Nothing came to mind, zero links. I also looked multiple times at ENSO and solar, and at ENSO, temps, and solar. Still there was no way to link or wiggle match any of the charts. I even made a comment some 3 weeks ago through my Disqus account at The Telegraph site, where I once again brought up the argument that the Sun must be influencing the oceans and that there had to be some ocean offset that allowed for the heat to arise at a later date in time. I was arguing with one ‘Blathra’ who occasionally joins the conversation there. I have a suspicion that ‘Blathra’ could be Ed Davies. Still, I wasn’t able to find a proper answer when he asked ‘how long does the heat hide, before reemerging?’. That all changed 2 nights ago.
Late Friday evening, as I finished the reading for the day at WUWT, I had the thought to straighten up a few folders where I save stuff. As I was in the process of doing that, once again I found myself comparing several charts to refresh my thoughts. I took the chart of the Multivariate ENSO Index and set it on the desktop. Then I put a solar cycle chart from pics into the preview so that I could then compare the two. I could not find the copy of Dr Svalgaard,s great high resolution chart at the time. The other solar charts which I had were of a coarser image. I went online and saved a recent solar chart from Dr Hathaway, which had a better resolution and current data. As I perused the combination of the two charts and puzzled over where to start to find a first puzzle piece connection, the first connection came into view. My thought had been to use the grand max of 1959 as the first piece. That should have been the easiest one to fit into some other piece on the MEI. And then I saw a fit. The grand max of 1959 fit with the El Nino of 1990, which began right at the end of 1989. The connection was a spacing of 30 years +/-1. The reason why no ones connect the Sun with the warming is that the warming from the Sun enters into the oceans and then comes out of the oceans 30 years later. Then I started examining the MEI for further connections, and there they were. I started with El Ninos and solar maxs. Every one was there, solar max…El Nino starts. I quickly glanced at a few of the minimums and sure enough, solar minimum…La Nina starts. I started writing down the sequences and improving my approach to the exercise. Then I noticed that there were a few events that did not readily connect with the La Nina. All of the major El Ninos were looking good though. I knew that I had found something. Inspiration grew! Then I thought that I should look once more for Dr Svalgaard,s higher res chart. I had a little trepidation with that thought as his chart had refuted a previous ‘connect the dots’ idea that I had. Plus I had already left my cryptic message up above saying that ‘I found something’. Yet, I knew full well that I had to use Dr Svalgaard,s work, or I would be deceiving myself. I found his chart and went to work, and BINGO. It went way beyond my expectations. Every move and tweak on the MEI had the right 30 year phase offset pattern, and I do mean every little move. Connections that I could not make with Dr Hathaway,s chart were completely verified with Dr Svalgaard,s work. Next step, here is the data connections. I use the prefixes ‘pre’ and ‘post’ to denote a shift which occurs before or after the top of a max or the bottom of a min.
Also note that, Note that the use of Nino and Nina only implies the changes in the MEI and not that the conditions for Nino or Nina were actually fulfilled.
SSN pre Min-1919/20 Nina-1949/50
SSN Min -1924/25 Nina-1954/55
SSN Max -1927/29 Nino-1957/58
SSN pre Min-1929/30 Nina-1959/60
spike-up-1933 Nino-1964
SSN min -1934/35 Nina-1964/65
SSN pre Max-1935/36 Nino-1965/66
SSN postMin-1936/37 Nina-1967/68
SSN Max -1938/39 Nino-1968/69
SSN pre Min-1940/41 Nina-1970/71
spike-up-1942 Nino-1972
SSN Min -1943/44 Nina-1973/74
SSN Max -1947/48 Nino-1977/78
1948-spike-down Nina-1978
SSN postMax-1948/49 Nino-1978/79
1950/51-spike down Nina-1981
spike up-1951 Nino-1981
1952-spike down Nina1982
spike up-1952 Nino-1982
1952.1/2-spike down Nina-1982.1/2
SSN post spike 1951/52 Nino-1982/83
1954-spike down Nina-1984
spike up-1954 Nino-1984
SSN Min-1954/55 Nina-1984/85
SSN pre Max-1957 Nino-1986/87
1958/59 spike down Nina-1988/89
SSN Grand Max-1959/60 Nino+ -1990/95
SSN postMin-1966/67 Nina-1996/97
SSN Max-1967/68 Nino-1997/98 El Grande
1968 spike down Nina-1998/99
spike up-1970 Nino-2000
1970-spike down Nina-200/01
SSN Max end-1971 Nino-2001
SSN pre Min-1972 Nina-2002
SSN post Max-1972/73 with continued up spikes Nino-2002/03/04/05
1974 spike down Nina-2004
SSN Min-1976 Nina-2006
SSN pre Max-1977 Nino-2007
SSN post Min-1977 Nina-2007
SSN Max 1978-itty bitty Nino-2008-itty bitty
1978 spike down Nina-2008
SSN Max-1979 Nino-2009/10
SSN pre Min-1981 Nina-2010/11
SSN Max-1982 Nino-2012
SSN pre Min-1983 early Nina-2013
spike up-1983 Nino-2013
SSN pre Min-1983 Nina-2013 late
spike up-1983 Nino-2013 late
SSN Min-1984 Nina-2014
and that is all she wrote for now, as the saying goes. That is every twist and turn of the MEI as correlated with Dr Svalgaard,s great work in his high res solar cycle chart.
Further, as I consider this to be accurate that means that I should now be able to make a prediction for future El Nino and La Nina. Here it is. It looks like a definite la Nina for now. That is an easy prediction, See I am already spot on with that prediction. The first swing back towards an El Nino will be early next year, but that should be an El Nado and short. After that it should be a strong La Nina all the way till late 2016 and then another short small El Nado. Late 2016 should be the beginning of a true El Nino that will go through 2018, and then back to La Nina. The winter of 2016/17 is very probable for a very heavy rain for the Pacific Northwest. I will leave my prediction there for now. I am tired, and my eyes are bugging out from trying to follow the year by year chart by Dr Svalgaard, which has no larger indicators to show where one might be such as 1970, 1980, 1990, etc etc.
Here are some other impressions from this exercise.The orbital shifts of the Earth with the consequent changes in w/m2 probably influences the size of Nino and Nina. Is this connected with the stadium wave theory? The 30 year pattern could be further influenced by planetary configurations and lunar tidal forcings. The MEI shows 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 cycles very well. That reminds me of the conversation with Greg Goodman on the ‘Why Reanalysis Isn’t….” post from May of last year. In discussing that post, I had noted that there appeared to be a short cyclical pattern of approximately 3.5 years. Greg Goodman showed some of his great work, and that information of his added to my thoughts. Bob Tisdale is the obvious choice to flesh out what happens in the ocean with oceanic cyclical patterns after the heat enters therein. How does it end up to be a 30 year pattern? Dr Svalgaard, Dr Norman Page, and Vukvecic should be able to confirm and augment solar, gcr, lunar, and/or planetary influences to further flesh out the full details of how and why. That, of course, will be dependent on how they view this information that I am relating. Overall, this is for everyone who has contributed here at this site. Obviously there are other dynamics at play here. I could go on for several more pages I think, but I am going to stop here. I am tired and looking at all of those tiny little lines on the solar chart has me close to seeing tiny little objects everywhere.
This should allow for anyone to predict future MEI conditions, and also hindcast MEI to ssn and vice versa.
These guys successfully landed men on the Moon and brought them back. An even more impressive feat would be to land some common sense in the warmer camp. Maybe they can read their research as bedtime stories to the warmer congressmen having a sleepover in congress.
I forgot to add Willis Eschenbach,s name into the above list. His ability with maths is a great skill.
Anthony
I agree with all the points except No. 17. Climate sensitivity must be based on atmospheric CO2 level. If you based it on CO2 emission, the sensitivity will be higher since increase in atmospheric CO2 is only half the emission.
I agree with all the points except No. 17. Climate sensitivity must be based on atmospheric CO2 level. If you based it on CO2 emission, the sensitivity will be higher since increase in atmospheric CO2 is only half the emission.
Richard Alley answered a similar “?” @ur momisugly minute # 49, in an 2009 appearance before the AGU. He reached for a sea surface temp of 37 to 38 C. That’s ~ 100 Fahrenheit.
Bishop Tutu: If you can’t tell when you are being lied to, please don’t add your voice to the clamour. Carbon cults kill children by diverting funds away from social progress to inane schemes to erect expensive ‘alternative’ energy sources. Don’t borrow money to feed foreign banks.
Two suggestions for South Africa:
1. Build the Umzimkhulu-Tsitsa River hydro-electric scheme which will provide more ‘alternative’ power than the whole ZAR100 billion that is planned for German windmills and Chinese solar panels. If UJ can’t get the thin film solar cell plant running, dump it.
2. Divert the allocated R100 billion ‘renewable’ budget to something useful like job creation in the Eastern Cape which would include a massive afforestation campaign (wood is renewable) and school classroom construction using appropriate construction methods and local contractors.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/08/the-group-the-right-climate-stuff-team-says-there-no-need-to-worry-about-catastrophic-global-warming/#comment-1586589
goldminor – thanks for that. It is very, very interesting.
Thank you. Rest well.
I have read all of the comments above and have a few responses:
1. Reading at least the Executive Summary (12 pages with no equations) will answer most of the critical comments. I recommend the full 84 page report version for those who want to dig deeper into our methodology and our very accurate (for the last 163 years) one-line of algebra climate model.
2. We have several ladies on The Right Climate Stuff research team who contribute significantly to our research. They are much smarter and prettier than us old men who first put men on the moon.
3. Don’t know where the 1.2 per cent came from. Our numbers are a max possible 1 deg C AGW-related temperature rise above current levels by 2100 and 1.2 deg C temp rise before we exhaust the planet’s economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves.
4. Our report is all about recognizing naturally occurring climate cycles in the data and properly accounting for them in making maximum possible attributions of warming to AGW.
5. Our bounding AGW climate model is:
Delta Temp (year) = TCS*{Log[CO2(year)/284.7]/Log[2]
where we define TCS = Transient Climate Sensitivity that is similar to the IPCC’s Transient Climate Response (TCR) metric, but where TCS can be extracted from climate data and is not dependent on un-validated climate models, as are the IPCC climate sensitivity metrics of ECS and TCR. That the IPCC doesn’t use a climate sensitivity metric that can actually be verified by actual data is very telling about how immature Climate Science is in the annals of good science.
6. Our data analysis methodology is very similar to the method disclosed in “Jeff L’s” article posted at WUWT on Feb 13, 2014. However, our report is very tutorial in explaining why the climate sensitivity metric Jeff L extracted from the data was not ECS as he suggested, but instead what we have defined as Total Radiative Force (TRF) TCS that included effects of CO2, other GHG and solar irradiance changes. We demonstrate how to determine a CO2-only TCS or all-GHG TCS for use in regulatory activity.
7. For those who in their comments criticized our use of EPA and DoE terminology “Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)”, we only did this to be able to officially submit our comments on the method the government uses to compute SCC to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that was accepting public comments on the methodology.
8. For one of the latter comments from Dr. Strangelove that disagreed with our point #17 about the need for the Social Cost of Carbon calculations to be based on climate sensitivity to emissions, rather than climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured by ECS, you were on the right track, but got it backwards. If the CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere each year is only due to half the yearly CO2 emissions, with the other half of emissions ending up in the oceans, then the SENSITIVITY of temperature rise to emissions is only half the sensitivity to CO2 rise in the atmosphere, ie (DeltaT)/(Delta CO2) is smaller if you make the denominator larger. Over time, the ratio of 2:1 is approximately correct. I think AR5 will tell us what that yearly ratio is today.
9. The critical plea I wish to make with all WUWT readers is that we get away from letting climate scientists focus on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that really has nothing to do with the AGW climate change we could actually experience. The ECS temperature occurs more than 1000 years after CO2 levels are doubled in the atmosphere…a totally unrealistic scenario. The only practical use of the ECS metric is to compare results of the past and current crop of useless climate models. We need to shift the conversation to Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that is the actual global average surface temperature rise due to slowly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere until it doubles the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 560 ppm, in the way it is actually happening. The similar IPCC TCR metric is for an idealized CO2 increase of 1%/yr. The current CO2 rise rate is about 0.5%/yr. TCS is for the actual history of variable CO2 rise rate in the atmosphere since 1850. It is a verifiable metric while ECS and TCR are not. TCS can be extracted from the data trends before the actual 560 ppm doubled value is attained, using our AGW climate model provided in my Comment #5 and the same exact and independently derived climate model Jeff L used. When we correct Jeff L’s “ECS” value for solar irradiance effects and recognize it is a climate sensitivity for all-GHG rise in the atmosphere, then we get the same exact value:
TCS = 1.6 deg C
Harold H Doiron, PHD:
I’m unclear on the origins of your bounding AGW climate model and on the definitions of the terms in this equation. Can you derive it for us or provide a citation to a document where it is derived? Thanks.
Terry Oldberg,
The equation is based on Arrhennius’s original paper indicating the temperature sensitivity of the earth to atmospheric CO2 levels would be a logarithmic relationship to model the observation that some Tyndall gas IR absorption bands become saturated with a certain level of atmospheric CO2 and that higher levels of CO2 could not cause more IR absorption in those saturated bands. We just formulated a logarithmic function of atmospheric CO2 level that would have the value of the climate sensitivity temperature rise since 1850, the TCS value, when atmospheric CO2 levels doubled from the 1850 value of 284.7 ppm to 569.4. We estimate CO2 levels will reach 569.4 ppm sometime in the 2080 – 2085 time period: Therefore.
DeltaT(2085) = TCS*{Log[569.4/284.7] / Log[2]} = TCS*{Log[2]/Log[2]} = TCS
We found the constant, TCS, that best fits the actual long-term temperature rise since 1850. However, in finding the proper TCS value, either a “best fit” value as “Jeff L” demonstrated in his WUWT article on Feb. 13, 2014, or as we demonstrated in our report, one must take care to recognize the naturally occurring climate cycles in the data, that have nothing to do with GHG and properly account for their effect on the temperature data. We also show in our full report how to extract a conservative value of TCS that would be an upper bound value that can be extracted from the HadCRUT4 data, and that we used to bound AGW temperature rise for the future.
For details and references, see our 84 page full report at:
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf
Harold Doiron:
Thanks for forwarding the link to the document at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf . Upon reading this document, I’ve found that it makes an argument which is refuted by the argument that I make in the document at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 . If you or any of your colleagues have the time and inclination, please read the latter document and act on the information in it. I’m available to you for consultation without charge. There may be a better way for you and your colleagues to serve our nation than by your current recommendations.
Please direct email to terry at knowledgetothemax dot com and phone calls to 650-941-0533 (Pacific time zone). I’m the former head of the theoretical side of the research program of the electric utilities and government of the U.S. on the performance of materials in the cores of utility-owned light water reactors. In this capacity, I directed construction of statistically validated models of physical systems which, like the climate, were “complex.” Five years ago, I looked into methodology of the research by which the IPCC reached its conclusions and.found these conclusions to be unsupported.
[Edits made to reduce spam attacks to automatically scanned email addresses. Mod]
Re-reading all of the comments again.
Gnomish, Bryan correctly understood the thrust of our arguments and explained them correctly to you in his March 8 6:44pm post.
Larry Geary, We are not claiming CO2 warms the atmosphere any particular amount. We are saying if it does warm the atmosphere, then its effects are bounded at a maximum of 1.6 deg C above 1850 levels for a slowly rising CO2 level when the atmospheric CO2 level reaches a pre-industrial doubled value of 560 ppm. If 1.6 deg C temp rise from 1850 temperatures by 2100 isn’t going to cause a problem (1 deg C above current temp levels), then let’s get real about the AGW issue and be more rational in our response for how to deal with this Potential Problem. Global warming is not a current Problem (defined by a deviation from normal at some particular location on the planet) for which root cause can be determined, as explained in our report..
Some of you with a deeper interest in what we are really saying should read the Executive Summary. If that gives you an idea of what we did and fosters interest in further details, then I recommend the entire 84 page report. In that report, you will find that we also considered the possibility that we are still warming from natural processes since the minimum temps of the LIA. In that case, we find lower CO2 climate sensitivity with TCS = 0.8 deg C. I admit the possibility that TCS = 0 or is negative, but I can’t prove it. However, we can bound it to the high side and we did….and it is not alarming. After studying this AGW issue in depth, I personally believe GHGs probably have a small warming effect, but I am not alarmed by it, and I would judge the warming so far to have been beneficial. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is a definite benefit. All of this is discussed in much detail with references in our full report. (I also believe atmospheric CO2 levels will lag temps if the earth is warmed by effects other than GHG. That process and the process by which GHG may be warming the planet now, are different processes with different outcomes.)
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team are not in favor of CO2 emissions control regulations and make that point very clear in our report. However, our government is already issuing such regulations based on their terribly flawed Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations. Our report was written to show the government how terribly flawed are those calculations. Our comments about on what science CO2 emissions control regulations should be based were comments meant to show OMB, EPA and DoE and the entire Interagency Working Group that came up with the SCC calculation methodology, how erroneous their calculations really are and why they need to be formally reviewed by an independent and objective team of scientists, many of whom, like us, and some of you WUWT regulars, would not be climate scientists. We already know (we have run the numbers with one of EPAs cost models), and discussed it some in the 84 page report, if SCC were calculated by an accurate process, then within constraints of laws governing the regulatory process, the EPA could not economically justify its current pipeline of CO2 emission control regulations
Terry Oldberg, we will certainly follow up with a study of the document you provided the link for.