By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry just published a blockbuster paper that pegs the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average surface temperature is expected to rise in association with a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration—at 1.64°C (1.05°C to 4.05°C, 90% range), a value that is nearly half of the number underpinning all of President Obama’s executive actions under his Climate Action Plan.This finding will not stop the President and the EPA from imposing more limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels. A wealth of similar findings have appeared in the scientific literature beginning in 2011 (see below) and they, too, have failed to dissuade him from his legacy mission.
The publication of the Lewis and Curry paper, along with another by Ragnhild Skeie and colleagues, brings the number of recent low-sensitivity climate publications to 14, by 42 authors from around the world (this doesn’t count our 2002 paper on the topic, “Revised 21st Century Temperature Projections”). Most of these sensitivities are a good 40% below the average climate sensitivity of the models used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Lewis and Curry arrive at their lower equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate by using updated compilations of the earth’s observed temperature change, oceanic heat uptake, and the magnitude of human emissions, some of which should cause warming (e.g., greenhouse gases), while the others should cool (e.g., sulfate aerosols). They try to factor out “natural variability.” By comparing values of these parameters from the mid-19 century to now, they can estimate how much the earth warmed in association with human greenhouse gas emissions.
The estimate is not perfect, as there are plenty of uncertainties, some of which may never be completely resolved. But, nevertheless, Lewis and Curry have generated a very robust observation-based estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
For those interested in the technical details, and a much more thorough description of the research, author Nic Lewis takes you through the paper (here) has made a pre-print copy of the paper freely available (here).
In the chart below, we’ve added the primary findings of Lewis and Curry as well as those of Skeie et al. to the collection of 12 other low-sensitivity papers published since 2010 that conclude that the best estimate for the earth’s climate sensitivity lies below the IPCC estimates. We’ve also included in our Figure both the IPCC’s subjective and model-based characteristics of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. For those wondering, there are very few recent papers arguing that the IPCC estimates are too low, and they all have to contend with the fact that, according to new Cato scholar Ross McKitrick, “the pause” in warming is actually 19 years in length.
Figure 1. Climate sensitivity estimates from new research beginning in 2011 (colored), compared with the assessed range given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the collection of climate models used in the IPCC AR5. The “likely” (greater than a 66% likelihood of occurrence)range in the IPCC Assessment is indicated by the gray bar. The arrows indicate the 5 to 95 percent confidence bounds for each estimate along with the best estimate (median of each probability density function; or the mean of multiple estimates; colored vertical line). Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates. The right-hand side of the IPCC AR5 range is actually the 90% upper bound (the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95 percent confidence bound of their estimate). Spencer and Braswell (2013) produce a single ECS value best-matched to ocean heat content observations and internal radiative forcing.
[Note: an earlier version of this posted listed the number 12 in the title – the correct number is 14, and the title has been changed to reflect that]
References:
Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperature and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics, doi: 10.1002/env.2140.
Annan, J.D., and J.C Hargreaves, 2011. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change, 104, 324-436.
Hargreaves, J.C., et al., 2012. Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L24702, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053872
Lewis, N. 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1.
Lewis, N. and J.A. Curry, C., 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 focring and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamic, 10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y.
Lindzen, R.S., and Y-S. Choi, 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, 47, 377-390.
Loehle, C., 2014. A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity. Ecological Modelling, 276, 80-84.
Masters, T., 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics, doi:101007/s00382-
McKitrick, R., 2014. HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
Michaels. P.J. et al., 2002. Revised 21st century temperature projections. Climate Research, 23, 1-9.
Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M. R. Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geoscience, 6, 415-416.
Ring, M.J., et al., 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2, 401-415, doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035.
Schmittner, A., et al. 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science, 334, 1385-1388, doi: 10.1126/science.1203513.
Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175.
Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell, 2013. The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955-2011 simulated with a 1D climate model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.
van Hateren, J.H., 2012. A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with DEl Prete Above. I still dont understand why scientists are even bothering to investigate and publish anything concerning CO2 v Global temps when ALL previous data seems to show that CO2 FOLLOWS changes in temperatures. To me it seems that in the Earths atmospheric context C02 has probably got zero effect on temperatures, No one to date has shown ANY effect in fact. Its like flogging a dead horse.
I predict that sometime in the future the estimates of sensitivity will be revised downwards again. The reason is that the estimates of ocean heat uptake will be calibrated better.
These estimates of climate sensitivity only apply to the current the global regime or step that we happen to be in. If there is a step wise change, CO2 effects on climate have to be recalibrated.
It is true that the maximum likelihood value from Lewis and Curry is 1.64C per doubling, and I agree with the method used to calculate that value. However we should also recognize this value is the highest point in a rather skewed curve, and that the median sensitivity they found (the 50:50 over:under value, if you will) is somewhat higher, and closer to 1.9 to 2.0C per doubling. The median value is arguably a better representation of the estimated sensitivity from their analysis than is the maximum likelihood value, because the way the forcing data is converted to climate sensitivity means that the maximum likelihood sensitivity changes with increasing or decreasing uncertainty in forcing, while the median value for sensitivity depends only on the best estimate of forcing; it does not change with changing level of uncertainty in the forcing.
stevefitzpatrick September 26, 2014 at 5:57 am: relax, you are trying to correct an imaginary value that has no meaning. There is no forcing to calculate or adjust because according to MGT it is blocked by reduction of water vapor. This explains the total absence of greenhouse warming for the last 17 years. Another period like that existed for 61 years, starting in 1948, as Miskolczi has shown. Warming older than 17 years cannot be greenhouse warming and is simply misidentified natural warming because laws of nature cannot be turned on or off.
1 ppm degree C seems reasonable.
Ha ha
The argument is not if a increase in CO2 will cause the temperature to increase ? The answer is yes.
The argument is what will cause CO2 to increase and does it lead the temperature?
According to historical climate data it suggest CO2 will increase as a result of the climate because it always follows the temperature.
So this study just done is bogus because it has the cart before the horse.
Another point to ponder is at the end of each inter- glacial temperatures were warm/CO2 concentrations were high. So if CO2 were leading the temperature and not a result of the climate why did the warming not continue instead of all of a sudden reverse back to glacial conditions when in the midst of an inter- glacial ?
What happened to reverse everything?
I’d like to see an over time graph for the predicted global temperature for 2100 for every published published paper that can be found since 1990. Then we could draw a line through that graph to estimate the year that the models will no longer be showing that there will be any rise in global temperature.
“…Nic Lewis and Judith Curry just published a blockbuster paper that pegs the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average surface temperature is expected to rise in association with a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration—at 1.64°C…”
This is very commendable, but not enough. It can be demonstrated that true sensitivity is not just lower than advertised, but actually zero. I said so on Judith Curry’s blog and will repeat it here. Below is the text of my original comment:
“Aaaahhh, climate sensitivity!!! If you know its value you know how much global warming you get when you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Arrhenius figured it was about four or five degrees Celsius. Modern day recalculation, using more accurate values of parameteers, gives it a value around 1.1 degrees Celsius.
That is of course non-threatening, so the brains at IPCC decided that water vapor feedback might double or triple that, and so get a danger level of 2 to 3 degree warming from doubling of carbon dioxide. It all hangs on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. If there was no greenhouse effect, or if something were to block it, any doubling of carbon dioxide would yield zero degrees warming and the water vapor feedback likewise would be zero, giving a climate sensitivity of exactly zero for this doubling.
I am going to argue that this is exactly what it is, despite carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas. A greenhouse gas is expected to work its warming through the greenhouse effect, absorbing infrared radiation and converting it to heat that warms the atmosphere. Hansen told the Sensate in 1988 that he personally had detected the greenhouse effect by observing a hundred year warming that could not have happened by pure chance. He was wrong, of course, because thirty of his hundred years were not greenhouse years, and another thirty were cooling, not warming.
But ever since then we have been told that the greenhouse effect is responsible for causing the anthropogenic global warming or AGW. This blanket rule flies in the face of actual temperature observations today. There has been no warming for the last 17 years, but atmospheric carbon dioxide just keeps increasing on its own schedule. There is not a dent in the Keeling curve seventeen years ago that would indicate it even knows about this.
We have a greenhouse theory, of course, that predicts warming when carbon dioxide goes up. It has been predicting warming all these 17 years, and getting nothing. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing for 17 years, you are justified in throwing that theory into the waste basket of history. There is spot there for it, right next to phlogiston, another theory of warming that failed.
With that, the only greenhouse theory still left standing is the Miskolkczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It predicts exactly what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the air. It came out in 2007 but was promptly blacklisted by the IPCC. That is why you have not heard about it. It is capable of handling several GHGs that simultaneously absorb in the infrared; something the Arrhenius’ theory cannot do.
In the earth atmosphere the two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. According to MGT they form a joint IR absorption window which they control. The optical thickness of this window in the IR is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The introduced carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but simultaneous reduction of water vapor will keep total absorption constant, and no warming takes place.
This is the explanation of why there is no warming today despite a constantly increasing atmospheric CO2. This fact has great importance for climate science. First, it makes any runaway greenhouse effect impossible. This explains why very high carbon dioxide in geologic history never caused any runaway warming. It also takes care of Hansen, who has been warning us that burning fossil fuels will lead to runaway greenhouse like what happened to Venus. He is wrong, both about us and about Venus.
Secondly, it makes the enhanced greenhouse effect impossible. Since that is touted to be the cause of AGW, it follows that AGW itself does not exist, either. It is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fantasy, invented by some over-eager climate worker to justify the greenhouse hypothesis.
To summarize: Hansen did not discover the greenhouse effect; the greenhouse effect is not the cause of AGW; AGW is itself a pseudo-scientific fantasy; no runaway greenhouse effect is possible in the presence of water vapor; and finally, the true value of climate sensitivity is zero.”
Can you give us your explanation for the ice ages?
John Finn
For reasons known only to yourself, you ask Arno Arrak
Perhaps you should provide your explanation for this off-topic subject before demanding one from others.
So, can you give us your explanation for the ice ages?
And can you say what relevance you think it has to the growing evidence for low climate sensitivity which is the subject of this thread?
Richard
Your response would be much more readable, and hence read by more, if you break it up into shorter paragraphs. Thanks.
There is a tendency to think of all the scientist that have said something that was then quoted to support the CAGW “We’re all going to die unless we control you!” meme as being dishonest.
Many of them have assumed that the “pal-reviewed” papers they’ve trusted were actually “peer-reviewed”. And acted accordingly. By that I mean that they did research that accepted a skewed premise as a reasonably established one.
It would seem that more of them are looking out their windows at there thermometer rather than their computer screen.
Some are just rats jumping ship but for some reality is breaking through.
Give the latter a break.
I’m a sceptic and am not impressed by the simplifications and crude mathematics involved in ECS calculation. But I also admit that I have much to learn about this kind of “meta” pseudo-analysis.
But, given this proviso, can anyone tell me how the “Lewis and Curry (2014)” ESC range differs in any significant way from the IPCC AR5 Assessment (likely range) as shown in Figure 1 above. (Yes, the IPCC didn’t give a mean for their likely range).
So how does the Lewis and Curry paper represent a “sea change” or a seminal refutation of prevailing ECS wisdom. . . more likely it seems likely that they have gone “native”. Tell me where I’ve gone astray in my assessment of Figure 1.
Thanks
Dan
I think it should be the other way around which is how sensitive to climate change is CO2.
The measurements are the actual emission spectra – of which there are many, many measurements. MODTRAN has been consistently validated against these measurements and shows remarkable accuracy. We can be reasonably confident that doubling CO2 results in a forcing of ~3.7 w/m2.
The calculation I provided is a very rough estimate of the temperature increase which might be expected from a forcing of 3.7 w/m2 – without feedbacks . I then invited you to argue whether the feedbacks are positive, negative or zero which would of course affect the net sensitivity figure.
You should be aware that many people who are far cleverer than you or I (e.g Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre) entered the AGW debate thinking that CO2 might not have any effect on climate at all but have subsequently become convinced that CO2 must have some impact. I trod a similar path. Lindzen is another who accepts a “no feedback” figure of about 1 degree C per 2xCO2.
The “debate” isn’t about whether CO2 has any effect. It’s about how much of an effect.
Bart
How much are you prepared to bet that there is significant cooling over the next 10 years. I say there won’t be and I’m prepared to bet a sizeable sum of money.
Are you up for it?
50,000 quatloos! No, John, I have no desire to entangle myself in financial arrangements with persons unknown to me. Furthermore, your willingness to recklessly wager vast sums of money on unlikely events does not especially recommend you as a person with whom one should readily enter into such arrangements in the first place. Nor does it constitute any evidence in favor of your proposition.
John Finn says:
The “debate” isn’t about whether CO2 has any effect. It’s about how much of an effect.
John! Wake up! The question is: can you post empirical, testable measurements quantifying how many tenths or hundreths of a degree of global warming, out of the 0.7ºC total global warming of the past ≈150 years, which is directly attributable to human activity? The question was not whether CO2 has any effect, or how much of an effect it has. You can discuss that with Arno Arrak above.
If you can post direct empirical temperature measurements showing the fraction of global warming due to human emissions, you will be the first — and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. I’ve asked the same question dozens of times over the past couple of years, but no one has ever produced the requested measurements. Do you know why that is?
It is because there are no such measurements! The entire AGW conjectutre is a giant head fake. The alarmist crowd has convinced everyone they can that human emissions cause global warming. OK, then. Fine. Now just produce those testable measurements.
In this article Lord Monckton quotes Professor David Douglass of Rochester University asking him if anyone has attempted empirical measurements, rather than modeling [like you do], to determine the CO2 forcing? Lord M asks:
Please let us know in comments if you are aware of any atmospheric measurements on the basis of which the CO2 forcing has been quantified.
So I haven’t been the only one asking; others would also like to see the putative human contribution to global warming quantified. But so far, no one has ever produced any such real world measurements. You haven’t either, and it looks like you’ve deliberately misunderstood the question.
Without measurements at least as accurate and verifiable as the temperature measurements for overall global warming, the alarmist contingent is asking everyone to buy a pig in a poke. They are asking us to take their word for their assumption that there is a lot of human influence in global warming. The problem is, that is only a conjecture. An opinion. An evidence-free belief.
I am asking you or anyone else to post the fraction of total global warming attributable to human activity. It must be a testable, verifiable number; an empirical temkperature measurement that withstands falsification, and it cannot be mixed with other possible factors.
There are $Trillions riding on the answer. So make any measurements accurate, verifiable — and bullet proof.
How do you propose we take temperature measurements which only show the ghg contribution. You’re being totally ridiculous. Scientists are coming up with various estimates as to how much the world will warm in response to a doubling of CO2. The observations tell us how likely those estimates are to be correct. Current observations suggest that the no-feedback response is not too far off the mark.
Now if you’ve got a theory which explains why the mean global temperature was ~0.7 deg C higher in the period between 1995 and 2011 than it was between 1859 and 1882 when natural forcings were the same – then let’s have it.
John, I can see you’re getting frustrated. I understand. Because up until recently, you had folks accepting your assertions. But now that you are being asked to back up those assertions with testable measurements, suddenly we are being “totally ridiculous”.
You say:
Scientists are coming up with various estimates as to how much the world will warm in response to a doubling of CO2.
Well, yes. Anyone can come up with various estimates. But they are only “estimates”, not measurements. Then you say:
Now if you’ve got a theory…
No, John. The “theory” [actually: conjecture] is yours, not mine. My job as a scientific skeptic is to shoot holes in it, if I can. Then anything left standing, after all attempts at falsification, is accepted as current science. That’s how it works.
The problem is that your “theory” cannot make accurate predictions; a basic requirement of any theory. And it has no verifiable data to support it. In fact, your “theory” is only an assertion: that human activity causes global warming.
It may. Or not. But to be convincing, you need to produce verifiable, testable measurements quantifying the degree of global warming caused by human emissions. So far, there are no such measurements.
dbstealey
You write to John Finn saying
Sorry, but in that thread I replied to the request from Lord Monckton here where I wrote
Subsequently, the thread obtained several comments praising the Idso paper.
You often say there is no empirical evidence for an anthropogenic (i.e. man made) contribution to global warming and you are right; there is no such evidence.
But that is not the same as saying there are no empirical measurements “to determine the CO2 forcing”. There are, and they each provide indications that climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.
Importantly, if climate sensitivity is as small as the empirical measurements indicate then it is physically impossible for the putative man-made global warming to be large enough for it to be detected because natural variability is much larger.
Richard
Richard,
You are correct. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
I was trying to point out that there are no measurements quantifying the human contribution to global warming. CO2 causes global warming. But how much of that is due to human activity? I don’t think that has ever been measured.
But of course readers’ impressions are the important thing, so thank you for making it clear that CO2 causes global warming. I’ve never disputed that fact.
John Finn;
How much are you prepared to bet that there is significant cooling over the next 10 years. I say there won’t be and I’m prepared to bet a sizeable sum of money.
Define “significant”. As measured how? By whom? You propose an imprecise and hence sucker bet. Not to mention that this is, what in poker would be called, “buying the pot”. The table knows you are unlikely to have the strongest hand, but you raise the bet so high that it isn’t worth playing. This isn’t science, or scientific debate, it is just bullying.
You should be aware that many people who are far cleverer than you or I (e.g Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre) entered the AGW debate thinking that CO2 might not have any effect on climate at all but have subsequently become convinced that CO2 must have some impact.
I’ve been following this debate for a very long time and have paid attention to those two players in particular. I don’t recollect either having made any such claim, in fact the opposite for Spencer and McIntyre has gone to great pains to not express an opinion on the physics at all. Perhaps you can provide some links to statements they have made on their blogs to the contrary? Or must someone place a bet with you to get you to back up your assertion?
We can be reasonably confident that doubling CO2 results in a forcing of ~3.7 w/m2.
Well as a first order rough approximation, sure. But in the depths of winter at the poles, it might be -40 and upward longwave would only be 170 w/m2 or less. At the equator at +40, upward longwave would be on the order of 540 w/m2. CO2 doubling would obviously result in different values based on those factors alone, and neither would result in 3.7 w/m2. Further, in the tropics, water vapour, which competes for LW absorption with CO2 is in the range of 40,000 ppm over oceans, while over deserts and in cold regions such as the arctic, it approaches zero. So, the 3.7 w/m2 for CO2 doubling is a gross over simplification of the known physics. We have no confidence in the number other than as a first order approximation that may well be off by a order of magnitude. Unlikely for the number to be higher, because if it was, we’d very readily see the effects in the temperature record, and we don’t. But possibly lower? Absolutely possible. It is a very, Very, VERY rough guestimate.
Oh dear here we go – more wiggle room negotiation. On almost every WUWT thread there’ll be numerous posts warning us of imminent cooling (look above for examples). The posters don’t tend to commit themselves too much on timescales but there’s no doubt that a new LIA is in its way.
Right – we have the weakest solar activity for a century and, according to Easterbrook and others, the PDO is in a cool phase and will continue to be so for some time to come. If the sun really is a major driver of climate change then it would be reasonable to expect mean global temperatures to return to 1970s levels by 2030. I’d be happy to use UAH so we’d need to base it on the 1980s.
I’d be prepared to bet that the mean UAH temperature for 2015-2024 is higher than the mean temperature for 1980-89.
Re: Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre
I definitely remember Roy Spencer saying that he was highly sceptical at the outset but does now accept that CO2 must have some effect. I’ll try to dig it out. Steve McIntyre comments on an emission spectrum plot at this link
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
Scroll down to a “Some Comments” where you’ll find this
Steve has recognised that in the colder, drier layers of the troposphere CO2 is “highly relevant”.
No – my temperature calculation is a bit speculative but the 3.7 w/m2 is a robust figure
John Finn
You pretended to make a bet and when davidmhoffer asked you to specify the bet you have replied
I am offended that you demand “wiggle room” instead of specifying the bet you are offering.
But such silly, one-sided demands seem to be your ‘stock in trade’. For example, earlier in this thread you made a demand for off-topic and irrelevant from Arno Arrak, and you have made no attempt to address my request that you first provide your version of what you demand from him.
Specify the bet you are offering or apologise for your untrue assertions.
Richard
“I’d be prepared to bet that the mean UAH temperature for 2015-2024 is higher than the mean temperature for 1980-89.”
A suckers bet, for sure, given the natural underlying trend of ~0.7 degC/century. I’d already agree that is a likely outcome, as can be seen in my projection here.
If you really believed in AGW, you would be willing to bet on 2015-2024 versus 2005-2014.
db
Some non-smokers get lung cancer. Some smokers get lung cancer who might have got it even if they hadn’t smoked. This means that we can’t, with absolute certainty, say how many smokers got lung cancer because they smoked.
However, using statistics we can estimate the smoking/lung cancer cases and can estimate quite accurately the incidence of lung cancer in a population based on the number of smokers.
I haven’t yet read the paper but, as I understand it, Lewis & Curry have attempted to eliminate the effect of natural variability factors and have concluded that climate sensitivity is ~1.64 deg per 2xCO2 – slightly higher than the “no feedback” figure. In 30 years time we will have a better idea how close their estimate is to the true value. In 50 years an even better idea ….. and so on.
But , just to repeat my earlier point. I did not predict a temperature rise or “assert” anything . I calculated an estimate based on NO Feedbacks while assuming the relationship between surface and TOA flux remained the same. Unfortunately you don’t even appear to understand that.
I give it about 10 years at most, by which time the rapidly accelerating divergence between emissions and atmospheric concentration will have become so stark that nobody will believe that we are actually responsible for the atmospheric concentration anymore.
Well I have a life long friend, who is a well credentialed Behavioral Psychologist / Epidemiologist, with strong CDC associations. (now retired)
He puts it this way: “There is a body of medical evidence that suggests that smoking tobacco, causes lung cancer. There is also a body of medical evidence that suggests that sex causes children.
The tobacco data is much more convincing ! “
Along a similar vein, there are solid studies that show that the incidence of severe lung cancer, among American Blacks and Hispanics, who smoke, is much higher than among Whites, and Asians, who smoke; even though the same studies show that American Blacks, and Hispanics, as a group, smoke less, in relative numbers, and degree, than do whites, and Asians.
So why is that ? The answer is, that they are targeted groups. American Blacks and Hispanics who smoke; to a very large degree smoke MENTHOL cigarettes, and makers of Menthol brands, heavily advertise in those cultural magazines, and regions.
I have made a habit of asking Black persons, that I see smoking, (which is infrequent) whether they smoke a Menthol brand. I’m still waiting to meet my first Black smoker, who doesn’t smoke menthols.
So what is up with menthol cigarettes?
Well they advertise that “Coool” experience, and the menthol does cool the smoke.
So menthol smokers deeply inhale the smoke into their lungs, not realizing they are playing with fire.
And yes, I always tell them why I asked.
Personally, I don’t mind if people smoke or not; it is still legal in the USA. I will cross the street to avoid walking by them, because I can’t tolerate the stench.
But it’s a shame what they are doing to themselves, and their families.
A two week stay in Geneva, back in March, had me walking across the train tracks to get away from smokers, waiting for trains or buses. So I had to duck back just before the train pulled in, and then head for a door clear of smokers. They would take their last puff, before stepping into the train. And on exit, they had already lit up, before their first foot landed on the platform outside the train. (no smoking inside the train.) Even the hospital medical staff, at the main HUG hospital in Geneva, would light up, the instant they stepped outside the building, so I was scanning for a smoke free entrance path all the time, to get into the building.
Seems like Europeans are champion smokers. You can tell who they are, when I visit my birth town, in NZ
John Finn this is the kind of solar activity which is needed to have a major impact on the climate. We are currently above these parameters due to the extended weak maximum of solar cycle 24 nevertheless sub- solar activity has been going on post 2005 and once this maximum ends and the solar criteria starts to approach what I have outlined a more dramatic climatic impact will begin to show up.
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 .15% 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.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains very meridional giving rise to more persistence in weather patterns and perhaps more extremes .
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
So you keep saying, Salvatore, but I disagree. I think we may have a relatively flat period for a few more years but I expect temperatures to start rising again after that – but not catastrophically so.
Unfortunately these types of papers have encouraged the warmist’s as it feeds their petty theory that C02 has an effect on Earth Atmospheric temperatures. Just look at mainstream papers they are having a field day with Curry’s and Lewis paper CONFIRMING that C02 is heating the earth. The AGW fanatics are delighted with this publication (argument: Earth is only going to heat up 10 years later than thought). Take note that SG avoids these publications with a 10 foot pole.(as far as I can see in any case)and he is right to do so. C02 FOLLOWS temperatures rises in all temp records.
John Finn;
I’d be prepared to bet that the mean UAH temperature for 2015-2024 is higher than the mean temperature for 1980-89.
Since we could actually see cooling from 2015-2024 that doesn’t get down to the mean of 1980-89, that would be a sucker bet. My point was that proposing to wager large sums of money on such a complex matter is just a bullying tactic to make people without sufficient wealth to play the game by your rules shut up. Then you choose to define the matter in such a way that very few people have the background on the matter to dispute you, so they shut up also.
You are just bullying. If you want to contribute to the discussion of the science by weighing in with facts and figures and your opinions as to their meaning, by all means. If all you have at your disposal is bullying tactics, then shut up.
My point. But, it’s not just bullying. It is a decidedly unhinged ploy of desperation.
So are you saying it’s going to cool or not?
I gave you my prediction. The pattern was set more than 100 years ago, long before CO2 could have had a significant effect.
Thanks, Anthony & authors, you have done a great job with this presentation! This is the beginning of the “great unraveling” …real-world observations (temps, sea levels etc.) do not follow the models, and now the core theory underlying the models is shown to be erroneous. Expect a vicious response.
Shaka, when the walls fell….
Richard
I did. This is it
Average UAH 2015-2024 will be higher than Average UAH 1980-89.
I might also be prepared to have a band of +0.1 where no-one loses so for me to win the mean UAH temp for 2015-24 would need to be at least 0.1 degrees higher than the mean temp for 1980-89. anything between 0.0 and 0.1 higher would be a void bet.
That’s pretty generous. Solar activity has been in decline since ~1991 and is very low now. We’ve also got a cool PDO and a number of posters are suggesting that the AMO will be entering a cool phase soon. Current conditions favour cooling more than they did in the 1970s.
Average UAH 2015-2024 will be higher than Average UAH 1980-89.
Make it RSS. That’s equally generous.
Also: For the record, I note that neither John Finn nor anyone else has ever posted any real world, testable measurements quantifying the portion of the 0.7ºC global warming that is attributable to human activity.
We are still being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Ah the “sceptic” is back with us. The one whose brand of scepticism is responsible for more people siding with the UN-IPCC than Mann, Hansen & Al Gore put together.
I assume that this comment is considered good reason for the “scepticism”
Several hundred years ago, Sir Isaac Newton formulated laws of gravitation from which we are able to predict the gravitational forces of planetary bodies. Newton was not able to visit these bodies and validate his theories with “real world, testable measurements” but those who understood the science accepted Newtons findings. In fact, in the 1960s, NASA sent manned missions to the moon.
A 17th century dbstealey may well have dismissed Newton’s laws as garbage since Newton could not provide definite (measured) proof that the moon’s gravity was about one-sixth of the earth’s. The 17th century dbstealey would consider it ridiculous that a human could leap several feet into the air just because he was standing on a smaller object than the earth. But that’s because dbstealey wouldn’t have understood the science.
It’s the same to-day. Many, many scientists on both sides of the AGW debate acknowledge that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a forcing of ~3.7 w/m2. However, the scientists do disagree over how much warming this will produce. Just like the 17th century dbstealey, the 21st century dbstealey doesn’t understand the science and, for some reason, he considers that an inability to isolate the CO2 contribution to 20th century warming represents a flaw in AGW theory.
And this ….
Strange that you wish to use data which John Christy believes is contaminated by a spurious cooling trend probably due to satellite orbital drift.
That said, it probably won’t much difference to the outcome of any bet.
John Finn says:
Ah the “sceptic” is back with us. The one whose brand of scepticism is responsible for more people siding with the UN-IPCC than Mann, Hansen & Al Gore put together.
John, don’t judge. You are reacting emotionally. It’s bad form here.
All I have asked, and all I keep asking, is that you post verifiable measuremments, quantifying the amount of global warming attributable to human activity, out of the total 0.7ºC of all global warming.
But apparently that is too much to ask. Your responses have ratcheted up every time I ask, which leads me to believe that you have no such measurements. Don’t feel bad, John, no one else has those measurements, either. They have been winging it all along.
Also, I do not care to read that Many, many scientists on both sides of the AGW debate acknowledge that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a forcing of ~3.7 w/m2. That is mere speculation, and if that results in the greater mass of humanity being driven into the arms of Michael Mann, as you preposterously allege, then people are far more gullible than I think they are. Simply asking you for measurements should not make you go ballistic like that. It is obviously because your feet are held to the fire regarding that question. The proper response is: “I don’t have those measurements.”
Next, John Christy is someone I greatly admire. But UAH is a direct competitor with RSS for the same government dollars. I have yet to see competitors who don’t denigrate their competition whenever they can, and Christy is doing that with RSS. So I take UAH’s criticisms with a big grain of salt. Anyway, both satellite databases show that global warming has stopped. The only difference is the year that global warming stopped. Both satellite databases have their pluses and minuses, so you shouldn’t be concerned if we use RSS for your wager, should we? Unless, of course, you’re trying to stack the deck…
Next, the moon’s gravity, and Isaac Newton, and leaping in the air are all interesting. But none of them is pertinent to my request. If no one has any specific measurements quantifying the degree of global warming caused by human emissions, then as I have repeatedly pointed out, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. It is possible that there is no AGW. It is even possible that human emissions cool the planet. Or, it is possible that AGW is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes [the position I hold]. But without measurements, no one knows. Do they? At this point, it is all speculation. Conjecture. Opinion. Nothing more, John. Because there are no measurements!
Remember the endless alarmist predictions of no more Polar bears? And rapidly accelerating sea levels? And vanishing ice caps? And ocean “acidification”? And runaway global warming? And increasing extreme weather events? And climate disruption? Climate catastrophe? They were all wrong. Every alarmist prediction has failed. So you need to understand that skeptics would like to see empirical measurements, before we accept your assertions that human emissions cause “most” global warming, or even “half”.
Those are unquantified guesses, upon which your side wants to greatly reduce our standard of living. Excuse us for wanting some empirical, testable measurements. They mean a lot more than opinions that “half” or “most” global warming is caused by people. The alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything so far, so we are especially skeptical of your latest pronouncements.
Without verifiable measurements showing how much, if any, global warming is caused by human emissions, then we need to stop right here, and wait until there are such measurements. Anything else would be foolhardy, stupid, and an affront to those being asked to pay the freight.
So calm down, John. Go find those measurements. Report back when you can show the specific fraction of that 0.7º of global warming over the past century or so. We need to know that, before we spend any more money on what might well be a wild goose chase.
Richard Courtney, you write
First, let me assure you I am of the opinion that climate sensitivity is relatively low (i.e. 1 – 1.5 deg C per 2xCO2) . However, I asked for an explanation of the ice ages because they offer the strongest support for a higher climate sensitivity and one that is more in tune with the original IPCC estimate of ~3 deg C. I invited Arno to explain the ice ages because he appeared to have an unrealistic confidence in a very low CS figure.
John Finn
Sincere thanks for your post which does fulfill my requests.
You assert that the ice ages “offer the strongest support for a higher climate sensitivity and one that is more in tune with the original IPCC estimate of ~3 deg C.” No, they don’t.
Your assertion assumes that small Milankovitch forcing is assisted by a climate sensitivity and estimates the magnitude of the assumed climate sensitivity. To claim that estimated magnitude as “the strongest support for a higher climate sensitivity” is a completely circular argument.
Richard
I’m not sure I fully understand your point but it might be worth noting that Milankovitch forcing is not some mysterious climate forcing that only comes around every 41,000 years. Ice age forcings were no different to forcings that apply to-day (most notably albedo & ghgs) – except that, during the LGM, those forcings were strongly negative.
John Finn
That will not do!
It was YOUR point and not mine which I was discussing.
YOU asserted
I addressed that statement which you made, and I showed that the ice ages do NOT “offer the strongest support for a higher climate sensitivity”.
If I have misunderstood your point in any way then explain what you did mean.
And I did NOT say, suggest or imply that “Milankovitch forcing is” “some mysterious climate forcing that only comes around every 41,000 years”.
John, you are wildly flailing your arms in hope that nobody will notice you have made a fool of yourself.
Richard
John Finn;
I did. This is it
Average UAH 2015-2024 will be higher than Average UAH 1980-89.
We could easily be in a cooling period for the next 10 years and not hit that metric. Sucker bet.
Thank you dave, Thanks for those excellent comments. Nothing takes the place of measurements.