This note by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley uses methods and data exclusively from mainstream climate science to constrain the interval of 21st-century global warming.
In 2009 the Copenhagen climate summit asserted, on little evidence, that global warming of 2 C° compared with pre-industrial temperature [equivalent to 1.1 C° above today] would be dangerous. The UK Climate Change Committee said in 2015: “If we make no efforts to cut global use of fossil fuels, global warming is likely to reach between 2-7°C this century with further warming beyond.” A Science editorial in July 2015 said:
“Let’s act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.”
Equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT to a CO2 doubling is given by (1),
ΔT = λ0 ΔF (1 – λ0 f ) –1, (1)
where the Planck sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.3125 K W–1 m2 (IPCC AR4, p. 631 fn.); the CO2 forcing ΔF is generally taken as 5.35 ln 2 W m–2 (Myhre et al, 1998; IPCC TAR); and uncertainty in constraining ΔT arises chiefly from the feedback sum f, for which IPCC’s estimates (best estimates are in bold face) were cut from 1.95 [1.55, 2.35] W m–2 K–1 in AR4 to 1.55 [1.00, 2.25] W m–2 K–1 in AR5 (Fig. 9.43(a), detail):
The mainstream climate sensitivity estimates to a CO2 doubling, at 1-8 below, reveal a monotonic decline from SAR to AR5, which readopts the interval in FAR (cf. Charney (1979, p. 4), though AR5 states no central estimate, which should, however, have been given as 2.2 K where f = 1.55 W m–2 K–1 (8 below).
| Est. | Source / basis | Sensitivity |
| 1 | IPCC SAR (17 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.8 [3.0, 4.6] K |
| 2 | IPCC TAR (15 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.5 [2.6, 4.4] K |
| 3 | IPCC AR4 (18 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.3 [2.6, 4.0] K |
| 4 | IPCC AR4 stated interval | 3.0 [2.0, 4.5] K |
| 5 | IPCC AR4 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.95[1.55, 2.35] | 3.0 [2.2, 4.4] K |
| 6 | IPCC FAR stated interval (cf. Charney, 1979, p. 4) | 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 7 | IPCC AR5 stated interval | [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 8 | IPCC AR5 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.55[1.00, 2.25] | 2.2 [1.7, 3.9] K |
| Warming to 2100 | ||
| 9 | Only half of equilibrium warming will arise in the century after a forcing | 1.1 [0.9, 2.0] K |
| 10 | Forcings rise linearly so that ~50% of warming will occur by 2100 | 0.6 [0.4, 1.0] K |
IPCC 21st-century warming estimates indicate that it assumes, in line with Roe (2009), that only half of equilibrium warming will occur in the first 100 years after a forcing (9 above). Furthermore, forcing does not arrive as a single pulse but increases over the century, halving the in-century warming (10) and putting the remainder in the following century, by which time fossil fuels will approach exhaustion. Remaining warming to equilibrium at 2.2 K above today would be spread over the subsequent 1000-3000 years (Solomon et al., 2009), allowing plenty of time for adaptation.
Conclusion: No warming has yet arisen this century. Warming may be 0.6 K by 2100, could be as low as 0.4 K and will not exceed 1 K. Allowing for negative aerosol forcings in SAR to AR5, or for net-negative temperature feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2011; Monckton of Brenchley, 2015), warming may well not reach these values, but is most unlikely to exceed them.
You preach to the converted.
How to convert the masses?
That is the question.
The ultimate question: is there, in our fundamentally dishonest society, a critical mass of real people able to refuse a regular paycheck in the name of the truth as they know it? Human history has balanced on this fulcrum many times.
I am afraid that Stanislav Lem was right, and “humanity has chosen not the most beautiful of its possible futures.”
I believe we will be saved by the selfishness of men and nations. For each will seek to stand tall as a signatory to the saving of the world, while secretly negotiating exceptions and loop holes and delays to circumvent the agreement to their benefit while shifting the burden to those who are more honest about their positions. The dishonest vastly outnumbering the honest, the few that are left will, like Greece, at some point have to face the reality of economic devastation for their folly, and quietly slink away on some new found excuse.
Those that will sign in Paris will be many. Those that do anything substantial will be few, and their efforts short lived.
I think we’re arguing the wrong thing debating 0.5C.
The world grows food for 1 billion people who would starve without extra plant food. Anyone who opposes CO2 should be asked point blank whether they prefer 1 billion deaths to spare themselves 1C.
True Andrew. I tend to focus on the known benefits of CO2,and the failed to manifest C in CAGW. The current article is rebutting the C in CAGW, and that is good.
The battle is on many fronts, but the fact is that the 400 ppm CO2 world of today does grow about 15 percent more food on the same amount of land and water that would feed almost one billion less people in a 280 ppm CO2 world.
Keeping mind that the US will likely not continue to export grain on a vast scale as the apparent solar minimum shrinks the growing season, your estimate of 1 billion people starving seems optimistic. If, as the saying goes, “charity begins at home,” our citizens will demand that we be the last to starve.
Removing the 80 million metric tons of exported US grain, along with supplies from larger production in China and India and somewhat smaller in France, Russia, Australia and Canada will make the Little Ice Age european die-off look trivial.
As long as you keep it impersonal as 1 billion human starving, there are many of the warmists that would approve http://www.teemingbrain.com/2009/05/09/its-official-the-human-race-is-earths-disease/ They consider humanity is a cancer of planet Earth. Indeed, although not willing to volunteer themselves, they believe that humanity should be significantly reduced in numbers. So they would see reduction of CO2 leading to less crops and greatly increased deaths from starvation as a distinct positive reason to reduce use of ‘fossil fuels’.
I don’t understand why Mosher hasn’t commented, err what ever you want to call his scribbles here ??
CO2-AGW is near zero in our thermohaline circulation and biofeedback controlled climate.
The real AGW was from the extra aerosols during Asian industrialisation. It stopped 15 years ago.
The mechanism is reduction of cloud albedo. Sagan got that physics wrong as well as making three other bad mistakes which have led to the IPCC’s fake science.But it was the cold war and the Russkies were the opposition.
So, let’s hope we finally bury our era’s version of phlogiston morphed into a new lysenkoism!
The catholic church believes in responsible parenthood so why should the “earth/world” be needing to feed all these people. The west has zero population growth and is increasing energy efficiency except for many stupid expenditures of energy on wasteful green energy schemes. Fix povery and the population “bomb” will be fixed.
Every Christian church believes that procreation (reproduction, love, having children) is a mortal sin. Every religion promises afterlife; therefore, religious faith is, first of all and above all, a death worship. However priests are trying to hide this basic truth with smoke and mirrors, “responsibility” and “religion” are two things incompatible, because to be truly responsible for your actions you have to be, or at least try hard to be, sane, logical, sober, rational, and capable of facing the blank screen of the unknown.
“Every Christian church believes that procreation (reproduction, love, having children) is a mortal sin. Every religion promises afterlife; therefore, religious faith is, first of all and above all, a death worship.”
You sir, are a bigot and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do everybody a favor and shut up.
@Javier
I made a general statement about religion, speaking for myself.
You make personal insults, claiming to speak for “everybody.”
By doing so, you demonstrated amazing incivility.
No, sir, I won’t shut up.
I will express my opinions whenever I want.
Alexander Feht
Of course you have as much right to voice your opinions as Javier or anybody else.
However, Javier argues for truth and you spout bigoted falsehood. Hence, he suggests to you that you “Do everybody a favor and shut up” which does seem to be an eminently sensible suggestion.
Richard
I have a question I hope someone can answer: What, exactly, does an increase of 2degreeC in global average temp mean in terms of real temperatures?
As far as I can figure out, the so-called warming (not happening for like 18+ years), would occur at the poles N and S first. (they call it bipolar amplification iirc)
Now seriously, do you know anyone at the higher latitudes who WOULDN’T think that 4C of warming was a GOOD THING. A small amount back to the MWP and a lot further to the Holocene optimum.
Unfortunately, it isn’t happening. ! 🙁
A small amount of warming to the planet would be TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.
A good increase in atmospheric CO2, say to 700ppm+, would also be TOTALLY BENEFICIAL.
They’ll learn.
==========
In answer to “4TimesAYear”, an increase of 2 degrees in global mean surface temperature would mean no increase in tropical temperature, a 2-degree warming in mid-latitudes and a 4-degree warming at the Poles.
but isn’t most of that supposed to be warmer low temperatures?
It could also mean a 1 degree warming in the tropics, two degrees in the mid-latitudes, and a three degree warming at the poles.
The IPCC’s theory is that the tropics will not warm; that the global mean surface temperature obtains at the mid-latitudes; and that the mean anomaly is doubled in high latitudes by polar amplification. In this respect, at any rate, the IPCC is in line with the climatological literature.
The tropics do not warm because, as Willis Eschenbach has shown, tropical afternoon convection merely starts a little earlier than it otherwise would, canceling the warming. Likewise, the extra-tropical baroclinic eddies, in marked contrast to the largely vertical dynamics of the tropics, are dominated by baroclinic eddies which, via various process (such as the Hadley-cell circulation) advect heat poleward from the tropics.
It is perhaps because the tropics do not warm that the tropical mid-troposphere hot-spot predicted by the models has not been observed in reality, either by satellites or by millions of radiosonde measurements.
So, if there were 2 degrees of mean warming, that is the warming rate that would occur in the temperature latitudes; there would be no warming in the tropics; and there would be 4 degrees’ warming at the Poles.
The question is, of course, academic, because the head posting demonstrates – entirely using the IPCC’s own data and methods – that there will be more like 0.6 degrees’ warming this century, which cannot legitimately be spun up into a problem. Not that that will stop the profiteers of doom from trying.
“as Willis Eschenbach has shown???”
…
Sorry Chris, but Willis needs to have his work peer-reviewed.
..
Try something like this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1756/abstract;jsessionid=E521C86F0CB92501F3694653CDB2F19C.f03t03
..
That article references the known warming of the tropics.
..
If that isn’t enough for you, you can then investigate the effects of the tropical warming in this article: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature12915.epdf?referrer_access_token=ViIEa0zI6CI5pQqhsfvQY9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oh1xbPIZznNCjkcJcZ4Skf3L-qM4TcXXCGJVmFVCP1RReZLOjdnfR3kzm4K-Gyg6pGSDFLMxUq0TzsrHVEz0vLmH4x_yZIWh0e10cEhcNyDGtWmExk6g7iD4UJw14p3xWXT1AIDIcxYStc_mN7hVHOhNY8uM9horHuTBfIOvuTz-JgRb60jNpwSB-kTSEi-iY%3D&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com
Sorry Chris, but Willis needs to have his work peer-reviewed.
Ah yes, “peer review”. An obsolete remnant of days gone by when information was circulated primarily via printed matter. Welcome to the modern era Joel, where neither theory nor data nor review by the qualified and unqualified alike is constrained by a gatekeeper manning a printing press, virtual or otherwise. The “peer review” of which you speak is not only obsolete, it has become the last refuge of scoundrels. They are like makers of candles taking makers of light bulbs to court for ruining their industry.
Mr Jackson cites a paper by Santer as evidence tht the tropics are warming. It was Santer who, in 1995, was asked by the IPCC to rewrite the final text of the Second Assessment Report single-handed to delete five plain references to the fact that no human influence on global climate had yet been detected, and replace it with a single inaccurate statement that a human influence had been detected. Not the most reliable source.
So I went to the data. UAH keep a tropical dataset. It shows warming of 0.08 C/decade since 1979, which is less than it shows for the globe as a whole and is in statistical terms negligible. From January 1997 to date, the period covered by Fig. 1 of the head posting, UAH shows a cooling in the tropics, again not particularly significant.
The tropical warming in the early part of the record since 1979 coincided with a naturally-occurring reduction in global cloud cover, which persisted from 1983 till 2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) and temporarily affected the tropics. Now the boot is on the other foot and the tropics have been cooling a little for the best part of two decades.
In the long run, the various known homeostatic processes in the climate, of which tropical afternoon convection is known to be one of the most important, will not permit much warming or cooling of the tropics under modern conditions. That’s mainstream climate science. So don’t dismiss Willis Eschenbach’s research too readily. He knows a lot more than you may think.
The point is that by now the world is supposed to be warming at 0.2-0.3 Celsius per decade, and that is rather obviously not happening, in the tropics or anywhere else.
Well a 4 degree warming at the poles would do more good (in the form of higher radiative emittance there) than the same 4 degrees occurring in the tropics, where the maximum radiative emittance can be as high as 1.8 times the global mean .
At the poles (well at least the south pole) the radiative emittance may be as low as one sixth of the global average number.
And by that I mean the global average as postulated by mainstream climate science.
And for the mods; what the heck is it with this brain dead editor, that it doesn’t recognize either of the very common ordinary English language words ; radiative emittance ??
g
You forgot the Jacobean. Bear in mind that:
is the latitude (in radians). If you set a boundary condition of “no warming in the tropics” then you need a lot more than 4 degrees increase at the poles to average out to 2 C, because the area from 60 to 90 (north plus south) is only 13+% of the total, while half of the area is between 30 south and 30 north latitude. That means almost 4x the area of the polar latitudes in the tropics gets no warming to speak of, and has to be balanced by a systematically shrinking area (as a function of latitude) as one moves poleward.
where
A better answer is “we have no idea how a 2 C temperature increase would be distributed” because neither you, nor I, can solve the relevant equations in our heads. Or with paper. Or with computers. There are some good reasons to think that the tropics won’t warm much if at all, but we have no idea how the extra heat nominally delivered there will be redistributed en route to the sky. We have only guesses and mean field estimates neglecting almost all of the multivariate complexity of the problem. The computer models show, if nothing else, just how enormously wide the range of possible responses is as each model run is nominally a possible future. Or would be if one could start the models with anything like the correct initial condition and feed it with the correct future conditions.
rgb
I’ll try again:
And I’ll try a third time (damn you, silly north/south latitude convention!)
Lord Monckton and Joel D. Jackson:
4TimesAYear asked
Lord Monckton replied
and Joel D. Jackson responded
Actually, it does not mean either of those things because the “increase of 2degreeC” is NOT in “global average temp” but is in global average temp anomaly. Both of you are making an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison.
This difference between “global average temp” and global average temp anomaly is very important because the increase is NOT to “real temperatures”.
The correct answer to “4TimesAYear” is as follows.
An “increase of 2degreeC” in global average temp anomaly would have no discernible affect on “real temperatures”. Nobody notices that global average temp rises by 3.8degreeC (i.e. nearly double 2degreeC) over 6 months of each year and falls by 3.8degreeC over the other 6 months of each and every year.
Richard
Lord Monckton, Joel D. Jackson and rgbatduke:
As an addendum to my above post hereI write to say my post is not inconsistent with the above post (and corrigenda) of rgbatduke here.
I say the “increase of 2degreeC” in global average temp anomaly would have no discernible affect on “real temperatures” and rgbatduke says “we have no idea how a 2 C temperature increase would be distributed”.
Natural variability of “real temperatures” is so large at all geographical locations that an unknown change to the maximum of that variation at each location is very unlikely to be discernible using existing knowledge.
And I remind that during each and every year the natural variation of global mean “real temperatures” is nearly double the feared 2 C temperature anomaly increase.
Richard
I was looking for something a little more specific…what kind of temperatures (on a daily basis) would one expect to make for a 2 degree warming or a 4 degree warming? I wouldn’t think it would be noticeable.
4TimesAYear:
You have responded to the various answers to your question by saying
But that concurs with my specific answers to you here and here.
As I said
Richard
This analysis appears to accept the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. All that is being disputed is the magnitude of the increase in temperature caused by a doubling of CO2.
However, there has been no warming for the past 18 years. Meanwhile CO2 has risen from 360ppm to 400ppm. This should have produced about 15% of the temperature increase expected if CO2 doubled.
If the IPCC estimate the climate sensitivity to be 2.2C, 360ppm to 400ppm should produce about 0.33C.
No scientific explanation has been given as to why this 0.33C has not occurred.
What this analysis accepts – in response to Walt D – is that if one is to persuade governments to think twice before setting up an unelected global government one can demonstrate, using what they regard as mainstream climate science, that even if CO2 is the main driver of climate (which it may or may not be) it will not produce much warming in the 21st century.
IMO it can be conclusively shown that CO2 hardly matters at all above a low threshold level, but thereafter is more an effect than cause of climate change.
The cult of CAGW have ignored the fact that there is cyclic climate change in the paleo record which correlates with solar cycle changes. The sun is a serial climate changer.
There are multiple observations, analysis results, and logical arguments that support the assertion that no less than 75% of the recent warming is due to solar cycle changes. (More complicated than how many sunspots are on the sun which there is a cottage industry to adjust along with past and recent temperatures.)
The climate wars will end abruptly when there is: 1) An epiphany that developed countries have run out money to spend on everything, that there is an absolute limit to deficit spending and printing money, and that green scams are astronomically expensive to significantly reduce CO2 emissions or 2) the planet abruptly cools due to the unfolding abrupt change to the sun.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
The Antarctic peninsula is outside of the Antarctic polar vortex and hence records the temperature of the Southern sea. The Antarctic peninsula ice cores shows cyclic warming in the past that matches what we have recently observed. Obviously the past cyclic warming that was in ever case followed by cooling was not caused by atmospheric CO2 changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. There was abrupt cooling 11,900 years ago (Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period when the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and there was abrupt cooling 8200 years ago during the 8200 BP climate ‘event’).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
the planet abruptly cools due to the unfolding abrupt change to the sun.
There is no such thing. Here is the last 400+ years of solar activity
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
There is a possible ~100-year cycle and if that is any guide, we have been there before and the evolution of climate does not follow the long-term evolution of the Sun.
Hi doc
Now you mentioned it, I have taken to your new numbers as the proverbial ‘fish to the water’.
I tried to normalise ‘the new’ to ‘the old’, got something like this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
and the actual numbers are here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NEW-SSN-annual.htm
Is there an official alternative ?
Of course not, and there shouldn’t be,
It is like you ask if there is a global temperature record measured in Reaemur (or Reamur) degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9aumur_scale
Thanks a bunch.
So how are you going to know if you got SC24 Rmax right?
What about all your papers SC Rmax = 0.7 Polar Field max?
What about all the papers proxy calculations of solar activity in the past millennia?
What about … etc … etc ?
Ahh.. well, there are always Vuk’s pseudo-numbers, from now available on his website…(see link above).
Because everything just scales upwards by the inverse of the obsolete factor 0.6 that we removed.
Leif, Is it reasonably well established that the SSN maxima in the decades around 1780 really were as high as the 1957/8 IGY maximum; often stated as ‘ the highest ever ‘.
g
One way to eliminate issues with the sunspot number is to plot F10.7 at maximum against the polar field Dipole Moment DM at the preceding minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/Observed-F107-and-Polar-Field-DM.png
SC24 is circled, and as you can see it falls precisely on the predicted line.
“Because everything just scales upwards by the inverse of the obsolete factor 0.6 that we removed.”
Linear scaling may not be appropriate since you altered the SSN by different factors throughout series. This is important since past papers may use integration or other ways in assessing the solar influence.
To get comparison of two I used a method referenced to the total average, which as it happens, shows enhancement in the early and reduction in the late numbers, not as obvious with the straight linear scaling you recommend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN1.gif
Since the prediction paper only dealt with the last few cycles, the simple linear transformation holds.
For the thousands of papers other than the prediction paper they just have to live with progress.
george e. smith July 5, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Leif, Is it reasonably well established that the SSN maxima in the decades around 1780 really were as high as the 1957/8 IGY maximum; often stated as ‘ the highest ever ‘.
Yes it is [within the error bars]. The 14C cosmic ray proxy shows the same thing:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
New and old Sunspot monthly data correction factor
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CF.gif
shows that more than just last few cycles were corrected.
All cycles were corrected, but for the prediction paper that you were so concerned about, only the last three or four cycles matter, and only their maximum values. You can learn more about the corrections here http://www.stce.be/newsletter/newsletter.php
Note that the large spikes at minima are the results of dividing numbers close to zero. Those are, of course, not relevant for the prediction of the maxima.
Any particular reason why period 1850 – 1867 had an extra boost to the sunspot numbers ?
Yes, see Figure 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf
Tnx Dr. Svalgaard.
As it happens the recalculated SSN fits my formula a bit better, so I shall at some time reluctantly change over. If we do have dip in global temperatures then the SSNs will be of more interest. As far as the predictions are concerned, it appears that your old 72+ or –, and my 80 can’t be far off the mark.
see you elsewhere
As it happens the recalculated SSN fits my formula a bit better, so I shall at some time reluctantly change over.
Confirmation bias is the wrong reason for changing. You should change because the new SSN is better, regardless.
Not 2. In fact, not even 1, but more like less than 0.4.
Does anyone believe that we will not have devised new sources of energy by 2100?
Assuming we can survive an “inferno” of +2 degrees, what is the probability that there is even a problem?
We already have it, just needs to be refined. The Molten Salt Reactor will power before 2100 and with it’s very high working temperatures be able to make syngas from all the coal we have at below todays fuel prices. The can run on uranium (our spent fuel rods as well) and Thorium.
“””””…..
Greg White
July 5, 2015 at 11:35 am
We already have it, just needs to be refined……”””””
English translation: ‘ We don’t have it.’
g
Do you mean new sources, in the sense of non solar originated, or non stored chemical energy, or non nuclear fission, or just what “new” sources did you have in mind ??
Remember, a warm planet is a happy planet!
Doesn’t that make Venus the happiest planet going?
Venus, the red herring.
“Venus, the red herring.”
Correction:
Venus, the red-hair
http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/images/Birth_of_Venus_Botticelli.jpg
Just like me chestnuts!
Too warm, or not too warm? That is the question.
4TimesAYear Asks …
>> What, exactly, does an increase of 2degreeC in global
>> average temp mean in terms of real temperatures?
Let’s be clear about one thing: a ‘mean temperature’ of itself
tells us nothing about minima and maxima. For example:
suppose on Day 1 there was a gradual and even increase
over 24 hours from 10C to 20C, and on Day 2 there was a
gradual and even increase from 12C to 19C According to
current methods Day 1 has the higher maximum temperature,
but Day 2 is the ‘hottest’.
If I look in my climate textbooks , eg “Climate Modelling Primer ” by McGuffie and Henderson- Sellers , I get the impression that the modern interest in modern climate science started in the mid ’70s with seminal works from the likes of James Hansen, etc – ie 40 years ago .
Now when i started to learn atomic and molecular theory at university in the 60s , 40 years would have taken one back to the very start of wave mechanics , and quantum mechanics with deBroglie, Schrodinger , Heisenberg , Born and Pauli . followed quickly by Dirac , Pauling’s valency bond theories , Van Vleck and crystal field theory to explain the colour and magnetic properties of transition metal compounds , and of course the start of band theory of solids and the concept of Brouillon zones to explain the differences between metal , insulators and semiconductors . All that in about 30 years , and the models and theories get more detailed , produce actual commercial, working , materials and devices on which the global economy depends but the basic questions in climate science , such as the forcing sensitivity are still up for debate after 40 years. Quite a contrast. Remember also that that pioneering work in atomic and molecular physics and chemistry was done with chalk and blackboard , or pen and paper, plus of course a good dollop of genius – maybe that is what makes the difference .
I am of course being slightly unfair to the no doubt diligent researchers in the field of climate science . Those rapid advances mentioned above had the assistance of established mathematical techniques such as group theory which can be applied to regular , symmetric , crystalline materials . The progress in understanding the disordered systems of fluids and glasses is less dramatic , but still makes , IMO , climate science seem laggardly compared to atomic and molecular physics and chemistry.
Don’t be too hard on the climate scientists. They’re trying to model a coupled, non-linear, chaotic object, and one cannot get definitive answers for a chaotic object without well-resolved knowledge of its initial conditions (Lorenz 1963, Lighthill 1998, Giorgi 2005).
The well has also been poisoned by enviro-communists playing politics with science. Were it not for them, everyone would be happy to wait and see how much warming our enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will cause. The longer the world fails to warm at anything like the wildly exaggerated rates they predicted, the less likely it is that climate sensitivity is anything like as high as they have been trying to claim.
The chaotic nature of the climate is characteristic of how it gets from one steady state to another and not what the new steady state will be after some change to the system or stimulus. GCM’s certainly do suffer from the problem of needing to know the precise initial conditions and absolute knowledge of countless physical features of the planet for the simulation to be anything close to accurate, especially after simulating long periods of time. Thermodynamic systems exhibit the property that they must obey physical laws, even at the macroscopic level, thus it’s relative easy to reverse engineer a transfer function for the atmosphere from measurements at its boundaries, express it in terms of properties like transmittance, and predict very accurately what the new steady state will be upon changes to GHG concentrations without ever needing to know the path taken to get there.
This is categorically incorrect. You need to learn about multistable systems and self-organized critical phenomena. You are assuming that the climate has “a” single steady state characteristic of the inputs, and this assumption is, to put it bluntly, almost certainly false. The Earth’s climate system is manifestly multistable with at least two well-known, named climate states (glacial and interglacial) and has historically exhibited meso-scale climate periods long enough and characteristic enough to be named, e.g. Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, even within the Holocene interglacial.
The chaotic nature of chaotic dynamical systems is that they have no steady state.
rgb
Yes, there are meta-stable states, like El-Nino/La-Nino, etc. None the less. they generally come in pairs whose average result is centered around the mean. All we need to know is how the mean varies in response to change and that is what I’m talking about as the LTE response of the system to change that is readily predictable. If there’s some meta-stable transition that will be triggered within the few tenths of a degree warming doubling CO2 will cause, that transition will likely happen anyway and its only a matter of when, not if, moreover; no GCM would be able to predict this with any degree of accuracy. There may be meta-stable state pair with a larger effect, but there is no where near enough information in any GCM to make any kind of prediction of transitions among them, whose existence is still speculative at best.
Here’s the spreadsheet I made for Climate Pete that shows how changes to this mean can be readily predicted and these predictions are consistent with the skeptics.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/corrected.xlxs
Sorry, link was incorrect. It should be
http://www.palisad.com/co2/corrected.xlsx
Thanks, Christopher. Lord Monckton. A good argument for sanity.
Lord Monckton’s Figure 1 -“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 6 months since January 1997.” The correlation is trend -0.01C (=.03C/century) with RSQ = 0.000. It is the definition of “hiatus.”
I found it useful to look at global mean temperature and CO2 trends on the same plot over the same period AND in an XY cross plot of global mean temperature against CO2 – which makes the case even stronger… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/12/a-look-at-carbon-dioxide-vs-global-temperature/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/a-statistical-definition-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming-using-nasa-giss-and-mlo-data/ [NASA GISS global mean temperature and Mauna Loa / Keeling CO2).
The temperature – CO2 cross plot produces similar conclusions as Monckton’s Figure 1, near zero slope and RSQ of 0.03. The cross plot is a shotgun scattergram. This says nothing at all about a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature – and that is the point. Unsurprising since there is no relationship at all. No significant statistical correlation at all is an important fact / data-based conclusion. And RSQ of near zero says that any variation in the data set during the period (a shotgun) is due to “not CO2” causes.
Lord Monckton,
I beg your pardon but I haven’t completely understood your step 9.
Relative to which time do you count the increase of 1.1 K (9)?
In your post you’re talking about the Kopenhagen assertion that an increase of 2 degrees compared with pre-industrial temperature would be dangerous. What is that starting time? 1850? 1900? 1950?
Is the observed increase of ~0.8 K since ~1880 part of the 1.1 K (here multi decadal variations with periods of ~60 years almost level out)?
The observed time intervall up to 2100 is larger than one century. So which total temperature increase relative to now could be expected (ignoring all natural influences)?
I really enjoy your articles making many things much clearer to me. Thank you very much!
In answer to Herr Kohl, the starting-point for the industrial era is 1750. I should have made this clear in the head posting: so sorry. Thus, the 2 K since 1750 target is equivalent to 1.1 K warming by 2100 compared with today. So we have 85 years to go, and no warming this century so far.
I’m doing further work on this line of argument, using the IPCC’s data for forcings and feedbacks, and hope to report again when the work is complete.
Many thanks for your kind words. My aim is to give the reader an elementary understanding of the central equations and parameters that govern the question of how much warming we may cause, so that everyone can see for himself that it is not very likely we shall face a large manmade warming this century – or at all.
Lord Monckton,
thank you very much!
“The longer the world fails to warm at anything like the wildly exaggerated rates they predicted, the less likely it is that climate sensitivity is anything like as high as they have been trying to claim.” Lord MoB.
***************
That’s about it in a nutshell, surely?
Rising CO2 levels + lack of significant warming + lack of accelerated warming + lack of runaway positive feedbacks = climate Kryptonite for high climate sensitivity = RIP runaway global warming theory = we’re all still going to die anyway so what’s all the ***** fuss about?
If only we got some real climate change, then at least we’d die warm.
@ur momisugly Bob Lyman
Just the Volt and Leaf = 150,000 on road electric vehicles, add in the Tesla and others, well:
— your 25,000 EV number is off by an order of magnitude
— Two OoM when you add in the ~3 Million hybrids
Lord Monckton:
Technically, I would argue that (at best) all predictions/projections of future global average temperature anomalies are better made with a temperature change and a probability. Your first paragraphs almost do that, but you neglected the very real chance that today’s 2000-2015 “plateau” was actually a 60 year short-cycle peak near (or at!) the maximum of the 1000 year long cycle. Instead, you began by assuming that the minimum temperature chance between today and 2100 is +1 deg C.
Thus, future temperatures (longer than 85-170 years) may go down from today’s Modern WP.
Or, more likely, future natural cycle temperatures may “try” to go down measurably from today’s 2000-2015 plateau, but are balanced by increases in CO2 and thus global average anomalies may stay near the same as today’s Modern WP.
Every future temperature range is thus a probability:
0 to -1 deg C change => 5-10 % chance
0 to +1 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
1 to +2 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
2 to +3 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
3 to +4 deg C change => 10 – 20 % chance
> +4 deg C change => less than 5% chance of occurring.
Read the head posting, which demonstrates that the maxiumum, not the minimum, anthropogenic warming of the 20th century will be 1 C. The posting also makes it plain that there could be as little as 0.4 C on the mainstream estimates, and even less if feedbacks are net-negative or aerosol negative forcing persists throughout the century.
Probability distributions in the face of as many unknowns as there are in the climate are by no means easy. Essentially, this is a problem in probabilistic combinatorics – a technique in which I have some experience. But there is insufficient information for a meaningful probability distribution, which is why I prefer the logical technique of accepting the premises of the usual suspects and demonstrating what the conclusions ought logically to be. That leaves far less wriggle-room.
Predictions of variables and future probability distributions when there are missing variables are not very meaningful unless there is some accounting and confidence re the missing variables. Predicting is a weather problem not a long range climate – global temperature prediction problems. If long term cycles are important talking one might be able to speak intelligently about long term trends. The problem is system complexity, insufficient understanding and (therefore) too many degrees of freedom to model predictions.
Thank you.
Thank you RACook, PE
With respect, I suggest climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is so low that it will have an insignificant effect on future Earth temperatures, even IF CO2 continues to increase (and CO2 may even decrease if cooling is strong enough).
I wrote this in 2012 or earlier, and it is still “good enough”, imo.
I do think that global cooling will probably be measurable by 2020 or sooner, but we typically have to look back a few years before we can clearly see a new trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
[excerpts]
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
Hope I am wrong.
Given my reasoning below and my check list for items that may influence the direction of the climate if the climate does not cool going forward I will reconsider all of my positions.
First my check off list for the climate trend going forward.
Solar Variability – favorable for strong cooling and increasing as the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end.
Geo Magnetic Field – in a weakening mode which should enhance solar effects and contribute to a cooling trend.
Milankovitch Cycles- in contrast to 8000 years ago more favorable for cooling. N.H. summers now corresponding to aphelion.
Land/Ocean Arrangements- very favorable for cooling.
Ice Dynamic- neutral.
PDO/AMO/ENSO phase going forward should feature the cold phase with more La Nina’s.
Finally the secondary effects associated with very low solar activity from an increase in geological activity, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation to more clouds as some examples will favor cooling.
Let me try to approach it in this manner. The shortfall when it comes to climate is many are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow this opinion prevails that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition lag times need to be incorporated into the equation of the climate.
I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws many off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime.
Here are the four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never in an exact regular cycle.
The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.
This explains why the 1470 year climate cycle is there but it varies so much over time.
In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.
Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.
Then finally the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate the 1470 year semi cyclic cycle.
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.
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.
This article is speculation, about speculation, about the average temperature well in the future.
.
Speculation about speculation is mental masturbation, not science.
.
The future can not be predicted.
.
It may be warmer in 2100, or cooler.
.
No one knows.
The most important climate fact is the amount of CO2 in the air has never correlated with average temperature, so is not the primary driver of climate.
.
The second most important fact is that climate proxy studies have consistently shown natural climate variations, and there is no reason to assume they stopped in 1940 (and CO2 magically became the only driver of climate change)
.
The +2 C. number was pulled out of a hat (or from a lower location) — it’s primary purpose is political: To boost the fading strength of the climate change boogeyman, by being more specific.
.
It’s secondary purpose is to deflect debate away from whether CO2 is an important climate driver (it is not) and whether climate models are accurate predictors of the future (they are not) … toward debating about the +2 degree C. wild guess theory, a goal the author of this article has fallen for.
.
The author of this article wastes his obviously great intelligence on the +2 degree C. non-science (nonsense) theory by discussing it, when it should be ridiculed as the nonsense it is.
.
Based on climate proxy studies:
I think it’s safe to guess the climate in the past has varied by more than +/- 2 degrees C. between the ice ages.
.
If that is true, the 1850 Modern Warming is likely to reach +2 degrees C., or more before it ends, assuming it did not already end in 1998 — and that +2 degrees C. or more warming would be a natural climate variation … consistent with roughly estimated natural climate variations in the past using climate proxies (warming and cooling most likely caused by minor solar energy variations, in my opinion).
.
My climate blog for the average guy,
which includes a climate centerfold:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Mr Greene has missed the point of the head posting, which is that using mainstream IPCC methods and data one can show that there will be not more than 1 K manmade warming this century. I do not say how much there is or is not going to be: I merely say that if one relies on IPCC arguments one cannot make out a case for the very large 21st century warming they suggest.
Since the future climate can not be predicted, the IPCCs wild guesses are meaningless speculation.
.
Their models have no predictive ability even for the first ten years of their 100-year forecasts.
The models are not real science, because models are not real data — their “predictions” are nothing more than the personal opinions of the people who programmed the computers
Your “criticism” of the IPCC wild guesses is not particularly useful.
.
The correct answer to questions about the average temperature of Earth in 2100 is: NO ONE KNOWS if it will be warmer or cooler, much less how many degrees warmer or cooler.
.
Your post has a conclusion about the climate in 2100, yet you (and everyone else) have no idea about the climate in 2100.
The IPCC provides a range of wild guesses.
Based on climate proxy studies, the +2 degrees C. lower end of the range seems possible, while the +7 degrees C. upper end of the range seems crazy (and you are implying the +7 degrees C. upper range is so crazy it is not even be supported by anything in the IPCC back-up volumes.)
.
The important thing to remember is that the average temperature of earth in 2100 may be +2 degrees C., or even +7 degrees C., warmer (or colder) than today — no one knows that now.
.
But there is a lot of evidence available today to believe that an increase of CO2 from 400 to 500 ppmv, or even from 400 ppmv to 600 ppmv, will have no more than a minor effect on the average temperature
.
It is not human nature to ever want to say “I don’t know”
.
However, for questions about the future climate, the only logical answer is “I don’t know”.
Most important points to make in any “denier” article on the climate:
.
(1) Earth’s climate is always changing, and the future climate is always unknown.
(2) CO2 levels do not correlate with average temperature
(3) IPCC models are expensive, inaccurate wild guesses
(4) More CO2 in the air accelerates green plant growth = good news,
(5) The one or two degree F. warming in the past 135 years is perfectly normal for our planet, and nothing to worry about.
Mr Greene still misunderstands the actually quite simple head posting. The conclusion is predicated on the IPCC’s methods and data. If those methods and data are correct, then the conclusion follows, and the IPCC’s exaggerations have no basis in reality.
I have applied to their argument the first of Karl Popper’s four tests for acceptance that a hypothesis constitutes a defensible scientific statement – is its logic internally self-consistent?
The answer is No. Therefore, the IPCC’s argument for considerable warming by 2100 is unsound and no conclusion can be drawn from it except that which I have drawn: if it’s premises – notably the very substantial reduction in the feedback sum – are correct, then its conclusion that there will be substantial anthropogenic warming this century is false and the warming will be 1 K or less.
For the reasons given in our Chinese Academy paper at scibull.com (click “most read articles”), we consider it likely that the feedback sum is at most weakly positive. In that event, there will be little manmade warming even as a result of the combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels.
Such scientific conclusions may be of no interest to Mr Greene, but the quite substantial number of comments here suggest others are intrigued. This is a blog about science. It discusses scientific questions. If Mr Greene is not interested in such questions, that is his right. Let him suffer the loss of freedom and the savage taxes and regulations that the world government to be established at Copenhagen will bring.
To conclude that the ratio of two quantities (e.g., the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 Stock Index) is a constant is generally illogical for there are counter-examples. Why then should one believe that the ratio of the change in Earth’s global surface temperature at equilibrium to the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration, aka “the equilibrium climate change” (TECS) is a constant? So far as I have been able to determine, there is no reason for this belief. Somebody made it up.
Thus, the claim that the magnitude of TECS is around 3 Celsius per CO2 doubling should be disregarded. So should the claim that the magnitude is lower or higher. The hoopla over the “pause” is misguided.
I erred. In my post of July 10 please change “the equilibrium climate change” to “the equilibrium climate sensitivity.”