From NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change, according to a new NASA study published Dec. 14 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth. Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales. TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.
There have been many attempts to determine TCR and ECS values based on the history of temperature changes over the last 150 years and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide. As part of that calculation, researchers have relied on simplifying assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than carbon dioxide, such as tiny particles in the atmosphere known as aerosols, for example. It is well known that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet. In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight.
But the assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study. “The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,” he said, adding that only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations.
In a NASA first, researchers at GISS accomplished such a feat as they calculated the temperature impact of each of these variables–greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes–based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations. Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.
The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
###
“>>> these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe <<<"
Carbon dioxide is not uniformly spread throughout the globe and does not therefore produce "uniform response." Suffice to look at GOSAT and OCO-2 CO2 maps.
Gus, CO2 levels are worldwide within +/- 2% of full scale worldwide, including large (20% in and out) seasonal changes and the NH-SH lag.
The main difference measured by satellites is at ground level over land. Even if that was 1,000 ppmv for the first 1,000 m, the net effect would be no more than 0.1°C extra warming…
If indeed, CO 2 levels are well mixed within 2%, there is no point in launching satellites to “measure” and “verify” CO 2 emissions according to Paris. Moreover, if the satellite measures in the first 1,000 m which is in fact where most weather happens -lower troposphere MPHs- one can wonder what will be left of verification of emission patterns once MPHs will redistribute air masses.
In the end, GISS is simply finding a new “button” to play with in order to get their ad-hoc results. One can be sure that once this one will be debunked, they’ll try another one.
If they are claiming 1.7°C now, how in the hell did the “underestimate” it in the past when they have been trying to hang onto 3-4°C?!!!?
Read the part about TCR vs ECR again. 3.0 C is ECR.
After reading AR4’s definition of and constraints on TCR, it appears to be another made up fantasy to excuse their failed ‘projections’.
Skeo.. you were wrong. you didnt read carefully. There are good arguments against this paper.
Yours is not one of them.
“TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future,…”
If believers can not win the debate over the short term, extending their predictions centuries into the future is the only recourse they have.
I read as far as the definition of ECS– “when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized”– and gave up in disgust! What a hoot!
Mosher, there is validity to this if and only if the forcings and feedbacks are understood, they are not, thus this is intellectual fantasy. Period.
The question should be if they now claim that they have been underestimating ECS/TCS in the past, how the hell to do they account for being almost 100% in OVER-ESTIMATION of global warming over the last 20 years?
Logic be damned, they were wildly wrong so what the hell? Let’s shout even louder:
WOLF , WOLF , WOLF !!
What , why is no body listening any more?
Because Settled Science™
Self proclaimed environ-meterologists fail to take into account the natural climatic response to a change in any one of the components of the water cycle. Gavin’s statement demonstrates this:
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
Given that view, he will consistently overestimate what’s going to happen in the future. A position he has already shown to be true based on his predictions that have not materialized.
What happened to our trusted CMIP5 models?
You never see any mention of the immediate response of the global biome to changes of each climate driver. It’s pretty simple, too. More water vapor? Stuff grows. More CO2? Stuff grows. Earth’s rotation slowing? Stuff grows. Warmer? Stuff grows. Glaciers disappear? Stuff grows. All of that stuff that grows on the surface is food for something. All the stuff that grows in the ocean is food for something. More food means more stuff grows. Stuff is Earth’s thermostat and climate driver regulator.
+1
“when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized.” in fantasy land. This is the logical delusion that there is a perfect climate that underlies the UN nonsense.
If you have a systematic underestimate, then somewhere you must have an overestimate. So, what if the overestimate has more effect on the “ëqulibrium” than the underestimate. .After all, they live in a world of tipping points, which suggests there is plenty of capacity for the underestimate.
In other words, they are arguing that natural variation should not exist because the warmists say so. So the sun is constant, clouds are constant, wind direction and strength are constant.
So in effect, sunspots do not exist, clouds are all the same and a cyclone and a breeze are the same.
The math that eliminates those natural variations must need a super computer that does not exist yet.
What about the greenhouse gas alleged to be the most influential, H2O. Do they mention that anywhere?
Sorry, Pamela, you beat me to it.
Mods, delete if you like.
“Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
And yet Trenberth insists the missing heat is hiding in the oceans and Karl insists the pause is due to underestimating SST.
And who outside of the warmist clan believes them?
ABC radio downunder will ;-(
and theyll broadcast it as gospel truth,
luckily..there is a summer break..so r williams n the scence show wont be raving it up till ? mm feb probably
Wouldn’t that apply to CFC’s too? Or is it a well mixed gas as UNEP says? I’m so confused.
Well its important to keep trying to make a reason for your projections to be right. History and reality are to blame if you are wrong.
It’s always ‘worse then we thought’ in the land of Government bureaucrats justifying their own jobs.
Spot on Harry!!
Quite an exceptional alarmist paper – published a few days after the close of Paris COP21. 🙂
I guess they watched the liberal debates last night and realized they don’t have much time left to play their little games, so now they’ve gone ” All In ” !!!!
Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere
===============
this is nonsense because the models are trained based on past temperatures, and show similar projections regardless of aerosol loading.
this is clearly impossible if the models were modelling reality, because the models with higher aerosol loads should have run cooler according to Schmidt, But they don’t.
Thus Schmidt is talking through his hat, because the models all give a reasonable fit to past temperatures, even though they vary widely in their aerosol loads.
And contrary to what Schmidt argues, virtually all the models are projecting hot as compared to observed temperatures. This is the opposite of what he concludes should be happening.
“then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen” …Schmidt said.
Nope, the models projections are overestimating. You have things reversed.
models are extremely good at projecting the answer the model builder believes to be correct. otherwise, the builder changes the model until it does.
Especially when your assumption begins with “…… and the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide.”
you can be sure that not one climate model is bug-free. they all have errors. it is the nature of human beings that create models. the errors that corrected are those that bias the results in a direction opposite to what you believe to be correct. if the error delivers what appears to be the right answer, even if it completely wrong, you will not recognize the error.
“every non-trivial computer program has at least one undiscovered error.”
Computing tries very hard through classes, RFC and API to reduce that to none. Still to get there I suspect.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]
Actually, if you read ferdberple’s comment at 7:50AM, this means that the models should have shown LESS warming in the short term, and so are even MORE wrong.
Other than THAT, the science is settled.
Exemplified Wrongerness.
Because Gavin Schmidt looks like John Banner who played the sergeant-of-the-guard, Hans Schultz in the television comedy Hogan’s Heroes, I am reminded of these lines:
“I know nothing! I see nothing! I hear nothing!”
Still, it is nice to know they are still trying.
From Donald Rumsfeld:
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Umm, do you have Schmidt mixed up with someone else? He looks nothing like John Banner.
…he just acts like him.
I only saw it once, but there was a movie about an East German athlete who wanted to defect.
The athlete was played by the actress who played Klink’s secretary. The American who was playing the American trying to help her was Bob Crane (Hogan), the East German officer trying to stop the defection and his sergeant were the actors who played Klink and Schultz.
Wasn’t that good a movie, but the updating of the roles was cute.
The influence of aerosols is largely overestimated, not underestimated…
I made a comment in the early (better) days of RC on aerosols, comment #”6:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/
with no reaction of the guest authors of the article there (Ron Miller and Dorothy Koch from NASA GISS).
(Hé, RC is back on line!)
All depends of the weight you give to aerosols: they simply used it as compensation for the 1945-1976 cooling in the temperature record. If you give much weight to the negative impact of aerosols, then the TCS/ECS of CO2 is high and vv. The problem then is that these models which use a high aerosol/CO2 impact also are the models which now run (much) too hot…
See further a few comparisons I have done:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/aerosols.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
The latter shows that you can halve the impact of CO2 and use 1/4th of the aerosol impact and still show the same fit to the 20th century temperature trend…
I thought that it was the climate alarmist aer-soles that got it wrong :¬)
I suspect human aerosols have almost no impact at all. If they did China should see a major effect and they don’t. It is only major stratospheric eruptions that appear to inject enough aerosols to influence temperature. If I am right this leaves very little warming influence for CO2.
I think you are correct. Human aerosols and CO2 are not significant climate or temperature drivers. I think we will all agree that the major drivers of our climate are the sun and oceans. GHG are not responsible for the 33°C warmth we experience in the troposphere. They contribute a small percentage at best.
Thanks, Ferdinand. Your linked webpage shows you’ve done what the warmies should have already done. And should be doing in the now smoggier-than-ever Chinese areas. Of course, we know why such studies are of no interest to them…..
When all is said and done, it’s still just a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess).
More like “WAG” I’d say. There appears to be little or no science involved.
This may not even make the standard for a decent WAG.
Alternative acronym definition: Silly Wild Ass Guess
When all is said and done, there’s usually a lot more said, than done.
And therefore, logically the simplified opposite situation is true, with lessons to be learned being obvious.
John
So basically they are declaring that, whatever error they made in regard to not predicting the current “hiatus”, it was an even bigger error than they had previously made. It appears that their disease is incurable.
It’s hilarious they mention, “Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide.”, then avoid mentioning the most powerful GHG and the only one able to make a fast transient response at a regional level – water vapor.
Here it is again Gavin – model THIS!!! http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/wv-animated.gif
When has that ever happened in the past? What was the global temperature then?
“When has that ever happened in the past?” Well isn’t it obvious? http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
This news release and the abstract do not say what their new climate sensitivity estimates are.
The Supplemental says:
–> Transient Climate response 1.4C
–> Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity 2.3C
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate2888-s1.pdf
——————–
I get a kick out of they are just making up new “efficacy” estimates for all of the various forcings. Volcanoes impact the climate differently than Aerosols than GHGs than solar and so on.
What is the efficacy of aerosols (negative cooling effect) when they are increasing much faster in the northern hemisphere and it is the northern hemisphere that increasing in temperature fastest in their adjusted temperatures.
Illogical
Ithonk the word should be ‘ systemic’ not systematic
My god. How stupid. I think
” then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt (affiliated with GISS) said.”
This is one colossal assumption. When greenhouse gasses are by far the dominant climate driver. How can it possibly be known now that this will be the case at some point in future time? On what evidence? On all the hard evidence to date greenhouse gases are not the dominant driver. Or have I missed something?
Brian J in UK.
No, Brian, you haven’t missed anything. A fellow Brit (mathematician Mike Jonas) did an excellent analysis entitled “The Mathematics of CO2” which appeared in WUWT recently, and using the GCM equations, he did a “hindcast” of temperatures in earlier geological times. He concluded that CO2 accounted for 12% of the temperature effect. Willie Soon, who approached the matter from the perspective of the Sun’s effect, concluded that CO2 accounted for 14% of global warming. I’d hardly caonsider CO2 a “dominant driver”.
Try applying that maths to Venus. With 2400 times the concentration of CO2 and 230,000 times the mass of CO2 than Earth, the margin of error against reality gets quite hilarious! Feel free to adjust for solar proximity and albedo of course!
More unproven theories based on other unproven theories and it’s all made to sound like it’s fact. 40 years ago scientific theories would rarely be given the time of day by the MSM but now even mention an AGW connection and you’re published.
I wonder if NASA will ever get back its reputation for cutting edge science? Needs to clean out the stables first.
You just don’t understand. The NASA mission has changed. Now they are supposed to make the Muslims feel good that they have not advanced culturally or scientifically since about 1400 AD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/charles-bolden-nasas-fore_n_637854.html
Jon Jewett commented: “…. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/charles-bolden-nasas-fore_n_637854.htm l….”
This administration has made a complete mockery of science and technology. As well, every facet of our government has hijacked all available resources for agendas contrary to our way of life and beliefs.
Oui!
“in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.”
Dr. Schmidt offers a prediction that CO2 will dominate over natural causes of climate change, like ENSO and the Sun (I suppose).
That must be because at the present time, after almost 19 years of not warming and CO2 increasing “business as usual”, his greenhouse theory of global warming has not proven capable of predicting it.
AV, the relevant responsive soundbite (and I checked the Keeling curve this morning)
Gavin, how do you explain that 1/3 of the increase in CO2 happened this century, yet in this century there has been no warming? TAR, AR4, and AR5 said there would be a lot. You saying they got aerosols wrong? But Obama promised the science was settled.
I seem to remember the pollution by SO2 being given as the reason that the hole in the ozone layer was smaller in the northern hemisphere despite it being the major source of CFC pollution. Recycling, I suppose.
SO2 is probably why my 73 Ford Gran Torino rusted out. It was heartbreaking; I should of sued big coal.
Gavin needs to learn the Army’s first rule of holes. If you are in one and want out, first thing to do is stop digging. Here he is, furiously digging a deeper hole.
China is in the northern hemisphere. Yet the albedo of both is the same (Webster paper), and the northern hemisphere has not ‘cooled’ relative to the southern according to UAH. Schmidt’s aerosol sensitivity myth is double busted.
Interestingly since 1998 the hemisphere have diverged. Only it is not the Northern one that has cooled.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1997/trend
Interesting plot, CMS! Thank you for that.
Here’s the HADCRUT3 version of the same plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1960/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1960/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1997/trend
“The assumptions … are too simplistic” then the other side of the mouth is saying “the science is settled.”
I wonder if these guys ever hear what comes out of their won mouths
Correction … correction … own, not won …
Yes, I was struck by “only within the last ten years has there been enough available data on aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations”.
So all the panic of the previous twenty-odd years since Thatcher started the ball rolling was based on simplistic assumptions and imprecise calculations.
Yep. “We were wrong before, but NOW we know.”
Dilbert: “I’m almost certain that was nonsense.”
Wally: “Sometimes it’s about the journey.”
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-12-20
Or was I actually reading something from Marvel Comics? Maybe!
So, another “theory” to try and explain the future climate and particularly temperatures. However, yet again in order to test this latest theory, we have to accurately measure average global temperatures, if only to see if the theory gives temperatures and trends that matches past records and the theory’s predictions.
It therefore seems to me, with my relatively simple brain and non-genius intelligence that the world should not be spending massive amounts of money on researching theories, but first we should be establishing an accurate and reliable/consistent method of temperature measurement which, in turn, can be used to test such theories. Otherwise we will get nowhere. Climate change per se is unquantifiable and undefined and has no datum against which we can compare to test any such theories. It is also un-measurable and therefore incapable of being assessed/checked and, I suspect, Climate Change has been substituted for by the warmists and the IPCC following the lack of fit of current records with their various past theories. Climate Change can mean all things to all people making it and ideal dogma for the new religion; substitute faith for science as been done many times before!
Therein lies a difficulty for my simple mind: the warmists are adamant that land/sea level based weather stations be used, if only because the satellite data goes back only 30-40 years at most, doesn’t give the answers and data they need but particularly because the extent of the “data adjustments” needed for their various land and sea level based measurements can, where needed, prove anything to everybody.
Looking at this problem, from the outside there are several types of adjustment and weightings, most if not all of which are independent variables, including:
1. natural effects cycles such as El Nino, volcanic actions etc. etc.
2. the area covered by each separate weather station, needed to arrive at any average temperature value.
3. Elevation of the weather station, the old way of dealing with this for weather forecasts was a drop in temperature of 1 degree C for very 1000 ft. elevation above datum SWL
4. Reliability and accuracy of each temperature measuring devise, the type of measuring device and the frequency of measurement.
5. Heat Island effects which should normally be temperature reductions.
All these variables need a multitude of adjustments which as a single type group has an average value and a standard deviation. If there are 5 such groups then the value of the overall average global temperature ultimately arrived at, itself has a very much larger standard deviation: even for equal group SD’s the system SD is well over twice as much.This renders the 95% ile spread around the calculated average global temperature far, far wider, i.e. a massive reduction in confidence with the outcome.
Yet the warmists are pontificating and winding the world up about a forecast decadal average global temperature rise of only 0.1-0.15 degrees C’s. This is surely a target for the land/sea measurements far outside the reliability, accuracy and adequacy of the methods of measurement adopted, and certainly no basis for any meaningful investment analysis required for the worldwide, and particularly Developed Countries’ £billions being thrown at the CAGW – sorry, Climate Change, projects. The satellite data is massively more useful, if only because many of these adjustment variations do not apply!
Someone please tell me I’m wrong and that I’m missing some critical evidence or basic science/statistics. If its even remotely true the Developed Countries will accelerate even fast into atheism.
Wow! Particles blasted into the upper atmosphere by volcanoes cool the earth! So the brilliant NOAA workers naturally assume that all particles act like upper atmosphere particles.
“…land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight…”
Just how much land is identified as deforested in those models?
a) Assuming that deforestation reflected light is just assigning numbers to reduced chlorophyll light capture.
Those brilliant NOAA modelers do allow forest to regrow within a couple of years, of course? Or is land light reflectance an ongoing assumption and another fudge number input?
Simplistic? Incorrect TCR and ECS?
Gavin Schmidt publicly acknowledges that the climate models do not utilize correct TCR and ECS? That these same climate models are bulls***!?
Now that there is enough data to attempt regional calculations, surely this unique regional information will be published and vetted first for regions before assuming that global calculations will be correct?
“…aerosols to abandon the simple assumption and instead attempt detailed calculations…”
Hmmm, the simple calculations are false; so it is time to jump to complex calculations?
Normally it is unwise to attribute motives to maliciousness when simplistic stupidity is so much more likely.
Then again, humble Gavin with his sheer amount of hubris blatantly admits, a) the models are wrong, b) simple bombastic assumptions are wrong, c) then it is time to use complex calculations. Simplistic stupidity is obviously out.
“land use changes–based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations.
Historical observations? Land use changes? Massive ensemble of computer runs?
Oxymoron!
“Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide”
Do tell! Well, that is news; imagine that, land use and particles do not follow the laws for gases? And just how long has the climate models been applying gas laws to particles and land?
Since mankind does not force their particles into the upper atmosphere, we do assume that particles are quickly brought back to earth by natural forces like rainstorms and gravity; causing negative impacts to Arctic areas… But Gavin and his workers wouldn’t be that honest, would they?
“The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel”
Reveal? Perhaps a little too much Harry Potter?
“There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
So deforested land reflects more light, but sulfate particles reflect even more? Or does the land somehow capture more light when sulfate particles are in the atmosphere?
I am very interested in the matter, as I am very shocked by the rapid changes that climate passes through. I share the opinion that the ocean and, by expanding, the war at sea and the ocean activity, have a great impact on the way the climate changes. In order to determine steps in stabilizing the climate, I guess we must first understand how we got in this situation in the first place. I support an interesting thesis on the matter, available on http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/, where Prof. A. Bernaerts has a synthesis of his booklet on Naval War changes Climate. The idea is that understanding the oceans and their role in climate change, will help us predict the future.
Perhaps they can provide an exact definition of El Niño and predict its effects.
Well, far better to fix the model than “fix” the data. But if their idea of fixing is increasing ECS to CO2…hooboy, cruisin’ for a bruisin’.
This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–….–has been underestimated,
===
Another excuse for the pause…..
How about something really simple…..We’re just in another small up-tic on the way down
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
So Latitude, looking at the graphic, it appears that the earth, or at least the far north of the earth has been beyond the dangerous 2*C at least a dozen times in the last 10,000 years.
My question is, how are we still here?
We learned to take off our jumpers….
I have always liked this graph……ha!
Just when you though it couldn’t get any worse… they substitute hamster vomit for science.
Come on man. It is a fact not a theory that the cult of CAGW’s models are incorrect. What is the mistake in the Cult’s models?
The cult of CAGW’s general circulation models (GCM) are incorrect as the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 0.1C warming without feedbacks, not 1.2C. As 0.1C is very small, the without feedbacks surface warming and with feedbacks warming is the same. The corollary of the assertion that the surface warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 0.1C, is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The physical reason why the Cult of CAGW no feedback calculation is too high by a factor of around 15, is the radiation warming of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is offset by an increase in convection (it is a fact, not a theory that hot gases rise in the atmosphere and which causes cold gases to fall, convection dominates in the atmosphere up to around 11km, there is absolutely no scientific reason to turn off convection for the cult of CAGW’s 1 dimension surface warming calculation). The increase in convection cooling causes there to be a slight reduction in the lapse rate (the term ‘lapse rate’ is the name for the roughly linear change of temperature with altitude in the atmosphere, the reason why the temperature change with altitude in the atmosphere below roughly 11km is linear is the physical process which we call convection) so there is less surface warming.
The cult of CAGW’s so called no ‘feedback’ 1 dimensional warming calculation for doubling of atmospheric CO2 made two known incorrect assumptions.
1) The Cult assumed that there is no increase in convection cooling due the increased CO2. Convection-Radiation equilibrium calculations indicates the surface cooling due to convection pre increase in CO2 is roughly 34C. I repeat there is surface cooling due to convection of roughly 34C. Of course convection processes do not stop based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 in the atmosphere more convection cooling.
Salby’s text book ‘Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate page 240 includes a graph from a 1967 paper that illustrates the convection cooling.
Figure 8.23 Temperature under radiative equilibrium (solid line) and radiative convection equilibrium (dashed line) from calculations that include mean distribution of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Adapted from Manabe and Wetherald (1967).
Salby in his text book does a high level first principals analysis (he derives the atmospheric equations for temperature vs altitude below 11 km using first principal physics and then plots radiative equilibrium (temperature in the atmosphere if there was no convection cooling only radiative warming) vs radiative-convection equilibrium (temperature in the atmosphere due to both radiative warming and convection cooling) from the surface of the planet to 20km for different water vapor concentrations. Salby’ first principals calculation confirms Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 analysis that under radiative convection equilibrium the earth’s surface is 34C colder due to the ‘greenhouse’ gas convection cooling.
Salby pages 237-238 from his text book.
2) The second cult of CAGW’s ‘mistake’ for the 1 dimension no feedback doubling calculation is they ‘ignored’ the spectral overlap of water vapor and CO2. As there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower troposphere particularly in the tropics and as the planet is 70% covered with water, this mistake significantly reduces the surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Taking into account the spectral overlap of water vapor and CO2 reduces the total surface forcing by roughly a factor of 4.
If ‘mistake’ 1 and ‘mistake’ 2 are taken into account the SURFACE forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 0.1C warming with no feedbacks. There is no CAGW problem to solve, there is no AGW problem to solve.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1
Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with James Hansen concerning the assumptions for the 1 dimensional no ‘feedbacks’ surface warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Check out figure 2 in this paper. Redoing the 1-dimension calculation with taking into account the reduced forcing in the lower atmosphere due to the overlap of water and CO2 reduces the forcing by a factor of 4 which reduces also reduces the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to around 0.2C.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
William I believe you’ve just made a case for CAGW, Computer Aided Global Warming.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]
I marvel at the authors apparent complete ignorance of when we live. The number 11,718 (11,719 in less than 2 weeks) should be the most ominous number in the first debate on climate change (GHGs) as it is in the other 2 debates (namely the age of the Holocene and the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis). Ignorance is such bliss! It truly is like 2 dogs arguing over who owns the dog they are riding on! You see 7 of the last 8 interglacials (save MIS-11) have each lasted about half a precession cycle. The precession cycle varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years and we are at the 23,000 part right now, making 11,500 half. We should be entering, and may already have entered, glacial inception at our present 11,718 year age.
But the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis of Ruddiman is really what makes the entire discussion of this article/paper, and for that matter the entire first debate, the purest trivial pursuit. The most concise description of this hypothesis was provided by Mueller and Pross in 2007:
“The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
This is what makes the entire discourse on climate change one of the more definitive intelligence tests ever devised. If one is absolutely right about “carbon pollution”, then you simply could not be more wrong about what to do about it. Strip the heathen devil gas CO2 out of the late Holocene atmosphere and thereby remove the only known speedbump to glacial inception.
And, you know, for those mucho concerned about extreme climate/weather/what have you, heed the advice of Neuman and Hearty (1996):
“Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.
“The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”.”
So enjoy the interglacial, while it lasts……….
Thanks!
This could well be the end of it with the advent of the next solar minimum, especially if a Bond event coincides with a grand minimum event. There was an unusual early drop in the upper NH back in early October of this year. No weather site or media site has made any mention of it, but 2/3rds of the upper NH experienced temperature drops of 20F to 37F below average. Most of Siberia is still feeling the effects from that. Take a look at Intellicast’s global view of the freeze line in Eurasia. That line sits close to Bangladesh. Look how much of the land mass Eurasia and North America is covered by the freeze line…http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Current.aspx
Then there is this Arctic view which I watch daily for changes. This is where I first noticed the sharp change back in early October…http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Arctic?symbols=none&type=lapse
I always thought the sun was by far the dominant climate driver, I must have had a bad teacher.
I’m underwhelmed. 64 comments so far, and only one afaics has picked up on the essental feature of Gavin’s paper : it refers to “recent climate change” yet makes no menton of the oceans other than to say that they react slowly to his precious CO2 forcing. Blind Freddie can see that the ocean oscillations affect climate over the timescale being considered. By not taking ocean oscillations into account, Gavin’s paper is a waste of space.
NB. I’m only pointing out one very important factor that’s missing. There obviously are others (hydrological cycle, clouds, everything in the Stadium Wave, those things in the upper atmosphere that shift latitude, need I go on). Gavin’s paper is a demonstration of stunningly stupid tunnel vision in a desperate and ridiculously pathetic attempt to restore confidence in the appallingly useless climate models.
But today, the comments here have been on a similar level. Please lift your game, everyone, we’re talking about climate and it consists of one hell of a lot more than the very few selected factors that Gavin wants to talk about.
OK, I’ve cooled down a bit and gone through the comments more carefully, and there were several really good comments. My apologies to those commenters. But it really is important to think outside Gavin’s little box.
In the end this paper is Marvel’s Comics… 😉
The simplicity of Gavin’s paper is breathtaking. What 150 years of data can be used to extrapolate the future? Is this the same Gavin that stands in front of audiences extolling the virtues of the models claiming how quickly they are developing and becoming more accurate? You know “….the challenge is one of scale…. 14 Magnitudes of scale… empirical phenomenological approximations…”. Sheesh – all he needed was “historical observations from 1850 to 2005”. He must be seriously ticked off!!
In the introduction it looks like it is question about climate sensitivity (CS) and especially transient CS (TCS). IPCC introduces new definitions in its every report but I have understood that TCR and TCS are the same things in practice. IPCC does not give any accurate value for TCS in AR5 but only the limits: likely in the range from 1.0 C to 2.5 C (average 1.75 C) and very unlikely more than 3.0 C. This is the same old figure from AR4, when the average value of TCS was 1.85 C.
The point is, how IPCC calculates this value. It is simply TCS = 0.5 (K/(W/m2))* 3.7 W/m2 =1.85 C. We should discuss, is this formula correct and what are the assumptions. The first assumption is that there is constant relative humidity (RH) in the atmosphere. But the NOAA provided RH data shows that this is not true. The lambda value of 0.5 means that the increased water amount in the atmosphere doubles the warming effect of CO2. According to AR5, water could increase the warming even by a factor of 3. This number comes out of blue and it means that IPCC’s knowledge about the effects of water is getting more inaccurate –not more accurate. It also look like that IPCC can introduce any numbers and test, if there are any reactions. I have not seen any reactions. If the total water amount is stable – about 2.6 prcm – the lambda value is 0.27.
The lambda value of about 0.27 means that TCR is about 1.1 to 1.2 C. This is a results found in many papers. But these papers have used the formula of Myhre et al. for radiative forcing (RF) of CO2. It looks that hardly anybody has noticed that Shi, who also has calculated and introduced a formula giving practically the results as Myhre er al. writes that he did the calculations in the constant RH conditions. It means that this commonly used formula contains the doubling effect of water. I have calculated this same formula and its form is RF = 3.12 * ln(CO2/280). This formula gives RF for doubling of CO2 concentration is 2.16 W/m2. These figures show that about 2/3 of the TCS value is based on the positive water feedback.
I do not understand why you discuss about aerosols and so on. It has nothing to do with TCS or TCR. It is only question about CO2 and its warming effects.
Try that maths for Venus! Feel free to multiply or divide for solar proximity and albedo. When you realise the maths for CO2 sensitivity just doesn’t add up there, it’s a short step to realising it doesn’t add up here either!
aveollila wrote, ” The lambda value of 0.5 means that the increased water amount in the atmosphere doubles the warming effect of CO2. According to AR5, water could increase the warming even by a factor of 3. This number comes out of blue…”
Such multipliers seem way too high.
I ran some numbers through the U.Chicago’s online MODTRAN interface, and for a tropical atmosphere with cumulus 0.66km-2.7km, and const rel humidity (to account for water vapor feedback/amplification) a doubling of CO2 (from 285 to 570) was calculated to result in just 0.81°C of warming.
I also compared constant H2O pressure (i.e., not taking account of water vapor amplification) to constant relative humidity (i.e., with water vapor amplification). For a clear sky it calculated 0.88°C vs. 0.96°C of warming. I.e., water vapor feedback amplified warming by only 8%.
The same exercise done with an earlier version of U.Chicago’s MODTRAN interface showed 65% amplification. I cannot account for the change.
But, either way, it’s inconsistent with the IPCC’s numbers. Even +65% is much less amplification than the IPCC assumes.
Of course, MODTRAN is just a radiation model. It takes no account of any other feedbacks, positive or negative, besides water vapor amplification. Also, although the tropics get a disproportionate amount of sunlight, so that’s where GHGs matter the most, it is still true that farther from the equator sensitivity should be slightly higher, because the air is dryer, so water vapor amplification should increase. That should increase the globally averaged amplification a little bit, over what MODTRAN tropical atmosphere calculates.
Even so, 2x or 3x (+100% or +200%) amplification from water vapor seems way too high.
Correction:
I wrote: “I.e., water vapor feedback amplified warming by only 8%.”
Actually, it’s more like 9%.
When I read: “when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilized”, my eyes glazed over and I moved on to the comments to gain a better understanding of the nonsense. This is yet another despairing, brain-numbing, attempt to convince people that their climate models are not just pieces of useless, self-serving, grant-earning junk.
Gavin Schmidt continues to prove he is a DOLT. This graphic shows zero sensitivity to CO2:
http://climate4you.com/images/GISS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
Why is CO2 sensitivity equal to zero? and Why is Gavin Schmidt a dolt?
While CO2 increased since 1958 as shown above, the only direction temperatures should have gone with a POSITIVE valued ECS or TCS is upward, and considering the heavy emphasis given to CO2 by Schmidt et al, there should only be a positive slope upward in the temperature series post-1958.
The reality of the temperature series is there were three different periods where the temp series had 1) a negative slope from 1958 to 1976, 2) a positive slope from 1976 to 2003-ish, and 3) a practically flat slope since then. Logic dictates that a POSITIVE sloped value of ECS/TCS cannot account for three different trajectories of temperature that all go in different directions: one negative, one positive, one flat.
Therefore CO2 doesn’t do anything wrt temperatures.
What the warmists have assumed their correctness and ignored everything and everyone else. What they have done is a crime against science and humanity, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be prosecuted for it.
Gavin Schmidt is a pathetic excuse for a scientist and just TOO DUMB to understand that. He is a DOLT!
What is a dolt?
dolt (dōlt) n. A stupid person; a dunce. [Middle English dulte, from past participle of dullen, to dull, from dul, dull; see dull.] dolt′ish adj. dolt′ish·ly …
Gavin, I know you read these articles. If you weren’t such a coward you wouldn’t hesitate to tell me why I’m wrong, right here, right now. I’m waiting… of course you’ll never show up here… p*s*y!
James Hansen and Stephen Schneider (RIP) were the original perps in this worldwide deception.
They don’t escape this judgement either.
Bob Weber wrote, “Why is CO2 sensitivity equal to zero… While CO2 increased since 1958 as shown above, the only direction temperatures should have gone with a POSITIVE valued ECS or TCS is upward… there should only be a positive slope upward in the temperature series post-1958… Therefore CO2 doesn’t do anything wrt temperatures.”
That’s dead wrong. The fact that temperatures haven’t always gone up with CO2 does not mean that “CO2 doesn’t do anything w/r/t temperatures.” Rather, it means that CO2 does’t do everything w/r/t temperatures.
Many things affect temperatures. Even Gavin wouldn’t say that CO2 is the only thing that affects temperatures.
Bob Weber wrote, “Gavin Schmidt [is] a dolt… [a] coward… [and a] p*s*y!”
That does not elevate the conversation, Bob.
Dave Burton writes: “That’s dead wrong. The fact that temperatures haven’t always gone up with CO2 does not mean that “CO2 doesn’t do anything w/r/t temperatures.””
I doubt anyone reading these pages doubts there are factors other than carbon dioxide that effect temperatures, the point is whatever they are, they aren’t considered in contemporary climate models even as those models are used to set public policy. It’s bad science and bad politics.
This is the sort of rubbish one gets when research is done starting with the answer and trying to work backwards to get to the original premise, which is really the basis of all climate change theory. Start with the answer that is scarier than what’s happened before and work the science so that you get that answer. Unfortunately you end up with fiction not facts.
David S on December 20, 2015 at 1:46 pm
– – – – – –
David S,
You have given a circumspect conception of ‘pseudo-science’.
To a scientist with scientific integrity it represents the negation of science.
John
If you’re systematically adding energy for an effect that doesn’t exist you will consistently overestimate future temperatures.
“Estimates of future global temperatures … ” (STOP RIGHT THERE).
Fiddlesticks, bunkum, nonsense: it’s all estimated smoke and mirrors !
Smoke is made of that smokey stuff … oh yes and mirrors are made of …
Mirror stuff?
+1 funny!
Let’s see, double the garbage in, adding lots of gee-whiz “new” stuff like aeorosols (why didn’t we think of that?), ozone, and land-use changes. Wowee, the “new stuff” is pretty potent, way more than expected – it has to be in order to “explain” the “Pause” (or whatever they’re calling it now). Then, take away the new stuff, and boom! You get the “real” forcing power of our CO2, meaning, we’re not only doomed, but double-doomed.
These people have the audacity to call themselves scientists?
One explanation for the late 20th century warming is the reduction of pollutant aerosols due to the Clean air Acts in the US and Europe.
The late 20th Century warming (if manmade) may not be caused by CO2 but rather the result of man cleaning up the atmosphere as from the 1970s onwards.
+1 I’ve been saying the same thing for a couple years without anything but gut feel to back it up.
richard verney wrote, “One explanation for the late 20th century warming is the reduction of pollutant aerosols due to the Clean air Acts in the US and Europe.”
Agreed. Or, at least, a larger portion of the 1980s & 1990s warming than had previously been assumed might be due to the reduction in aerosol pollution, and a smaller portion due to GHGs. More here.
What has been the increase in Chinese and other Asian aerosol pollutants before we make assumptions about how clean the air is now? Given the gross inadequacies of CAGW modeling, I don’t think we need to help find excuses for why their “results” actually came about. I don’t think they did. And the way they keep bastardizing the data it will soon be impossible to say.
“The problem with that approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables,”
So we should look at the regional impacts? For 15 years the US CO2 output has been steady or declining.
Oh! We can discount this because of good mixing – CO2 is still going up.
Well how about sulphate? Except for very major eruptions that load the stratosphere, it is considered more regional. Where are the numbers for the US? Using cleaner fuels and coal and scrubbing power station exhaust I would expect the sulphate to be decreasing dramatically in the US (maybe not in China).
Marvel and Schmidt say the land should be responding faster than the whole hemisphere, so what is happening to US continental temperatures?
Based on this the US region has increasing CO2 and decreasing sulphate and temperatures should be skyrocketing!
Marvel and Schmidt use 1996 to 2005 ?global GISS temperatures?
Why not the best land surface air temperature record in the world (the least fudged)?
If we use the USCRN from 2004 to 2014 the regional temperature has declined (well maybe with error bars it has not changed at all).
This means TCR and ECS are negative (or so close to zero we can’t tell the difference)!
That is the temperature changes we see are all from other (neither CO2 nor sulphate) natural changes.
With a such a scenario in global warming, how groups are prognasticating on sea level rise, ice melt, poverty, etc etc? Also, they are trying to attribute every unusual event to global warming and also, naturally occurring floods, droughts, heat & cold waves, etc. Hypocracy thy name. Unfortunately such people in India [Al Gore & IPCC PR groups] fill the electronic and print media with such stories and sensationalize or glorify the global warming. When we question them, the reply similar to IPCC “when so many people are telling why you deny”. Also, IPCC & Al Gore Noble Prize giving the boost to false propoganda. We must stop such propoganda, otherwise the science of climate change will reach its natural death in no time.
Globally, the temperatures are showing high variation in trend and average anomaly with country to country, region to region within a country, land to ocean, southern hemisphere to northern hemisphere.
Dr. S. Jeevanada Reddy
OK how about some less recent history that is about science and trying to develop understanding:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-annual-holiday-book-show-1.3371470/the-real-planet-of-the-apes-1.3371529
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-annual-holiday-book-show-1.3371470/dark-matter-and-the-dinosaurs-1.3371510
wickedwenchfan December 20, 2015 at 2:29 pm said “Try applying that maths to Venus. With 2400 times the concentration of CO2 and 230,000 times the mass of CO2 than Earth, the margin of error against reality gets quite hilarious! Feel free to adjust for solar proximity and albedo of course!”
Mathematics and assumptions based on small changes in a minute concentration of CO2 are unlikely to be valid when extended to a massive concentration in another planet’s atmosphere. What we do know is that Venus’s surface temperature is very hot, we believe there is a massive concentration of CO2 in Venus’s atmosphere, and we know that it has a high pressure at the surface. Assuming that Venus was created at the same time as the Earth, and is composed of similar materials, including the same amounts of radioactive particles, then the amount of heat leaking out of Venus’s surface should be a bit less than from Earth due to its smaller mass. But earth has a very thin atmosphere, and the heat is quickly radiated away. Venus has a massive thermal blanket and the heat can only escape by convection. So the bottom of the thermal blanket is hot, there is substantial convection to cool the surface, but because of the pressure change from top to bottom – the same gas laws must apply on Venus as on Earth, the bottom of the atmosphere must remain hot. Margin of error unchanged. Reality very hot! Fact, not hilarious.
Dudley. What complete and utter horse puckey! First let’s point out that Venus is the original “runaway greenhouse effect” scare story that we are supposed to be trying to avoid. The reason the “CO2 sensitivity” maths doesn’t work there has nothing to do with Vulcanism or any other excuse. It doesn’t work because the number isn’t derived from experiment or any form of acceptable science. It is a number pulled out of a warmists rear end for the purpose of making pseudo science here on Earth. If you apply it anywhere else it is exposed for what it is: Garbage!
Secondly, the temperature in Venus’s atmosphere at sea level pressure is 66C or 339K which is EXACTLY what the distance ratio to the sun compared to Earth calculates it should be if no other factors were relevant! Any scientist would realise this observation PROVES that no other factors are relevant! This includes any theory they learnt at school or university. Holding on to any theory after this observation that contradicts it changes the scientist into an “incompetent expert” or dogmatic pseudo science priest!
From here we can use any of the theories about gravitational thermal and pressure gradients to make simple calculations of descending lapse rate to accurately predict the temperature of Venus to its surface. The maths and physics of this method are universal and well established. Most importantly, they WORK! Not just here or on Venus but on every planet in the solar system!
There is no key to predicting global temperatures. All we can predict is that next summer will be warm and the next winter will be cold. How warm the summer will be, or how cold the winter will be depends solely on Mother Nature.
You may find Dan Pangburn’s temperature model of interest.
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/
See Figure 1.1.
Dan has built a simple Earth-temperature (climate?) model that has two significant inputs variables:
– solar intensity (the integral thereof, which makes sense) and
– a ~60year sawtooth (AMO/PDO?)
Normally I would redo Dan’s model from scratch but I have no time.
I suggest others should examine it – it is simple and sensible and does not require any fudging of data (such as the fabricated aerosol data used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975).
I note that Dan’s model predicts imminent global cooling. This agrees with my (our) own opinion, which we first published in 2002. We now expect natural global cooling to be evident after the current El Nino runs its course, by 2020 or probably sooner.
Regards, Allan
Please excuse my ignorance, but I have never seen an estimate for the theoretical maximum temperature that water vapor could possibly warm the atmosphere. Logic tells me that before you reach 100% saturation, there would be increases in rain, snow and clouds that would act to cool the troposphere and become a negative feedback.
I know the “death spiral” of rising temps is fantasy, but what is the worst water vapor can do?
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
I say:
“If you’ve got a systematic OVERestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically OVERestimating what’s going to happen in the future.
FURTHERMORE, HUMANMADE INCREASES IN ATMSPHERIC CO2 WILL NEVER BE the dominant climate driver,”
FINALLY, BOTH TCR AND ECS ARE LESS THAN 1C. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
What you do when your pet paradigm-hypothesis js in crisis… draw more epicycles. Or in this case adjust some random parameter like aerosols to keep the fantasy alive a bit longer.
Pure Cargo Cult Science in action. Adjust the bamboo radio headsets and maybe this time the airplanes will start landing is the approach by Ms. Marvel, the Climastrologist.
“Examination of Earth’s recent history key to predicting global temperatures”
Astrophysicist Dr Nir Shaviv has looked at the same subject and arrived at a different conclusion:
Regarding projections by the IPCC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB3v86epTw
Regarding solar forcing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCEW2shDSU
Apocalypse cancelled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k385CraNIyY
If the ECS and TCR have “been underestimated,” why have almost all of the models overestimated warming by a factor of 2-3?
Is their conclusion solely based on their assumption that aerosol cooling has been underestimated?
Occam’s Razor might actually apply here. This reminds me of the Ptolemaic invocation of epicycles as an explanation of retrograde motion.
Hi David,
Re aerosols:
Fabricated aerosol data was used in the models cited by the IPCC to force-hindcast the natural global cooling from ~1940-1975). Here is the evidence.
Re Dr. Douglas Hoyt: Here are his publications:.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/bio.htm
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/26/the-role-of-sulfur-dioxide-aerosols-in-climate-change/#comment-1946228
We’ve known the warmists’ climate models were false alarmist nonsense for a long time.
As I wrote (above) in 2006:
“I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975…. …the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/28/wild-card-in-climate-models-found-and-thats-a-no-no/#comment-2036857
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#comment-151040
Allan MacRae (03:23:07) 28/06/2009 [excerpt]
Repeating Hoyt : “In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly.”
___________________________
Here is an email received from Douglas Hoyt [in 2009 – my comments in square brackets]:
It [aerosol numbers used in climate models] comes from the modelling work of Charlson where total aerosol optical depth is modeled as being proportional to industrial activity.
[For example, the 1992 paper in Science by Charlson, Hansen et al]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5043/423
or [the 2000 letter report to James Baker from Hansen and Ramaswamy]
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DjVCJ3s0PeYJ:www-nacip.ucsd.edu/Ltr-Baker.pdf+%22aerosol+optical+depth%22+time+dependence&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
where it says [para 2 of covering letter] “aerosols are not measured with an accuracy that allows determination of even the sign of annual or decadal trends of aerosol climate forcing.”
Let’s turn the question on its head and ask to see the raw measurements of atmospheric transmission that support Charlson.
Hint: There aren’t any, as the statement from the workshop above confirms.
__________________________
IN SUMMARY
There are actual measurements by Hoyt and others that show NO trends in atmospheric aerosols, but volcanic events are clearly evident.
So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and “cooked up” (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.
Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore must predict the future with accuracy. (NOT)
That is the evidence of fabrication of the aerosol data used in climate models that (falsely) predict catastrophic humanmade global warming.
And we are going to spend trillions and cripple our Western economies based on this fabrication of false data, this model cooking, this nonsense?
*************************************************
Reply
Allan MacRae
September 28, 2015 at 10:34 am
More from Doug Hoyt in 206:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-around-to-natural-variability/#comments
[excerpt]
Answer: Probably no. Please see Douglas Hoyt’s post below. He is the same D.V. Hoyt who authored/co-authored the four papers referenced below.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?” Yes.
“Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century. Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan. There is no funding to do complete checks.
***********************
IPCC 2007:
Stott et al. (2006c) estimate TCR based on scaling factors for the response to greenhouse gases only (separated from aerosol and natural forcing in a three-pattern optimal detection analysis) using fingerprints from three different model simulations (Figure 9.21) and find a relatively tight constraint. Using three model simulations together, their estimated median TCR is 2.1°C at the time of CO2 doubling (based on a 1% yr–1 increase in CO2), with a 5 to 95% range of 1.5°C to 2.8°C. Note that since TCR scales linearly with the errors in the estimated scaling factors, estimates do not show a tendency for a long upper tail, as is the case for ECS. However, the separation of greenhouse gas response from the responses to other external forcing in a multi-fingerprint analysis introduces a small uncertainty, illustrated by small differences in results between three models (Figure 9.21). The TCR does not scale linearly with ECS because the transient response is strongly influenced by the speed with which the ocean transports heat into its interior, while the equilibrium sensitivity is governed by feedback strengths (discussion in Frame et al., 2005).
Thank you nobodysknowledge. I make no assumption as to your position on this matter.
The quotation you cite from IPCC 2007 assumes that climate sensitivity (to increasing atmospheric CO2) includes feedbacks that are positive.
I have seen NO evidence that such feedbacks are positive and suggest there is ample evidence that these feedbacks are either near-zero or negative.
If the feedbacks are negative then climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is less than ~1C, and possibly much less; and if that is true then there is no global warming crisis.
The global cooling period that occurred from ~1940-1975 provides evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero.
Regards, Allan
Author Kate Marvel: “I’m sorry but climate sensitivity might be higher than we thought”
What did you think Kate Marvel? Quite short memory I think. “Settled science” is thought to have a much higher TCR.
Allan MacRae: “The global cooling period that occurred from ~1940-1975 provides evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero.”
I think that you get it wrong when you pick such evidence. If you take evidence from 1750 to 2014, you get closer to 1 deg C. I should think that it is reasonable to have a null hypothesis of warming without feedback, 1,1 deg C.
nobodysknowledge you said:
“I think that you get it wrong when you pick such evidence. If you take evidence from 1750 to 2014, you get closer to 1 deg C. I should think that it is reasonable to have a null hypothesis of warming without feedback, 1,1 deg C.”
This statement assumes that most or all of the observed warming is humanmade due to increasing atmospheric CO2. I suggest that the null hypothesis is that this warming is natural.
I am also confident that this is the case, based on the evidence.
Allan MacRae:
Please provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity as a constant of the climate system. My current understanding is that the existence of this constant is a fabrication.
Terry Oldberg commented: “….Please provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity as a constant of the climate system. ….”
Another one of those “facts” that are ‘well known’, ‘generally accepted’, and anyone that questions it must be a skeptic. I’m getting frustrated with the ability of the Warmist Cult to make statements based on bogus claims like this and get away without answering when called out. It seems the line of defense to such questions is to just ignore…..and they get away with it because often the questions are never published and if so the answers are never followed up.
markl:
Right on! The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the ratio of the change in the global temperature at “equilibrium” (called “steady state” in engineering) to the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. That the ratio of two variables (for example the price of cabbage in Moscow to the price of rum in St. Croix) is a constant is quite rare. In global warming climatology the numerator of such a ratio (the change in the global temperature at “equilibrium”) is not observable. Thus, the contention that the associated ratio is a constant is not disprovable. Those who hold a naive faith in the honesty of a person calling himself a “scientist” are inclined to accept that this “constant” is a constant and thus to be deceived into parting with a great deal of money.
Terry – you will not get an argument from me.
IF TCR and ECS exist in a practical sense, I say they are insignificant – near zero.
Smoggy China ought to be a case-study just waiting to be analyzed to further quantify aerosol effects. Warmies ought to be on this like flies on excrement to justify (or not) their aerosol-effect estimates. Are Chinese temps dropping or increasing less than other regions due to it?
“the measurements of important climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide”
Assumes data not in evidence.
There is no scientific or logical reason for belief in the proposition that ECS is a constant. That it is a constant is implied by the IPCC and accepted by a gullible public.
This appears to be another attempt to find an excuse for the “the pause” in warming. NASA is saying that they’ve figured out that Chinese (mainly, I presume) power plants have put so much particulate matter into the air that it’s offset the warming effect of CO2.
But they’re also saying that because the particulates wash out in fairly short order, and CO2 levels are expected to stay high much longer, we should expect the cooling effect of the particulates to be short term, and the warming effect of the CO2 to be long term. I.e., “It’s Worse Than We Thought.”™
The flip side of that, which they don’t mention, is that in the 1960s and 1970s we were told that we had to clean up our particulate emissions for exactly that reason: because they were cooling the planet. We were in danger of entering another ice age, said many scientists, because of air pollution, mainly from power plants. So we put scrubbers on the power plants, and cleaned up the emissions, and, sure enough, it got warmer through the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we’re told that warming was because of GHGs (mainly CO2). But if the effect of particulates has been underestimated, so that “the pause” in warming is due to particulates, that would suggest that more of the warming which preceded the pause was actually due to the reduction in particulates. I.e., it suggests that the warming effect of CO2 is overestimated, rather than underestimated.
A paper last year by MIT’s Ben Santor (with many co-authors, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt) did an interesting exercise. They tried to “subtract out” the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) and El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. Here’s their paper:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054
These graphs are from his paper:
http://www.sealevel.info/Santor_2014-02.png
Look at that 3rd graph. Two things stand out:
1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show about half that. And,
2. The “pause” is over two decades long. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years. Their 3rd graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming in the last 21 years.