A new lower estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity

Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper  by J. Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Ireland in a journal called Earth and Space Science. The paper says that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be as low as 1°C.
mcintyre-ecs-tweet
Here’s the abstract.
Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models
Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values, and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended twozone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity.

The key points:

  • Support for low observational climate sensitivity estimates that use two-zone energy balance models
  • Meridional heat transport and varying radiative response can strongly affect sensitivitestimates
  • Sensitivity-altering climate feedbacks are not always additive

 

The predictable response from activists is already happening.

Full paper, open access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/epdf

Not sure if his model is any good or not, but it is certainly interesting reading.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
325 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 15, 2016 11:03 am

It does look like Bates is in agreement with Lindzen’s review article in “Climate Change–the facts”. Why the IPCC has not changed it’s estimates since the early 1980’s to better fit the observations seems pure politics. Evidently, someone is in love with the notion the sensitivity is higher at the IPCC, and resists any change.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2016 8:32 am

I doubt anyone is in love with the sensitivity, probably just their paycheck which they can see flying out the window if 1.0 degrees ECS becomes common knowledge.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2016 12:53 pm

The simple black/gray body model bounds the effect from 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing of to between about 0.75 and 1.1C, where the predicted and measured sensitivity of a gray body at 287K and e=.62 is about 1.1C (.3C per W/m^2) and that of a black body at 287K is about 0.75C (0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, when the relationship between the surface temperature and output emissions is measured, the slope (sensitivity) is about 0.3C per W/m^2, but when the same slope around average is measured in the relationship between solar input (after albedo) and the surface temperature, the slope around average (sensitivity) is about 0.2C per W/m^2. The later should be more representative of what the sensitivity actually is.
A black body is more ideal than a gray body and deviations from ideal mean larger changes in entropy. Equilibrium tends to seek solutions by minimizing changes in entropy and the many degrees of freedom in the climate system (and what makes it so hard to model) conspire to drive the system towards the most ideal emergent behavior possible, which is that of an ideal black body at about 287K.

george e. smith
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 16, 2016 2:09 pm

There never ever is equilibrium in the climate system. Won’t ever be, unless the earth stops rotating.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
May 16, 2016 2:57 pm

George,
The Earth is a time varying system and the steady state equilibrium is a time varying solution. A scalar steady state average can be determined by averaging over a multiple of whole years (to cancel out Earth’s rotation around its axis and around the Sun). Instantaneously, the Earth is in equilibrium twice per year, where in this context, equilibrium is when the power entering the planet is equal to the power leaving.

george e. smith
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 17, 2016 4:24 pm

Funny !
My thermodynamics text books, say everything is at the same Temperature when you have equilibrium. If it is not, then heat energy is flowing somewhere or other.
Seems to be the modern way, if you don’t like what the words say, just invent your own meanings for the words, and to hell with what they used to mean.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
May 17, 2016 6:31 pm

George,
There seems to be confusion about what the term equilibrium means. It’s more than a way to characterize the final result of a static system where the stimulus remains constant, but also refers to a steady state equilibrium which is a time varying function that generally follows a same time varying stimulus function (in the case of the climate system these are sinusoids) and whose average, which is a scalar, quantifies the steady state equilibrium which characterizes the LTE response of a system to change. Certainly there is some carry over year to year, where some years are a little warmer and others are colder then then they might be otherwise, so if we average across multiple years, we can approach a more precise representation of what the steady state equilibrium response actually is.

DocMartyn
May 15, 2016 11:13 am

Does anyone have a list of all peer reviewed estimates of transient and ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity?
I would like to see a plot of estimated TCS and ECS vs. publication date

Reply to  DocMartyn
May 15, 2016 11:49 am

DocMartyn, this is approximately what you are asking for: http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.png

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 15, 2016 11:54 am

Caveman,
Those ‘measurements’ are all across the board, from 6ºC, down to small fractions of 1ºC.
So if one is right, the rest are wrong. So what they really amount to are guesstimates, not empirical, verifiable, testable measurements.

Javert Chip
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 15, 2016 6:02 pm

That’s a pretty stunning chart for something claiming to be settled science.
I think of the recently detected gravity wave (1/1000th width of a proton) and smile. “Climate scientists” are quickly earning the right to be also be called “psychologists”.

Kirkc
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 15, 2016 6:33 pm

DBSteals -“So if one is right, the rest are wrong”
sounds a lot like all religions… or most likely ..they’re all wrong.

Kurt
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 15, 2016 6:47 pm

Shouldn’t the graph have been labeled as published “calculations” of climate sensitivity rather than “measurements?”

TRM
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 15, 2016 6:50 pm

It is a very stunning chart. The number drops dramatically over time. The closer we get to current time the lower the number. Reality seems to be setting in.
This Bates paper must be the one that Lord Monckton was talking about on the other alternative news sites.

An Inquirer
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 10:50 am

Fascinating chart for Jo Nova. How can we be confident that she is not cherry picking high estimates in the early years and low estimates in later years?

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 11:03 am

“That’s a pretty stunning chart for something claiming to be settled science.”
durr.
Here is what is settled
1. The earth has warmed
2. co2 is a GHG
3. man contributes to the rise in c02
4. adding GHGs will warm the planet MORE THAN IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE
Here is the unsettled part
5. How much warming 1.5C to 4.5C
But silly skeptics have wasted all their time fighting 1-4.
What did that accomplish?
you got branded as D*niers.
Now along comes Nic Lewis to focus on 1.5 to 4.5C and guess what?
His good work gets tarred with the nonsense of fighting 1-4
Wise the hell up.
There is no fighting 1-4. You’d be wrong and worst that that all your brain power, money and energy
would be wasted.. concentrate on 1.5C to 4.5C.. its still not too late

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 11:08 am

Steven Mosher says:
1. The earth has warmed
2. co2 is a GHG
3. man contributes to the rise in c02
4. adding GHGs will warm the planet MORE THAN IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE

The question is: how much more?
Steven asserts:
5. How much warming 1.5C to 4.5C
Empirical observations contradict those numbers. They are simply too high.

Bye Doom
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 3:13 pm

Steven Mosher,
Here is what is settled or partly so:
1. The earth has warmed since the depths of the LIA in the 1690s, during the Maunder Minimum. Longer term, it has been cooling for at leas the past 3000 years, which trend continues.
2. CO2 is a GHG.
3. Man has contributed to the rise in CO2 since WWII, but to what extent is not settled.
4. Adding GHGs theoretically should warm the planet MORE THAN IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE, yet this has not been observed.
Here is what is even more unsettled:
5. How much warming should occur under CO2 level doubled from 280 to 560 ppm? IPCC asserts without observational basis, 1.5C to 4.5C, but ECS is more likely 0.0 to 1.5C, based upon actual observations.
But silly alarmists refuse to face reality. There is no significant difference between the early 20th century warming, c. 1920-40, and late 20th century warming, c. 1977-96, cycles, despite rising CO2 during the latter.
CO2 has steadily risen since 1945. For the first 32 years of the postwar period, the response of the climate system was to cool notably, so much so that Callendar rightly considered his 1938 paper on (beneficial) man-made global warming falsified by the frigid 1960s.
Then for about 20 years, rising T just happened to coincide accidentally with increasing CO2 concentration. Since the late 1990s, monotonously rising CO2 has been accompanied by flat T. Thus, there is no correlation, let alone causation between delta T and delta CO2.
Since theoretically there should be some correlation, all that can be concluded is that net feedbacks must be negative, as indeed all actual observation shows.
Happily for the planet, the politically and ideologically motivated, anti-scientific, anti-human cause of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism will be thrown in the garbage can of history in January 2017 when and if President Trump is sworn in.

Bye Doom
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 5:25 pm

PS:
For that matter the early 18th century warming cycle, coming out of the Maunder Minimum, was not only greater in amplitude but duration as well than the late 20th century warming.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 7:00 pm

Steve Mosher may be making a scientific method error (attributing to one thing when another is equally plausible) by not considering, in the absence of humans, the extensive greening of the planet in areas that would ordinarily be covered with concrete and other activities of human life.
Planet greening depends on an imbalance between sinks and sources, and an imbalance between storing energy and releasing energy. Since it is clear that oceans are in a releasing frame of mind, without humans my hunch is that we would be under the same degree (if not more) of increasing CO2 since a warmer planet will produce more flora and fauna which would seasonally gas out as increasing CO2. That is until the source of warmth peters out.
If an overabundance of ocean energy is fueling life on Earth, it makes sense that CO2 would be on the rise. However, when that overabundance of energy gives out, oceans and atmosphere will be driven to store energy, not evaporate it, leaving us in the cold and reversing planet greening with the commensurate fall in atmospheric CO2.

gregole
Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 8:32 pm

Unrrozen,
Thanks. And Wow. Settled science? Hmmm.

Reply to  UnfrozenCavemanMD
May 16, 2016 9:23 pm

Somebody buy the fkin idiot Mosher a calculator.
We’ve already had a half-doubling of CO2. Where’s the 2 degrees [pruned] ??

george e. smith
Reply to  DocMartyn
May 16, 2016 10:23 am

Does anybody have an estimate of the climate sensitivity that is based on a “rotating earth” model, instead of a “two zone energy balance” model ??
In other words, something that is approximately based on a real planet like earth.
I almost had a heart attack, when I started reading the story above. My crummy eyesight (worst on this planet) failed to see that little … eo … incidental, tucked away there in what I read as the ” Metrology and Climate Center “.
If there are any two disciplines that are further removed from each other, than “Metrology” and “Meteorology and Climate”, It is beyond my pay grader to know what those might be.
Well articles such as the above are often interesting from the point of view of “What tricks will they think up next ?”
But I don’t get too excited.
When I finally find some published Physics encyclopedia, that actually has in it the SI approved exact definition of “Climate Sensitivity”, then I will start to pay more attention to the derivations of such metrics.
For some strange reason, I have always had this notion that it was the late Stephen Schneider who first defined …. Climate Sensitivity …. as: ” The rise in mean global surface Temperature, for any doubling of the atmospheric CO2 abundance.”
I have no idea exactly how I ever came by this notion, or whether it is just some urban legend, but as I said, I would like to know what the SI definition is, because I never ever see any two “experts” who define it exactly the same way as each other.
G

Bye Doom
Reply to  george e. smith
May 16, 2016 3:52 pm

The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, a committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney, estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C. Only two sets of models were available. Syukuro Manabe’s exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, while James Hansen’s of 4 °C.
“According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since.”
Very sciencey.

Bye Doom
Reply to  george e. smith
May 16, 2016 3:55 pm

Now, with the benefit of 37 years of actual observations, science knows that the actual ECS is around one degree C, plus or minus one degree C. That is, the central value is about what would occur without any feedbacks.

PiperPaul
May 15, 2016 11:16 am

Could it be that, untold hundreds of billions of dollars later…there is no problem and Lindzen was right all along?

Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2016 11:45 am

Well, Lindzen was certainly more correct than the IPCC. That is dead certain. I think he was a little high though — climate sensitivity to CO2 seems likely to be zero to me. Of course, actually measuring something that small in such a complex, chaotic system will prove to be darn problematic.

R. Shearer
Reply to  markstoval
May 15, 2016 12:56 pm

We’ll know in about 50 – 60 years from now. Or will we?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  markstoval
May 15, 2016 5:59 pm

As the research gets more honest and drops the assumptions of CO2 and assumptions of unproven positive feed backs, it will come closer to reality, not far off zero as the logarithmic graph indicates.

Reply to  markstoval
May 15, 2016 9:31 pm

Lindzen admitted he was mistaken.
“Lindzen accepted that his paper included “some stupid mistakes”. When interviewed, he said “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.””
Clearly, his mistake was not causing any over-estimation of ECS. Anything like 1 degree is completely untenable, despite Lindzen trying (and failing) his best.

David A
Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 3:25 am

vince, do you have a link to support this? You know he did more then one paper and they support each other and are observation based.

JasG
Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 5:32 am

Whether Lindzen said that about his 2009 paper or not, his 2011 paper corrected any mistakes plus answered all other nitpicky criticisms from the ‘team’ and the result was almost identical – low CO2 sensitivity. It is extremely disingenuous to avoid mentioning that second paper. As for the ‘mistake’, was it as bad as multiplying rather than dividing by 3 as Cowtan & Way did with their own recent CS estimate? Was it as bad as the Marvell/Schmidt paper which is an extreme outlier on CS because it is riddled with basic errors, not the least of which is to a priori assume the model is correct despite all the evidence to the contrary. Why no it wasn’t!

Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 5:36 am

actually measuring something that small in such a complex, chaotic system will prove to be darn problematic.

Ha, problematic for sure, …… to wit”
If both atmospheric H20 vapor and CO2 are considered “greenhouse” gases and there is on average 104 times as much H2O vapor with 2.3 times as much Specific Heat Capacity as there is CO2 in the atmosphere then an increase of even 200 ppm of CO2 to a total of 583 ppm should not really be significant relative to any increase in global warming due to a “greenhouse gas effect” because the H2O vapor would still be 68.6 times greater and/or be 157.8 times more effective at “warming” the atmosphere than is the total amount CO2 in the atmosphere,
And thus, the overwhelming amount of H20 vapor in the atmosphere as compared to the amount of CO2 that is intermixed with it will completely overshadow any warming effects of the CO2 by a factor of 239.2 and thus render it impossible for anyone to be blaming and/or attributing any of said “warming” on said atmospheric CO2.
I do not believe it is possible for anyone to measure the heating effect of the lesser quantity of gas (CO2) in a mixture of two (or more) different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H2O vapor) is constantly changing from hour-to-hour and/or day-to-day. Especially when said greater volume of gas has a potentially 239.2 greater “warming” potential for said mixture than does the lesser volume of said gas in said mixture.
Figures don’t lie, but …….

Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 7:54 am

For some reaosn a figure around 0.2 keeps cropping up in my head, but I cant recall where it comes from..

AGW is not Science
Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 8:59 am

Agreed. First, the “measured” amount of warming is dubious at best given all the so-called “data” being used; Second, more than half of the SUPPOSED amount of warming can be attributed directly to solar influences; Third, we know from the Earth’s climate history that the feedback mechanisms are negative, not positive, because if they were positive, the Earth’s climate would be wildly unstable rather than very stable over long period of time.
Once you remove the “inflation” of temperature rise from “adjustments” and other data shenanigans and from other “systemic” errors (like UHI) in the data, CO2’s ACTUAL (as opposed to hypothesized) temperature effect is probably nil for all intents and purposes.

Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 10:58 am

tell it to the judge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
There is a Consequence to relying on weak arguments for skepticism.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 11:06 am

What about weak arguments by quoting the Guardian?

David A
Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 8:24 pm

Vince, what no link. I thought not.

toorightmate
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2016 2:01 pm

Not billions, but trillions.

Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2016 3:31 pm

Yes. Definitely. But not via this paper, as discussed downthread. Bates missed a real opportunity to use CERES to freshly parameterize his otherwise brilliant math. Something perhaps Willis might do after he comes down from his FIJI/HP high.

george e. smith
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 16, 2016 10:30 am

If he said : ” We dunno ! ” then he probably was correct.
G
Or words to that effect in any one of the 57 known languages (or izzat 97).

Latitude
May 15, 2016 11:16 am

How about trying a novel approach….
Start by assuming ECS is zero….using real numbers not adjusted homogenized anomalized TOBilized made up numbers…..
and prove that something happens

John Finn
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 11:38 am

How about trying a novel approach….

Because that would be silly.
As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases. If the average height increases the energy is emitted from a colder layer. If energy is emitted from a colder layer then the rate of emission falls (S-B formula). This creates an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy, i.e. incoming is greater than outgoing.
If incoming energy is greater than outgoing energy then the earth will warm (basic thermodynamics).
Conclusion: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the earth to warm. The question remaining is – by how much? I’m inclined to believe that the lower estimates of between 1 deg C and 1.5 deg C are about right.

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 11:49 am

Conclusion: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the earth to warm.
‘Conclusion’ falsified.

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 11:50 am

Sorry John, while you might believe that simplistic [deleted], there are many who do not. CO2 at 1,000 ppm would do very little just as vast rises in CO2 in the past did not cause temperature rises but, rather, followed said rises.
And then there is the arguments of the [not allowed to name that group here] who seem to me to have the physics argument. Of course your millage may vary. Why don’t we measure the sensitivity?

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 11:51 am

The conclusion = the conclusion, therefore the conclusion must be correct, right ?
Will it go round in circles?
– Billy Preston

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 12:29 pm

John, I think the whole point of the ECS debate is to find “the number” after all feedbacks, positive and negative. More CO2, all else being equal (no feedbacks considered), might have a positive number, but after feedbacks, the number could be higher than that, lower than that, or even zero.

Reply to  Hugs
May 15, 2016 1:37 pm

Hugs,
Interesting chart, thanks for posting.
The point I was trying to make (sorry I wasn’t more clear) is that ∆CO2 is not caused by ∆temperature. As CO2 steadily rises, global T does not follow. Also, both the chart you linked to and the one I linked to are simple overlays, which are fine — but they do not show causation.
This chart shows causation:comment image
It shows that changes in CO2 follow changes in global T. I have several other charts showing the same relationship and causation, on time frames from months, to hundreds of millennia:comment image
[click in chart to embiggen]
We still do not know the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2. But with each new observation, that number continues to decline. Anything much under 1ºC is a complete non-problem — which is a big problem for the climate alarmist crowd. I may have overstepped with “falsified”, but to me “a non-problem” is the same thing. It demonstrates the immense waste of resources misdirected into the “carbon” scare.

chris y
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 12:49 pm

“If the average height increases the energy is emitted from a colder layer.”
Assumes lapse rate does not change.

John Finn
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 1:09 pm

dbstealey May 15, 2016 at 11:49 am
“Conclusion’ falsified.”
No db- “it” is not falsified by your graph. Given past ocean cycles we would expect a drop of at least 0.2 degrees since 2000. If climate sensitivity is low (~1 deg per 2xCO2) then a pause in warming of 15 to 20 years is to be expected.
CO2 forcing since 2000 is around 0.42 w/m2. Given a sensitivity of 1.5 deg C per 2xCO2 we would expect warming of about 0.17 deg C over that time. If natural factors are offsetting the warming then the pause is easily explained.

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 1:29 pm

John Finn,
You presume to know the climate sensitivity number. You don’t.
No one knows what it is. The guesstimates are all over the map:
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.png
They go from 6ºC, all the way down to almost 0ºC (Miskolczi says sensitivity is 0.00ºC.)
So no one really knows, and CO2 “forcing” has never been accurately quantified.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 3:27 pm

Mr Finn;
“As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases.”
Have you factored in that as height increases so does the surface area; such that the same total energy can be emitted at a lower temperature?

Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 3:58 pm

With more CO2, emission comes from a higher cooler layer – at first. But then that layer, if it’s “trapping heat”, should warm and eventually cancel out the initial (apparent) emissivity-reducing effect.
There’s no free lunch, and there’s no magical energy generation from an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It’s a bogus theory.
I agree that the cooler, upper atmosphere should absorb EMR & warm, but it never does – the adiabatic lapse rate never lessens. This is the real unexplained mystery here, which I believe results from a temperature-regulation phenomenon we have yet to understand.
Unfortunately greenhouse effect believers don’t even get to the starting gate to even start contemplating this mystery.

JohnKnight
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 5:03 pm

John Finn,
” I’m inclined to believe that the lower estimates of between 1 deg C and 1.5 deg C are about right.”
I’m similarly inclined, though more like maybe as much as 1 deg C . . But as dbstealey said; CO2 “forcing” has never been accurately quantified. I’d add, not clearly defined/described, either.
The problem I see with any truly significant warming effect has to do with the fairly well established increased atmospheric CO2 effect warming seems to have. Logically speaking, if warming causes significantly higher CO2, and higher CO2 causes significant warming, then . . Houston, we have a problem.
Something would have to have been “solving” that mutual feedback problem all along, it seems to me, and we are perhaps in post GHG climate “catastrophe” tipping point territory . . and it was a catastrophe for things like glaciers ; )

Greg F
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 5:33 pm

As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases. If the average height increases the energy is emitted from a colder layer. If energy is emitted from a colder layer then the rate of emission falls (S-B formula).

If the average height increases so does the surface area of that layer which increases the total energy emitted.

Brett Keane
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 5:42 pm

Then the lapse rate would climb. This does not happen, rather the reverse via water. Only frequent use of drugs can make it seem otherwise.

ghl
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 7:41 pm

John Finn
ELR is around tropopause. Tropopause is where lapse rate drops to zero before becoming positive in stratosphere. Further, tropopause is affected by weather, with folds of kilometers vertically , it is a notional height in a turbulent volume, and is half the height at the poles, as it is at the equator. What you say may be truish for some times and places. Or not.

bones
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 8:14 pm

If tropical thunderstorm convection transported heat more effectively and also shielded part of the incoming UV/VIS the surface temperature increase could be very small. Bill Gray estimated ECS of about 0.4C.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  John Finn
May 15, 2016 9:01 pm

John Finn writes

If the average height increases the energy is emitted from a colder layer. If energy is emitted from a colder layer then the rate of emission falls (S-B formula). This creates an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy, i.e. incoming is greater than outgoing.

And if the lapse rate changes (decreases) so that the new ERL altitude is now the same temperature without impacting all the way down to the surface itself then that satisfies that requirement without the surface warming.
So no gold star for your “its inevitable” logic, John.
Increased CO2 probably does involve some surface warming but simplistic arguments like yours and the one where some warming = more warming with more GHG water vapour giving positive feedback only cause oneself to be biased towards certain results.

David A
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 3:31 am

db says …
==================
Anything much under 1ºC is a complete non-problem
==================
I would say anything under .2 C is very strongly net beneficial, as supported by many observation based peer reviewed publications in the NIPCC (climate change reconsidered) papers.

David A
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 3:33 am

make that .2 C per decade.

Bob Boder
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 4:31 am

Really John;
Except that as that average height goes up so does the surface area of the emiting layer, so more energy is released as the layer rises, seems like a pretty stable system to me.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 6:26 am

John Finn
While I accept your points you did not mention that as the concentration of CO2 rises, and the altitude of emission increases, it is a model of what happens, an conceptual equivalence, not the actual altitude of radiation into space. The reason I mention this is because even if such an emitting layer actually existed, and it was indeed colder (temperature rises with altitude, much against expectation above the troposphere) one must still consider that the number of ’emitters’ has increased.
Thus the S-B equation is not simplistically applicable. In short, if the cause of the concentration rise in ‘altitude’, or ‘effective altitude’ increases, so does the number of emitters, which is to say, the emissivity changes.
I raised this to Monckton on this list and he did not agree which I still find odd. The ‘more effective’ insulating ‘blanket’ of CO2 only works because it is more effective at radiating – on all directions which includes upwards into space. Al Gore misses this aspect completely, selling a mental image of a mechanical transport blocker.
Separately considered, but of greater importance, is that water vapour is a much more effective radiator of energy into space, swamping the effect of all the CO2. Any claim that CO2 is the needle’s eye through which all IR must pass is obviously false. CO2 is the mote and H2O is the log in that eye.

Macha
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 6:42 am

Except when it doesn’t…oops, that it doesn’t.

MarkW
Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 7:26 am

If there is an initial pulse, negative feedbacks would reduce that. If they are strong enough, they could reduce it close to zero, but they could never reduce it all the way to zero.

Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 9:18 am

“Conclusion: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the earth to warm. The question remaining is – by how much? I’m inclined to believe that the lower estimates of between 1 deg C and 1.5 deg C are about right.”
Conclusion: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the earth to be warmer than it would be OTHERWISE.
You have to include this otherwise skeptics will make mistakes. watch dbstealy make the mistake
Here let me show you.
Adding Deposits will cause my bank account balance to go up!
Makes sense right?
Then a skeptic will come along and look at my balances
Deposits Balance
1000 2056
1000 1245
1000 1276
1000 896
1000 1190
1000 423
A skeptic will look at that and say OMG… deposits went up and balances went down
deposits cannot cause balances to rise.. your accounting is falsified.!! Popper rulz!
What they forget is that the science says the temperature is a result of ALL forcings.. of deposits
and withdrawls.
So, when we say co2 cause warming.. you have to be precise. Warmer than it would be OTHERWISE.

Reply to  John Finn
May 16, 2016 12:24 pm

So sayeth …. dbstealey – May 15, 2016 at 1:37 pm

The point I was trying to make is that ∆CO2 is not caused by ∆temperature. As CO2 steadily rises, global T does not follow. Also, both the chart you linked to and the one I linked to are simple overlays, which are fine — but they do not show causation.

And this graph positively proves that the yearly increase in ∆CO2 during the past 34 years is in no way associated with the Global Average Yearly Temperature calculations for the same 34 years. The plotted temperatures are all-over-the-chart ….. while the CO2 continues its steady increase, …… the same as it has been doing for the past 58 years.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png

Reply to  John Finn
May 17, 2016 2:49 am

John Finn says:

As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases. If the average height increases the energy is emitted from a colder layer. If energy is emitted from a colder layer then the rate of emission falls (S-B formula). This creates an imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing LW energy, i.e. incoming is greater than outgoing.
If incoming energy is greater than outgoing energy then the earth will warm (basic thermodynamics).

Yes, that’s the THEORY:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Notice what it says in the caption: “Note that the effective emission temperature (T_e) remains unchanged.”
A constant T_e equals constant OLR. That’s the hypothetical “greenhouse” warming mechanism – OLR kept flat while temps go up.
Problem is, this is NOT what’s happening in the real world. We simply don’t see it anywhere.
In the real world, what has caused the current radiative imbalance at the ToA is an increase in ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”) outdoing a countering increase in OLR (“outgoing longwave radiation”):comment image
OLR has gone up, in step with temperatures, during the last few decades of overall warming, thus opposing rather than augmenting the positive imbalance opened up by the increase in ASR.

Reply to  Kristian
May 17, 2016 5:55 am

OLR has gone up, in step with temperatures, during the last few decades of overall warming, thus opposing rather than augmenting the positive imbalance opened up by the increase in ASR.

And this is what the surface data shows, and why I keep saying that whatever caused the warming, it wasn’t from a loss of cooling from Co2. It just isn’t there, at least at a detectable level. There are big swings in min temp, but they happen quickly, and they are regional. The big “step” from the 97-98 El Nino, is one of those changes.

Reply to  John Finn
May 17, 2016 3:13 am

Mosher, you say:

What they forget is that the science says the temperature is a result of ALL forcings.. of deposits and withdrawls.

So in effect, what you’re saying here is that the “DWLWIR” part of the outgoing surface radiative heat loss (net LW) is a T_sfc “forcing”, helping to cause the equilibrium mean T_sfc, right next to the incoming solar heat flux (net SW), while the “UWLWIR” part of the outgoing surface radiative heat loss (net LW) is merely a T_sfc response, a radiative temperature effect of the equilibrium mean T_sfc, caused by the solar and atmospheric fluxes in combination, like this:
P/A_in = P/A_out → [165+345-112=] 398 W/m^2 = 398 W/m^2
And 398 W/m^2 corresponds directly to an absolute temperature of 289 K. Voilà!comment image
(Derived from Stephens et al. 2012.)

Sparky
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 11:51 am

John, Try starting without unproven assumptions

John Finn
Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 1:10 pm

Try looking at a few emission spectra plots.

Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 1:30 pm

John Finn,
Try being a skeptic for once.

Sparky
Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 2:26 pm

John try not to jump to conclusions

ATheoK
Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 7:01 pm

John Finn?
Improbable assumptions blandly stated as if common knowledge and proved..
Aggressive vague responses, again without explicit details.
Looks like an evicted troll back under another assumed name. Goes with the a false statements as facts.
The old adage; don’t feed the troll.

Phil.
Reply to  Sparky
May 16, 2016 8:49 am

Bob Boder May 16, 2016 at 4:31 am
Really John;
Except that as that average height goes up so does the surface area of the emiting layer, so more energy is released as the layer rises, seems like a pretty stable system to me.

So the lapse rate is about 10ºC/km so to change the emission temperature by 1ªC you’d need an altitude change of 100m. Say that was at an altitude of ~10 km, the Earth’s radius is ~6,371 km, so the change in emission height is 0.1 in 6381 or ~0.0015% which would yield a change in area of ~0.003%. Not enough to compensate for a 1.6% increase in T^4.

Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 12:16 pm

“How about trying a novel approach…”
Pachouri did that, with his (poorly written) ego-inflating sex novel about a young engineer that . . .
Perhaps you meant “original” ?
How quaint that the Scientific Method could be considered original or novel if applied in a scientific discipline, but sadly Climate Science has neither of those two words in their repertoire.

Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 12:30 pm

Start by assuming ECS is zero…

I think that’s very similar to what Spencer did. There’s a youtube video of testimony he made in the US Senate a few years ago (2008?) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
In it, he points out that if climate sensitivity were as currently estimated (as revised down from the original IPCC estimates in an attempt to “calibrate” their models) it could not have been responsible for observed warming to date, therefor there must be “natural variation” and “other forcings” at work. He’s drawing attention to the fact that the climate models don’t work while at the same time suggesting CO2 was the wrong path and the IPCC’s obsession with proving their anthropogenic hypothesis has, perhaps irrevocably, damaged the reputation of the scientists involved. When he presents this finding as “good news”, he’s met by scowls and frowns from the government audience.
It’s a shame the video is so short, and that Boxer let the message roll off her back like water off a duck.

David A
Reply to  Bartleby
May 16, 2016 3:37 am

Regarding Boxer, some brains are impervious to anything contrary to a political agenda.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Bartleby
May 16, 2016 7:40 am

As a previous resident of the state of CA, I assure you that you are on very shaky ground using “[Senator] Boxer” and “brains” in the same sentence.

Reply to  Bartleby
May 16, 2016 6:40 pm

@Boulder Skeptic: I too have been a long term resident of California. Though I made an abortive attempt at escape to Wyoming about 20 years ago, I never sold out of CA completely and now find myself back in my old age. I made the mistake of locating in the Jackson area of Wyoming, later I found out that Jackson is like a little slice of Manhattan that was mysteriously transplanted to Wyoming. It’s chock full of folks that would doubtless be much happier somewhere like CA. Sort of weird really.
In the end it was the cold that got me. The first time my hand froze to my tractor in November I realized the jig was up, sold the ranch and moved back to warmer climes. Why is it the socialists (e.g. Boxer and her ilk) hold such a strong sway over California? It’s actually a nice place if you could just get rid of people like her.

Auto
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 1:41 pm

John Finn
May 15, 2016 at 1:09 pm
I have not noted anything in IPCC reports [various] that clearly states: –
‘a pause in warming of 15 to 20 years is to be expected.’
You may be right, but, if so, you are a distance ahead of the IPCC’s experts, for whom the science is settled.
Do I know what the sensitivity number is?
Absolutely not!
I can guess, as I can about the winner of a horse race or a roulette wheel cast – but that is not scientific, and I happen to k n o w it isn’t scientific.
Auto

george e. smith
Reply to  Auto
May 16, 2016 2:22 pm

Sunrise in te east tomorrow is to be expected (based on past performance).
Not much else is to be expected based on past performance.
G

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 2:02 pm

Given past ocean cycles we would expect…
…absolutely nothing…because you don’t know why what when or where about ocean cycles

AndyG55
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 2:51 pm

One of the main NH ocean cycles, the AMO, is only just over its peak.
This El Nino released a lot of energy from the oceans.
Let’s see what happens next.
John is 15 years too early with his “ocean cycle”

Editor
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 5:07 pm

You can’t ignore TOBS. You can’t. You can roll your own or go with NCDC, but you have to account for it.
NOAA (et al.) do not account for microsite or CRS bias. That needs to be accounted for, too. (I think we’re the first to do that on a broad scale.)
Adjustments are necessary. But they have to be done right and they all need to be included. The major surface metrics have botched the job, but it is a job that needs doing — right.

ATheoK
Reply to  Evan Jones
May 15, 2016 7:05 pm

Adjustments, even in the case of TOBS are still assumptions. Unproven, untested, unverified, uncertified.
A TOBS adjustment without explicit detail for how the adjustment was derived is false. No amount of rationalization can make it true.

David A
Reply to  Evan Jones
May 16, 2016 3:52 am

I think Atheo is correct. TOBS has to be done individuals for each station to verify theoretical assumptions.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/tobs-adjustment-is-garbage/

Reply to  Evan Jones
May 16, 2016 9:21 am

“Adjustments, even in the case of TOBS are still assumptions. Unproven, untested, unverified, uncertified.
A TOBS adjustment without explicit detail for how the adjustment was derived is false. No amount of rationalization can make it true.”
Sorry TOBS is tested.
The tests have been run over and over again.
By skeptics
By professionals
The only people who doubt it are the kinds who think planes cant make buildings collapse.

Sparky
Reply to  Evan Jones
May 16, 2016 2:59 pm

What tested ? really ???. So someone has invented a time machine to go back in time to verify.. Mosh you do talk utter nonsense.

David A
Reply to  Evan Jones
May 16, 2016 8:33 pm

Here is a test…
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/tobs-adjustment-is-garbage/
Steve m, one station checked, one failure. You are in the bunker.

Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 6:10 am

Comments re: dbstealey on May 15, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Thank you for your excellent graphs db.
Consider the implications of this evidence. As I stated many years ago:
CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, so the global warming (CAGW) hypothesis suggests that the future is causing the past.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Many people just want to ignore this compelling evidence, or wave it off with the following specious claims:
We KNOW that CO2 primarily drives temperature (that is a fundamental tenet of warmist religion), therefore:
1) “The observed lag of CO2 after temperature must be a feedback effect”; and/or
2) “There must be a time machine somewhere that causes this lag.”
Sorry folks, but I do not like your logic.
I am reasonably confident that “the future cannot cause the past” (at least in this space/time dimension). 🙂
My position is:
The evidence strongly suggests that temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. [This does NOT suggest that human factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. do not increase atmospheric CO2.]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
However, the evidence strongly suggest that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is low, 1 degree C or less for a hypothetical doubling of CO2. Therefore, the alleged global warming crisis does not exist in fact.
Furthermore, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not harmful and is beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 16, 2016 10:08 am

“Consider the implications of this evidence. As I stated many years ago:
CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, so the global warming (CAGW) hypothesis suggests that the future is causing the past.”
Wrong.
The lag was actually PREDICTED by hansen before it was discovered,
C02 is both a forcing agent and a feedback.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 10:47 am

Steven,
That isn’t ‘wrong’. The forcing from CO2 is minuscule. It is simply too small to measure.
But we can measure the lag between changes in global temperature, and subsequent changes in CO2. That lag is apparent on all time scales from years, to hundreds of millennia. There are numerous charts from many different sources that show the causation:
∆temperature causes ∆CO2.
But there are no charts I’ve ever found showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in global temperature. If you have such a chart, please post it here. It will be the first I’ve ever seen — and I’ve been looking for many years.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 16, 2016 11:07 am

db
“That isn’t ‘wrong’. The forcing from CO2 is minuscule. It is simply too small to measure.”
more settled science from db.
tell it to the judge
Its simple db.
the SCIENCE that gave us Reagans star wars
the science that christy relies on
the science that brought us stealth fighters
says
doubling c02 will ADD no subtract 3.71 watts to your energy budget
deposits make your balance bigger than it would be otherwise.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 11:12 am

Steven says:
more settled science from db.
OK then, post your measurements of AGW. Make sure they’re verifiable, empirical and testable (reproducible).
If you have such measurements, you will be the first. You want a Nobel prize don’t you? ☺

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 16, 2016 1:06 pm

Steven Mosher wrote on May 16, 2016 at 10:08 am
“The lag was actually PREDICTED by hansen before it was discovered,”
Mosh, you have made this unsubstantiated claim before.
Would you kindly provide the citation and quote please?
Also, is Hansens’s alleged comment even relevant? What was the context?
Mosh also said:
“C02 is both a forcing agent and a feedback.”
Let’s assume (hypothetically) that you are correct – what are the magnitudes?
IF you claim that the CO2 forcing of global temperature (where CO2 allegedly drives and therefore must lead temperature in time) is greater than the so-called “feedback” (where temperature drives CO2 and provably CO2 lags temperature in time), then how do you reconcile the fact that the only clear signal in the data is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales?
One plausible conclusion is to state, as I have, that
“The evidence strongly suggests that temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”
But you reject my statement as wrong, based on no apparent evidence.
Reiterating:
Using your terminology in my argument, the “feedback” must be much greater than the “forcing”. Otherwise, we could see evidence of the “forcing” and we cannot – but we can clearly see evidence of the “feedback”.
I suggest that your response is another “Cargo Cult” religious argument, as follows:
“We KNOW that CO2 primarily drives temperature (a fundamental tenet of warmist religion), therefore:
1) “The observed lag of CO2 after temperature MUST BE a feedback effect”;
2) Or were you going for the time machine?
Regards, Allan 🙂

Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 9:09 am

Because ECS cant be zero.
but go ahead step up and win your nobel prize.
[try not to be such a smartmouth Mr. Mosher, it doesn’t help you – Anthony]

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 10:12 am

“Regarding Boxer, some brains are impervious to anything contrary to a political agenda.”
its funny to watch you selectively single out some smart mouths, while you ignore others.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 10:48 am

Steven,
Well, at least you’re not supporting Boxer. That’s something, I guess.

David A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 8:41 pm

Steve M, complains about bashing a politician? (This is the US land of liberty, and she is a politician you know)
The next time you completely ignore a world class scientist and his rational and clear testimony, you will also be subject to criticism. (Like when you made general disparaging remarks about the NIPCC scientists) But then again, blanket straw-man arguments against the entire community are your specialty.

george e. smith
Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 10:59 am

Well the average height from which radiant energy is emitted to space is ZERO, as in surface level. And most of that surface is considerably higher Temperature than the 288 K supposed mean global lower tropospheric Temperature. And the bulk of that radiation occurs at shorter Temperatures than the 10.1 microns due to the 288 K global mean. And that is closer to the Atmospheric window, where H2O and CO2 have reduced effects, and only Ozone at 9.6 microns, in a very thin low density layer is left.
G

Marcus
May 15, 2016 11:19 am

Analysis: Natural Gas, NOT Green Energy, Caused CO2 Emissions To Fall
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/14/analysis-natural-gas-not-green-energy-caused-co2-emissions-to-fall/

nc
Reply to  Marcus
May 15, 2016 11:33 am

Would like to read the Daily caller, but how do I get rid of all the ads. The butt ad was nice though.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky
Reply to  nc
May 15, 2016 11:39 am

Adblock extension.

Marcus
Reply to  nc
May 15, 2016 11:44 am

..AdBlock Plus at CNET..it’s free

Reply to  nc
May 15, 2016 12:34 pm

Adblock +. I had to start using it after going forth to the internet unshielded for a few months and having the GPU on my MacBook literally melted off its motherboard by advertising…

Reply to  Marcus
May 16, 2016 9:17 am

Analysis: CHEAP Natural Gas DUE TO FRACKING, NOT Green Energy, Caused CO2 Emissions IN THE USA To Fall
[Green reaction: “The horror! The horror!”]

May 15, 2016 11:42 am

Normally ECS = 2 * TCS. This applies to IPCC and also for the majority of GCMs. The basic reason is that ECS assumes that there are positive feedback trying to drive the Earth out of control, i.e. a run-away effect. The result of my calculations is 0.6 K for TCS utilizing three different methods. In this respect I should accept this result without any problems. But the truth is that based on the information of the abstract, it is impossible to say any comments on this paper. It is the same situation as with any other GCM. They are so complicated that it is impossible to know what are the real calculations.

Reply to  aveollila
May 15, 2016 12:15 pm

Full paper is available not under paywall. ECS>TCR is a truism. All observational TCR point to ~1.3. Another way to show LC11 and B16 are likely ‘off’.

David A
Reply to  aveollila
May 16, 2016 3:54 am

“Normally ECS = 2 * TCS. This applies to IPCC and also for the majority of GCMs”
=====================
? I think that is the very low end of any IPCC scenarios, not the model mean.

Proud Skeptic
May 15, 2016 11:44 am

And…as usual…all we have is a model that may or may not be right. Thanks for the honesty in the final sentence. I wish all climate scientists could be so forthright.

Editor
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 15, 2016 5:37 pm

Thanks, Proud Skeptic, saves me the time on a busy day. But “may or may not be right” is very generous to the model.

601nan
May 15, 2016 11:46 am

My bet is on 0 deg. C ESC (after I re-studied my Chemistry, Geochemisty and Thermodynamics texts).

Reply to  601nan
May 15, 2016 12:07 pm

cant be zero

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 12:33 pm

How about 0.001?

David Ball
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 12:39 pm

Steven Mosher May 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm says;
cant be zero. The certainty of a closed mind.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 12:43 pm

Oh yes it can.

Hugs
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 12:54 pm

cant be zero. The certainty of a closed mind.

For this one, I agree with Mosher. It can’t be zero. It’s not about closed mind.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 1:25 pm

Explain please

Mark
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 1:46 pm

That’s about the only right thing you’ve ever said :p

Brett Keane
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 5:49 pm

Unless the gas laws and LOTD are NOT wrong!

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 7:55 pm

If it’s not zero, it’s probably negative.
CO2 is an isotropically radiative gas with most of its IR emissions going sideways or upwards, both lost into space.
Increasing CO2 means increasing CO2 IR emissions into space so the earth must cool.
The heat is ‘extracted’ from the O2 and N2 ‘blanket’ and radiated out into space.
This happens at all altitudes which means all altitudes are cooler than they would otherwise be.
This also explains why CO2 follows temperature.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 12:30 am

Mosher writes

cant be zero

This is a fundamentally mistaken argument as CO2 brings no new energy to the party, Steve.
Simple as that.

MikeC
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 2:49 am

Your’re right, given the physics, it can’t be zero but it could be very close to zero, close enough that it doesn’t matter.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 7:32 am

Tim, a blanket doesn’t bring any energy to your bed, but it still makes you warmer.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 9:32 am

“Explain please”
It cant be zero. look at the formula.
Its simple. look at the formula and explain which term is zero.
Its a multiplication problem. so you only have to find one term that is zero
then demonstrate how that term is zero.

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 11:04 am

Mosher
Nothing can be zero (only nothing)…..
I do not know of nothing, do you?
Even the number of Unicorns cant be zero, or that of black holes…………..
cheers

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 2:24 pm

MarkW writes

Tim, a blanket doesn’t bring any energy to your bed, but it still makes you warmer.

Nevertheless the argument is fundamentally flawed on that basis. How much warmer does a dead person get if you cover them with a blanket?

ferdberple
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 5:37 pm

cant be zero
=========
it most certainly can. look at the ice ages. temperature increases the fastest when CO2 is low, and when CO2 gets high, temperatures start to fall.
Look at the record 15 thousand years ago, CO2 is low and temperatures shot up dramatically. And then 100 thousand years ago, when CO2 was highest, temperatures start to fall.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change.jpg
What this tells you is that if you want temperatures to skyrocket, low CO2 is required. And if you want temperatures to start falling, you need high CO2.
This is prima facial evidence that CO2 causes COOLING.

Henry Galt
Reply to  601nan
May 15, 2016 12:47 pm

Could be negative.
I know that sounds like it was uttered by a climbatier 😉

Reply to  Henry Galt
May 15, 2016 4:01 pm

No, you don’t sound like a climbatier. I have seen experts argue that CO2 sensitivity is in fact a negative number. It is certainly an arguable hypothesis.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Henry Galt
May 15, 2016 5:53 pm

Well, as an IR radiating gas, it is a coolant, and it cannot warm except by mass. Which is not significant here.

May 15, 2016 11:54 am

Some people here may want to know that Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush on Monday and Tuesday.

Bye Doom
Reply to  Alvin Warwas
May 16, 2016 5:38 pm

Thanks!

ShrNfr
May 15, 2016 12:07 pm

Monte Carlo simulations using bad models are bad models of Monte Carlo simulations.

george e. smith
Reply to  ShrNfr
May 16, 2016 2:33 pm

Monte Carlo “Simulations” are just that; simulations. They are not “observations” of any real system.
G

May 15, 2016 12:10 pm

The Bates paper has a good part and a bad part, both previously discussed elsewhere. The good part is the mathematical rigour, for example showing that the complcated (b) collapses to simple (A) under most but not all reasonable inputs. The bad part is that he used Lindzen and Choi 2011 (LC11) parameter estimates to derive an LC11 like result. LC11 was itself a response to sunstantive critique of LC09. LC11 received sunstantive peer review critique at PNAS; rether than revise, they published as is in an obscure Asian Journal. The lagged regression method is questionable, as can be seen from LC11 figures 9 and 10. There is no physical reason to think outgoing SW plus LW lags Delta SST by 2-3 months. And there is no reason to think their tropical SST data is suffciently accurate for the regression purpose to which it is put. Those issues were not discussed by Bates.
As noted elsewhere, there are simply too many recent observational EBM studies finding ECS ~1.5 to ~1.8 to think that either LC11 or B16 are reasonably correct when Lindzens own zero feedback value (LC11 figure 11) is 1.2 and the water vapor feedback must be positive by some amount. ~ Half of what IPCC asserts (2x CO2 alone, Bode f 0.5) with zero cloud feedback (which is what Dessler 2010 actually shows) produces Bode f 0.25 and ECS 1.7. Right in the zone. And there are multiple observational lines of evidence (posted elsewhere this week) suggesting halving positive water vapor feedback is about right, via physical mechanisms like Eschenbach’s tropical Tstorms which remove humidity from the troposphere.

commieBob
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 1:05 pm

I have a question for you. Am I right in thinking the following quote:

The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered.

can be translated as:

Since mother nature’s measured numbers disagree with CAGW theory, we should re-think CAGW theory.

Reply to  commieBob
May 15, 2016 1:48 pm

Yes in part. One of his statements concerns additivity of feedbacks, as there are circumstances in his complex (b) two zone model where they aren’t necessarily. The CMIP5 median ECS was 3.2, the average 3.4. Plainly higher than either the newer observational estimates or his new (and I think wrong) number.

george e. smith
Reply to  commieBob
May 16, 2016 2:34 pm

I would think “additivity” is valid ONLY in linear systems.
G

Andrew_FL
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 4:58 pm

“LC11 received sunstantive peer review critique at PNAS”
LOL No they did not, and you did not understand their paper.

Reply to  Andrew_FL
May 15, 2016 5:22 pm

Andrew FL. Well, actually they did. See Judith Curry’s 6/10/2011 post with links concerning the PNAS review of LC11. As for whether I understand the paper, have you even read it? What are your views of the validity of the arbitrarily lagged regressions? Have you ever spent a full day at MIT with Lindzen (including buying his faculty club lunch) like I did solicitingnhis inputmon the Climate chapter of Arts of Truth? (In true Lindzen fashion, he questioned the whole book–footnote 5 to the recognition chapter is expressly thanks to his comments. Bring ‘facts’, not ‘opinions’. Please up your game if you want to play in my league.

Andrew_FL
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 5:25 pm

LOL Your “league” is basically 6-7 year old tee ball. Yes, I’ve read the paper, enough to actually understand the purpose of the lagged regressions. You got as far as “lagged regressions” decided that was automatically wrong, and proceeded to go completely rampage nuts.
Let’s be real here. “arbitrary lagged regressions” is just your excuse to protect your particular narrow view that all the studies you like must be converging on the truth. If it wasn’t that, it would be something else.

Andrew_FL
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 5:26 pm

And no, it did not receive substantial peer review. The people made excuses like you do without any attempt to understand the paper. Which you still have not done. But sure, you’re the one in the higher league than me. LOL.

Reply to  Andrew_FL
May 15, 2016 5:43 pm

Andrew FL, thanks for exposing yourself. 5.26 comment proves you know not whereof you speak. Judith posted all the PNAS LC11 peer reviews in her 2011 blog post. You are not worth wasting further time on. Spoon fed references, and cannot even get those right. Sad. No wonder you feed Obama’s flat earth society SOTU speech metaphor. Please stop enabling him.

Andrew_FL
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 5:48 pm

The difference between us, ristvan, is not that I am a Flat Earther and you are not. It’s that I actually attempt to understand a paper when I read it. You decide you don’t agree with a paper and then look for reasons it must be wrong, without attempting to understand it.
You’re delusional if you think the difference between half a degree and one and a half degrees “feed Obama’s flat earth society…metaphor” But it does indicate where your thinking is at. You are obsessed with politics and optics. You want to win a political argument, not get a correct scientific answer.
In which case, it is indeed not worth wasting further time talking to me, or I talking to you. Thanks for exposing yourself, in fact.

Andrew_FL
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 5:50 pm

Also hilarious that someone who cites Eschenbach positively wants to lecture someone on perpetuating “flat earther” stereotypes. You might want to take your criticisms up with Willis, who would not agree with you that his work supports any non zero value of sensitivity at all. Flat Earther indeed.

David A
Reply to  ristvan
May 17, 2016 6:01 am

Ristvan, you say,
==================
And there are multiple observational lines of evidence (posted elsewhere this week) suggesting halving positive water vapor feedback is about right, via physical mechanisms like Eschenbach’s tropical T storms which remove humidity from the troposphere.”
===================
I.M.V. Eschenbach’s thesis demonstrate that feedback are not linear, but may well ramp up from positive to negative very quickly. Willis notes the tropical limitation on T and water T due to negative feedbacks amplifying as T increases. it is certainly not just the eventual removal of W/V via precipitation that reduces w/v feedback. As w/v increases in the atmosphere, surface insolation decreases dramatically, and energetic S/W insolation into the oceans decreases due to W/V alone, (even in clear sky conditions) and then more dramatically as albedo affects kick in. What is the relationship between increasing w/v and increasing clouds, both low and high level. We still do not have cloud feedback nailed down.
No one knows the residence time “within the oceans” of disparate solar input via wavelength, therefore no one knows how much additional energy enters the oceans during multiple decadal strong solar cycles vs. weak solar cycles, or during changes in Jet stream patterns, the cause of which is not well understood.
This also means the negative cloud feedback parameters must include the reduction of disparate SWR into the oceans, (note, not the atmosphere) which may accumulate or decrease for decades, (isolating said energy input from the atmosphere) depending on the earth’s ocean system equilibrium response to long term flux in S/W insolation entering the oceans. Atmospheric feedback is not the same as ocean influence feedback, and may well be a very lagged response allowing positive feedback to the atmosphere, but longer term negative feedback from the oceans.
The first 700 meters of the oceans contain hundreds of times more energy then the entire atmosphere, and their release and accumulation of energy likely wags the little tail of the atmosphere. The mean T of the oceans is warmer then the mean T of the atmosphere. Global and hemispheric mean T always follow ocean surface T. (See charts depicting hemispheric and global mean T following AMO and PDO cycles)
It thus appears logical that the more the land T increase, thus reducing their historic difference between the oceans and the atmosphere, the more the ocean surface T will limit how much land T can rise. If cloud feedback turns out to be more negative (due to reduced ocean insolation and release in ENSO cycles) then W/V feedback is more negative then thought.
Also not all energy input results in T increase. Some of the energy from increased GHG may simply accelerates the hydrological cycle, thus decreasing T feedback. Do we know how much energy input may not manifest as T, but simply accelerate the hydrological cycle? How much energy does it take to increase wind, convection, evaporation and precipitation means on a global basis.? These responses are not likely to be linear as well.
The idea of a set C.S. to doubling CO2 does not appear logical to me, as I see no reason to assume linear feedbacks to any parameters.
Ristvan, your thoughts appreciated on all of the above…

Bruce Cobb
May 15, 2016 12:13 pm

“I expect Climate Response Teams will attack like white blood cells”.
No! White blood cells are good. They will attack like these guys:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fictupedia/images/3/36/Star-wars-hoth-battle-scene-the-empire-strikes-back.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150120041348

May 15, 2016 12:15 pm

The reason he agrees with Lindzen is that he adopts without doubting the flawed reasoning of Lindzens papers.
In short, Lindzen estimated ( from crappy data) that the thermal response in the TROPICS is small.
Outside the tropics the data is too noisy. So, they both assume it is zero.
Even Rud Istvan agrees the paper is junk.
even Lindzen says
‘Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.”
Other voices…
oh, try climate audit
https://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/
here is the clue
IF you want to claim an ECS that is lower than the bare plank response THEN you need to identify
a SPECIFIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM.
shorter version. any number lower than 1.2C per doubling needs a discovery of a physical process or its junk

Sparky
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 12:38 pm

Utter nonsense Mosh you don’t have to propose a physical mechanism, all you need to do is observe the Earths response. If she says the sensitivity is low, then THE SENSITIVITY IS LOW,

Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 1:09 pm

And all the observational EBM studies say Earth says TCR is about 1.3-1.35, abd Effective ECS is ~1.5 to 1.8 (depending on aerosol values and the time perios studied). TCR1.3 versus no feedbacks ECS 1.2 just shows that there is some positive water vapor feedback plus/minus other stuff.

Catcracking
Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 2:36 pm

Sparky,
Good point. Looking at CO2 plotted on the same page with temperature, it is difficult to see a strong correlation between the two. In any other science, one would be looking at other factors that seem to overwhelm the CO2/Temperature effect. For example how can you explain long periods where the temperature does not rise while CO2 continues to rise.

Sparky
Reply to  Sparky
May 15, 2016 2:41 pm

For now, ristvan, and of course dependent on (estimated) aerosol values,

Reply to  Sparky
May 16, 2016 10:10 am

“Utter nonsense Mosh you don’t have to propose a physical mechanism, all you need to do is observe the Earths response. If she says the sensitivity is low, then THE SENSITIVITY IS LOW,”
Err no.
Note that I said BELOW the plank response.
Lindzen understood this which is WHY he proposed the Iris effect.

Reply to  Sparky
May 16, 2016 10:24 am

“And all the observational EBM studies say Earth says TCR is about 1.3-1.35, abd Effective ECS is ~1.5 to 1.8 (depending on aerosol values and the time perios studied). TCR1.3 versus no feedbacks ECS 1.2 just shows that there is some positive water vapor feedback plus/minus other stuff.”
Yes. but these are not pure observational estimates, since they including modelling to get the
delta Q estimates.
We can classify estimates into three categories.
1. Paleo: See Hansen or Annan on the LGM.
A) Pro: Paleo estimates include ALL PHYSICS..
B) Con You have uncertainty in forcing estimates and uncertainty in temperature change.
hansen argues that these are best because a paleo estimate includes ALL the physics.
2. Observational:
You have several various classes here: Short term ( volcano studies, satillite studies) and
longer term ( temperature record )
A) Pro: the uncertainties on temperature and forcing are generally lower than Paleo.
B) Con
1. The short series (volcano and sat ) have huge noise in the data ( Lindzen says grotesque )
2. The observational series may not contain all physics.
3. The observational ( temp series ) relies on models to get some of the inputs
So, its not very skeptical just to choose one of these approaches. Any reasonable analyst would look at these two approaches.. they would detail the pros and cons and suggest ways to improve the estimates.
Only NON skeptics would insist that the value is low or insist that the value is high.
A true skeptic would say. Using various approaches, each with different uncertainties, each with different
assumptions leads to a RANGE between 1.5C and 4.5C. This uncertainty will not be reduced by any
“meta study”. The uncertainty will be with us for a long time.

Sparky
Reply to  Sparky
May 16, 2016 11:54 am

Mosh, Science is an empirical subject. I’m pretty sure that before Isaac Newton came along, people knew that thrown rocks tend not to float off and hit the Sun.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 1:47 pm

Steven Mosher,
The difference between you and Prof Lindzen is that he admits it when he’s wrong.

Mark
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2016 2:00 pm

Oh No You Didn’t..
😀

Catcracking
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2016 2:39 pm

Yes, he does not adjust the data as others do before admitting wrong.

Michael of Oz
Reply to  dbstealey
May 15, 2016 4:22 pm

That’s gonna leave a mark.

Mark
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 1:58 pm

Again I find myself in agreement wow (re physical mechanism). Next thing I know you’ll be admitting the warmer models mechanisms are not good either
this is clearly shown in things the models cannot explain, pretty damn significant things.
Got an answer for Antarctica yet? The models say it should be melting

Reply to  Mark
May 15, 2016 5:42 pm

Well, the very tip of the Antarctic Peninsula is warming.
But the heat just can’t get past those pesky circumpolar winds.
Those winds are like an invisible force field. Or an event horizon on a black hole.
Well, that’s somebody’s ad hoc, post hoc, post doc, theory.
Then again, I come across several stupid explanations per year, none of them predicted by the original theory of Global Warming.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark
May 16, 2016 2:42 pm

Well the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula sticks up out of the Antarctic. And the Pacific and Atlantic oceans go sloshing by there twice a day.
G

commieBob
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 2:45 pm

Steven Mosher says: May 15, 2016 at 12:15 pm
… needs a discovery of a physical process or its junk

Keep your hands off its junk.
What you undoubtedly meant was:

… needs a discovery of a physical process or it’s junk

its = ‘owned by it’
it’s = ‘it is’
link

Latitude
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 3:29 pm

THEN you need to identify
a SPECIFIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM…
balls in your court……..

gnomish
Reply to  Latitude
May 15, 2016 5:38 pm

i see what you did, there

bit chilly
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 4:47 pm
Andrew_FL
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 5:05 pm

Mosher this is criminal intellectual dishonest on your part. You just said “even Lindzen says” and go on to quote an attack piece as if they were his own words. You try to imply that his disparaging of his mistakes in the 2009 paper have any bearing on the 2011 paper in so doing, and try to pass off gatekeeping as damning evidence against the victim.
Then you top it all off with the most ridiculous double standard imaginable.
Not only should this comment not be allowed to stand, you should be permanently banned for the first offense alone.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 6:10 pm

***even Lindzen says
‘Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.***
Did not know Lindzen spoke in the third person – are you sure it is not the rabbit??

Bernard Lodge
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 15, 2016 8:15 pm

Steven Mosher May 15, 2016 at 12:15 pm
IF you want to claim an ECS that is lower than the bare plank response THEN you need to identify
a SPECIFIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM.
I repeat my post from above… try this for a physical mechanism. If you disagree, please explain why.
If it’s not zero, it’s probably negative.
CO2 is an isotropically radiative gas with most of its IR emissions going sideways or upwards, both lost into space.
Increasing CO2 means increasing CO2 IR emissions into space so the earth must cool.
The heat is ‘extracted’ from the O2 and N2 ‘blanket’ and radiated out into space.
This happens at all altitudes which means all altitudes are cooler than they would otherwise be.
This is also consistent with CO2 following temperature.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 6:46 am

Steven Mosher: Even Rud Istvan agrees the paper is junk.
Rud Istvan over-reacted.
The paper’s result depends upon a parameter taken from a paper by Lindzen and Choi.. Neither Rud Istvan nor anyone else has reported a demonstrably better estimate for that parameter — at least not when I asked for one at ClimateEtc..
The basic approach of the paper is to model the energy flows between the regions of the climate system using compartment models. It has more compartments than the “one dimensional” compartment models (e.g. ocean “slab” models), so it is potentially an improvement. As more of those energy flows are studied and quantified, elaborated multi-compartment models may eventually make accurate predictions.
IF you want to claim an ECS that is lower than the bare plank response THEN you need to identify
a SPECIFIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM.

for example, you can study the changes of the surface cooling rates, as was done by Romps et al in their widely cited study of cloud to ground lightning strike rates. Meanwhile, the results based on simple ocean plank models do not have a record of demonstrated accuracy either. So they have no justifiable claim to superiority.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 7:19 am

Steven Mosher: IF you want to claim an ECS that is lower than the bare plank response THEN you need to identify
a SPECIFIC PHYSICAL MECHANISM.

Consider this mechanism, which has been highlighted by Willis Eschenbach and observed by billions of people. Morning sunshine falling on the Earth surface causes evaporation and transpiration, which results in clouds, hence cloud cover and reduced insolation. If the amount of downwelling LWIR were to increase, the rate of evaporation from the surface should increase during the sunny mornings, and each degree of cloud cover (e.g. 10%, 25% etc) should occur a little earlier than otherwise, producing slightly greater reduction of afternoon insolation than otherwise, and lower afternoon peak temperatures. In the summer, in equatorial and temperate zones, the mechanism produces quite reliable rainfall and squalls. I repeat, this mechanism, or at least the resultant clouds and rain, has been observed by billions of people. What’s not known now is how the mechanism responds to an increase in DWLWIR.
The standard “positive feedback” models assume that the increased evaporation produces increased absorption of upwelling LWIR, but ignore the insolation-reducing effects of the clouds. But the cloud response is widely recognized (e.g. original reports and summaries in Science Magazine and other peer-reviewed literature) as one of the most important unknowns. The standard Clausius-Clapeyron relation is a thermal equilibrium result that does not model the rates of flow of energy from surface to cloud condensation layer, or the rate of increase of cloud cover, so it is clearly inadequate.
That’s your mechanism, though there may be more.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 7:42 am

Steven Mosher: Even Rud Istvan agrees the paper is junk.
What Rud Istvan actually wrote at Climate Etc is: Bates new paper finding ECS ~1 is both good and bad. He critiqued a parameter choice made by Bates.

Steve Case
May 15, 2016 12:19 pm

Yeah, CO2 has gone up at a steady rate, and temperatures are up and down but mostly up over the last century and a half. Is some or all of that temperature rise due to CO2? Maybe natural causes would have lowered temperatures? No one really knows. Anyone who says they do is pulling your leg.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 15, 2016 2:39 pm

Actually, we can do much better, at least in terms of the big picture debate. The observed warming (with all its problems and adjustments) from about 1920 to about 1945 cannot have been CO2 induced. There was not a sufficient CO2 change. Even AR4 said so. The cooling from about 1945 to 1975 cannot have been CO2 induced since CO2 warms. Both periods prove natural variation can be substantial on multidecadal scales. The lack of temperature change this century, except for the 2015 El Nino spike, shows natural variation is still present since CO2 went up a lot and temps didn’t budge. Now, how much of the rise from 1975 to 2000 was CO2? Dunno. But do know that was the basic tuning period for CMIP3, and almost all for CMIP5 (1975-2005). Tuning assumed AGW, no natural variation. And that attribution issue is where the wheels fell off. And why models have so grossly diverged from reality. And their ECS is about twice what a century’s worth of observations produces. Useful sound bites.

Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2016 5:19 am

Agree ristvan.
There is nothing as good as a full-scale test (“Planet Earth Size! NO Scale-up Errors!”).
See para.5 below from this 2002 article – written before “the Pause” was apparent:
I hope to be wrong about the global cooling prediction – getting old and hate the cold.
Best to all, Allan 🙂
Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002
[excerpt]
The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common.
Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.

Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2016 7:01 am

ristvan: Tuning assumed AGW, no natural variation.
As far as I can tell, all of the models have at least some questionable parameters, and no model has a record of successful prediction over 2 decades. I think that all models should be viewed as at best works in progress, as more and more of the actual energy flows in the climate system are studied and (at least approximately) quantified.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 15, 2016 2:46 pm

Agreed. Of course I had a statistics professor who claimed wet sidewalks caused it to rain. 🙂

Reply to  markstoval
May 15, 2016 7:40 pm

MS, I had several of those during my training at Harvard. Luckily, every time I went outside before it rained, the sidewalk was dry. Taught a lot.

Karl W. Braun
Reply to  markstoval
May 15, 2016 9:04 pm

Weekends are obviously the major cause of rain: anyone of working age knows that.

george e. smith
Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 2:48 pm

Isn’t that obvious ? The sun’s heat causes the water on the sidewalks to evaporate, so later on it rains.
QED

willhaas
May 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science

Reply to  willhaas
May 15, 2016 1:21 pm

Your argument misconstrues the nature of positive and negative feedback. A damped positive feedback system is what Earth has. That can oscillate (ice ages, interglacials) but does not go out of control. For any Bode net sum of all feedbacks f less than about POSITIVE o.8, the system is quite well behaved. LC11 figure 11.
There is no reason that CO2 should change the temperature lapse rate. Gravity does not reduce cooling by convection. And so on. The zero answer you derive is inscientific nonsene of themsort that allows OBama to paint all skeptics as flat earthers. Please stop enabling him.

Latitude
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 3:33 pm

+1….
Otherwise an ice age would keep right on going……or an interglacial would keep going until we fry
What’s obvious is CO2 is not the control knob….you can crank it up all the way, and things will still swing the other way

willhaas
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 6:20 pm

Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable with positive exponentials in their response where as negative feedback systems are inherently stable with negative exponentials in their response. The AGW conjecture neglects that fact that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as I have explained.
The lapse rate is a function of the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere changes the heat capacity of the atmosphere in such a way so as to decrease the dry lapse rate thus promoting cooling.
Gravity does limit cooling by convection. It keeps the atmosphere close to the earth and so on.
In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. On only one value can be correct. There is nothing more important for them than to accurately determine the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same range of values. So after more than two decades of effort they have learned nothing that would allow them to refine their estimate one iota. They also refuse to acknowledge that others have made estimates of the climate sensitivity of CO2 that is below the IPCC’s published range of possible values. To do so would be an admission that CO2 might not be as dangerous as they previously thought and that idea would be a threat to the IPCC’ s continued funding. It is politics and not science.

george e. smith
Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2016 3:20 pm

A feedback system adds (algebraically) a sample of the OUTPUT to the original signal INPUT (unavoidably delayed).
If Earth climate IS a feedback system, what is the output signal (mean global Temperature ??), and what is the original input signal (Solar TSI ??) ??
The way I hear all these arguments, the output signal is the mean global Temperature (whatever that means) and the input signal is a change in the atmospheric CO2 abundance.
Considering that atmospheric CO2 abundance has steadily grown from 315 ppmm to circa 400 ppmm since 1957/58 IGY (with a 6 ppmm annual cyclic addition), while mean global Temperature has done nothing even remotely similar, often not even going in the same general direction, and for the last 18 years, going absolutely nowhere, describing that as a feedback system, seems quite pretentious to me. And the TSI in the accepted Climate feedback model, is nothing more than the DC power supply. Totally ridiculous.
Now I’m not saying that the physics of LWIR radiant energy capture by GHGs, including CO2, is in any way faulty. That seems incontrovertible (to me). I also would not dispute that human activities have contributed (in several ways) to CO2 atmospheric abundance. (I dunno how much).
That this relates in any way to a mean of Global Temperature (which has a total extreme range of circa 100 to 150 deg. C all the time), seems a bit of a stretch to me.
If a thermometer on the surface, can read something from -94 deg. C to something north of +60 deg. C, just depending where on earth that surface is, I can’t see the relevance of a one degree possible movement of some computed mean in 160 years.
We have not even had the benefit of the same measuring system over that time interval.
The measuring system seems to have been altered far more than has the computed result has changed.
Just MY opinion of course.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
May 16, 2016 3:29 pm

George,
You said,
“A feedback system adds (algebraically) a sample of the OUTPUT to the original signal INPUT (unavoidably delayed).”
More accurately, a Bode ‘amplifier’, which climate system feedback is based on (Hansen, Schlessinger per AR1), samples the sum of the input and feedback to determine how much output to deliver from an implicit external supply. The climate system has no such power supply and the climate ‘amplifier’ (really just the planets atmosphere), consumes the input and feedback to produce the output. This COE constraint has never been accommodated by climate science and is why 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing is thought to result in more than 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions to support a 3C rise and is why runaway feedback effects can even be postulated.

ferdberple
Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2016 5:48 pm

There is no reason that CO2 should change the temperature lapse rate.
================
CO2 must warm the surface by cooling the atmosphere. otherwise energy is created from nothing. this inherently changes the lapse rate. if you find the lapse rate unchanged, then warming cannot be due to CO2.
Gravity does not reduce cooling by convection.
=====================
No matter how fast air travels upwards, it can never accelerate downwards faster than 9.8m/ss. This limits convection, otherwise there would be a vacuum at the surface.

RT
Reply to  willhaas
May 15, 2016 2:32 pm

So you got around Watts’s ban of the Dragon Slayers by this nonsense, suggest you spend some time checking out Manabe & Witherald etc. This is what makes critics of the current warming religion look like flat earth’s.

Bye Doom
Reply to  RT
May 16, 2016 3:37 pm

Too bad this blog doesn’t also ban creationist comments, since creationism has no scientific basis whatsoever, while the Slayers can at least adduce scientific arguments (however easily shown false) for their errors. One of the few, perhaps only, attacks that alarmists get right is that a disproportionate number of “climate change” skeptics are also anti-scientific creationists.
[too bad you have to cast aspersions on others from behind a fake name -mod]

Bye Doom
Reply to  RT
May 17, 2016 4:48 pm

Aspersions? How is pointing out that creationists are anti-scientific an aspersion? It’s a fact. Unless you think that creationism is science.
I guess the Warmunistas are right. WUWT in particular and skeptics in general are anti-scientific creationists.
I’m outa here! Why contribute to a flat earth blog?

Reply to  RT
May 17, 2016 5:53 pm

Wait… what? A flat earth blog?
Where did that come from?
WUWT in particular and skeptics in general are anti-scientific creationists.
Maybe a few are, but most are not. And this is certainly not a creationist site, even if a few commenters express that opinion.

whiten
May 15, 2016 1:32 pm

Oh gosh…..
GCMs are Global Climate Models…..great…. I did not know that till now…..the only thing “worth” it for me so far getting from this paper…..got to scrap off now any previous information on GCMs as that will be just a misinformation at this point………no ready though yet for that new heavy lingua and terminology……damned so much.waste of time…….
Can’t argue with “Eskimos” about the snow unless you are an “Eskimo” and know the thousand different ways that snow is called and the whole particular reasons why and also being ready and prepared to update as the time and climate progresses…. promptly and without any question or waste of time. .
cheers

Mark T
Reply to  whiten
May 16, 2016 5:00 am

No, they’re general circulation models.

bit chilly
Reply to  Mark T
May 16, 2016 8:55 am

with the emphasis on “general”.

whiten
Reply to  Mark T
May 16, 2016 11:17 am

Mark T
May 16, 2016 at 5:00 am
No, they’re general circulation models.
————————————
Why should I take your word for it!
These guys are the authority….the “egghead” elite, why should they do say or name something wrongly, misname it!
Can’t be an innocent mistake…..can it really????? 🙂
cheers

Kev-in-Uk
May 15, 2016 1:34 pm

Mosh says it cant be zero. In a perfectly closed system that is probably true but yhe system isnt fully closed. However it is also feasible that actual sensitivity is negative IF neg feedbacks are greater than the +ve co2 effect? This is a possibility under certain circumstances? I think the ecs is like the holy grail – talked about, believed to exist but fundamentally its a construct of a collection of unknowable or unmeasurable variables – much like the global temp anomaly!

Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
May 15, 2016 1:57 pm

Kev, what you say is theoretically true ignoring observations. But we have observational data from about 1880. It can be used to quite rigorously estimate both the mode and the full PDF for ECS, subject only to the (considerable) data uncertainties. Best answer seems to be about half of what the climate models produce. And we already know the climate models are wrong from the pause and missing tropical troposphere hotspot.

Mark
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 2:19 pm

key words, hesitate, considerable uncertainties, these alone are enough to not base policy on ECS
Further more, ECS can only give you an estimate on what has happened since 1880. This is useless for a 100 year projection, throwing 70 models at it and hoping one sticks if you cast a wide net is exactly what is going on here.

Mark
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 2:21 pm

or simply, the models are not replicating the real world, they are replicating something shoehorned to match 1880 onwards observations.

siamiam
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 2:51 pm

So, the answer Is ECS is one half that from what the climate models produce. But the climate models are wrong about the troposphere hotspot and the pause???

Smart Rock
Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 3:10 pm

ristvan – I’m a bit out of my depth, and I’m trying to grasp what you said. Firstly, I seem to understand that ECS means Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (to 2×CO2). You said here at 1:57 pm that “we have observational data from about 1880. It can be used to quite rigorously estimate both the mode and the full PDF for ECS, subject only to the (considerable) data uncertainties”. How? You have data on temperature and data on CO2 concentration, but how do you use those to estimate a sensitivity, without first removing the effects of other variables that might affect temperature? Same with your comments about EBM’s at 1:21 pm. You have energy balance data and CO2 concentration data, but how can you isolate the change in EB due to 2× CO2 from that to other variables?
You seem to be contradicting what you said at 2:39 PM that the effects of CO2 on climate are not known. What I am drawing from the article at the top is that they assume that changes in energy balance are all due to CO2, and that’s how they derive the sensitivity, i.e. circular reasoning. I must be missing something, enlightenment on this would be appreciated.
Respectully, SR

Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 3:53 pm

SR, the basic methods for EBM estimates of ECS (actually, Effective Climate Sensitivity since Hansen argues millenial or centuries [for details equivalent to angels on pins, see my ebook Blowing Smoke]) are well established. See Lewis and Curry 2014 for a paper explaining them and using only ‘official’ IPCC AR5 inputs to calculate ECS. Too complicated to explain here. Lewis and Curry paper does a good job and is available free via Curry’s blog Climate Etc. Highly recommended. Highest regards.

Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 4:04 pm

ristvan,
“But we have observational data from about 1880. It can be used to quite rigorously estimate both the mode and the full PDF for ECS, subject only to the (considerable) data uncertainties.”
No, it can’t. Not if by ECS you mean equilibrium sensitivity. For that, you have to reach equilibrium. You can try to estimate an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS). That is what Bates does. But to equate that to EqCS requires big and dubious assumptions. As Bates says, in the past they haven’t matched up at all. He thinks that is because GCM’s don’t do tropics right. Well, maybe, I’m not convinced by what he says.

Reply to  ristvan
May 15, 2016 4:37 pm

SR, I did not fully answer your question, which now realize contains a very good basic question about natural variability. Above, I responded concerning multidecadal natural variability (which based on various proxies seems to be something like a ~60 year full cycle).
That response did not address your very good question about longer ‘cycles’ like MWP to LIA to now. Great point. Dunno.
No amount of century plus EBM analysis can account for the longer millennial periods. Unfortunately, when looking at very long paleoclimate trends, it is clear we are much nearer to the next ice age than anything else. Some would even say, overdue. My apologies for not catching the full context of your excellent comment until after dinner. The full answer is, dunno.

ferdberple
Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2016 5:56 pm

observational data from about 1880.
=====================
110% of the warming since 1880 could be natural temperature increase from the LIA, similar to the run up in temps during previous warm periods, that occur roughly every 1-2 thousand years.
The extra 10% could easily be cooling due to CO2. The problem is that No One Knows how much warming or cooling would have taken place in the absence of human activity, because no one knows what caused the LIA.
What we have is WAGS pretending to be science. The fundamentals of climate are missing. No one knows how to predict natural variability. And as such, no one can hope to predict future climate.

Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
May 16, 2016 10:58 am

“Mosh says it cant be zero. In a perfectly closed system that is probably true but yhe system isnt fully closed.”
tell it to the judge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
There is a Consequence to relying on weak arguments for skepticism.
Let me clue you guys in.
When the prosecution presents evidence that it 1.5 to 4.5 C
It is stupid to argue that it is zero or 1 as Lindzen did in the case.
Instead you guys should follow Nic Lewis
WHY?
1. He uses METHODS approved by the prosecution
2. He uses data approaved by the prosecution.
3. He derives results close to the low end.
THAT is argument Judo my friends. That is one smart cookie!
Instead, skeptics play the stupid tactic of trying to argue that its zero or 1.
Hint, you dont need it to be zero or 1 to make your case.
So listen to Nic Lewis, dont get suckered into overstating your case or making a case on thin air.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 11:05 am

Quoting the Guardian doesn’t score points on the internet’s ‘Best Science’ site.

Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 4:20 pm

FWIW, I think Mosh is right, here. That’s what we on Anthony’s team are doing.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 17, 2016 2:28 am

Mosher says:
“When the prosecution presents evidence that it 1.5 to 4.5 C”
What “evidence”? It’s pure speculation, pure guesswork:
[blockquote]A committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, the other, due to James E. Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4 °C. “According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since…”[/blockquote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Consensus_estimates
That’s 37 years ago …

Mark
May 15, 2016 2:06 pm

This is what they muttered at RC
“The planet is executing a single climate model, not the average or mean of the various models.”
Have they literally lost the plot over there
“planet executing a single climate model” baaahahahahaha
I suspect they got it backwards again, CO2 drives temp.. and now models drive the planet.
No wonder ATTP wants to go with models.
desperation, public awareness reached critical mass a few years ago, no one can stop the end of the AGW 5cam

Reply to  Mark
May 15, 2016 5:52 pm

Hi Mark, I’m really sorry that you had to learn the terrible truth in this way.
Yes, I’m afraid that this entire planet and everything on it is just a model constructed by another vastly more complex civilization in an attempt to simulate their own climate and thereby work out whether they should stop breeding or constructing climate models.
They were slightly amused when they discovered that the earthlings in their model were also attempting to construct climate models of their own.
At a one nanometre grid cell size – our climate models will also spawn life – and that life will eventually construct climate models in order to understand the climate in the model.
And so on. 🙂

Editor
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 16, 2016 4:23 pm

Craig
May 15, 2016 2:44 pm

Attack like a virus is more like it.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Craig
May 15, 2016 8:30 pm

or parasite.

May 15, 2016 2:55 pm

Although the paper takes care to distinguish between equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) and effective climate sensitivity (EfCS), the headline, article, and most of the commentary ignore this. They aren’t at all the same. His final sentence sets it out:
“The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (~ 1°C) given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effective, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered. “
So he’s not saying that EqCS is low. He’s saying that EfCS from observations is low, and that matters more than earlier thought. I don’t think he is convincing there, but you need to know what his argument actually is.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2016 5:26 pm

“…Although the paper takes care to distinguish between equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) and effective climate sensitivity (EfCS), the headline, article, and most of the commentary ignore this. They aren’t at all the same…”
No, they are not.
However:
“…LC11 pointed out that [using the output of 11 GCMs from IPCC AR4] all the EqCS values lay within the 90% confidence intervals of their EfCS values…”
So according to the models that you give thanks to before meals and pray to before you go to bed at night, EqCS and EfCs are close.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
May 15, 2016 6:20 pm

Well, ristvan tells you here what is wrong with LC11.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2016 7:05 am

“The effective climate sensitivity is a measure of the strength of the feedbacks at a particular time and it may vary with forcing history and climate state.”
and
“with units and magnitudes directly comparable to the equilibrium sensitivity. The effective sensitivity becomes the equilibrium sensitivity under equilibrium conditions with 2xCO2 forcing.”
Who says our climate is out of equilibrium? The sun shines, it gets cloudy sometimes, warms up, cools down, snows, we get storms, we get fine weather. “Same as it ever was!”
Stokes you are guilty of sophistry once again…

Reply to  Michael Moon
May 16, 2016 1:30 pm

“Who says our climate is out of equilibrium?”
You’re not reading it properly. It says
“under equilibrium conditions with 2xCO2 forcing”
You can only measure EqCS by observation if you go from one equilibrium state to another.
But we aren’t at equilibrium now. The seas are warming. That is the essential basis for defining and calculating EfCS.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2016 2:21 pm

You can only measure EqCS by observation if you go from one equilibrium state to another.

How about the ones called Winter and Summer? They each happen once a year in the extra-tropics, they are even accompanied with a variable rate Solar forcing.
The measured response to solar forcing, N30 to N40 +/- 180 loncomment image
All of the extra-tropics (20-90 lat) and by continents, raw reports are here :
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/

Reply to  Michael Moon
May 16, 2016 3:01 pm

“How about the ones called Winter and Summer?”
No semblance of equilibrium there.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2016 5:07 pm

No semblance of equilibrium there.
Okay, half the planet isn’t the whole planet, so you are right.
But you can examine the northern and southern hemispheres separately, and in that case you have a quiescence in both the daily solar input, as well as the daily rate of change in temperature. The input energy peaks at the time the length of day or night peaks, and the daily rate of temp change peaks in the spring and fall. And in the southern hemisphere, the min and max peaks swap.

Reply to  Michael Moon
May 16, 2016 8:19 pm

It’s not global. But also not equilibrium (or steady state). That requires that any transient fluxes settle. If Summer never ended, it would get a whole lot hotter.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2016 8:35 pm

” It’s not global. But also not equilibrium (or steady state). That requires that any transient fluxes settle. If Summer never ended, it would get a whole lot hotter.”
Each point it changes direction, it was in balance, as the length of day shortens, the daily rate of temp change goes from adding warming, to not getting enough solar to maintain temps.

Reply to  Michael Moon
May 19, 2016 12:45 pm

The growing biosphere and pace on co2 sink growth strongly suggest that concentrations in the atmosphere are far above equilibrium for current temperatures.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2016 8:20 am

We should be able to throw out Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
Albedo-ice-melt is the longest timeline feedback – taking hundreds if not a thousand years.
But here is the deal, Greenland’s glaciers will continue melting out for another 20,000 years before they are basically gone completely. Greenland is too far south to sustain glaciers in an interglacial environment. They can completely melt out if an interglacial lasts 30,000 years. And this one is forecast to.
So, Albedo is always changing on the planet and will never be at Equilibrium.

Reply to  Bill Illis
May 16, 2016 9:33 am

Bill, the Holocene has been slightly cooling down for at least 7,000 years and strongly in the last 3,000 years according to the GREENLAND ice core data. That seems to indicate that Greenland ice fields will not melt much into the future.
There are other indicators showing that the Holocene is fading away into a new glacial ice surge,which has been ongoing for the last couple thousand years.

Bye Doom
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 16, 2016 3:24 pm

Bill,
Correct, if the Holocene lasts as long as Milankovitch Cycles predict it should.
True that we’ve been in a long-term cooling trend at least since the Minoan Warm Period, if not indeed the Holocene Climate Optimum, but that doesn’t mean that the next glaciation is right around the corner.
During the interglacials of c. 400 and 800 Ka, the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted more or less completely. It partially melted during the Eemian, the interglacial of c. 100 Ka, which lasted about 5000 years longer than the Holocene so far and was warmer.
Such “catastrophic” natural global warming will occur slowly enough for humanity to adapt, should we survive for another 30,000 years.

Robert
May 15, 2016 3:22 pm

Off topic but just heard the north magnetic pole is going to swap around and be south magnetic pole in around 200 years or so , how long before some nut draws a link to CAGW ?

siamiam
May 15, 2016 3:38 pm

Here, here. I say. And by the way, how much energy does a CO2 molecule have to radiate to Warm the other 2500 around it by 1 degree. Remember, at saturation radiation occurs immediately.

JT
Reply to  siamiam
May 15, 2016 5:01 pm

CO2 molecules do not warm the surrounding molecules by radiating; they warm them by colliding with them and releasing to them, during the course of the elastic collision, the energy of the photon which they had absorbed prior to the collision, thereby increasing the kinetic energy of the molecule with which the CO2 molecule collided and the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule itself.

siamiam
Reply to  JT
May 15, 2016 5:36 pm

Ah. Transfer of simple energy. But from one CO2 molecule to another 2499 for a measurable thermal effect that is attributable. Take a temperature anywhere and tell me what portion of it is do to with CO2 radiating photons or colliding with anything.

MarkW
Reply to  JT
May 16, 2016 10:19 am

However, once that CO2 molecule has transferred the energy of one photon to the surrounding molecules, it than captures another photon, and again transfers that energy. Then it captures another photon and transfers energy. Over and over again, ad infinitum.

Phil.
Reply to  siamiam
May 16, 2016 11:47 am

It certainly does not occur instantaneously, for CO2 in the 15 micron band radiation lifetimes are of the order of millisecs compared with ~10 collisions/nsec.

siamiam
May 15, 2016 3:40 pm

Whoops,in reply to Respectfully SR

chaamjamal
May 15, 2016 4:05 pm

climate sensitivity has to do with the relationship between atmospheric co2 and surface temperature.
yet, agw is not about atmospheric co2. it is about fossil fuel emissions.
the relevance of climate sensitivity to agw can be established by first showing that changes in atmospheric co2 are related to fossil fuel emissions. if we can’t show that climate sensitivity is irrelevant to the proposition that we must reduce fossil fuel emissions to tackle climate change.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

SAMURAI
May 15, 2016 4:50 pm

The CAGW PC hysteria is at the beginning of its end.
It’s becoming statistically impossible for CAGW’s ECS estimates to come anywhere near 3~5C as the IPCC has suggested from its inception.
All the empirical data and physics show ECS is mostly likely between 0.5C~1.0C, which not only isn’t a problem, the positive benefits from higher CO2 levels per doubling are extremely beneficial: 37.5% increase in crop yields (Allen et al 1990), 25~50% increase in global greening (just between 1980 to present), increase plant water efficiency from shrinking plant stomata, increase in plant drought resistance, slightly longer growing seasons, slightly milder winters, slightly earlier springs, slightly later falls, increased arable land areas in Northern latitudes, increased tree lines in Northern latitudes, increased phytoplankton biota from CO2 fertilization, etc.
Based on the empirical evidence and physics, CO2 has perhaps contributed 0.2C of beneficial warming recovery out of 0.82C total since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, which is a good thing..
The remaining 0.62C of warming recovery since 1850 can easily be attributed to:
1) The strongest 63-yr string (1933~1996) of solar cycles (sunspot activity) in 11,400 years (Solanki et al 2003). When these ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend….
2) Cloud cover flux (possibly related to sunspot activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray flux– aka Svensmark Effect)
3) PDO/AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles (Especially PDO):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
4) Natural chaotic climate variability.
5) ENSO flux.
CO2 forcing is a logarithmic function, meaning each incremental increase has less and less of an effect, while CAGW assumes it’s exponential from positive feedback loops, which are NOT happening.
In 6~7 years, The PDO and AMO will both be in their respective 30-yr cool cycles and the weakest solar cycle since 1820 will start, likely causing the disparity between CAGW mean projections vs. reality to exceed 3+ standard deviations for 25+ years, which will be sufficient duration and disparity to make CAGW a joke.
CAGW is dead.

Michael Asten
May 15, 2016 5:04 pm

The Bates value is broadly consistent with the value of 1.1 estimated from observational data on microfossils from the Eocene Oligocene transition 33 million years ago.
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012.pdf

Reply to  Michael Asten
May 16, 2016 10:30 am

citing your article rejected 4 years ago, is an own goal

David A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 16, 2016 9:13 pm

Nonsense, referees are not observations, and your rejection based on that is not science. There are at least 20 papers showing a lower ECS then the IPCC. Also calling R.L. paper junk also demonstrates your brain is not engaged.

May 15, 2016 5:32 pm

I think there is justification, given the public view of the unsettled and controversial and biased politicized state of climate science in the CAGW era (~1980 to present), to categorize anthropological GW not at the level of theory any more but rather categorize it as just a debatable argumentative premise.
The only climate sensitivity premise is that any delta in CO2 level in the atmosphere created by any CO2 source (either non-anthropogenic or anthropogenic) must, all things being equal in the total Earth Atmosphere system, add net energy to the total Earth Atmosphere system in the short term or longer term. Then there is a subsequent temperature change premise that that premised change in total Earth Atmospheric system’s energy must cause GASTA to change.
Input on that ‘premise’ statement?
John

Richard
May 15, 2016 5:42 pm

As with any zealously supported religion, facts are irrelevant. Believers will distort the truth and vilify the skeptics. And, oddly, these people claim they have science on their side.

Latitude
Reply to  Richard
May 15, 2016 6:52 pm

They have zero understanding of why temperatures have gone up and down…
….yet they are 100% sure that this will do it
and they still can’t explain if temperatures increase….what would stop it

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 10:22 am

I debated with a true believer a few years ago.
He readily admitted that his side had no idea why temperatures rose and fell in the past, but that didn’t matter because the GCMs (PBUH) have declared that the current warming is being caused by CO2.

Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 10:32 am

Many things can stop it.
on a temporary basis– volcanoes
on a temporary basis– internal variability
on a longer term basis– changes to albedo, changes to areosols..

Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 3:32 pm

Or a butterfly in the Amazon. 😉
— Good to see detailed responses Mosher. Thanks.

Reply to  Latitude
May 16, 2016 9:05 pm

Steven Mosher: on a longer term basis– changes to albedo
Hence the importance of cloud cover.

May 15, 2016 7:42 pm

Phil’s Dad quotes Mr Finn; “As CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the average height at which energy is emitted to space increases.”
And then Phil’s Dad says, “Have you factored in that as height increases so does the surface area; such that the same total energy can be emitted at a lower temperature?”
The surface area increases as the square of the radius. S = 4 * Pi * R^2.
dS/dR = 8 * Pi * R approximately 25.13 * R
Can anyone explain why the discussions of outgoing radiation do not mention the increase in surface area with increase in height of the TOA, not even the 2007 paper by Richard Lindzen?
Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.160.448&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
May 15, 2016 8:11 pm

Can anyone explain why the discussions of outgoing radiation do not mention the increase in surface area with increase in height of the TOA
1. It isn’t TOA (Top of Atmosphere) that increases in height, but MRL (Mean Radiating Level).
2. The change in area is negligible. The MRL occurs (if memory serves) at about 14 km altitude. Suppose that doubling of CO2 caused the MRL to increase to 15 km. That would be a substantive change in terms of the MRL. But plug that extra kilometer into the area calculation itself. The diameter of earth is over 6000 km. An extra kilometer…. you do the math. The % change is so small as to be immaterial.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2016 6:09 am

The planet I live on has radius more like 6000 km.
Puny change in surface area…yes. Worth tabulating and including for radiative balance purposes…yes.

Phil.
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2016 9:25 am

An increase in 1 km would decrease T by ~10ºC so about an increase in T^4 of 18% for less than 1% increase in area!

MarkW
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2016 10:24 am

Michael, when you do calculations, do you routinely carry the calculations out to 15 or 20 places?
Especially when the limit of accuracy is only 2 or 3 places.

Phil.
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 16, 2016 11:41 am

Should be decrease in T^4 of course.

BillyV
May 15, 2016 8:11 pm

But we will all die off massively in the summer heat as reported by the new never ending “adjusted” temperatures. So CAGW is not dead. Any survivors will face RICO charges or worse. /sarc

May 15, 2016 8:35 pm

Discussions like this that isolate one climate variable, in this case C02, to assess a single multiplier ignores the big picture imo. Our climate, since we entered this era of repeating ice ages, oscillates between to limits of temperature with a lower bound and an upper bound and no one in climate science can state for a fact what are the negative feedbacks to positive feedbacks that stop any runaway extremes at both ends of this repeating spectrum.
In the timelines C02 lags temp but this in and of itself does not preclude a man made C02 contribution to climate since we never pumped this much C02 into the air. But natural variation seems to dwarf any C02 signal. Increase watts per square area clearly has it’s own diminishing returns no matter whether the source is increasing C02 to TSI. Once simple example is do more watts equal more clouds and more reflection creating a self limiting top temp range no matter how many watts you through in?
This is all speculation at this point. The only thing I know for sure is that any simple multiplier of C02 as is being discussed here can not be true. There must be negative feedbacks to any increase in watts.

David A
Reply to  John Mason
May 16, 2016 9:29 pm

There are. hat is more, no one knows if the doubling logarithmic of CO2 is consistent at disparate GMT, as feedbacks are not linear either. (As an example Willis notes the tropical limitation on T and water T due to negative feedbacks amplifying as T increases.)
No one knows the residence time within the oceans of disparate solar input via wavelength, therefore no one knows how much additional energy enters the oceans during multiple decadal strong solar cycles vs. weak solar cycles. This also means the negative cloud feedback parameters must include the reduction of disparate SWR into the oceans. The first 700 meters of the oceans contain hundreds of times more energy then the entire atmosphere, and their release and accumulation of energy likely wags the little tail of the atmosphere. The mean T of the oceans is warmer then the mean T of the atmosphere. Global and hemispheric mean T always follows ocean T. The more the land T try to diverge or increase above the historic difference between the oceans and the atmosphere, the more the ocean T will limit how much land T can rise. If cloud feedback turns out to be more negative then thought and therefore W/V feedback is more negative then thought, and more energy from increased GHG simply accelerates the hydrological cycle, then negative feedbacks may kick in quickly.

Eliza
May 15, 2016 9:12 pm

How about NO CO2 sensitivity compared with natural effects? (solar, Volcanoes, Cycles). Trump will definitely be the next USA president and all this crapulla will disappear finally. THis whole AGW has been a bit like communisn. Eventually EVERYBODY admits they were wrong totally wrong. Obama, Kirchner, Maduro, Castro, Dilma ect are all OUT and finito trash.

Reply to  Eliza
May 17, 2016 6:34 am

Eliza wrote: “This whole AGW has been a bit like communism.”
Too true Eliza.
I think many of the AGW watermelons could indeed be Marxists, of whatever variety: Trotskyites, Leninists, Harpos, Grouchos…
Read this article by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, at
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
Excerpt:
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. …

May 15, 2016 9:21 pm

Since we’re already at >+1C of warming at the surface, with a 40% increase in CO2, ECS can’t possibly be as low as +1C.

SAMURAI
Reply to  mikeroberts2013
May 15, 2016 11:23 pm

We’ve enjoyed about 0.82C of global warming recovery since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE in 1850, of which, CO2 has perhaps contributed around 0.2C of the total…
Since CO2 forcing effect is logarithmic (each incremental increase has less and less of an effect), we MAY get another 0.3C of beneficial CO2 induced warming between now and 2100, LESS the effects of a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM), which is projected to start in 2035 and last 50~100 years…
Ironically, it’s possible the GSM will cause global temps to be COOLER than they are now by 2100, even with an additional 0.3C of CO2 induced warming recovery….
Given the Goldilocks meme the Left believes in, should we start emitting MORE CO2 to offset the coming GSM-induced cooling to keep global temps at the Goldilocks’ magical zone of 14.5C???

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  mikeroberts2013
May 16, 2016 5:58 am

Not even the IPCC claims that is all due to CO2. They could not even blame CO2 for most of the rise in temps in the first half of the 20th century.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
May 17, 2016 2:59 am

IPCC says it is likely that all of the warming since 1950 is caused by anthropogenic CO2. That’s the bulk of the warming we’ve seen in the industrial age. If a 40% increase in CO2 has resulted in a response of at least 1C (though there is more to come), then another 40% increase would get us to about 100% increase over pre-industrial and have an associated TCR of about >2C. As ECS is higher than TCR, it will easily be at the higher end of estimates, rather than the lower end. Certainly at least 2C.

MarkW
Reply to  mikeroberts2013
May 16, 2016 10:27 am

1) Closer to 0.8C.
2) You are assuming that 100% of the warming was caused by CO2.

Reply to  MarkW
May 17, 2016 3:00 am

Since 1950 >100% caused by human generated GHGs.

Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2016 5:30 pm

Greater than 100% of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions??
That’s crazy, and where is the endlessly predicted tropo hot spot that is supposed to be caused by AGW?
It’s not there. Which means that AGW is still too small to measure.
So I guess baseless assertions will have to do. Like: “Greater than 100% of global warming is due to AGW.”
Whatever. Or, Say Anything.

Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2016 11:35 pm

“That’s crazy”
No, not crazy. Some warming offset by other factors.

Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2016 9:18 am

mikeroberts,
Greater than 100% still makes no sense.
AGW (which I think exists) is still just an opinion. Until it is quantified with measurements, it can be anything. Or nothing.
But one thing is certain: since AGW is too minuscule to measure, it must be small. And if it’s small, it is a non-problem.

May 15, 2016 10:17 pm

Can anyone provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS)? I don’t believe so.

SAMURAI