Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper by 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.
Here’s the abstract.
Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance ModelsEstimates 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 sensitivity estimates
- 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
citing your article rejected 4 years ago, is an own goal
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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..
Or a butterfly in the Amazon. 😉
— Good to see detailed responses Mosher. Thanks.
Steven Mosher: on a longer term basis– changes to albedo
Hence the importance of cloud cover.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
Should be decrease in T^4 of course.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. …
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.
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???
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.
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.
1) Closer to 0.8C.
2) You are assuming that 100% of the warming was caused by CO2.
Since 1950 >100% caused by human generated GHGs.
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.
“That’s crazy”
No, not crazy. Some warming offset by other factors.
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.
Can anyone provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS)? I don’t believe so.
There are some problems with it, but the approximate forcing effect of CO2 per doubling is thought to be expressed by the equation: 5.35watts/M^2*ln(560ppm/280ppm)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(.5 negative cloud cover feedback)=0.57C ECS….
This equation seems to match very well the tiny amount of CO2 forcing experienced to date, given non-adjusted RSS/UHA/Radiosonde/HADCRUT4 datasets, and factoring in other natural forcing factors (Little Ice Age recovery, Sunspot activity, ENSO, PDO/AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles, Albedo flux, natural climatic chaotic variation, etc.,).
Even without any negative cloud-cover feedback from CO2 forcing (unlikely), then ECS, based on the above equation, would be around 1C…
Regardless, CAGW’s assumption of 3C~5C of ECS is completely unsupported by the physics and all empirical evidence to date… CAGW’s projections have become laughable.
I believe the dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) relationship is actually derived from curve fitting temperature increase
to CO2 concentration increase. i.e. it’s a circular argument.
“I believe the dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) relationship is actually derived from curve fitting temperature increase
to CO2 concentration increase. i.e. it’s a circular argument.”
Wrong.
You start with the physics of radiative transfer.
That’s the physics that allows us to BUILD THINGS THAT WORK, so its really engineering.
We use this physics ( how EM is propagated, absorbed, reflected ) to design
1. Sensors -radars, ir seekers, telescopes, any communications gear. start wars etc
2. Calculate weather forecasts
3. This physics is tested and used on a DAILY BASIS.
The Highest precision engineering codes used in this field are called Line by Line models.. or LBL.
The data fed into these codes comes from HITRAN a database started by the airforce to help
defend our country.
You then excercise these codes to see what the effect of doubling c02 is.. or doubling anything covered in the Hitran database.. ( basically everything in the atmosphere)
The paper is here
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
This is really funny because in 1998 the evil climate scientists REDUCED the estimate for doubling c02
OMG I thought all adjustments went UP! in this grand conspiracy
They “know” it’s there, they just can’t point to it. So shuddup.
/sarc
“Can anyone provide an existence proof for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS)? I don’t believe so.”
can anyone prove your existence?
I dont believe so.
ECS is simply a metric. Like an average is a metric. Now averages dont actually exist in nature. They are constructs. All that matters is having a set of instructions to create the metric.
I agree ECS isn’t zero. (But I strongly suspect that it is highballed.)
It could be zero. Can’t be ruled out, as it’s possible that net feedback effects are negative. In the warm, moist tropics, more CO2 might actually have a cooling effect.
Water vapor is what matters, after the first 150 ppm of CO2 or so needed to support most plant life. The assumed positive water vapor feedback is not in evidence.
Byedoom,
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.
Mosh, Have you read the summary of that referenced paper which starts “Three radiative transfer models are used to estimate the radiative forcing”. Sorry but It’s just models again……
Terry,
This is easy for a static, ideal black or gray body, where COE requires than the output emissions must be equal to the input power and that the sensitivity is the slope of the relationship between the surface temperature and output emissions which will be equal to the slope of the relationship between the surface temperature and input power, which of course is quantified EXACTLY by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and its EXACT slope is easily calculated. Note that the Earth with an atmosphere devoid of GHG’s but with the same amount of other gases is nearly an ideal black body (after accounting for reflection).
The real Earth is clearly more complicated, but it seems inconceivable that adding a small amount of GHG’s to the atmosphere (including water/clouds), can dramatically alter the behavior dictated by the SB Law. They can change the equilibrium average surface temperature, but not the basic shape of the relationship between the surface temperature and input/emissions; moreover, as observed from space, the average response of the planet in the power/energy domain is close to the expected behavior of a gray body whose emissivity is about 0.62 and whose temperature is about 287K (the average temp of the surface) and gets even closer as the number of years of data averaged increases.
I do not understand why so many scientists and scientific institutions that allow them so silenced some politicized “scientists” so that they do not believe in nature and the laws of nature.
All they get into your computer and to seek solutions on the basis of their “commands: through a variety of models and formulas, but they forget to use their awareness to know the true causes of the phenomenon. So happens and with the study of the causes of global warming and climate change and their causes phenomena and cycles.
The only solution is to study the mutual relationship of the planets and the sun and that there are the causes.
I know that four planets causing the sunspot cycle, which last about 11.2 years, and leprirasti diagram of about 123 years, and slicnpo.
When will science “senses” the big question, and more complex puzzles from which unsuccessfully engaged in seeking the wrong basis.
Congrats – I looked up leprirasti, Google says “Showing results for leptirasti
No results found for leprirasti.”
Also “Showing results for slicno Search instead for slicnpo.”
Please provide a translation.
You’re right, my mistake: not leprirasti, more butterfly diagrams, and also did not slicnpo, more like.
Thank you
It’s another nice model. In time, maybe it will have a track record of accurate predictions showing that its results can be relied upon.
The new Bates paper makes sense to me.
My simple radiant energy transfer model predicts -0.05C < ECS < +1C at surface. There is a slight cooling effect from solar absorption and a slight warming effect from surface absorption. The difference between vanishing small counter effects is vanishingly smaller.
I just cannot quantify the effect of CO2 doubling on atmosphere's absorptivity/emissivity. Nobody else seems to be able to either.
Of course S-B Law proves global radiating temperature goes down with CO2 and emissivity to space. (Yes that is a period.)
That red and green plot of estimates with time crosses zero around 2020 and could continue downward thereafter.
I think 100,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin, maybe more.
One would have to be very ignorant to claim CO2 is the greatest threat to humanity, when it is merely green plant food. Are you reading the literature President Obama and Pope Frances? History will say you embarrassed yourselves. Monstrously naive.
I quit following the radiant transfer model babbling because there is no evidence of any widespread positive feedback in existence.Negative feedbacks are OBVIOUS and in our faces everyday,while the AGW computer baked positive feedback loop crappola never seems to be easy to measure outside of unverifiable climate models.
You all should read some reality348.wordpress.com from Earl happ. Ozone and partial pressure changes from mesosphere.
I’ve been saying that the sensitivity is 0.3 – 0.5C for years.
Nick Stokes wrote:
“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.”
What you say relates to EffCS as estimated from relatively short term fluctuations (monthly to decadal), which is what Bate’s study is based on and about which he comments. It is not true to say that EffCS estimated from multidecadal to centennial warming, as is generally done in energy budget and similar studies (e.g., Aldrin et al 2012, Otto et al 2013, Lewis and Curry 2014), has not matched up with estimated equilibrium climate sensititivity EqCS.
There are indeed good reasons for thinking that EffCS estimated from relatively short term fluctuations may differ substantially from EqCS. But that is not the case for energy budget studies. It is only possible to compare multidecadal EffCS with EqCS in climate models. For CMIP5 models with the requisite data, EqCS (as estimated per AR5) is on average under 1.1x multidecadal EffCS.
If you use OHC as the response and assume that all changes are due to delta CO2 and not natural, then sensitivity is about 1/4 the 1.2°C change typical direct forcing of one doubling. About 1/12 what the IPCC says. These are real, direct measurements of heat retained by the planet. Surface temps may be affected in higher or lower amounts, but actual retained energy (if you believe OHC data) is far less than predicted.
Would someone be kind enough to translate that abstract into plain English?
He thinks that maybe his analysis possibly shows that a 100% in CO2 might increase warming about 1C but can’t explain why Earth has already warmed 1C with a 40% increase since the Industrial Revolution.
D. Horne can’t explain it, either. But we know it wasn’t primarily due to CO2.
dbstealey. Easy. The (permanent) gas CO2 drives the greenhouse effect and (condensable) water vapour is the big (~9 day-) feedback.
Simple settled science. But beyond you.
Here’s your problem, you have it backwards. Clouds or no clouds make over a 100W/m^2 difference at the surface, and then you have all the water vapor, gallons of the stuff, that starts out warm in the tropics, and as it moves poleward it starts to cool, and condense out, and the following day it has to heat up and evaporate, then at night cool off until it condenses out, some of which ends up in the water table, the rest gets to evaporate again the next day. All of these process release energy to space and are far bigger than the 3.7W from Co2. Hurricane David carried somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 the volume of Lake Erie inland, some of it ended up over 1,000 miles north of the gulf. that is a lot of energy transported and eventually released to space.
Horne,
Thanx for your speculation. But this is a science site, it’s not ‘realscience’ or ‘hotwhopper’ or ‘skepticalscience’. This is the internet’s ‘Best Science’ site, which is why you don’t fit in. What you need is a religious blog.
You still haven’t explained anything. You can’t, without data, and you have no data.
Measurements are data. But you have no measurements of AGW. Therefore, you’re just winging it. Speculating. Asserting your baseless opinion.
Either produce verifiable measurements of AGW, or we will know you haven’t got any. All you’ve got is speculation and your eco-beliefs.
That’s not nearly good enough. You’re like a dog trying to explain trigonometry; no one can follow your yelps and woofs. You don’t understand it yourself.
We need measurable data. Got any?
The (permanent) gas CO2 drives the greenhouse effect and (condensable) water vapour is the big (~9 day-) feedback.
Not if part of the increase in vapor goes into low-level cloud formation.
Thanks to ristvan and others that have commented. It’s nice to have some new fodder to read. My take on the paper is mostly a “hurrah for our side”! That’s not that I am saying that it’s a bad paper, I really wouldn’t be the person to judge it’s merit but it won’t be a game changer. It does provide material for argument in the political realm which probably makes the scientists in the room cringe but nobody said an argument was only about the facts. Mores the pity…
What is clear to me is that we still have a lot to learn about the climate and relative to the CO2 debate, we have a lot to learn about climate feedbacks. So, is our understanding of the climate sufficient enough to make the kind of confident claims that are being made from either side of the debate? So many of the papers I read are re-analysis of the same data with bias toward the side of the debate that the authors identify with and then are trotted out as “proof” that we need to or don’t need to regulate CO2. It appears to me that climate science has gotten lazy and instead of using the time to discover new facts it has established an un-healthy addiction to statistical analysis and worse yet, politics.
Am I wrong?
I finally finished calculating Climate Sensitivity for the seasonal change in solar forcing. I’ve charted North Lat 30 to 40 for +/-180 long for Min(mn) and Max(mx) temps, and I’ve calculated data for N/S 20-90 lat, in 1,10 and 20 degree increments.
tell it to the judge boys
http://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-reports/april-2016/
Steven,
A judge isn’t science. For one thing, that judge is no skeptic. Without skepticism, they always get off-track.
You can’t see the wood for the trees, dbstealey. Hopeless-hopeless-hopeless.
Did you look at
http://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-reports/april-2016/
What does it show? “They” are “out” to “get” you?
No, ‘they’ are out to fool you:
They’re doing a good job, too. Some folks are easy to fool. You, for example, will believe anything your confirmation bias cherry-picks for you.
And once again for the slow learners: there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.
The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified — unlike your CO2=cAGW conjecture, which has been repeatedly falsified.
DB,
Think you mean the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
dbstealey, you’d be hard pressed to find no warming in the actual BEST data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt
” you’d be hard pressed to find no warming in the actual BEST data:”
But that’s not attribution.
“But that’s not attribution.”
Didn’t say it was, was responding to dbstealey’s claim that BEST shows no warming since 2001.
mikeroberts,
Here’s another BEST chart, from the WoodForTrees database.
As anyone can see, there is nothing happening now that hasn’t happened before, and to a greater degree — and when human CO2 was not a factor.
Conclusion: more CO2 does not cause the predicted global warming.
Nice WFT chart but I go to the actual data. Definitely unprecedented warming. CO2 has been known for 200 years to trap outgoing heat. Refute it in a paper, if you’re so confident you’re right. But you’ll need a supported alternative explanation for the warming over the last 250 years.
Steven Mosher: http://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-reports/april-2016/
Thank you for the link. I appreciate the monthly updates, Along with those from UAH and Bob Tisdale. I seem to be one of the few people who both respects the BEST product and thinks that the warming effect of CO2 has been exaggerated.
Now back to CO2. Given what is known about the changes in the Earth surface energy fluxes, how could that much warming at the surface have been driven by change in CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm? Assuming that the surface warming was driven by accumulation of CO2 in the troposphere (in the stratosphere the effect of increased CO2 is cooling), how is it that the troposphere is not warming at a higher rate than the surface?
You really need to think these things through, not just wave your hands, with quantifications. Your little witticisms and insults are totally inadequate to the challenge of explaining, or even relating together, what has been learned in the past decade.
matthewmarler,
That link begins around 1850. Here is the WoodForTrees B.E.S.T. database, beginning at the beginning: in 1800.
It’s also the global mean, not the ‘land only’ and ‘ocean only’ in the link they’re commenting on.
I think this chart answers the question: the rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable global warming, since a higher rise in global temperatures occured in the early 1800’s, when CO2 was uniformly low.
dbstealey. Of course “they” are, of course they are, dear fellow. But they don’t fool you, eh. Oh no! Not with thermometers and increasing temperatures with increasing CO2 levels… You know, simple physics and stuff.
Oh no. It’s magic. The scientific community produces the heat out of a hat!
Dennis,
“The scientific community …”
The very fact that so many in the scientific community, outside “climate science”, show so little skepticism about CAGW, is testimony to the utter lack of integrity that so many in the greater community have, to me.
Germany had quite arguably the the most advanced/sophisticate scientific community (especially “simple physics”) on Earth, as the dark time descended . . and that did not save them (and much the world) from that darkness. Turns out geeks and brainiacs are not automatically angels or saints, or even decent human beings, it seems to me.
The existence of a robust scientific community has nothing to do with the rise of a tyrant. Whether a tyrant rises to power is independent and unrelated to the presence, or lack of, a strong scientific community.
JohnKnight,
Correct. Dennis Horne has been debunked so often he sounds like one of Dr. Leon Festinger’s ‘Seekers’.
Horne believes the flying saucer will come to rescue him any time now…
“Nick Stokes May 15, 2016 at 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.”
Equilibrium has a clearly defined meaning in physics, and you are again using the term in quite the wrong manner. The Earths temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy fluxes and is therefore a quasi-steady state. Steady states are also will defined, but are completely different from equilibrium.
Again Nick, if in doubt, a helium filled balloon floating is in equilibrium with its environment, whereas a helicopter hovering above the group is at steady state.
That people who should know better deliberately misuse valid scientific terms like equilibrium and feedback is a major flaw in attempting to make sense of a very difficult process.
I agree about the thermodynamic definition. EqCS isn’t my terminology, but its meaning is well understood (steady state).
equilibrium sensitivity
=============
the earth’s climate is not and never has been in equilibrium. so how can one pretend to calculate ECS?
[We don’t post Potholer videos here. -mod]
’nuff said.
Love the May 12, 2014 news clips where news hysteria reigns over melting Antarctica. This coincides quite well with a period of very high sea ice and surface ice. In other words, the actual data directly contradicts the news story AND the data was readily available.
“The predictable response from activists is already happening.”
It’s really amazing. Google search for “Bates’ Embarrassment: Sad and Sloppy Climate Sensitivity Study” and you will find a text at Daily Kos written by “ClimateDenierRoundup”. These individuals are so totally predictable. It should be possible to design a flypaper to get rid of them quickly.