Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Roger Taguchi, who often circulates fascinating emails on climatological physics, has sent me a beautifully simple and elegant demonstration that IPCC has at least doubled true climate sensitivity, turning a non-problem into a wolf-criers’ crisis. To assist in grasping the beauty of his brief but devastating argument, Fig. 1 shows the official climate-sensitivity equation:
Fig. 1 The official climate-sensitivity equation. Equilibrium or post-feedback sensitivity ΔTeq is the product of pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT0 and the post-feedback gain factor G.
Global temperature rose by 0.83 K from 1850-2016 (HadCRUT4: Fig. 2), while CO2 concentration rose from 280 to 400 ppmv. Officially-predicted pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT0 to this increase in CO2 concentration is thus 0.312 [5.35 ln (400/280)] = 0.60 K.
Even if CO2 were the sole cause of all the warming, the post-feedback gain factor G would be 0.83/0.60 = 1.38. Then, at doubled CO2 concentration and after all feedbacks had acted, equilibrium sensitivity ΔTeq would be only 0.312 x 5.35 ln (2) x 1.38 = 1.6 K.
Yet the AR4, CMIP3 and CMIP5 central equilibrium-sensitivity predictions are of order 3.2 K.
Not all feedbacks have acted yet. On the other side of the ledger, much of the global warming since 1850 is attributable either to natural causes or to other anthropogenic forcings than CO2. Netting off these two considerations, it is virtually certain that IPCC and the general-circulation models are overestimating Man’s influence on climate by well over double.
Fig. 2 The curve and least-squares trend of global mean surface temperature since 1850 (HadCRUT4).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes maybe, Seth – I think that those are quite different problems.
But models are models and stockmarkets are everdays real world. Like it or not.
So do yourself a favor with getting rich by modeling stockmarkets – you’ll have a better standing in defending models.
If models are models then that people don’t avoid buildings, bridges, aircraft, and trains is sufficient defense of models. (I’m assuming you don’t)
“If models are models then that people don’t avoid buildings, bridges, aircraft, and trains is sufficient defense of models. (I’m assuming you don’t)”
No it isn’t. You are truly clueless if you think FEA and climate models are in the same category. Models used for engineering design have been continuously validated with actual testing against the structures being designed for decades, hundreds of thousands of times. There is a reason why they crash cars, and part of it is to validate the FEA model so they have confidence in it’s ability to predict actual behaviour. IF it didn’t they change the model until it does BEFORE they rely on it for design changes.
Climate models? lol, just lol. Putting climate models in the same class as FEA is like saying a commodore 64 is the same as a macbook air.
Don’t know why I’m feeding the troll…
Seth, you won’t compare static models to climate models, will you.
It’s not static models vs. climate models, Johann, it’s engineering models vs. scientific models.
Climate models are engineering models. Engineering reproduce known observables within their parametrized boundary conditions. They cannot make predictions outside their bounds.
Scientific models do make predictions, in that the prediction is a unique solution to the problem to be solved.
The falsehood implicit in Seth’s position is that he misrepresents an engineering model as though it were a scientific model. Seth is making a fatal error, but is (one hopes) apparently unaware of that.
Needless to say, Seth –
models are models and stockmarkets are everdays real world. Like it or not –
with the respective ‘finance products’ you’ll make your revenue on stock markets in hours to days.
while with ‘climate models’ you claim to predict millenia and more.
It just amazes me that smart educated people think that a complex and chaotic system like the Earth’s climate can be reduced to CO2 and ‘some forcings’ to arrive at a number ‘x’. It must occur to people that in a chaotic system, one can start with the exact same conditions and end up with different answers each time the system moves forward? That is why don’t believe there IS a CO2 sensitivity ‘X’. There likely is a sensitivity from x0 to x1 in ‘n’ standard deviations… The Earth’s climate is NOT a test tube, nor is it a computer model.
What Lord Monckton is suggesting is reasonable, that sensitivity is way over estimated. But when people actually believe it can be reduced to a single value, they are either over-simplifying or misunderstanding how Climate behaves.
As a thought experiment, for a moment picture the Earth with no creature capable of using fire – no humans, or proto-humans – in fact no primates just to be safe. Do you really believe the Climate would be highly stable? Of course not. It never has been.
Now imagine you could double the CO2 in the air and watch what happens. You should see warming, most of us agree with that, but it won’t rise to a single temperature and stabilize – temperature will continue to wobble and shift as it always does.
Now run the exact same experiment again and again, it should warm on average but the temperature wobble will be different in each run – so you can never know what the real sensitivity of Earth’s climate is to CO2 – you can only say it averaged some amount over some number of experiment trials. The wobble will mostly mask the rise in temperature, because natural variation is much larger than a doubling of CO2 effects are.
If the feedbacks were all positive and as large as the IPCC seems to think, the Earth would long ago have entered into a permanent state of warmth. There must be equally large negative feedbacks in order for the Earth’s Climate to recover from warmth and enter an Ice Age.
For such a complex system to have remained ‘relatively’ stable for so long, there must be multiple feedbacks in both directions tugging at the system.
Models will never capture this complexity. Even if you manage to build a model that perfectly mimics Climate over the last 100,000 years, it will fail to accurately predict the future beyond a short period of time. This is the curse of chaotic systems.
Nailed it .
> For such a complex system to have remained ‘relatively’ stable for so long, there must be multiple
> feedbacks in both directions tugging at the system.
Replace ‘relatively’ with ‘remarkably’ or ‘amazingly’
Remember, celsius is already an anomaly scale. We’re talking about fluctuations
of < 1K over 150years around the stable value of 288K.
JonA’s point is excellent. The true temperature scale is in Kelvin, so IPCC’s 3 K warming in response to CO2 doubling represents little more than a 1% increase in global temperature. And that is not enough to matter much.
Whats the evidence and reasoning behind the inference that “And that is not enough to matter much”?
Perhaps, Seth, the newer comes from the fact that some regions of the world have 20 degree K swings daily and seasonally. If those swings don’t cause problems, why would adding a percent matter?
Inj reply to the relentlessly prejudiced Seth, anyone with a sufficient knowledge of climate dynamics will appreciate that the vast heat capacity of the oceans prevents sudden, permanent and substantial step-changes in temperature under anything like modern conditions. Accordingly, a 1% increase in absolute global temperature is bound to be insignificant, and may well have net-beneficial consequences.
When all you can do is linear algebra, everything looks like a linear equation…
In response to Mr Smith, conventional feedback analysis (see the introductory paragraphs to HW Bode’s magisterial tome on feedback analysis, published by van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1945) assumes that the elements in a circuit containing one or more feedback loops are linear, though of course the output of the system-gain relation will be spectacularly non-linear as the feedback fraction approaches unity.
For a mathematical treatment of non-linear feedbacks, see the relevant section of Roe (2009), and see the discussion in the Appendix to the second of my two papers in the Chinese Science Bulletin in 2015.
Monckton of Brenchley on August 3, 2016 at 11:55 pm
The simple model in Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015) is in widespread use. Indeed, the paper or its abstract have been downloaded more times than any other in the 61-year history of that distinguished journal, by a factor of 12.
_______________________________________
And with that amount of interested experimentators we’ll get a lot of insights – and too a lot of deserved questions!
So what was the climate sensitivity for the end of the Younger Dryas, when Jerusalem was being built?
CO2 from those campfires had a devastating effect!
We don’t know whether the feedbacks are positive or negative so it’s pointless discussions
On the contrary, as my follow-up posting will show, one can form a view on the extent of iPCC’s exaggeration of equilibrium sensitivity without knowing whether feedbacks are positive or negative. If feedbacks are negative, then IPCC’s sensitivity is about thrice the true value. Feedbacks cannot be more strongly net-positive than IPCC now images, in which event the stated sensitivity is about twice the true value.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eCzSpicX6Z0/UVS3wzhpOvI/AAAAAAAAAZo/ktv0f9e6kbk/s1600/Kobashietal2011Fig1.jpg
The whole concept of “climate sensitivity” seems meaningless in light of climate history. Temperature rises and drops with no relation to CO2 whatsoever.
Perhaps you’re reading it wrong. The expert opinion seems to be that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 °C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years.
This is the key chart / mathematical analysis used by Royer et al in “Climate Sensitivity … ”
I DARE you to try figure out what they did here and how they reached “a” conclusion from the data. [Hint: they actually have the math “exactly” backwards].
http://www.climate.be/textbook/images/image5x08.png
Yes, Seth,
‘Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years’ and bevore 100 years mankind took control to rule the whole planets weather events.
Sounds shrill, don’t panic!
Some argue that the human component of the recent observed temperature rise is more than 100%. Meaning that temperatures would be lower now than before had we not been around. So if the model says a 3C increase and observations say a 1C increase claim that natural variation is responsible for -2C. Natural variation = observations – models.
perfect, Steinar !
Human CO2 influence is minimal to nothing – it’s lost in the noise of natural variation due to overwhelming natural CO2 and water vapour dominance. Where are positive feedbacks and amplifications at the levels required to have any substantive impact? Missing in action, that’s where. Bang goes the Runaway Warming theory and that’s the crisis over right there. Anyone whose paycheck doesn’t depend on ‘AGW’ can see the truth because it’s staring them in the face.
Nick Stokes has already pointed this out, but the equation in the post is for the equilibrium temperature change, not the transient response. We’re not yet in equilibrium after increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. Therefore the analysis is wrong. The final Delta T_eq will be greater than the current \Delta T. Alternatively, the Delta T attributable to CO2 only is less than the expected equilibrium value.
As we can all see, it doesn’t matter that it’s wrong – Monckton of Brenchley believes it’s right (and it is in his world), so it is!
The equation is not the wrong equation but the right equation; though, as stated in the head posting, one must make allowance for the fact that not all feedbacks have yet acted and for the countervailing fact that not all warming since 1850 was driven by CO2. Perhaps less than half of it was. The latter fact outweighs the former.
So you used the wrong eqn because there are errors in both directions which outweigh the difference of using the right equation.
Doesn’t that make the whole exercise a waste of time ?
Greg, who has remarkably little knowledge of climatological physics but knows the Party Line all right, says that the equation in the head posting is the wrong posting. In fact, if he knew a little of the physics of teedback analysis he would know that it is a simple matter to use that equation to obtain any desired transient sensitivity as well as equilibrium sensitivity simply by choosing any desired reduction in the value of the feedback factor. It is really not difficult.
JM, as always the however scientific community makes itself a laugh when fighting the messenger instead of reacting to the message.
We’re not yet in equilibrium after increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.
Indeed, we may well not be, and given the amount of calories needed to melt e.g, the Greenland ice sheet, or warm the oceans by one degree, its unlikely we will be in the next 10,000 years either, and of course, that means that we probably never will be in equilibrium and never ever have been in equilibrium.
As shown by the paleological record of ice ages, snowball earth, tropical earth, etc etc.
I dont mind if in order to save your precious AGW theory you tell us that in 10,0000 years the earth’s climate will be a degree warmer, because we will for sure not be burning fossil fuels then anyway, and it means that there is no need for political action right now.
Once again the cost of ‘saving’ AGW is that it becomes of non-scary and of academic interest only.
Of course the fact that the temperature here has climbed from around 12C to 20C in less than 4 hours makes nonsense of your claims. It is patently clear from diurnal and seasonal temperature variations that the bit of the earth that matters to us – the ecosphere – is capable of responding pretty damn quickly.
None of that justifies using the wrong equation.
And that’s the paradox:
There’s the one ‘wrong equation’ in short.
Was to await you want the short versons of the other ‘wrong equations’ too.
Why not do-it-yourself.
Well it would be the ‘right’ eqn if the result were interpreted as an estimation of TCR not ECS.
So what are the model values of TCR and how does it compare?
The misleadingly-named “And then there’s physics” thinks that the sensitivity equation shown in the head posting is the wrong equation. It is, however, the right equation. The head posting correctly points out that not all feedbacks have yet acted, but also points out that not all of the warming since 1850 was anthropogenic.
Since we’re very obviously not in equilibrium, it is very obviously not the correct equation.
If you mean that not not all feedbacks have operated fully to then return the system to approimate thermal equilibrium, then you should have known that it is the wrong equations
It’s pretty clear that it’s not exactly 100% anthropogenic, 0% natural. However, of all the external forcings, anthropogenic ones dominate and you can always cast the appropriate equation in terms of all external forcings, rather than anthropogenic ones only. If you’re suggesting that some of the warming was internally forced, then you’re an outlier if you think this could make a significant contribution on centennial timescales.
It’s your freedom of mind and speak that ‘If you’re suggesting that some of the warming was internally forced, then you’re an outlier if you think this could make a significant contribution on centennial timescales.’
But repetition of dogma doesn’t alter the real world.
my fault: repetition of dogma SHOULD NOT alter the real world.
The problem is not in the equation but in the guy who use it and doesn’t want to understand that this equation is valid only in equilibrium.
The misleadingly named “And then there’s physics” is perhaps unaware – for he displays very little knowledge of these matters – that a) the response time following a direct forcing, and before taking feedbacks into account, is only a few years (see e.g. Roe, 2009, fig. 6), and that b) the remainder of the response time is attributable to temperature feedbacks. To use the equation in the head posting to allow for the fact that not all feedbacks will have acted over a shortish period, simply reduce the value of the feedback factor by any desired amount. It’s really not very difficult, and it will thus give quite a good idea of transient as well as equilibrium sensitivity.
“And then there’s physics” declares his faith in the proposition that over recent decades the greater part of the forcing, and hence of global warming, has come from anthropogenic influences. However, the peer-reviewed literature is more nuanced. The data-file compiled by Cook et al., 2013, showed just 0.3% of some 11,944 papers published over the 21 years 1991-2011 stating that recent warming was mostly manmade. They may or may not be right, but, since it is impossible to distinguish clearly between anthropogenic forcings and feedbacks and natural variability, and impossible to distinguish clearly between the magnitudes of forcings and feedbacks, and impossible to distinguish clearly between the magnitudes and even the signs of various feedbacks, his statement to the effect that most recent external forcings are anthropogenic has perhaps more the character of a declaration of faith than an established scientific proposition.
And what makes you think that the long term feedbacks are all positive? Perchance may be the dominate long term feed backs are all negative. You are just wishing and guessing that’s all. The evidence is that sensitivity in the models is high and the danger posed by AGW is near nil and more then offset by its benefits.
Its kind of pointless discussion because nobody can say for sure whether the feedbacks have positive or negative impact on temp.
You cant do a maths sum unless you know the signs (+,-) to use.
In response to Fabo, it’s not a pointless discussion. One can deduce a first approximation to the feedback system gain factor G from the temperature record as shown in the head posting. Then one must allow for the fact that feedbacks have not yet acted, but set against that fact the compensating fact that perhaps less than half of the warming since 1850 was driven by CO2.
All of this is based upon accepting ‘official’ temperature records as accurate and correct. But are they, and what are the error margins?
How can anyone have any faith or place reliance upon the ‘official’ temperature record is beyond me. I think but do not know for sure (because the ‘official record’ is so horribly bastardised and corrupted by UHI, station drop outs, questionable adjustments, homogenisation, lack of spatial coverage since 1850 etc) that it has warmed over the period in question, but I am highly sceptical that the amount of warming is 0.83K
IF the warming is less, the climate sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) must be correspondingly less
All this math gives me a headache. No hot spot, Co2 “causes global warming”. change to “global warming” change to “Co2 causes climate change” changed to “climate change” change to “climate disruption” (fail term) hypotheses is falsified.
Bullshit Baffles Brains.
Are clouds positive or negative feedback ?
Nobody can answer that question with any certainty, so how do you account for them in the above formula ?
That’s just one example.
In answer to Fabo, changes in cloud cover may be either positive or negative, though the cloud feedback is more likely to be net-negative than net-positive (Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011). The user of the official climate-sensitivity equation shown in Fig. 1 of the head posting can assign any desired value to the cloud feedback, which is one of the array c(i) of temperature feedbacks, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of direct warming.
Nick Stokes,
To some people, then “Sun Argument” falls because maybe teperatures do not respond immediately to changes in Solar activity. People demands that The influence from one Solar Cycle should immediately show as absolute trend in Earth surface temp.
However as many will have realized, TWO more than usual hot Solar Cycles will affect the Earth temperature more than one, Three more than TWO etc.
So we might expect warming over more cycles even though each Solar cycler (warmer than “usual”) appear constant. Which is many peoples main argument against the Sun as main driver.
But us that tend to accept Sun as main driver accepts exactly that
“We have not reached equilibrium”.
So if its true that we have not reached equlibrium (i think so, obviously !) then Contra-Sun argument falls.
So:
If we have not reached equilibrium, IPCC has not this argument against Sun based on divergence between Earth temperature and Solar activity. So if IPCC equation is based on “non-equilibrium”, then this non-equilibrium should be accepted also when evaluating role of the Sun. By IPCC.
If climate modelers have to adjust aerosols in order to “balance the CO2 books”, it seems to me that aerosols play a greater roll in surface temperature than CO2.
What Nick Stokes, Seth, toncul, And then There’s Pisstakes and all the other Warmunistas have failed to spot is the fact that they have zero remaining credibility. About absolutely anything.
Where were their anxious comments after Climategate, the Gleick affair, the “97% Consensus” scam?
Were they there, warning caution, when their fellow “scientists” piled on with 1001 Nights worth of hyperbole, endless scary, shroud-waving fantasies of impending doom for humankind (& Polar Bears)?
Did they ever (with their ‘Oh-so-intelligent’ scientific & technical knowledge) point out that, with the non-availability of meaningful electricity storage, the whole Ruinable Energy project is a complete nonsense; supplying mostly a bit of energy when it isn’t needed at eye-watering cost and damaging the viability of well proven, reliable and affordable generation?
Did they ever show any concern that the World’s poor were being fobbed off with the odd solar panel when they desperately needed electricity?
The list goes on and on.
The alarmists have been desperately trying to find how the Fossil Fuel Industry is funding “deniers”.
No luck, worth talking about. Meanwhile we can all see how greedily the Warmunistas guzzle up to their ears in the trough of taxpayers’ money and frantically try to keep their virtue-signalling political & media chums happy.
Have they no shame?
Thought not…
Very good. In short, as always, behavior gives the game away.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has allowed prejudice to cloud his judgement. It is obvious that the conclusion cannot be drawn from the equation presented. DeltaT(eq) is unnkown, but is stated to equal the RHS of the equation. Because we do not know DeltaT(eq), Monckton instead uses some other value, lets call it X.
X does not equal DeltaT(eq), and so does not equal the RHS of the equation. However, Monckton claims it does because some differences between X and DeltaT(eq) are positive and some are negative, so they are bound to cancel out.
This is patently silly. The conclusion may or may not be true, we have no way to know from the evidence presented here. We can be absolutely certain that it is not valid.
Perhaps Christopher Monckton of Brenchley should instead spend his time to keep us updated on the current status of the pause?
My guess (and this is only a guess), as La Nina conditions strengthen within about 6 months the so called pause will appear again in the Sat temp data, and will by then be over 19 years in duration.
I suspect that unlike the Super El Nino of 1997/98 that produced a long lasting step change in temperature, the strong El Nino of 2015/16 will not have resulted in such a long lasting step change in temperatures, and just like the El Nino of 2010 it will show up as a short lived spike in the Sat temp data set. If so then re-appearance of the so called pause is almost inevitable. It is only just a question of when in 2017 it will be showing up again.
My guess is that in about 6 months time you will be able to look forward to Lord Monckton posting again on the subject of the pause. As they say, stayed tuned and watch this space.
Seance has allowed prejudice to cloud his judgment. The head posting makes it explicit that not all feedbacks have acted but that, on the other side of the ledger, not all warming since 1850 is attributable to CO2.
That is exactly what I said. You say that there are positives and negatives and therefore they are sure to cancel out. My point is that we have no reason to believe that the magnitude of each will be the same. More important, there is nothing in the equation that tells us that the magnitude will be the same and therefore the conclusion cannot be valid.
Richard. I don’t see why we should only be informed about the duration of the pause when it looks “scary” for the warmunists. Why not keep us updated all the time?
My follow-up posting will put some numbers on to the final paragrap of the present head posting. The results are likely to show that IPCC has indeed more than doubled true climate sensitivity.
This is all very well…
But the facts remain – it has warmed over the last half century and something caused that; the arctic sea ice is in decline and something caused that; glaciers are retreating and something caused that; the range of many animal/bird/plant species is changing, the date of ‘spring’ gets earlier, etc, etc
There is enough observed warming effect… and the only plausible cause is human CO2
Griff
Aside from the fact that all your evidence started to come about before man had any real effect on CO2 levels these same peace of evidence have all been surpassed manny times in the past. Things like Antarctica being totally ice free, ocean levels be hundreds of meters higher and CO2 being 10 times higher during an ice age. The only answer is you have no clue what you are talking about.
Well, whatever caused the warming from 800 BC to 400 BC and whatever caused the warming from 400 AD to 1200 AD is probably causing the warming from 1650 AD to 2010 AD.
Oh, right. You don’t know what caused that earlier warming. Guess it didn’t happen then because Mann-made global warming only happens when Mann makes global warming to get government funding to generate government funding from carbon trading taxes.
Report from the Past: (circa 1800)
But the facts remain – it has COOLED over the last half century and something caused that; the arctic sea ice is INCREASING and something caused that; glaciers are ADVANCING and something caused that; the range of many animal/bird/plant species is changing, the date of ‘spring’ gets LATER, etc, etc
There is enough observed COOLING effect… and the only plausible cause is … WHAT?
Griff, when was the last time the earth’s climate wasn’t changing, either warming or cooling? Was it changing before man came into existence? What caused it to change then?
Interesting use of the word “plausible”.
everything is plausible
rick – this you write:
“But the facts remain – it has COOLED over the last half century and something caused that; the arctic sea ice is INCREASING and something caused that; glaciers are ADVANCING and something caused that; the range of many animal/bird/plant species is changing, the date of ‘spring’ gets LATER, etc, etc2
that’s utter nonsense.
Other than Albedo, all of the important feedbacks should have a timeline of a few months to be fully enacted. I would say they should be fully operational within a few days but then we see at least a 3 month lag with the ENSO and with solar forcing and the peak of the seasons so make it a few months for water vapor and cloud and lapse rate feedbacks to occur fully. (They don’t count the Planck feedback but one could include that one as well within that timeline.
How about Albedo? Well, that is thousands of years and it is actually very small anyway. Melting ice will 5,000 years or so. But then, the temperature change for having a few months of no sea ice in the summer and/or no snow/ice covered Greenland is extremely. They are too far North and the solar insolation is so small, it only makes a 0.2C impact or so. Antarctica is much higher but that is 5,000 to 20,000 years in the future.
The ocean heat accumulation lag? 6 or 7 years.
We are not going to wait around for 5,000 years to see if this theory is correct. We ALREADY know 90% of the impact within 3 months or several years. Just measure it.
Spencer and Baswell found a lag of about 12mo between max forcing and max response from CERES data.
I found similar values from ERBE data following Mt Pinatubo. That is for the tropics were f/b are strongly negative. Extra tropics have weaker f/b and we can expect a longer time constant.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/
A few months for the world to settle into the new position for its sea ice, ice sheet, glaciers, and forests?
That appears a couple of millennia short.
The Planck “feedback” is not a feedback. It is treated quite distinctly from the true feedbacks. It is better understood as the quantity, in Kelvin per Watt per square meter, by which a change in flux density at the emission surface must be multiplied to yield the temperature change at that altitude in Kelvin.
And, as Fig. 6 of Roe (2009) makes clear, the climate response time to the direct (pre-feedback) forcing is only a few years. The very great majority of temperature feedbacks similarly act over shortish timescales.
Just to put all sides on notice, the graph since 1850 spans only 2.5 cycles of the AMO. Assuming that long cycles like the AMO in only one ocean basin is sufficient to explain small global anomalies, this is much ado about largely unexplained long cycles. The short term analog of this is El Nino in the Pacific and its impact in short term measures of global temps.
I hope you guys arguing “models”…realize the accuracy of the models 10 years ago..or even five. or one..is not the same as the accuracy now….
That’s based on a temperature history that’s constantly been jiggered….
This isn’t physics ; it’s curve fitting . I want to understand the physics .
Show me the fundamental equations so I can implement them , play with them , experimentally test them , grok them .
The official sensitivity equation will give Mr Armstrong a starting-point. It shows the relations between the principal variables, and the diagram in the head posting is as clear as I can make it.
Of course, any simple equation will give a less complete picture than a more complicated one. For instance, there is no term in this equation for ocean heat capacity, and there is no related time constant, though you will find very good explanations of these things in Roe (2009).
The “official” sensitivity equation is,however, an application of the deification fallacy. Thus it provides no support for Monckton’ conclusions.
Mr Oldberg is waffling again, either because he is incapable of clear, concise expression or because his role here is to bore people by deliberately causing confusion.
The official climate-sensitivity equation is nothing whatever to do with the reification fallacy – or, as Mr Oldberg chooses to misspell it, the “deification” fallacy. It is simply an equation. Get over it.
I mean in terms of heat transfer equations . I present the most basic experimentally testable equations for a source and ball of arbitrary spectra . Only the spectrum of the ball as seen from the outside effects its equilibrium mean temperature and if the very small changes in our overall externally observed spectrum due to changes in the already highly saturated CO2 spectrum is the basis of the Radiative Forcing values , please point us to those calculations .
I have never seen equations explaining the increased temperature at the bottoms of atmospheres relative to the gray body temperature in their orbits by any spectral phenomena . The Schwarzschild absorption differential is the only candidate I’ve seen but I know of no presentation of any ability it might have to “trap” energy on the side away from a source . And to me , to claim to understand something quantitative requires my implementing it and exploring in its parameter space .
While I’ve now gotten CoSy on a stick available for α tekys ( $60 ) , work is on everyday practicalities , for the nonce , and will only turn to implementing this sort of mathy stuff as someone has interest working on it .
Speaking of constraints based on prior climate, Lubos Motl posted here
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/birth-of-oil-geology-temperature-co2.html
and got a sensitivity of 0.89C per CO2 doubling. I posted this on a different blog, and got the
argument that the doubling sensitivity would be greater if the gradual warming of the sun were taken into effect. I plugged in the Gough formula- equation number 3 in this paper
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/fes.pdf
used, “R”, assumed a doubling of CO2 would not result in an absolute temperature increase, but a constant multiplier factor for the temp without doubled CO2. Here are my results. Note than when the current average temperature of the earth, 288 K, is multiplied by that 0.005593 result, I get a 1.61 C increase in temps from doubled CO2, the same as Lord Monckton gave in the above post.
“Then, at doubled CO2 concentration and after all feedbacks had acted, equilibrium sensitivity ΔTeq would be only 0.312 x 5.35 ln (2) x 1.38 = 1.6 K.”
Of course CO2 FOLLOWS rather than leads temperatures, and actual climate sensitivity must be less.
.************************
> mag log2c02
> lm(mag~log2c02)
Call:
lm(formula = mag ~ log2c02)
Coefficients:
(Intercept) log2c02
0.999631 0.005593
>
> v=lm(mag~log2c02)
> confint(v)
2.5 % 97.5 %
(Intercept) 0.991247598 1.008013898
log2c02 0.002421402 0.008764471
> summary(v)
Call:
lm(formula = mag ~ log2c02)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.007184 -0.005100 -0.001525 0.002885 0.010964
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.999631 0.003762 265.690
***********
“On the other side of the ledger, much of the global warming since 1850 is attributable either to natural causes or to other anthropogenic forcings than CO2. Netting off these two considerations, it is virtually certain that IPCC and the general-circulation models are overestimating Man’s influence on climate by well over double. ”
Actually, as AGW would have it, “trapped” heat on earth should cause an increase in minimum temperatures.
As shown here by me, a random sample of 54 terrestrial weather stations showed that minima are falling
:
as you can see there is no room in my equation for AGW= man made warming…..
I did notice that more vegetation causes some trapped heat (minima increase) and everybody wants trees, and lawns and crops…..
[ask me why it does not show up as an imbalance?]
Mike Crow posted an article on diurnal temperature differences on this site back in 2013.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/
As I stated previously, Suppose there’s a change in temp due solely to greenhouse gases, say an increase to 300 wats.
Then the earth will be receiving an average 480 watts from the sun and 300 from the atmosphere during the daytime, and 300 from the atmosphere during the nighttime.
Temperature is proportional to the 4th root of wattage, the ratio of
(480 + 250)//(250 is greater than (480 + 300)/(300) so as the the ratio between daytime highs and nighttime lows should drop with an increased greenhouse effect, rise with at decreased greenhouse effect.
If it;s the sun, changes in temperature of the sun can effect the distribution of the sun;s spectrum, and the fraction of sunlight reflected, absorbed by the atmosphere, and hitting the earth’s surface. To simplify, letting the sun’s temperature stay the same, but letting its luminosity increase- I suppose the greenhouse magnifier would act proportionally the same as it does now. With a 5% incrrease in the sun’s luminosity, wed get 1.05 times 480 watts from the sun during the day, 1.05 times 250 watts from the atmosphere both during the day and during the night, ,
and the RATIO of day to nighttime temps would stay the same, but with ABSOLuTE warming, the
DIFFERENCE between day and nighttime temps should INCREASE with increased solar luminosity
Likewise, a DROP in greenhouse gases would lead to an INCREASE in the day/night temperature differential, along with decreased overall temperatures, and a drop in solar activity would result in a DECREASE in the day/night differential with an overall decrease in temperatures.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/03/ipcc-has-at-least-doubled-true-climate-sensitivity-a-demonstration/comment-page-1/#comment-2272485
Pin head angels, all of it.
The average temperature of the surface is determined by the total amount of energy in the atmosphere. This is determined by the insolation, the albedo, and the flux to space. The insolation is relatively constant. The albedo changes second by second, and is very very difficult to measure. The flux to space is extremely complex, largely determined by the amount of CO2 at TOA. The increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has raised the opaque level altitude at TOA by some amount. This has decreased the temperature of the flux to space by some amount, increasing the total energy in the atmosphere by some amount.
These last three “some amounts”? NOBODY KNOWS!!!
I know.
None.
CO2 follows warming and cooling. There are giga-giga tons of carbonate dissolved in the oceans.
Due to the chemical reactions [oceans]
CO3 (2-) + H2O + warming => CO2 + 2OH (1-)
(like the first smoke you see from boiling water in a kettle)
[atmosphere]
CO2 (g) + H2O + cooling => CO3 (2-) + 2H (1+)
CO2 follows warming and cooling => It has nothing to do with it.
Chemistry also shows OA to be the same bunk.
Michael
When the “opaque level” or radiative level rises its surface area increases and increases the amount of energy that it can radiate to space.
This effect is insignificant. Earth’s diameter is over 8,000 miles, but TOA is only five miles up.