# Introducing the global-warming exaggeration factor X

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Recently I provided – based on a characteristically interesting email from Roger Taguchi – a demonstration that IPCC has at least doubled true climate sensitivity. In this follow-up piece, will you please welcome the global-warming exaggeration factor X.

First, a breathless recap on my summary of Roger’s argument. Global temperature rose by 0.83 K from 1850-2016 (HadCRUT4), while CO2 concentration rose from 280 to 400 ppmv (NCEI). 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, since nearly all temperature feedbacks are short-acting, 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.

Of course, not all feedbacks have acted yet, but, on the other side of the ledger, much of the warming since 1850 is attributable either to natural causes or to non-CO2 manmade forcings. Netting off these two considerations, it is virtually certain that IPCC and the models are overestimating Man’s influence on climate by well over double.

In this follow-up posting, I shall put some numbers to this conclusion. As before, the official climate-sensitivity equation will illuminate the argument:

Fig. 1 The official climate-sensitivity equation. Pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT0 = λ0 ΔF. Post-feedback sensitivity ΔT is the product of ΔT0 and the post-feedback gain factor G. By a suitable choice of the feedback sum, the equation can model transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity.

The official equation is simple. For instance, it has no term for ocean heat capacity and none for time-dependency. Yet, remarkably, it gives us the ballpark in which climate sensitivity will fall, and much can be learned from it, as a calibration step will demonstrate.

On the pre-feedback side, the values of the radiative forcing ΔF = 3.708 W m–2 at doubled CO2 and of the pre-feedback climate sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.312 K W–1 m2 are those that IPCC and nearly all general-circulation models use. Their product is pre-feedback climate sensitivity ΔT0 = 1.16 K. Models take these values as near-constant in modern conditions.

As the bottom-left portion of the curve in Fig. 2 shows, this pre-feedback response to a radiative forcing occurs within a few years of the forcing.

Note that Roe (2009) uses 4 W m–2 as the forcing at CO2 doubling, rather than today’s IPCC estimate 3.7 W m–2, so that his pre-feedback or reference climate sensitivity is 1.25 K.

It is at once evident that the bulk of the warming comes not from the direct CO2 forcing but from consequential temperature feedbacks, particularly in the high-sensitivity case.

Therefore, the chief reason why climate sensitivity cannot be readily constrained is that the interval of models’ estimates for the feedback-sum Σici is broad.

Fig. 2 Time-evolution (log time axis after 500 yr) of the probability distribution of future climate states (mean climate sensitivity and 95% confidence interval) generated from a simple climate model forced by a step-function radiative forcing ΔF = 4 W m–2 at t = 0. Pre-feedback or reference climate sensitivity ΔT0 = 1.25 K. At right is the equilibrium probability distribution ΔTeq. Higher-sensitivity climates take longer to equilibrate. Based on Roe (2009, fig. 6).

As an input to the calibration step, Fig. 3, an enhanced detail from IPCC (2013, fig. 43a), shows (in gray annuli) the CMIP3 feedback-sum interval that was used for IPCC (2007):

Fig. 3 The feedback sum in the CMIP3 models was 1.93 [1.53, 2.35] W m–2 K–1

From the interval [1.53, 2.35] W m–2 K–1 of feedback sums Σici, the feedback fraction f, which falls on the interval [–1, +1], may be derived by multiplying each value of the feedback-sum by λ0 = 0.312 K W–1 m2, so that f falls on the interval [0.48, 0.73].

Since the post-feedback or system gain factor G is equal to (1 – f)–1, G falls on [1.91, 3.74]. Equilibrium post-feedback climate sensitivity ΔTeq, the product of ΔT0 and G in the official climate-sensitivity equation shown in Fig. 1, falls on [2.2, 4.3] K, near-identical to the published CMIP3 equilibrium-sensitivity interval [2.1, 4.4] K (IPCC, 2013, p. 820, §9.7.3).

The calibration thus shows a remarkably close correspondence between the models’ output and the official equation’s output, demonstrating that, simple though it looks, it is capable of reproducing modelled climate sensitivity with some reliability.

Between the 2007 and 2013 Assessment Reports, IPCC made no change to the values of the CO2 forcing or of the pre-feedback sensitivity parameter, leaving pre-feedback climate sensitivity unchanged at 0.312 x 3.708 = 1.16 K per CO2 doubling.

Fig. 4 CMIP5 feedbacks scaled to climate sensitivity to demonstrate the extent to which the now-rejected French IPSL-CM5A-LR model was an outlier in the ensemble.

The CMIP5 models relied upon by IPCC (2013) substantially reduced the interval of the temperature-feedback sum Σici from the 1.93 [1.53, 2.35] in CMIP3 to just 1.44 [1.00, 1.82] W m–2 K–1 in CMIP5, after exclusion of a single outlier model from France (Fig. 4).

Multiplying the new interval by λ0, the interval of the feedback fraction f falls from 0.60 [0.48, 0.73] in CMIP3 to 0.45 [0.31, 0.57] in CMIP5, whereupon the interval of the post-feedback or system gain factor G falls from 2.50 [1.92, 3.71] to 1.81 [1.45, 2.33].

Equilibrium sensitivity should, therefore, have fallen from 3.2 [2.1, 4.4] K in the CMIP3 models for IPCC (2007) to just 2.1 [1.7, 2.7] K in the CMIP5 models, since the feedback-sum interval between the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models had fallen as shown in the enlargement from IPCC (2013, Fig. 9.43a) in Fig. 3.

However, the CMIP5 models held the central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity at 3.2 K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2013, p. 83, box TFE.6), and the interval is [2.1, 4.7] K (ibid., ch. 9, p. 745).

Accordingly, the CMIP5 models on which IPCC (2013) relies, having failed to adjust sensitivity downward in line with the reduction in the feedback sum compared with CMIP3, are now – on this ground alone – overstating climate sensitivity by a factor 1.53 [1.25, 1.76].

With this necessary theoretical background, we can now return to the observed record. Last week’s calculations were based on the assumption that all of the 0.83 K global warming since 1850 was caused by CO2.

However, IPCC’s various reports estimate that between 70% and 90% of all anthropogenic warming is attributable to CO2.

Furthermore, an unknown fraction of the global warming since 1850 was natural. Legates et al. (2013, 2015), of which I was a co-author, determined from the datafile in Cook et al. (2013) that, of 11,944 papers on climate and related topics published in the learned journals in the 21 years 1992-2011, only 0.3% had actually stated that at least half the warming since 1950 was manmade.

To cover all possibilities, we shall model manmade fractions of warming at 10-100% of observed or predicted warming. But we shall not model Michael Mann’s assertion that there would have been significant global cooling but for manmade global warming, because IPCC’s conclusion, in each of its past three Assessment Reports, is that without manmade forcings there would have been little warming or cooling. See, for instance, Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 Land and ocean combined warming, 1900-2000 with (pink) and without (blue) manmade forcings, according to IPCC (2013, fig. SPM.6).

Those who want to push the envelope a la Mann may, of course, do so using the method described here. But, as Fig. 5 shows, they are not in the mainstream that they so much value.

The method of determining the X factor begins with the observation that pre-feedback warming only takes a few years to manifest itself fully following a forcing.

Therefore, little error arises from the assumption that transient and zero-feedback sensitivities are approximately equal.

In the words of Roger’s follow-up email:

“Since CO2 levels have continually increased from year to year since 1850, it could be argued that we have never achieved a new steady state, so present temperature readings are lower than they would be at steady state (“equilibrium”).  This argument had some plausibility during the rapid temperature rise from about 1950 to 1998.

“But the 18-year hiatus in temperature rise is most probably explained by a relatively short time constant, so that present temperatures must be fairly close to steady-state temperatures, with maybe a time-lag of a couple of years.

“Why would people invoke ad-hoc time constants of centuries, and search for “missing heat”?  In order to save a failing theory, that doubling CO2 results in an “equilibrium” climate sensitivity of 1 + 2 = 3 K after positive feedback owing to increased water vapor.”

The fraction of observed global warming that the increased partial pressure of CO2 has generated since 1850 is by definition equal to the product of the anthropogenic fraction of all observed warming and the CO2 fraction of the anthropogenic warming.

For instance, if 50% of all observed warming were anthropogenic and 70% of anthropogenic warming were CO2-driven the fraction of observed warming since 1850 represented by CO2 would be 50% of 70%, or 35%.

The next step is to determine the factor by which predicted pre-feedback CO2-driven warming in response to the observed 120 ppmv growth in CO2 concentration since 1850 exceeds the fraction of all observed warming since 1850 that is attributable to CO2.

The product of this factor X0 and the interval 1.53 [1.25, 1.76] for the excess feedback prediction factor Xf is the interval of exaggeration factors X by which the models on which IPCC relies have overstated CO2-driven warming compared with observation since 1850.

The equation for the global-warming exaggeration factor X is thus as follows:

For instance, predicted CO2-driven warming ΔT0,pre since 1850 is 0.312 (5.35 ln 2) = 0.6 K; the fraction C of all warming since 1850 thought to be represented by CO2 warming is, say, 0.35 (assuming, for illustration, that half of all warming since 1850 is anthropogenic and 70% of that warming was CO2-driven, for 0.5 x 0.7 = 0.35); and the observed warming since 1850, assumed to be equal to the pre-feedback warming, is 0.83 K.

Then the pre-feedback exaggeration factor X0 = 2.048.

Next, the published central CMIP5 estimate ΔTeq,CMIP5 of equilibrium post-feedback warming is 3.2K; however, the central estimate of the system gain factor GCMIP5, based on the published feedback-sums in Fig. 3, is 1.81, and the equilibrium pre-feedback warming in response to doubled CO2 is 1.16 K.

Then the feedback exaggeration factor Xf = 1.53.

Accordingly X, the product of the pre-feedback and feedback exaggeration factors, equals 3.12, indicating that, assuming that warming to date is approximately equal to the pre-feedback response to radiative forcings, and assuming the chosen values for the fraction of all global warming since 1850 that was anthropogenic and for the fraction of all anthropogenic warming that was CO2-driven, IPCC and the models are approximately tripling true climate sensitivity.

The equation for X can, of course, be adapted quite easily to allow for any degree of positive or negative feedback that is thought to have occurred over the period of study (in the present instance, 1850 to the present). But here, for simplicity, and because little error arises, it is assumed that warming to date is approximately equal to pre-feedback warming.

The beauty of this method is that a table of global-warming exaggeration factors X can be prepared as soon as the CO2 and temperature values for a given month become available; and they can be computed for all anthropogenic-warming fractions and for all CO2 fractions.

Results of just such a computation are shown in Table 1.

In Table 1, exaggeration factors X > 2.000, indicating that IPCC’s methods are at least doubling true climate sensitivity, are in red; exaggeration factors 0.000 < X < 2.000 are in orange; and exaggeration factors X < 0, indicating an understatement of true climate sensitivity, are in green.

There are remarkably few values X < 0. Very nearly all of the values in the table show exaggeration by the models, and the great majority of the exaggeration factors are substantial.

The heavy bias in the models towards exaggeration of climate sensitivity is thus at once visible and explicit in the table. It is indeed virtually certain that the models have exaggerated climate sensitivity by at least double.

Table 1 Global warming exaggeration factors, 1850-2016, based on the CMIP5 model ensemble. Red indicates exaggeration of climate sensitivity by double or more; yellow indicates exaggeration by less than double; green indicates understatement. For each block, the first line gives the factor by which pre-feedback climate sensitivity is exaggerated in models, and the following three lines encompass the interval of exaggeration factors based on CMIP5 models’ failure to take into account their own reduction in the feedback-sum interval when determining final climate sensitivity, with the central estimate in bold face.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
269 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H.R.
August 9, 2016 2:45 pm

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, you could have saved a lot of trouble and calculations if you had just noted that:
X = “And then a miracle happens.”
However, I do appreciate having ‘the miracle’ quantified and put in tabular form. Thank you.

Reply to  H.R.
August 9, 2016 8:55 pm

The political establisjed UNFCCC = “And then a miracle happens”

Reply to  H.R.
August 9, 2016 11:00 pm

And x comes twice in “Exxon”!
Coincidence?
I think not.

August 9, 2016 3:00 pm

Very nice post. Well done.
My own estimates based on other but related considerations posted elsewhere (e.g. a guest post at CE on the irreducibly simple equation paper) conclude that the X exaggeration factor is about 2x, and that effective climate sensitivity based on both observational energy budgets (e.g. Otto 2013, Lewis and Curry 2014, Lewis 2015) and the simple equation with observational inputs for WVP and cloud f is between 1.5 and 1.8, fitting nicely with the 1.6 estimated by this and the previous post using IPCC values.
Ergo, no C in CAGW, and only a lower case w.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 3:06 pm

IMO, since feedback effects in the real climate system are most likely net negative, ECS is less than the laboratory-derived 1.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2. Although under some circumstances the effect of doubling can even be cooling, ECS, if such a thing even exist, is liable to be in the range of 0.0 to 1.1 degrees C.
Observations so far bear this out.
Earth cooled dramatically under rapidly rising CO2 from WWII to the PDO shift in 1977, for instance.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Gabro
August 9, 2016 10:02 pm

To add to that. This El Nino threw a wobble into the CO2 growth curve, an upward wobble at Mauna Loa.
What does this tell us? That CO2 growth is related to total surface emissions. What do we know? Large growths in human emissions over short time spans did not cause directly relative increase in atmospheric CO2 growth. Therefor, as demonstrated by El Nino and the mauna Loa spike, warming drives CO2 growth and sudden warming can almost immediately increase CO2 growth where human emissions never have.
So the only conclusion can be is that we may be responsible for 3 to 5 percent of warming (without considering pos neg feedbacks and following equilibrium)
As such AGW via CO2 and land changes is probably near negligible on a global scale, regionally land use will have an effect on temperatures sure. How the total system moves this heat around is largely an unknown question.
It’s always important to remember, VERY important to remember, the global average anomaly is MASSIVELY uncertain. All the data sets are useful for ONE thing. Regional trends, that is all. The 1850 to 2016 record is so uncertain I just have to laugh, most of it is made up, and that is not an exaggeration.
So if most of the temperature record is made up\assumed\educated guess, then ECS must be same.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Gabro
August 9, 2016 10:04 pm

Given the above, the suicidal policy track we are on, and the hysteria, are entirely unwarranted

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 12:01 am

Natural cycle [60-year cycle] reached its maximum around 2016. For the next 30 years it will be in downward trend.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 2:04 pm

Mark-Helsinki,
So the only conclusion can be is that we may be responsible for 3 to 5 percent of warming
Wrong reasoning… Human emissions are about twice the average growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, the remaining CO2 (in mass, not in original molecules) in the atmosphere (the “airborne fraction”) is between 10-90% of human emissions, average around 50%. That means that temperature variability influences the momentary sink capacity of oceans and vegetation, not the source capacity…
Moreover, the 13C/12C ratio “fingerprint” shows that the variability is mainly in (tropical) vegetation, where El Niño has a large influence by changed drought and rain patterns. But vegetation in general is a small, growing net sink for CO2, at least since 1990. After 1-3 years the variability zeroes out around the trend and thus is not responsible for the increase in CO2, humans are…
Which doesn’t imply that the IPCC is right on other points: they endorse climate models which at least double reality of the influence of CO2…

george e. smith
Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 2:23 pm

Well if one accepts, as I do, that increased global surface Temperatures (not anomalies) that persist for climate periods like 30 years , ( NOT last night’s weather) result in increased atmospheric water content ( and increased evaporation and precipitation) which has been shown by experiment to be true (Wentz et all SCIENCE July 13 2007), I can’t for the life of me see how that results in a water amplification of CO2 induced global surface Temperature warming.
The result of increased atmospheric water is increased global cloud cover (over those same 30 year climate periods that distinguish climate from weather.
The result of increased cloud cover, must be a reduction of solar insolation of the earth’s deep ocean sinks, which is where solar energy is mostly sored. It also results in increased (solar) radiant heating of the atmosphere, due to direct absorption of a portion of the solar spectrum by water in the atmosphere.
So an immediate effect of increased CO2 heating, is a reduction in the rate of solar energy storage in the oceans.
And this deep ocean energy storage immediately sends the feedback into a polyglot of chaotic and largely unknown time delays (phase shifts) that vary erratically with time , so their effect on the climate is simply not calculable.
Lord M of B alludes to these as feedbacks which have yet to show up. That’s as good a way to put it as any..
I learned most of MY feedback amplifier theory from Volume 18 of the MIT Rad. Lab. series edited by Valley and Wallman .
And all of that standard feedback theory relates only to linear systems, which means that forward gains are linear, and feedback factors are linear (constant independent of signal amplitude.
In the climate system, nothing is linear. Not the forward gains nor the feedback factors.
So an accurate mathematical modeling would have to be done by integrating non linear differential equations with parameters which are largely quite unknown.
I know Christopher uses the “climate Science” theory as it is used in that trade, to show that they aren’t even using their own phony baloney theory correctly.
But for me, the whole notion of feedback theory of global climate, is phony baloney.
Every time I see TSI insolation rate cited as 432 Wm^-2, I immediately discount anything that follows.
432 W/m^2 falling on my front driveway, would leave any dew that falls there in the solid state.
G

David A
Reply to  Gabro
August 11, 2016 10:13 pm

George, I really like your post. How to calculate less surface insolation into the oceans due to warmer atmosheric ghe?
What solar l/w insolation was reduced?
That insolation, penetrating below the surface has a very long residence time.
Thus a large potential and accumulating increase, or with w/v increase, a large decrease. Instead said energy may well leave almost instantly, or if captured by w/v in the atmosphere leave far quicker then if it had entered the oceans below the surface.
These non quantified energy transfers are not insignificant. The same applies to TSI flux.

Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 6:06 pm

G, you may be right but thre is no climate evidence in support. My advice is, lose the clearly losing arguments and guest posts that are ‘truth’ winners. Like this guest post.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 6:10 pm

Which of my arguments do you suppose are clearly losing?
Besides which, is it arguments or facts and observations that ultimately matter?
On the scale of years and decades, the paid trough-feeding liars might be able to eke out wins, but on the scale of centuries, truth will tell.

Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 9:33 pm

G, you lose on GHE general effect.You lose on this Moncktom post specifics. Stop denying the GHE exists, since it does. Start questioning its power, since weak, as procen yet again here. Grab winning arguments like this post, not complete losers like yours. Join the science skeptic cause, or get lost as a complete science nutter.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 8:10 am

There is plenty of climate evidence to support CO2’s lack of ability to drive the Earth’s temperature. About 450 million years ago, with CO2 at TEN TIMES today’s level, and (at the time) INCREASING to (ultimately) ELEVEN times today’s level, CO2 could not stop the Earth from going from “hot house” to “ice house” conditions, FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. So the HYPOTHETICAL GHE appears to have little relevance in the real world. The notion that moving from 280ppm to 560ppm CO2 is going to drive any runaway climate (warming, in particular) catastrophe is therefore absolute nonsense. Observation trumps theory, as they say, and on geologic time scales, CO2 and temperature don’t correlate (and sometimes reverse correlate), and on shorter time scales CO2 is shown to FOLLOW temperature, not the other way around. Temperature has never actually been SHOWN to FOLLOW CO2 level changes, that is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION based hypothetically on experiments conducted in closed containers most definitely not representative of the Earth’s atmosphere.
MOB’s post is indeed a good one, because it shows how much exaggeration there is in the SUPPOSED effect of CO2 levels on future temperatures that is built into the GIGO climate models. But we should not ASSUME the GHE has been verified by any “climate evidence,” because, as you know, correlation does NOT equal causation. We should also not assume (as the Eco-Fascist crowd would have us do) that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the CO2 rise, when they account for a paltry few percentage points of total (estimated) CO2 emissions, and we aren’t monitoring all of such CO2 sources (and the CO2 sinks) – and therefore DON’T KNOW where the CO2 rise is “coming from” as a matter of science. Speaking of which, remember how CO2 FOLLOWS temperature in the ice core data, with a lag of 700-800 years? What did we have about 750 years ago? The Medieval Warm Period. Today’s rising CO2 level may be largely an echo of that prior warm climate period having worked its way through the ocean circulations. Something that doesn’t come up in the circles of pseudo “climate science” (of course – willful ignorance of anything countering the AGW BS story being SOP).
The whole AGW meme is based on house of cards assumptions not based on any reasonable scientific evidence.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 9:04 am

Ristvan,
I don’t d@ny the GHE. However the effect from one more molecule of GHG in 10,000 dry air molecules is negligible and should be swamped by both the GHE of water and by negative feedbacks.
Negative feedbacks dominate in nature, or else there would be runaway effects from all kinds of phenomena. Why should the GHE be any different?
The observable fact is that earth is self-regulating. Another fact is that there is no evidence supporting a “human fingerprint” in whatever warming has occurred during the monotonously increasing rise in CO2 since the end of WWII. Given that a GHE should have been detectable from this increase, it’s obvious that feedbacks are net negative.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 9:41 am

As Princeton physicist Will Happer wrote in 2011:
“The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.
“Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And—perhaps partly because of that—they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.”
I’d go further and argue, as above, that net feedbacks are likely to be negative, not just “may even be”.

Gabro
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 9:56 am

Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 finding of low ECS due to negative cloud feedbacks was, as you know, criticized for containing an error, since corrected, and subsequent studies have confirmed their result:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html

Duster
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 10:22 am

These models are largely pointless arm waving until they incorporate oceans as energy sinks and reservoirs, and the effects of clouds – which are both key to the whole concept of how weather – and thus climate – is produced. It can be logically argued that “climate” is merely a generalization of weather over time. All “climate” data is merely weather data, or secondary data on the effects of weather (e.g. tree ring proxies, d-O18, …). Climate is at most an emergent property of weather history over time. It is not an objective phenomenon and does not produce weather. Anthropogenic CO2 cannot affect “climate” (long term weather) unless it affects short term weather. “Climate data,” produced from information bodies such as USHCN records, that is used to study “climate” discards the fine-grained granularity of weather data (discards information) in order to generalize at longer time scales. In fact, that is one of the real problems of Mann’s hockey stick. He welded genuine weather data onto secondary proxy data whose direct mechanical relation to the class of weather data he employed was clearly questionable. He postulated that tree rings were proportionate to temperature at the time of ring formation, though anyone capable of critical thinking would suggest that the variation in ring thickness was more reasonably accounted for by water availability. That could in turn imply that both drought (possibly associated with warmer, but drier conditions) and restricted growing seasons due to extreme cold might have similar effects on trees that did not out right die. The short of this is that without understanding and being able to forecast weather over much longer terms than we can at present, no “climate” model will do better.

whiten
Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 11:05 am

ristvan
August 9, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Hello ristvan.
Are you claiming and supporting the idea that AGW and the the anthropogenic forcing towards the climate is real and happening but not at a 3.2K step-rate per CO2 doubling but actually at a lower one of ~1.6K per CO2 doubling!
Are you calling this a “”truth” winner”!?
And if climates goes in a cooling, let’s say in something like a long term projection, will you adopt the Nucittelly “piruette ” of “wait and see ” when the CS start falling even below 1.6K PER A DOUBLING of CO2?
When you dealing with CS, remember is an AGW CS you trying a estimate there………….Its definition is an AGW one, it has been cooked up to calculate the AGW. That is the main purpose of it.
cheers

Reply to  ristvan
August 10, 2016 8:38 pm

rud, I lov your posts. Except on vaccines, which demonstrate abject ignorance. Read he works of Niels Jerne. Vaccines trigger very complicated network effects.
If you want to be scientific, call for a vaccine program that vaccinates 80% of people, enough to create herd immunity. Then follow the health of vaccinated vs the 20% of unvaccinated. Nobody gets the disease, but vaccine injuries can be measured.
When I grew up, there were 3 vaccines: Smallpox, polio and tetanus. I had friends of my age and older than I, whoh received no vaccines. The population was healthy. Polio was a product of modern swimming pools.

Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 11:30 pm

Most grateful to Mr Istvan for his kind comments here and in the previous posting. Another decade or two and it will not be possible to conceal the fact of the official models’ profitable exaggeration.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 9:03 pm

I always read your posts Lord Moncton.
Your analyses should next concentrate on where warming has occurred, and at what temperatures. The models say most warming will occur above 40% latitude, and in winter, at night.
So we need to interview people across the northern latitudes. “How have your winters been the last ten years? “I think they’re warming. We get sprouts a little earlier, and harvest to later weeks. My livestock like it, my crops like it.”
Ask them, “If global alarmists’ predictions come true, you could see sprouting a month earlier, and last harvest a month later. And more C02 would give you greener pastures and gardens. People of Manitoba, Scotland, Norway, Russia, would yowl like that, or would it be a bane?”

Editor
Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 11:59 pm

To my mind, the calculation is extremely simple: Subtract the natural temperature change from the measured temperature change to get the net man-made contribution. So step 1 is to establish the natural temperature change. Unfortunately, no-one knows what it is, and when I say “no-one knows” that is a bit of an understatement. The very sad and painful reality is that no-one has the foggiest clue as to how the climate works over virtually any timescale. So the situation is thus that while the calculation of the man-made contribution to global temperature is theoretically simple, it cannot yet be done because there is no data for one side of the equation.
Note: By “natural temperature change” I mean the temperature change that would have occurred had there been no human influence on climate. There is no assumption that the human influence is in any way linear nor that climate sensitivity to CO2 is a constant. There is also no assumption that data for the other side of the equation is known.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 10, 2016 12:33 am

Mr Jonas rightly says we do not know the magnitude of the natural contribution to global warming. That is why the table of results considers a wide range of possible natural fractions.

David A
Reply to  ristvan
August 11, 2016 8:27 am

Are your calculations, and Christopher Moncktons based on the surface record only?
My understanding is that the Troposphere, not just the hot spot, as a whole is expected to warm 20% faster then the surface. Yet RSS and UHA both show it warming less then the surface.
Would this mean the models over predict warming by 300percent? Would this mean less of the surface warming is CO2 induced?

August 9, 2016 3:16 pm

” Of course, not all feedbacks have acted yet ”
These theoretical feedback formulae are dodgy enough, given that most atmospheric physics/chemistry is unknown. For example, the massive negative feedbacks of tropical thunderstorms are never mentioned nor included in climate models. Such feedbacks have kept our climate stable for over 4 billion years.
However, what is the claimed response rate to such feedbacks and climate sensitivities?

Reply to  dradb
August 9, 2016 4:02 pm

I’m curious –
Is that “not all feedbacks have acted yet” or should it be “not all known feedbacks have acted yet” or “not all feedbacks are observed to have acted yet” or “we don’t know what all the feedbacks are, but some have not acted yet”, or some other variation of the phrase?
Do we know all that affects climate and how much each factor weighs in and how much the interaction with the other factors affects each variable?
I’m not being argumentative here, just curious. I suspect the honest answer is “we don’t know”, yet the “climate scientists” want us to believe they have it figured out.

toncul
Reply to  JohnWho
August 9, 2016 5:55 pm

It is nothing.
He doesn’t understand the conceptual model he is using in which both reponse with no feedback and feedbacks are linear function of the temperature change.
And he clearly doesn’t want to understand (see comments to his previous post).

Reply to  JohnWho
August 9, 2016 10:27 pm

Tonsil lets prejudice cloud its judgment. The climate sensitivity equation in the head posting is discernible in the sacred texts of IPCC. It should be evident to the meanest intelligence that the pre-feedback response is not linear but approximately logarithmic; and that, based on the calibration example provided in the head posting, the equilibrium post-feedback response predicted by the CMIP3 models relied on by IPCC for its 2007 report and the output of the sensitivity equation as shown here are near-coincident.
A little mathematical knowledge would have led tonsil to understand that the output of the post-feedback or system gain element shown in red in the equation is highly non-linear.
If tonsil knew anything other than the Party Line to which it is self-enslaved, it would know that the only elements in IPCC’s sensitivity equation that are non-linear but not represented in that equation as non-linear are the individual temperature feedbacks c(i). However, the choice of a suitable value for the feedback-sum overcomes this apparent difficulty, which is one reason why the calibration seep worked so well.
For an amendment to the official sensitivity equation to show individual feedbacks that may be non-linear, see the appendix to the second of my two papers on the irreducible simple climate model published last year in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Use of that more complex form of the sensitivity equation was, for present purposes, neither necessary nor useful.

toncul
Reply to  JohnWho
August 10, 2016 2:00 am

I was speaking about radiative response and radiative feedbacks (amplificatino or attenuatino of the radiative response) that are linear function of the temperature change.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  JohnWho
August 10, 2016 2:09 am

toncul is copy pasting rebuttals from others on other sites who’s owners are afraid to take their claims here, like ATTP and the like, that’s patently clear to me.

Reply to  dradb
August 10, 2016 2:31 am

Tonsil shoul learn that the radiative response to a change in CO2 concentration is not linear. It is approximately logarithmic,
It should also learn that the system gain factor arising from temperature feedbacks is highly non-linear.
And, like it or not, the head posting did not need to concern itself with whether feedbacks are or are not linear, for the feedback element in the exaggeration factor X is derived simply from the overstatement of equilibrium sensitivity in the CMIP5 models.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:34 am

“radiative response” (of the climate system). Not “radiative forcing”.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:56 am

The term used in climate science is “radiative forcing”. “Response” is generally used of a temperature response to a forcing, though of course a radiative forcing is a response to a perturbation such as returning greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from which they originally came.
Since Tonsil is now reduced to making weak semantic points, perhaps it has realised that there is no further point in making downright erroneous scientific points. Like it or not, there is nothin pg wrong with the argument or results presented in the head posting,

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 6:40 pm

The term used is radiative forcing when you speak about radiative forcing…. I was speaking about the radiative response which is 1/lambda DeltaT(with Roe 2009 equation 1 notation for lambda (generally, the inverse is used) and is equal to the forcing only in equilibrium (because in such case radiative imbalance of the Earth is back to zero). If feedbacks where equal to zero, radiative response would be 1 / lambda_0 DeltaTeq (with notations used in the heading post for lambda_0).

Tony
Reply to  dradb
August 10, 2016 3:58 am

My question relates to response rate, not sensitivity. The reason for my question is that we can easily demonstrate the equivalent effect of 130 TIMES current CO2 levels. If climate sensitivity to CO2 is anything other than virtualy zero, a 130 TIMES increase in CO2 should cause a massive increase in temperature, unless response rate to CO2 changes was incredibly slow (for who knows what reason).
Every year, the Earth moves through it’s perihelion and apelion, producing a change in TSI equivalent to a 130 TIMES increase in CO2. The effect is zero. Temperatures on the equator, stay EXACTLY the same year round. (Rainfall shows huge swings as a result of the negative feedbacks of tropical thunderstorms). That is, it shows either climate sensitivity to CO2 (or other) changes is zero, or response rate is much greater than a year. The former seems most logical.

Reply to  Tony
August 11, 2016 5:23 pm

In response to Tony, the pre-feedback warming in response to a 130-fold increase in CO2 concentration would be little more than 8 K, using IPCC’s own formula as illustrated in the head posting. But there is not enough accessible fossil fuel to allow more than a quadrupling – at most – of today’s CO2 concentration.

David A
Reply to  Tony
August 11, 2016 10:27 pm

GMT does not stay the same. Despite massive increased radiation GMT drops due to very large flux in residence time of disparate innsolation.
This is cogent to George E Smith’s comment above.

george e. smith
Reply to  dradb
August 10, 2016 11:30 pm

Are these really feedbacks or simply the system shifting to a different condition as a direct result of some input.
Feedback as applied in electronic systems is designed to make the operation quite independent of the system (amplifier) and a property only of the feedback factor.
While working on my master’s thesis, I had to deal with a standard laboratory feedback pulse amplifier, which was supposed to be able to put out 100 V peak pulses (vacuum tube amplifier). The amplifier was a classical double ” ring of three ” feedback stages in series.
I couldn’t get more than 90 volts out of it, so I figured it might have a problem, like a slightly worn out tube (valve) with a low gm (transconductance).
So I pulled all six of the tubes out and tested them in a standard vacuum tube tester that could measure the gm.
All six tubes were totally flat, and I couldn’t get any gm value reading on the scale that the tester prescribed for those tubes, for any of the six.
So after installing a set of brand new tubes, the amplifier worked great and I could easily get 125 Volt peak pulses out of it, and with way lower noise.
Feedback can mask all kinds of pestilence, and that is why it is in very common use in good amplifier designs.
None of those consequences apply to the climate system, which doesn’t have enough open loop gain or feedback to make any real effect at all.
It is very common today for so-called analog electronics engineers to employ high gain operational amplifiers (gain of a million) in a feedback circuit for almost any amplifier need.
Unfortunately those Op Amps if stable, can have a 3dB bandwidth corner frequency, of a few Hertz or less.
That means that at signal frequencies above the open gain corner frequency, the amount of feedback diminishes at 20 dB per decade (in frequency), so at the closed loop bandwidth corner frequency, the amount of feedback is almost zero, so the performance of the amplifier at that frequency is totally crappy.
A feedback amplifier that needs a signal bandwidth of say 100 kHz (just to have a number), should be designed to have an open loop bandwidth of at least 100 kHz, and whatever open loop gain one can get for that condition.
Then when feedback is applied, the amount of feedback will be constant across the entire signal spectrum from DC to the desired 100 kHz, so distortion reduction will apply across the whole design signal bandwidth.
Op Amps are only useful for basically DC circuits, where high precision observations of an essentially static signal are required.
Well JMOP for what it is worth.
G

Solomon Green
Reply to  george e. smith
August 11, 2016 4:24 am

Lord M.’s contributions are always interesting because he uses observed data combined with the climate scientists own models to demolish their alarmism.
But for me the most interesting observation in this thread, and one that I endorse from my own long experience of assessing financial and economic models, is george e. smith’s observation.
“And all of that standard feedback theory relates only to linear systems, which means that forward gains are linear, and feedback factors are linear (constant independent of signal amplitude.
In the climate system, nothing is linear. Not the forward gains nor the feedback factors.
So an accurate mathematical modeling would have to be done by integrating non linear differential equations with parameters which are largely quite unknown.”
It does not appear that anyone has yet attempted to address this point.

Reply to  george e. smith
August 11, 2016 5:19 pm

If George E. Smith would care to contact me at monckton [at] mail.com, I shall hope to use his expertise to examine the official feedback methodology in detail and compare it with the feedback mathematics outlined, for instance, in Bode (1945, ch. 3). I suspect that an interesting error is being made that appears to suggest that the feedback factor (the product of the amplifier gain factor mu and the feedback gain factor beta, to use Bode’s notation) might approach 1, giving potentially very extreme temperature responses, when in practice it is barely capable of exceeding 0.01, ruling out the extreme high end of the computer models’ projections.
But I have never built any electronic circuit more complex than a bell driven by an electromagnet of my own design, triggered by a door-hinge. So I need some help from someone who understands feedbacks in electronic circuits at least as well as I understand IPCC’s present (and, I think, profoundly defective) methodology.

charles nelson
August 9, 2016 3:22 pm

Could someone please, please come back to me with a reasonable and rational response to (or acceptable explanation for) my deep and abiding skepticism of the accuracy of the 1850 Global Temperature?
You see anyone with a little ‘science’ and a smattering of ‘history’ could tell you that there weren’t that many thermometers around in 1850. Let’s face it western scientists and explorers hadn’t even reached the Poles in 1850, much of Africa was uncharted and whilst there may have been scientific outposts in other continents only Europe and N.America were keeping climate records. Did I mention the Oceans?
So sparsity of data, but then accuracy should be considered…I’m always being told by Warmists that the three decimal place accuracy of modern measurements is down to the vast number of samples being taken.
Well say you had a dozen continuous records for say a ‘continent’ from say 1850 to 1870…what kind of accuracy would that produce?
Considering the alterations currently being made to historical records (e.g. ‘the 1940s Blip’) doesn’t any one else feel that all the fancy equations are being wasted on worthless data?

RHS
Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 3:32 pm

The information regarding temps from 1850’ish is from models found at the end of the internet.

Javert Chip
Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 5:22 pm

charles nelson
Peace, my friend.
This has all been cleaned up with models. No ned to worry. Settled science and all that. Geez, if we can do it with tree rings, think of what can be done with a couple thousand scribbled thermostat readings.
Besides, if you keep asking unpleasant questions, you never know how many AGs will indict you.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 5:59 pm

I don’t think we have a way to measure the temperature of the earth accuracy with land based thermometers, we just don’t have the coverage as to the temperature of the oceans it get worst. So little data so much world. Yet the educated idiot still parade out the global temperature like it some god, when in reality it a house of cards that has collapsed serverl time only to have the climate guru say you did see that look the house still stand and not they have reverted to taping them together with their adjustment but you know tape and cards do not make a good house.

Latitude
Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 6:40 pm

the accuracy of the 1850 Global Temperature?…
===
It’s simple Charles…
…they just took the temperature history of the Arctic…and extrapolated out from there

commieBob
Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 7:14 pm

Here’s a paper that goes a long way toward what you are saying.

Large-scale patterns as the MWP, the LIA and the 20th century warming occur quite coherently in all the regional reconstructions presented here but both their relative and absolute amplitude are not always the same.

The climate varies regionally and temporally. Years of cold weather, crop failure, and famine happened both in Europe and China but not at the same time although they did occur during the Little Ice Age. A thermometer in Paris in 1350 would give you an idea of the temperature in China some time within a couple of hundred years.
Suppose that my hypothetical thermometer in Paris gave me a record low temperature. That would probably be offset by a higher temperature in Beijing. In other words, I could not use the Paris temperature to calculate the global temperature because there is considerable variation among the various regions. Within the MWP there were some crummy years. Within the LIA there were a few wonderful years. Those years weren’t necessarily the same in the different regions.

Reply to  charles nelson
August 9, 2016 8:22 pm

“You see anyone with a little ‘science’ and a smattering of ‘history’ could tell you that there weren’t that many thermometers around in 1850”
Guess how many.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/map1850-1880.png
Now you will see some people post here… temperature derived from a ice core in Greenland
They will use that SINGLE data source to argue that it was colder/warmer in the past.
makes you think huh?
the number of stations impacts the uncertainty, but the temperature field is highly correlated.. so a small number of stations will give you a good estimate.
You can even test it.
take the active stations today (10K +) choose a random 200.
calculate global average..
it doesnt change. uncertainty is greater.. but the estimate doesnt change.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 9, 2016 11:08 pm

“the uncertainty is greater..”
🙂 Carve that one in stone.

charles nelson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 12:52 am

Thanks Steven for the link confirming my assertion that there weren’t many thermometers around in 1850.
And especially in those critical areas where all the warning is now taking place i.e. the Poles.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 8:23 am

Steven
“the number of stations impacts the uncertainty, but the temperature field is highly correlated.. so a small number of stations will give you a good estimate.”
You are living in a fantasy world you really need to get out and try working on things in the real world, you will find that your preconceived notions about how things work in your head are at complete odds with what happens when the real world comes out and bites your theories, correlations and good estimates in the arse .

philincalifornia
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 7:13 pm
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 8:07 pm

Mosher
You decided to major in English lit, and pursue graduate studies in that subject. You know very well that the vast majority of your courses focused on English works of FICTION. Inspiring to you, and a lot of other anti-science people, yes. Relevant to science. No.
Me, I was a National Merit Finalist. I had the flu on PSAT test day, with a 102 temp. My math score was not good, but my verbal score made NMSQT Semi-Finalist.
In college I majored in biochemistry and molecular biology. The program, being biology-oriented offered watered-down “calculus for life-sciences majors”, “physics for life sciences majors.” and “organic chemistry for life-sciences majors”.
I wasn’t interested in that twaddle. I took: calcuus for math/physical science/engineering students, and diff Eq and linear algebra; physics for physicists and engineers, organic chem for chem/cheem engineering majors. Okay, I did wimp out taking biophysical chem instead of physical chem for chem/chem engineering majors. I regret this choice because I could have earned a triple major (biochem, mol biol, chem).
I studied science. (From a very young age, actually, I learned to recognize the smell of a swallowtail butterfly at age 6). I made that choice. i used my Christmas and Birthday money at age 9-10 to buy a microscope and telescope.
Getting Bs was easy in university. When I decided to get As, it was really hard. Such as learning to write notes in outline form during class, from watching my profs, annotating the notes with margin additions right after class, when the profs’ words were fresh in my mind, then writing new notes incorporating the annotations each night. Then recap-studying my notes every weekend.
I wrote a 59-page 104-citation (culled from 500+ papers I read in full) review article for my capstone senior thesis, on melatonin and the pineal gland. My Nobel-Prize-nominated prof and his graduate assistant (I made two copies) gave me an A and an A+ respectively.
With a 3.9 GPA in junior-senior years, I basically had a choice for graduate studies in biochem or molecular biology at Berkeley (where this happened), MIT, Harvard or Stanford. But I went to med school.
You went to UCLA, to study English fiction, not even getting into UC Berkeley, the top English grad-studies department in California.
You decided to not major in science because it was boring, uninspiring, or it was too hard.
And I should believe you, an ardent admirer of fiction, on matters of science, because…?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 9:03 pm

lftm
You would have thought that he might have learned how to use capitalization at the start of sentences and the correct use of apostrophes but sadly no.
… but if only mental masturbation were an Olympic sport.

commieBob
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 11, 2016 4:41 am

philincalifornia says: August 10, 2016 at 9:03 pm
You would have thought that he might have learned how to use capitalization at the start of sentences and the correct use of apostrophes but sadly no.

e.e. cummings experimented with that kind of thing. It didn’t catch on. Steven Mosher should know that. On the other hand, maybe we have an archy and mehitabel thing going on.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 11, 2016 4:47 pm

cB
I learn something new on here every day.

Roy
Reply to  charles nelson
August 10, 2016 12:50 am

Obviously there is much less data from the 19th century but is wrong to think that temperature data was only kept in Europe and North America. The article below has a table of hourly temperature recordings made at the Madras Observatory in India during March and April 1815.
The Myth of Chennai Freeze at -3°C and the Snow that never was
http://www.chennairains.com/the-myth-of-chennai-freeze-at-3c-and-the-snow-that-never-happened/
I would be surprised if temperature data were not also recorded in other places in India at quite early dates by British officials and although I have not made any searches I would be surprised if there were no early data from at least some other parts of the British Empire besides Canada and Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps there is also some from French colonial outposts.
Ship log books are another source of temperature data. See the article below.
Ships’ log books and the year without a summer.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175%2F1520-0477(1996)077%3C2077:SLAYWA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

charles nelson
Reply to  Roy
August 10, 2016 12:56 am

Thanks. Interesting and informative. I still have a problem though with the tenths of a degree that are so critical for identifying the Anthropogenic influence. We did seem to have quite solid evidence that the 1930s was a warm decade, but somehow that faded away, maybe the 1850 temperature is equally subject to ‘adjustment’ or ‘alteration’…and yet it for all these discussions it seems etched in granite!

JohnKnight
Reply to  Roy
August 10, 2016 3:18 pm

“…and yet . for all these discussions it seems etched in granite!”
I believe it’s mostly just various forms of; *Fine, let’s pretend hour guesstimates are perfect to the enth degree, your case is still weak, Cawgladite* ; )

Gabro
Reply to  Roy
August 10, 2016 3:23 pm

The temperature record for much of the world was better under the British Empire 100 and 200 years ago than now.

Gabro
Reply to  Roy
August 10, 2016 3:28 pm

And French, Turkish, Iranian, Russian, German, Italian, Belgian Japanese, American and other foreign empires.

Michael Carter
Reply to  charles nelson
August 10, 2016 2:02 am

“Could someone please, please come back to me with a reasonable and rational response to (or acceptable explanation for) my deep and abiding skepticism of the accuracy of the 1850 Global Temperature”
My my deep and abiding skepticism relates to mean global temperature within even 2 C prior to 1950. NO ONE has even attempted to explain how we could have such accuracy from this era. It cannot be done. They just produce the data and expect us to blandly accept it. It makes the 1 C within the last century total BS

TA
Reply to  Michael Carter
August 10, 2016 5:16 am

Yeah, your regular mercury theremometer is only accurate to about +/- one degree, so you have to be pretty creative to derive 1/10th and 1/100th degree differentations out of that data.
About the only solid temperature data we can count on is the satellite data.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Michael Carter
August 10, 2016 8:40 am

Agreed. The data is crap, scientifically speaking, and so the the related so-called science.
In order to have a scientifically valid measurement in the change in temperature AT THE MEASURING STATIONS (the “average” is a meaningless concept, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion), we would have to have used the SAME number of the SAME instruments calibrated the SAME way housed in the SAME enclosures which are finished with the SAME materials in the SAME locations, which locations have not changed in character over the period of measurement.
Now let’s check that against reality – DIFFERENT numbers of DIFFERENT instruments with DIFFERENT (if ANY) calibration methods in DIFFERENT enclosures and/or enclosures finished with DIFFERENT materials in DIFFERENT locations which are (to use some British understatement) GIGANTICALLY different in character over the period of measurement.
AND most (if not all) of the differences so noted tend to INFLATE temperature readings – from (by way of example) LIG to digital (which tend to round UP) instruments to enclosures finished in LATEX PAINT (which tends to hold heat) as opposed to whitewashing, to locations increasingly (and massively) polluted with urbanization effects (from rural locations to town and city centers on rooftops, near HVAC equipment, in the middle of high volumes of auto traffic, to AIRPORTS surrounded by tarmac and jet engines, need I go on?!). I never heard of ONE change in temperature measurement factors that tended to DEFLATE temperature readings – and I’m sure if one existed, it would have been all over the front page of every newspaper since it would be the perfect compliment to the latest “It’s Worse Than We Thought” headline.

JPeden
Reply to  charles nelson
August 10, 2016 8:39 am

charles nelson August 9, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Could someone please, please come back to me with a reasonable and rational response to (or acceptable explanation for) my deep and abiding skepticism of the accuracy of the 1850 Global Temperature?
Amen. But Lord Monckton is taking the CO2-Climate Change Party Line’s own numbers and equations as givens then displaying how they are useless in practice, this time by demonstrating his Factor X. It’s a version of “beating them at their own game”.

Reply to  JPeden
August 10, 2016 10:54 pm

Mr Peden has hit the nail on the head. I do not warrant that IPCC’s methods are true; merely that if one uses them one can demonstrate that IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity by at least double.

Reply to  JPeden
August 12, 2016 9:51 pm

Monckton of Brenchley states that:
“I do not warrant that IPCC’s methods are true; merely that if one uses them one can demonstrate that IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity by at least double.” In logic, however, it is not a “method” that exhibits a truth value but rather is a “proposition” that exhibits a truth value. Does Monckton have a proposition in mind that he does not warrant as true? If so, what is this proposition?

philohippous
August 9, 2016 3:30 pm

Nice post, very thorough. You might also consider that if the major factors affecting the climate were accurately known only ONE model would be required. There is no useful result to be had averaging or otherwise combining results from 5, 10 50, or 100 faulty models. Perhaps the IPCC should be required to use all the models and analyze them using Monte Carlo methods by varying the initial 1850 conditions using small changes(<1%) randomly in all the variables and adjustable parameters.

Javert Chip
Reply to  philohippous
August 9, 2016 6:29 pm

philohippous
I dunno – 2 wrongs don’t make a right, but maybe 5, 10, 50 or 100 do. Just kidding.
The graph with the 5, 10 50, or 100 faulty models and the solid black line of “real” temperatures always has a huge impact on me.
Even though the “real” temperature is massaged, adjusted and constantly increased, the 5, 10 50, or 100 models ARE JUST SO WRONG. You’d think this would embarrass somebody.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javert Chip
August 9, 2016 6:46 pm
TA
Reply to  Javert Chip
August 10, 2016 5:21 am

“You’d think this would embarrass somebody.”
No kidding! I guess they have no shame.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Javert Chip
August 10, 2016 8:43 am

Really! I haven’t watched that cable show “Shameless,” but I wonder if it is secretly a metaphor for Climate Science. Knowing Hollywood, probably not. If not, they should do one – but they’ll wait until it’s too late to have good effect.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javert Chip
August 10, 2016 8:43 am

Javert & TA, see my link to the hans von storch interview above…

Sparks
August 9, 2016 3:32 pm

How sensitive is Earth’s whole planetary atmosphere to orbital X-centricity?? lol

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sparks
August 9, 2016 5:04 pm

Would that be an X-traterrestrial effect??

Sparks
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 9, 2016 5:58 pm

X-planations are currently being researched, stay tuned…

afonzarelli
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 9, 2016 6:37 pm

All my Xes live in Texas…

Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 9, 2016 8:46 pm

“Dear Al-gebra,
Please stop asking us to find your X; she’s not coming back, and you know y.”

August 9, 2016 3:39 pm

If we keep the RF value of 3.7 W/m2 to be true and the transient climate sensitivity parameter to be 0.5 K/(W/m2), then the TCS = 0.5 * 3.7 = 1.85 K. If this is not true, then one or both of these values must be wrong. I have studied these both parameters and the results are: lambda is 0.27 and the RF = 2.16 W/m2 according to formula 3.12 * ln(C/280). These values gives the TCS to be about 0.6 K. I am not the only one showing this result.
The IPCC’s model gives the temperature value of today, which is about 50 % too high.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  aveollila
August 9, 2016 5:21 pm

…about 50% too high?
Or 100% too high? (double)

Bill Illis
Reply to  aveollila
August 9, 2016 5:41 pm

One thing about the 3.7 W/m2 is that it is only CO2.
Now we know CH4 is also increasing as well as N2O and the IPCC usually calculates the doubled GHG/CO2 value to be +4.2 W/m2.
In fact, the math does not even work at 3.7 W/m2 but it does at 4.2 W/m2 (or at least that applies under the funny math that climate science uses – as in where is the Stefan Boltzmann equation in all of this – it is the fundamental equation governing energy and temperature and it is as proven and as important as E=MC2).

siamiam
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 9, 2016 8:48 pm

Isn’t SB for 2 dimensional surfaces, not 3 dimensional gases?

Reply to  Bill Illis
August 9, 2016 11:43 pm

In reply to Siamiam, the SB equation is applicable at any surface where incoming and outgoing radiation are equal. The emission surface of the Earth is one such surface.

Reply to  Bill Illis
August 9, 2016 11:50 pm

In reply to Mr Illis, the current IPCC value for the CO2radiative forcing is 5.35 ln 2 = 3.708 Watts per square meter.
The first derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used in determining the value of the pre-feedback sensitivity parameter lambda-zero. See the sub-equation for lambda-zero in the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation.

Reply to  aveollila
August 9, 2016 10:35 pm

Lambda-zero is 0.312, not 0.27, for one must allow for the Hoelder coefficient 7/6, shown in pink in the sub-equation for that parameter in the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation.
And IPCC’s coefficient for the CO2 forcing equation is 5.35, not 3.12, though Will Happer reckons IPCC has overestimated it by 40%.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 9, 2016 10:49 pm

We don’t care about the value of Lambda-zero, because you don’t use it.
Look at the calculation :
0.312 x 5.35 ln (2)*0.83 / (0.312 [5.35 ln (400/280)])
The two Lambda-zero (0.312) that appears in the calculation cancel each other.
(also your calculation is wrong for other reasons already explained).
Did you go at school ?

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 9, 2016 11:25 pm

Tonsil, who appears to be more mathematically challenged than most true-believers in the Party Line, does not seem to appreciate that neither in the official sensitivity equation nor in the equation for the exaggeration factor does lambda-zero self-cancel.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 9, 2016 11:38 pm

0.312/0.312 = 1
yes I know, it’s hard maths.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 9, 2016 11:53 pm

Tonsil, increasingly desperate as the Party Line to which it has long adhered crumbles, is unable to demonstrate that lambda-zero self-cancels in either the official climate-sensitivity equation or the equation for the exaggeration factor X. For it does not do so.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 12:21 am

Nowhere in your calculation you use the value of Lambda-zero. This is all smoke and mirror.
The equation you use is simply DeltaT_eq = Forcing / lambda with lambda = all the thing on the right of the forcing in the equation you show.
Also this equation is for an equilibrium temperature change DeltaT_eq as you wrote in your previous post, not a transient change DeltaT as you write here (adding a mistake to hide another mistake…)
Because we know the forcing for a doubling of CO2, if we know lambda then we get ECS, which is DeltaT_eq for a CO2 doubling.
Then you try to get lambda from the present warming by writting lambda = Present Forcing / Present DeltaT.
But you are wrong because the present warming is not in equilibrium. As a good illustration, Fig 2 in your post show that when CO2 is increased to a constant value, you need thousand of years to reach the new equilibrium.
As a result, you are wrong in your calculation of lambda, hence, in your calculation of DeltaT_eq.
Easy isn’t it ?
Not for you apparently.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 12:56 am

Tonsil continues to make elementary errors. First, he incorrectly states that I do not use the pre-feedback sensitivity parameter lambda-zero. It is, however, plainly displayed in purple in the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation, and is of course also used in the determination of the pre-feedback and post-feedback equilibrium sensitivities in the equation for the global-warming exaggeration factor X.
Secondly, tonsil has failed to read the caption to the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation in he head posting, where it is explained, as it is also explained upthread, that that equation is capable of modelling either transient or equilibrium sensitivities at will by a suitable choice of the feedback sum. Indeed, Roe’s fig. 6, shown in the head posting, allows reasonable choices of feedback sums to be made over any desired timescale.
All of this is elementary.
Thirdly, tonsil incorrectly states that I determine the equilibrium post-feedback sensitivity parameter lambda-eq by dividing observed warming by the known CO2 forcing. No: as the head posting explicitly states, I assume that the observed warming reflects the equilibrium pre-feedback warming, which, as the head posting also explains and illustrates with Roe’s graph, occurs near-instantaneously. Lambda,eq is only determinable after all feedbacks have acted.
Finally, tonsil, in its desperation to find fault where none exists, first accused me of not having determined lambda-eq at all and now accuses me of having determined it incorrectly when it was not determined at all in the head posting.
It would be best if tonsil realised that it is hopelessly out of its depth, and is not serving the Party Line well.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 1:22 am

“First, he incorrectly states that I do not use the pre-feedback sensitivity parameter lambda-zero. ”
Well, let’s write the whole calculation in one line :
You state that you calculate DeltaTeq for a doubling of CO2 but this is not the case for resons explained everywhere here. So let’s call it DeltaT_wrong_from_Monckton_of_Brenchley
We have :
DeltaT_wrong_from_Monckton_of_Brenchley
= 0.312 x 5.35 ln (2) x 1.38
= 0.312 x 5.35 ln (2) x 0.83/0.60
= 0.312 x 5.35 ln (2) x 0.83/ (0.312 [5.35 ln (400/280)])
= 5.35 ln (2) x 0.83 / [5.35 ln (400/280)])
= DeltaF for a doubling of CO2 x DeltaT_present climate / DeltaF present climate
Where is lambda_0 used ?
NOWHERE.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 1:28 am

Aso “pre-feedback” and ‘post-feedback” are expressions used nowhere in the litterature (e.g. Roe 2009 does not use these words).
They may be misleading because suggest a time dependency whereas there is no time dependency in the equation shown in the post. The fact that equilibirum is not reached is due to the thermal inertia of the ocean (see for example … Roe 2009).
Smoke and mirrors….

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:25 am

Tonsil continues to flaunt its ignorance and t flout the laws of physics. Lambda-zero is used in the determination of pre-feedback and poor-feedback sensitivities in the equation for the exaggeration factor X, And I did not use the equation he presents, which, however, contains the quantity 0.312, which is the official value of lambda-zero.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 6:48 pm

Even without knowing what is the meaning of the parameters, everybody can check that you calculate the following :
5.35 ln (2) x 0.83 / [5.35 ln (400/280)]) = 1,61
no 0.312 there. No lambda_0.
You are really taking people for idiots.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 10:51 pm

It would really help if Tonsil read the head posting before presuming to attempt futile criticism of it.
First, the calculation of which it speaks is not the calculation used in the head posting for determining the exaggeration factor X.
Secondly, the purpose of the head posting is to determine X, and, in the determination of X, lambda-zero is used and does not self-cancel.
Simple, if only Tonsil would learn to read.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 11, 2016 2:00 am

Man, I don’t care about your X factor calculation….
I am speaking about the calculation of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the 1.6 value, your first calculation, that is wrong. And you know it’s wrong but refuses to recognize it.

ulriclyons
Reply to  aveollila
August 10, 2016 3:29 pm

Or you can look at it this way, if the surface temperature is raised from 288K to 288.68K it will radiate an extra 3.7W/m2.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

Sparks
Reply to  ulriclyons
August 13, 2016 8:13 pm

Nope!

Ron Graf
August 9, 2016 4:11 pm

philohippous:

…IPCC should be required to use all the models and analyze them using Monte Carlo methods…

Just before doing that there needs to be an independent commission formed of trained statisticians to establish benchmark tests for elimination of spurious models. The methodology should have a covering publication that is open to comment and has all code and test data publicly archived.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ron Graf
August 9, 2016 4:46 pm

The IPCC should be disbanded, and not required to anything more than it takes to archive their papers, meeting minutes and notes, and computer data so that science historians of the distant future can understand how they confabulated so much future out of so little past.

Gabro
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 9, 2016 4:55 pm

I second that motion.
And emotion.
Same applies to the UN in general, IMO.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2016 8:49 am

Agreed 100% with both you and Gabro below.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2016 8:50 am

Or make that “above.”

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2016 10:39 am

I add my vote to that.

KenB
Reply to  Ron Graf
August 9, 2016 4:50 pm

Ron Graf, I agree, that is the desired scientific response that should be insisted upon by all that are interested in promoting the honest integrity of atmospheric/climate science. Needs to happen now.

hot air
Reply to  Ron Graf
August 10, 2016 11:47 am

The problem with this is you will never get a group of statisticians to agree with each other…

Joel O’Bryan
August 9, 2016 4:56 pm

In fact, Lord Monckton’s IPCC Climate Exaggeration Factor should be XC for X factor, confabulation.
The IPCC should also henceforth be renamed as the International Panel on Climate Confabulation.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 9, 2016 5:01 pm

Or how about “climate confusion”?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 5:06 pm

Calling it “Climate Confusion” absolves them of their willful deception with intent to extort money.

Gabro
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 5:33 pm

Joel,
Right on!
Climate conspiracy or collusion captures reality better.

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 6:02 pm

“INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CONFUSION”
just thought it had a better ring to it… (☺)

Tim Groves
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 6:17 pm

Or The Infallible Pontificate on Climate Certainty, now that it has the Papal Blessing?

Gabro
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 6:22 pm

Papal Blessing.
Ie, the kiss of scientific death.

H.R.
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 7:42 pm

You mis-spelled PayPal, Tim Groves.

PiperPaul
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 7:42 pm

International Panel on Climate Corruption has the PayPal Blessing?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 10, 2016 8:52 am

My personal definition of the IPCC acronym is “Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control.” I think it describes what the IPCC really is most accurately.

afonzarelli
August 9, 2016 5:35 pm

Lord M., a little too “heady” for the layman… (but thanx much all the same)
The ways i sees it, we’re almost half way to the doubling of CO2. So that would give us warming of .5C from CO2 alone (without the feedbacks). The ipcc lays little to no claim on warming before 1950 and they say it’s warmed about .6C since 1950. Even without ECS (&TCR) and other sources of anthro warming, the .5C comprises nearly the total of the record. Add in TCR and other sources of anthro warming, we should be well over the .6C of recent warming. And all this is assuming that the recent rise in warming is not largely natural. Even though it’s obvious in the record (going back to 1850) that there is a natural sixty year cycle of warming/ cooling that we just concluded the warming phase of. One has to wonder how valid even the low end estimates of climate sensitivity really are…

toncul
August 9, 2016 5:48 pm

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“The official equation is simple. For instance, it has no term for ocean heat capacity and none for time-dependency.”
Yes, that’s what you learnt in the in the comments to your previous post (e.g. my comments at the end but also a lot of other people, even people who share some opinions with you):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/03/ipcc-has-at-least-doubled-true-climate-sensitivity-a-demonstration/
But you din’t correct your calculation, which has others mistales. You forgot other Greehouse gaz, which would even decrease sensitivity!!! Yes I give you the tip : you can even more reduce your wrong estimate by correcting only the misakes you want… Aerosols which would increase it… And a lot of other assumption that make that we need to be careful with that kind of estimation. Are you doing mistakes on purpose or you really don’t understand that you are wrong ? .
In particular you still speak about “pre-” and “post_feedback” as if there where acting at different time scale, which is not the case in this conceptual view. You even notice it yourself that there is no time information…. And nowhere in you calculation you use the formulation of lambda (see my previous comments under the other link) as a function of lambda_0 and f. This is all just smoke and mirrors.
And the most beautiful :
“the equation can model transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity.”.
So we have an equation that just tells you that the temperature change (with the parameters here, an equilibrium one) is a linear function of the forcing, and it would also give the transient sensitivity.
So you are telling us they are the same thing. Fig 2, that you like so much doesn’t show that it is not the case. You need thusand of years to reach equilibrium.
When do you plan to stop being wrong ?
My guess is … never.

JohnKnight
Reply to  toncul
August 9, 2016 10:35 pm

toncul,
“You need thusand of years to reach equilibrium.”
Do you believe equilibrium has ever been reached?

Reply to  JohnKnight
August 9, 2016 11:45 pm

Nuclear waste is radioactive for billions of years. Mercury is a poison forever!
Asymptotes never arrive and Xeno’s paradox rules OK?
BBB (BS baffles Brains) Cant you recognise a hand-wavy qualitative emotional statement from science yet?
.

JohnKnight
Reply to  JohnKnight
August 10, 2016 5:45 pm

(I’s just hoping I could get a hand to point at something ; )

toncul
Reply to  JohnKnight
August 11, 2016 7:00 am

JohnKnight
Strictly speaking, no, there are always forcing variations (e.g. sun). But past climate changes has time scale long enough to consider equilibrium e.g. LGM:

Reply to  toncul
August 9, 2016 11:10 pm

Tonsil continues to let its prejudice cloud its judgment. In our paper introducing the irreducible simple climate model that is proving so much better than the official models at predicting global warming, we added an explicit and very simple time-dependent array variable which, however, was not necessary to the present exercise, where the primary focus is on equilibrium sensitivity.
And no, I did not forget other greenhouse gases. The table of results makes explicit allowance for various CO2 fractions of anthropogenic warming-in fact, a rather greater range of possibilities in this regard than IPCC itself.
And I talk of pre-feedback and post-feedback sensitivity because, for one thing, it is self-evidently necessary to determine the post-feedback sensitivity, and, for another, that separation is used by the models and by IPCC itself, and, for another, as the head posting pointed out, the pre-feedback response is near-instantaneous sub specie aeternitatis, as the graph from Roe (2009) demonstrates; and, for another, as the head posting explicitly points out, one can readily adapt the equation for rhe exaggeration factor X to allow for any desired degree of feedback contribution in the observed record to date; and, for another, it is near-exclusively the feedback response that is time-variant.
And the difference between lambda-zero and lambda-equilibrium is correctly allowed for in the system response element of the official sensitivity equation, so that you can determine the value of lambda-equilibrium as the ratio of the post-feedback to the pre-feedback temperature response.
Yes, the official sensitivity equation can handle pre-feedback (instantaneous) as well as post-feedback (time-variant) sensitivities by a suitable choice of the value of the feedback sum. All of this is elementary climate science. In any event, for present purposes it was not necessary to consider time-variance except in considering whether the head posting’s assumption that transient warming to date is approximately equal to the sensitivity to pre-feedback forcing, an assumption that was made explicit in the head posting, with some discussion of what one could do if one disagreed with it.
And see upthread for a deaptails day correction to rptonsil’s misapprehensuin that the form and output of the official sensitivity equation shown in the head posting are linear when, self-evidently, they are not.
And, if sensitivity is lowish, one needs only a century or two to reach something close to equilibrium. It is only in the high-sensitivity case that the timescale to equilibrium is millennial. As the head posting demonstrates, IPCC op exaggerates climate sensitivity by at least double.
It is not I who am wrong. It is tonsil.

catweazle666
Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 5:29 pm

“You need thusand of years to reach equilibrium.” [sic]
Equilibrium?
In a practically infinite non-linear feedback-driven chaotic system?
You really haven’t a clue what you’re wittering about have you, you scientifically illiterate, innumerate, illiterate dimwit?
Get yourself back ti Hot Whopper or whatever den of crackpot bedwetters you get your drivel from.
And stop wasting bandwidth.
Prat.

prjindigo
August 9, 2016 5:50 pm

Could it be the 24 gigatons of live steam we’re spewing into the atmosphere each year?
[??? .mod]

Javert Chip
Reply to  prjindigo
August 9, 2016 6:35 pm

Just want to get on the record saying “I doubt it”.
I also don’t even pretend to understand it.

FerdiEgb
Reply to  prjindigo
August 10, 2016 2:21 pm

Calculated that a long time ago, but that steam, mainly from waste heat (cooling towers) and exhausts/stacks is only a very small fraction of what the sun evaporates. Moreover it rains out in less than a few days and hardly influences the average water vapor content of the atmosphere…

TDBraun
August 9, 2016 6:45 pm

I find this article incomprehensible.

Reply to  TDBraun
August 9, 2016 9:43 pm

TDB: Then learn more about the core issues in CAGW. Ignorance is not a legitimate complaint.
Your reprehensible incomprehensible igorance is not permission to have a legitimate opinion.

Reply to  ristvan
August 9, 2016 11:15 pm

In answer to Mr Braun, sometimes WUWT carries technical discussions which, as here, go considerably beyond the layman’s understanding and are thus a little hard to follow. But the conclusion is clear enough: IPCC is exaggerating climate sensitivity by at least double.

Reply to  TDBraun
August 10, 2016 11:39 am

Monktopus squirts ink
[But can you type faster with 8 functional and flexible tips, or ten bone & ligament fingers on only two supports?. .mod]

catweazle666
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 10, 2016 5:31 pm

And Moshpit squirts poppycock…

RBom
August 9, 2016 8:04 pm

The Anthropogenic Universe does appear to be in great doubt.

philincalifornia
Reply to  RBom
August 9, 2016 9:18 pm

Indeed it does, but what about the people with eyebrows raised and jaws dropped standing on beaches bracing themselves against sea level rise ….. ?
Not to mention “doctors baffled”.
Don’t be so heartless.

Nick stokes
August 9, 2016 11:28 pm

I see the “official” equation has unofficially changed. Last post had Teq on the left side. Now it is just T.
If you want to talk about equilibrium sensitivity, it must be eq temp. Else it doesn’t mean anything at all.

toncul
Reply to  Nick stokes
August 9, 2016 11:45 pm

Yes, this is how climate deniers correct mistakes… They make disappear what is correct…
The equation is valid only for equilibrium sensitivity e.g. ihis is said in Roe (2009), a paper that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley intensively cite in previous post comments.
That guy has no shame…

catweazle666
Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 5:34 pm

“his is how climate deniers…”
Take your denier schtick and stick it where the sun don’t shine Benben you sad little [trimmed].
[Please do not continue to insult little twerps in such a manner. .mod]

toncul
Reply to  Nick stokes
August 9, 2016 11:48 pm

Yes, this is how they correct mistakes… They make disappear what is correct…
The equation is valid only for equilibrium sensitivity e.g. This is said in Roe (2009), a paper that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley intensively cite in previous post comments.
That guy has no shame…

Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 12:03 am

Tonsil continues to display the depth at once of its mathematical ignorance and of its prejudice. It is self-evident that the equilibrium-sensitivity equation may be adapted to determine sub-equilibrium or transient sensitivity over any desired timescale by a suitable choice of a time-variant value of the feedback sum shown in blue in the illustration of the official sensitivity equation. As I have said in reply to Mr Stokes, this is elementary, and it is discussed briefly in the head posting.

toncul
Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 1:42 am

“sub-equilibrium” means nothing.
Yes equation can be adapted to determine transient response and that’s your mistake : you use the equilibrium equation to describe the present response that is a transient response.
You are impressive man…

toncul
Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 1:43 am

Well to be exact : that’s one of your mistakes.

Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 2:18 am

Tonsil demonstrates a troll-like propensity to repeat its errors. The official sensitivity equation may self-evidently be used to determine either pre-feedback or post-feedback sensitivity by a suitable choice of the feedback sum. And sub-equilibrium, meaning below equilibrium, is used frequently in the sciences, of which tonsil displays no knowledge.

toncul
Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 2:24 am

Youwrite more posts than me and you didn’t answer my question few post above :
Where is lambda_0 used ?

Reply to  toncul
August 10, 2016 2:36 am

Asked and answered repeatedly above. Just look at the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation, where lambda-zero is explicitly derived and used both in the determination of the direct or pre-feedback response to a forcing and again in the determination of the feedback factor. It is thus used twice in the determination of equilibrium post-feedback sensitivity.

Reply to  Nick stokes
August 9, 2016 11:58 pm

In answer to Mr Stokes, it should be self-evident even to the meanest intelligence that a suitable choice of the feedback sum appropriate to any desired timescale, perhaps using Fig, 6 of Roe (2009), allows the equilibrium-sensitivity equation to serve for transient sensitivity too. This is elementary.

Peter Miller
August 10, 2016 12:01 am

Prior to man’s recent activities, plant life on our planet was close to starvation. During the last ice advance, CO2 levels dropped to circa 180ppm, close to the drop dead level of 150ppm. Now they are circa 400ppm and rising and the plants are rejoicing.
Most important however is that the IPCC’s estimate of global climate sensitivity has to be wrong, or none of us would be here today – simply put, the process of evolution, or natural selection, would have been totally overwhelmed by the IPCC’s level of CO2 sensitivity. if you look in the geological record for demonstrations that the IPCC estimates are correct, you will struggle, for the simple reason they are not there.
The Earth has its own thermostat, whose mechanisms and magnitude are imperfectly understood. Feedback effects have to be close to zero, or possibly even negative, or we would not be here – that’s it, end of story!

Reply to  Peter Miller
August 10, 2016 12:16 am

Mr Miller eloquently and concisely makes perhaps the most important point in the debate about climate sensitivity. The climate is near-perfectly thermostatic. For the past 810,000 years, global mean surface temperature has varied Bt little more than 3 K either side of the period mean.
Why so? First, the atmosphere is bounded by two objects of massive heat capacity: the ocean below and outer space above. Secondly, there are numerous thermistatic processes, such as the earlier tropical afternoon convection when surface temperature is higher than usual, of which Willis Eschenbach has written here,
Furthermore, not all datasets show the rampantly positive feedbacks assumed by IOCC. In fact, the ISCCP datepa show water vapor in the mid-troposphere declining with temperature; one reason, no doubt, why the predicted tropical mid-troposphere hot-spot is absent.

Nick Stokes
August 10, 2016 12:31 am

The eq is a vital part of the spec. As you have pointed out, the equation says nothing about time. That is because equilibrium.if you want to deviate, you have to supply time dependence info.
The babble about time for feedbacks is irrelevant. A simple example. A new pool is to be heated, in a steady ambient. How much power? A reasonable measure is, what degree rise for 10kW. That is equilibrium sensitivity. But it is no use turning on for a hour and using that temp. You do have to wait until settled for ES.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 10, 2016 1:11 am

Mr Stokes continues to illustrate the wisdom of the adage that if you are already in a hole it is time to stop digging.
It is assumed in the head posting, and the assumption is fairly stated and justified, that global warming to date reflects the pre-feedback sensitivity, readily obtainable from the official sensitivity equation by setting the feedback sum to 1.
It is clearly explained in the caption to the illustration of the official climate-sensitivity equation that any desired time-evolution of climate sensitivity between the near-instantaneous pre-feedback response and final post-feedback sensitivity may be obtained by a suitable choice of the feedback sum shown in blue in the illustration of the equation. Does Mr Stokes deny that this is true?
It is also self-evident that the equation for the exaggeration factor X does not in any way depend on the point that Mr Stokes is erroneously repeating. For X is determined as the product of two quantities: the exaggeration of pre-feedback sensitivity based on the stated assumption that the CO2 fraction of warming to date is approximately equal to the full pre-feedback sensitivity; and the exaggeration evident in the published CMIP5 feedback sums.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 1:22 am

Correction: to determine pre-feedback sensitivity from the official sensitivity equation, set the feedback sum to zero.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:21 am

“any desired time-evolution of climate sensitivity between the near-instantaneous pre-feedback response and final post-feedback sensitivity may be obtained by a suitable choice of the feedback sum shown in blue in the illustration of the equation”
No. The conceptual model that you use assume constant parameters and is valid only in equilibrium (see for example… Roe 2009).
And this is what Roe 2009 does to draw Fig 2 in the heading post. Time dependency is obtained because he uses a model with an additional term that represent energy accumulation in the ocean (he uses a “diffusive ocean”). He does not use the equation of the heading post.
If you state that parameters vary in time, then why do you finally use the same parameters for the present warming and the equilibrium one ? No sense.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:45 am

Tonsil continues, troll-like, to persist in his error. If there be no feedbacks, or before they have acted, setting the feedback-sum to zero will yield the correct sensitivity. If there be feedbacks, they will act over various timescales, most of them short, some of them long. Choosing a suitable feedback sum for any chosen period of interest and putting it into the equation will give a good idea of the warming to be expects up to that point.
In any event, Tonsil is raising an irrelevant point. For the feedback element in the exaggeration factor X does not depend on transient but on equilibrium feedback values.
Perhaps tonsil, or those who are paying it to disrupt this thread (for it would not otherwise have sought to waste time repeating its obvious errors on a point that is irrelevant to the determination of the exaggeration factor X), would care to do some reading in elementary climatological physics before it parades its ignorance any further.

toncul
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 8:25 pm

Monckton of Brenchley
You say : “If there be no feedbacks, or before they have acted, setting the feedback-sum to zero will yield the correct sensitivity.”
No with no feedback, present change would not be in equilibrium. Mathematically, the conceptual model that you use dos not do any distinction between a system with feedback and a system with no feedback (there is even some arbitrariness in the definition of that one … But let’s forget that … ).
You say : “If there be feedbacks, they will act over various timescales, most of them short, some of them long.”
This is not what tells you the conceptual model that you use : t doesn’t do time dependency distinction between different type of feedback …. and it is VERY EASY to check that you are completely wrong, even without any knowledge about what we are speaking about :
There is NO time dependency in the equation that you use, and you DON’T use time in the calculation that you perform.

Kurt
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 10, 2016 1:19 am

So if I have a system that begins in an equilibrium state and I double its input over a second, I can envision having to wait a while after the input has doubled for the system to settle. But if I take my sweet time and spend 250 years while I ever-so-carefully double the input in little tiny increments, I have a hard time imagining that the system ever deviated measurably from its equilibrium state in response to the sum total of all those past little tiny increments of change.
Granted, the Earth didn’t start in an equilibrium state since the climate has never been and never will be in such a state. But I think the principle still holds – since it takes hundreds of years for CO2 to double, and since any increase in forcing in a given year due to CO2 emissions is insignificant compared to the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere from the sun, it shouldn’t take long at all before we see most of the temperature effect from the total past CO2 contributions.

Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 1:25 am

Kurt is right. The temperature response before feedbacks is near-instantaneous and the equilibrium response after all feedbacks have acted takes longer. The lower is climate sensitivity, the shorter is the time to equulibrium.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 1:53 am

“Kurt is right.”
Hard to argue with you on that one.

Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 10:36 pm

Tonsil continues to sneer, but also continues to be wrong on every point.
First, it takes issue with the distinction between pre-feedback and post-feedback sensitivity demonstrated in the official sensitivity equation. Yet that distinction originates in Bode (1945, ch. 3); it is explicitly made in IPCC (2001, ch. 6.1) and in IPCC (2007, p. 631 fn); it is defined with precision in the head posting; and the difference between pre-feedback and post-feedback sensitivity is calculated for the CMIP3 models during the calibration step, arriving at about the same values as in that ensemble. Try reading the head posting before trying to apply anti-science to it. And, if you disagree with that distinction, take the matter up not with me but with the IPCC secretariat.
Secondly, it says, as if this were some sort of new revelation, that there is no term for time-dependency in the official equation, but that point is explicitly stated in the head posting, which it has still not read before presuming inexpertly to criticise it.
Thirdly, it says I did not use any time calculation in the head posting. This, too, is no revelation, for, if it had been capable of understanding the head posting, it would have been made aware of several considerations which, in its haste to find fault with the posting’s admittedly devastating conclusion, it appears either to have missed or to have misunderstood. First, there is no need for time considerations in determining equilibrium sensitivity; secondly, the calibration step shiws this quite clearly; thirdly, the pre-feedback sensitivity occurs near-instantaneously, as the graph from Roe (2009) makes clear, so that there is no need for ant time-dependency calculation there; and fourthly, using the same diagram one can see that, where equilibrium sensitivity has been overstated, as it has in the CMIP5 models, all sensitivities from zero feedback to equilibrium feedback are overstated approximately pro rata.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 10, 2016 6:36 am

Nick
What makes you think long term feedbacks are positive?
When has equilibrium ever been reached?

Ivor Ward
August 10, 2016 1:29 am

I would have thought feedbacks were negative otherwise we would not keep going back to the ice. Positive would be Hansens boiled oceans. Can’t see much of that.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
August 10, 2016 2:49 am

I agree. The very fact that the climate is near-perfectly thermostatic demonstrates that feedbacks are at most very weakly net-positive. If so, then I have greatly underestimated the exaggeration factor X,

August 10, 2016 1:38 am

Leaving aside all the nit picking, this is a spectacularly obfuscative article that explores the spectacularly obfuscated Climate Science ‘science’.
Its very simple. Without positive temperature feedback CO2 alone can’t put the C into CAGW.
Because warming between around 1970 and 1995 was rapid, a narrative could be constructed whereby all the warming was due to CO2 increase if there was about a 2:1 or more uplift in climate sensitivity due to positive feedback.
That proposition was politically and commercially convenient, and that’s alarmism. It weas almost certainly false.
No evidence of positive feedback has ever been found, and the ‘pause’ absolutely makes its existence entirely suspect. Worse, the Pause breaks the CAGW proposition in an ironic catch 22 way. Either CO2 was not responsible for the rise, or something else at least as powerful has been stopping CO2 from doing its stuff. And if something else is that powerful, CO2 is not that worrisome anyway.
When I say a narrative could be constructed, that’s exactly what I mean. A lot of people stood to make a lot of money if CO2 could be declared a ‘pollutant’ and therefore come under the US anti-pollution laws. Loads of smaller nations could apply for recompense to the UN. Windmill makers could be paid to install the useless monstrosities. Scientific careers could be made. Environmental writers and activists could get a guaranteed free ride on the back of the ‘most important ego-stroking issue of the century’. Politicians could have ritual public orgasms as they showed of the size of their virtue-signalling moral organs.
What’s not to like? Everyone’s a winner!
Except Science itself, trust in public institutions, and the public, who had to pay.
Arguments about nit picking equilibrium times constants are simply diversions from the issue. The positive feedback case was supposed to be about higher temperatures increasing water vapour in the atmosphere, and thereby increasing the greenhouse effect. And yet the actual so called science critically depends on the radiative increase at the surface (or lack of loss at the surface) from CO2 in a clear sky. Water vapour in the limit turns into clouds, and the albedo increase from cloud cover is massive. Order of magnitude larger than CO2.
So the classic climate model is based on doublethink. Water vapour increases, but cloud cover does not. This doublethink is once again shrouded in pseudo-scientific flapdoodle, to the point where even educated scientists don’t spot the sleight of hand. BBB.
BS Baffles Brains.
In fact the actual evidence tends to support the reverse case, that via the mechanism of convection and condensation, the water cycle largely acts as negative feedback. And that higher temperatures increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2, not the other way round.
Which leaves only one thing unexplained. Why did it get warmer last century, only to largely stop getting warmer this century?
And here the final sleight of hand is exposed. We ask the question
“Why not?”.
Who ever said that – ex of human intervention – climate was a constant equilibrium state anyway? The paleological record shows that climate is not and never has been in equilibrium at a constant level. IN fact it is a complex interconnected system with many variables. Higher temperatures and CO2 favour plant growth, which fixes carbon.
As I have said before, the truth is that climate is a non linear feedback system with many many feedback paths. Many of which have significant delays in them – the latent heat of ice and water themselves are massively non linear effects, and the water cycle is delayed by such things as ocean current lag and so on.
Such a system is simply not amenable to accurate analysis by any mathematical tools we have, to any useful degree of accuracy. And it will exhibit chaotic behaviours and total lack of equilibrium states. At best it will have a series of ‘attractors’ at various levels in the time/temperature plane. Ice ages and interglacial, and various little quasi-stable zones.
Just because all you can model is superposed linear partial derivatives, doesn’t mean the world is made of them.
So, nothing need cause climate change. It happens all by itself. If you want to look at which actual parts of the climate are responsible for modulating radiation received (net) at ground level, which is what affects the ecosphere, then its pretty much an open field. You can pick between clouds, dust, various natural and man made aerosols, vegetation cover, and various natural and man made chemicals that affect it.
But above all, BBB. BS baffles brains. Christopher has fallen prey to it trying to unravel the BS inherent in the standard climate model equations. No need Christopher. Its total BS. All that is needed is to look at the underlying assumptions of so called ‘climate science’, cut to the chase and ask the two ’emperor’s new green clothes’ questions:
Why do you suppose that such a thing as climate equilibrium exists, or that the temperatures of – say – the 1950s represent its value?
Why do you propose that of all the multifarious things that affect global surface temperatures, CO2 is the only one that can radically change it?

BBB is getting lost in the detail whilst failing to understand the holistic picture. The holistic picture immediately reveals that common sense perspective that climate is never stable, and is affected by many more things than CO2 variation. The holistic picture furthermore reveals why Climate Alarmism has been so successful a meme and has such marketing traction. Because it benefits so many people in one way or another. Because it was designed to do that very thing. The genius of Gore. Like Marxism, it’s all based on a fundamentally flawed set of assumptions, but that doesn’t matter, when everyone wants to believe it!
Let’s face it, who prefers to believe that they are fundamentally unimportant, easily replaceable and haven’t got a lot of money largely because they are not that good, and are a shade lazy and can’t be bothered, when its so much easier to believe that They have deliberately been holding you back and grabbing all the cash for themselves?
I’ll throw in another thought for you all. Society itself is a complex system of non linear time delayed feedback loops. I cant help thinking like a engineer infected with philosophical ideas. That’s what I am! WE engineers built a labour saving work-done-by-machines-burning-fossil-fuel society of unprecedented affluence and with huge opportunities for leisure and thinking. We perhaps hoped to create a society of idle and sophisticated rich, but the propensity of hormonal imperatives meant that instead we created an overpopulated world of people who saw no need to actually understand any facets of society at all, utterly divorced from the pragmatic processes of keeping it working, able to reap its benefits with no idea as to how those benefits accrued. We created the ‘chattering classes’ – a sort of ill educated, infinitely presumptuous middle class that bears more resemblance to the works of Jane Austen than the analysis of Karl Marx. However whilst in Austen’s novels, the womenfolk determine the social context, they are kept away from, and appear to have no idea of, or involvement with, the processes of actual production that allow them to live their peculiar socially irrelevant lives.
IN Austen’s world vapid posturings and emotional perspectives dominate the narrative, but nowhere is the actual issue of how this is all supported, addressed.
And that is the Western world today. Infinitely complex, and dominated by a class that James Delingpole calls the Wankerati. A class that considers itself educated, sophisticated, modern, progressive, liberal and civilised, but can’t undo the wheel nuts on a flat tire. And they elect politicians that reflect their infinitely vapid worldviews, whose only quality is their ability to appeal in a vapid virtue signalling way, to the sensibilities of a curiously egocentric electorate. Climate change is a social phenomenon that reflects the rise of this class.
But, given enough power, the ignorance, beyond received wisdom, of this class can only have one effect: the destruction of the physical and social underpinnings of the society they take for granted. They rule (or would rule), but they are unfit to rule. Not in any moral sense. But in the actual sense of being unable to maintain society in the state where it can afford them a life.
The world, most people agree, is in crisis. We cast around desperately for someone or some group that can actually tackle the real problems of the world, as opposed to the faux problems of the virtue signalling Left.
But we have created conditions where such persons as we need, no longer have any public profile. There is no thundering Churchill, there is not even a twisted little Hitler. Just grey little overweight matrons, and metrosexual bureaucrats, and all the effort goes into marketing the brand, and none into addressing te actual issues that matter.
Perhaps we should have learnt from the Chinese, who decided aeons ago, that technology was a bad thing, because without a life of unremitting manual labour, the peasants would be, as they always have been, revolting.
Well; the peasants are now in control. And hell bent on reducing the world to the only one they can understand.
The problem is not climate change., The problem is the likes of Naomi Klein, George Monbiot, Michael Mann…you know, the usual suspects, people who make a living out of promulgating a popular emotional narrative that is based on entirely false assumptions, for the purposes of achieving wealth and status in the pseudo-society of the Chatterati..
And it may be that we have as little control over the processes of social change as we do over the processes of climate change. Until the moral vacuity of these people and their utter and complete incompetence at addressing the substantive existential issues that face the Western world are exposed, they will still be the people nominally in charge of its existence.
The game is not to engage them in disproving the detail of their narratives: The real game is simply to expose the irrelevance of the narrative, as quickly and efficiently as possible. What do I think about gay marriage, abortion, climate change, gun control, sexual harassment in the workplace, racial discrimination?
I don’t. Think. About them, at all. I worry far more about the innate single point of failure in Western civilisation, which is that ultimately it depends for everything it does and everything it makes and every single product for sale in its supermarkets or across the internet, on a per capita energy burn that is utterly unattainable in practice without massive deployment of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Or a massive reduction in those ‘capitas’.
I worry about the attendant and interlinked issue of massive debt on money loaned in the expectation of industrial and economic growth, that cannot be achieved in a finite planet – at least not in the same way it has for the last 400 years of rapid industrialisation.
I don’t mind the Chatterati in Islington or Washington or the MSM waffling on about all these ‘pressing social issues’ – after all they are not fit to do more – but I do worry about them inserting their sticky fingers into the actual guts of the vast ad hoc engine of civilisation, without a single clue, or it seems a single concern, as to the ultimate effect of their meddling.
But I have no clue how to stop them. When the ratio of ignorant idiots to people with common sense exceeds 50%, a democracy will destroy itself. And we have built a society in which ignorance and idiocy succeed, and common sense is thwarted at every turn.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 10, 2016 9:47 am

Excellent, and highly appropriate, rant. One thing I personally do think about is gun control, because once the “Chatterati” can take away everyone’s guns, they can press forward with their agenda of idiocy unopposed.
But as to the “climate change” meme, and the related agenda, the following paragraph of your post sums it up nicely:
“I worry far more about the innate single point of failure in Western civilisation, which is that ultimately it depends for everything it does and everything it makes and every single product for sale in its supermarkets or across the internet, on a per capita energy burn that is utterly unattainable in practice without massive deployment of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Or a massive reduction in those ‘capitas’.”
Of course, you must realize that at its core the Eco-Fascists would be perfectly happy with the latter solution of “less ‘capitas’,” provided, of course, that the “depopulation” comes from, you know, those OTHER people, not from themselves. Eco-Fascism is, after all, anti-human at its core.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  AGW is not Science
August 10, 2016 9:49 am

should be “at its core Eco-Fascism would be” – need an “Edit” function.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 10, 2016 11:23 am

In response to Leo Smith, I make no apology for doing technical postings from time to time. The equations are explained far more clearly than in IPCC’s documents, and the reason why I use Their methodology is not that I endorse or have fallen for it: it is that one can demonstrate Their errors and exaggerations using Their methods,

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 10, 2016 1:01 pm

While slightly off topic, thank you for your excellent perspective as a philosophical engineer on the world we live in today.

David A
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 11, 2016 11:11 pm

Good rant.
Regarding the last paragraph regarding democracy;
well the power to self-destruct is directl portional to the power of the wish grantor. The US system of a constitutional republic was designed to protect against this essential weakness of “democracy”.
Alas, that protection is very ill.

son of mulder
August 10, 2016 2:41 am

“Of course, not all feedbacks have acted yet, but, on the other side of the ledger, much of the warming since 1850 is attributable either to natural causes or to non-CO2 manmade forcings. Netting off these two considerations, it is virtually certain that IPCC and the models are overestimating Man’s influence on climate by well over double.”
How do you know that some of the warming since 1850 is natural warming, why couldn’t there have been natural cooling otherwise expected post 1850? ie a dip back into the little iceage?

Reply to  son of mulder
August 10, 2016 2:47 am

See the diagram in the head posting showing, in IPCC’s estimation, that global temperature would not have changed in the past century without manmade warming.

son of mulder
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 3:02 am

How would the IPCCknow that?

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 5:18 am

Here as in so many other matters, IPCC wouldn’t know. But its opinion that there would have been no warming over the past century but for our sins of emission is useful in that one can dismiss claims like that of the ridiculous Michael Mann that there would have been cooling but for us, by pointing out that such assertions go beyond the mainstream to which they profess such devotion.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 7:37 am

Lord M., shouldn’t it be a given, now, that we would have seen some warming recently in the absence of human emissions anyway? The thirty year cycles of warming and cooling are glaringly obvious in the temperature record. (this might not have been so obvious decades ago before the recent cessation of the last warming cycle and advent of the hiatus) What would it do to climate sensitivity estimates if only half of recent warming was due to human activities?

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 7:41 am

p.s. can’t wait till you get back to your “pause” posts… not too crazy about that “speedometer” thingy. (☺)

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 8:35 am

In response to The Fonz, who asks what it would do to climate sensitivity if only half of recent warming were manmade, simply follow the column headed “0.5” in the table of results in the head posting.
As for the global warming speedometer, it does show very clearly the large discrepancy between prediction and reality that gave rise to the research behind the present posting.
And I can hardly resume posting’s about the Pause unless and until a La Niña reverses the impact of the recent El Niño spike and restores the Pause.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 9:19 am

Aaaaaaaaaay !!!

JohnKnight
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 5:59 pm

(Make the “observed” indicator look solid, like the case, with a bit of shadow, etc . . then everyone will love it . . or your money back ; )

Richrd Barraclough
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 19, 2016 7:38 am

Monckton says
And I can hardly resume posting’s about the Pause unless and until a La Niña reverses the impact of the recent El Niño spike and restores the Pause
“postings” !!
I’m afraid the Pause isn’t going to come back any time soon.
Even if the next 12 months were to see repeat of the coldest 12 months during the la Niña of 1999-2000 (average anomaly about -0.04), the Pause would still not be resurrected.
Perhaps the new theme could be “Son-of-Pause”? It already goes all the way back to November, and under the above scenario, would be 5 years long by July next year.

Bob Boder
Reply to  son of mulder
August 10, 2016 8:14 am

mulder
“How do you know that some of the warming since 1850 is natural warming, why couldn’t there have been natural cooling otherwise expected post 1850? ie a dip back into the little iceage?”
How do you know that with out Mans contributions that warming could have been greater?
I sight you “How would the IPCC know that?”
that’s the whole point they don’t know there for they are making everything up as they go.

son of mulder
Reply to  Bob Boder
August 10, 2016 10:22 am

I agree, I was looking for logic in the IPCC position and it isn’t there.

willhaas
August 10, 2016 2:49 am

It has been shown that the pre feedback CO2 calculations have been too great by a factor of 20 because those that made the initial calculations neglected to include that adding CO2 to the atmosphere lowers the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. In addition, the feedbacks have to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved over at least the past 500 million years. We are here.

Reply to  willhaas
August 10, 2016 5:20 am

I’d be grateful for a reference to back up this point.

willhaas
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 2:30 pm

The factor of 20 comes from an article by Kyoji Kimoto dated 11-11-2015 that I saw on Hockeyschtick.blogspot.com. You will have to evaluate this information for yourself.

Ivor Ward
August 10, 2016 4:26 am

The climate has to oscillate about a mean. It isn’t really possible to have a constant temperature. Much like trying to keep a constant 70mph on the motorway, even with cruise control, all the road surface changes and altitude changes, wind speeds, fidgeting kids etc upset the equilibrium but we apply the correction to maintain an apparently constant speed The Earths thermostatic control seems much the same. What we don’t really know is how far the oscillation will go in any direction before it begins to correct. We may never be able to determine that so how will we know if we are outside natural variation. With our motorway drive we can only be upset by an outside influence, such as a flat tire, fuel starvation or whacking into the barrier.
It seems to follow that Earth is the same. An outside influence is needed such as an asteroid, intense solar activity or some such. Simply changing the chemical composition of earthly resources is not likely to change the Earth. We have seen massive tectonic shifts, volcanoes, earthquakes, yet still the Earth keeps going along without becoming a new Venus or Mars. I would suggest that we humans get over ourselves. Enjoy our time on the lovely planet and when we eventually make way for the next dominant species, go with good grace much as the dinosaurs did. Meanwhile keep an eye out for that asteroid…….

Frank
August 10, 2016 8:38 am

Lord Moncton writes: “First, a breathless recap on my summary of Roger [Taguchi’s] argument [from my last post]”
Unfortunately, the first comment to that post (from Nick Stokes) and comments from others (Joe Born) told Lord Monckton why his original argument was incorrect: He took a formula for calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity and input current warming. The planet’s surface temperature has not come into equilibrium with the current forcing. (The future warming that is expected to occur if the increase in radiative forcing were to stop now is called “committed warming”.)
In this post, Lord Moncton has quietly erased the word “equilibrium” from his original equation, changing “equilibrium climate sensitivity” into “climate sensitivity”. However, the original citation of Roe (2009), eq. 5 is still showing. If we look up Roe (2009), we see the unmodified equation in the older post was the correct one: DeltaT is equilibrium climate sensitivity: “Now let􏰀 Rf be a sustained perturbation (i.e.,a forcing) to this energy balance such that in the new EQUILIBRIUM state it produces a climate change 􏰀DeltaT”.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Roe%202009.pdf
Could this type of deception be partly responsible for his group being unable to engage a lecture hall at University College? Probably not, but it would make a good excuse.
The equations provided by Lord Moncton do NOT deal with the time course of warming in response to forcing. Lewis and Curry (2014) and previous workers have used the following equations to calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate sensitivity (TCR) from observed warming (dT), observed forcing (dF), and current heat flow into the ocean (dQ):
ECS = F_2XCO2 * (dT/(dF-dQ))
TCR = F_2XCO2 * (dT/dF)
Transient climate sensitivity is the amount of warming that is observed as temperature is rising as in response to a rising forcing. (Technically speaking, TCR is the warming observed at after 70 years of forcing that increases at 1%/year – a doubling of CO2 over 70 years. However the same equation is applied to current warming driven by a 0.5%/year increase in CO2.) When heat stops flowing into the ocean (dQ = 0), equilibrium will have been reached, and both equations will predict the same amount of warming. Dividing one equation by the other affords this relationship between equilibrium and transient warming.
ECS/TCR = dF/(dF-dQ) = 1.91/(1.91-0.5) = 1.35
According to ARGO, 0.5 W/m2 of heat is flowing into the ocean. 400 ppm of CO2 is 1.43X bigger than 280 ppm. Since 1.41^2 = 2, 400 ppm is slightly more than half of a doubling. Doing the math, dF = 1.91 W/m2. Therefore, we would expect equilibrium warming to be about 1.35 times greater than transient warming.
By using current (transient) warming (0.83K, 1850-2016) in a equation that calculates equilibrium warming, Lord Monckton has used a temperature change that is roughly 1.35X too small. So dT_eq would be about 1.14 K, if forcing stopped increasing today. The post-feedback gain factor would be 1.9 and ECS would be 2.2 K/doubling. Since Lord Monckton hasn’t bothered to worry about non-CO2 forcing, it doesn’t make much sense to compare his value for ECS to the values reported by serious scientists. However, it has been known for several years (and admitted by the IPCC) that this type of analysis (energy balance) gives lower estimates for climate sensitivity than AOGCMs.

Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 11:10 am

Frank persists in misunderstanding both the head postings.
First, he wilfully avoids all mention of the final paragraph of my first posting, which made it plain that not all feedbacks had yet acted. Instead, he relies on the relentlessly orejudiced and scientifically inept Stokes and Born, who also carefully avoided the obvious implications of that paragraph.
Secondly, he fails to understand the very simple mathematical truth that the sensitivity equation with feedbacks set to zero gives the zero-feedback response, which is near-instantaneous; that the same equation with feedbacks set to their equilibrium value gives equilibrium sensitivity; and that the same equation with feedbacks set to Various values between zero and the equilibrium value gives sensitivity at all points between the zero-feedback and the equilibrium-feedback response.
Thirdly, his characteristically malicious and unfounded assertion that I had engaged in a deception about the sensitivity equation is in error, for I have captioned the equation with a plain explanation that the equation will serve as well for sub-equilibrium as for equilibrium sensitivity. When Roe, or I, use the equation for equilibrium sensitivity only, we label the temperature change accordingly; when I also consider the application of the same equation to sub-equilibrium sensitivities, I label delta-T accordingly.
Fourthly, he has failed to understand the basis on which the exaggeration factor X is determined. The zero-feedback element is is determined on the assumption that warming to date is approximately equal to the pre-feedback warming, which occurs near-instantaneously in response to a forcing; and the post-feedback element is determined by reference to the exaggerated values of climate sensitivity that are determined from the CMIP5 models’ overstatement of equilibrium sensitivity.
Fifthly, he has assumed that I had treated the warming since 1850 as equilibrium warming, when I had done nothing of the kind in determining the exaggeration factors X.

Frank
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 14, 2016 2:02 pm

Lord Monckton replies: First, he wilfully avoids all mention of the final paragraph of my first posting, which made it plain that not all feedbacks had yet acted. Instead, he relies on the relentlessly orejudiced and scientifically inept Stokes and Born, who also carefully avoided the obvious implications of that paragraph.
Frank responds: I read your last paragraph about all feedbacks not having acted, but didn’t have time to comment back then. Almost all feedbacks are fast: Planck, WV, LR and cloud. The average water molecule remains in the atmosphere for 9 days. The trade winds circle the earth in about 2 months, the jet stream in several days. Likewise the reduction of seasonal snow cover with GW is a fast feedback which occurs within months at most. The transient temperature change discussed by Lord Monckton includes the influence of all of these feedbacks – the vast majority. The only feedback that substantially lags current warming is the melting of permanent ice caps and glaciers (and vegetation change in some models). The IPCC includes both seasonal snow cover and ice caps in ice-albedo feedback with a central estimate of 0.3 W/m2/K. Transient warming, therefore includes the vast majority (more than 90%) of feedbacks.
If radiative forcing stopped rising, the main reason that the planet will continue to warm is that the deep ocean hasn’t come into equilibrium with our current surface temperature. (Ice caps and glaciers play a negligible role today, but may not in centuries to millennia.) That is why transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity are calculated via these formulas which differ by including heat flow into the deep ocean (dQ = 0.5 W/m2). Once 0.5 W/m2 is not longer flowing into the deep ocean that heat can be used to further warm the surface.
ECS = F_2XCO2 * (dT/(dF-dQ))
TCR = F_2XCO2 * (dT/dF)
Lord Moncton continues: Secondly, he fails to understand the very simple mathematical truth that the sensitivity equation with feedbacks set to zero gives the zero-feedback response, which is near-instantaneous; that the same equation with feedbacks set to their equilibrium value gives equilibrium sensitivity; and that the same equation with feedbacks set to Various values between zero and the equilibrium value gives sensitivity at all points between the zero-feedback and the equilibrium-feedback response.
Frank replies: I agree with Lord Monckton’s analysis of equilibrium warming and feedbacks. However, the difference between transient and equilibrium warming is best understood through the simpler equations I cited above used by authors he trusts. ECS and TCR both include the same fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are not responsible most of the difference between ECS and TCR. In fact, when ECS stands for “effective climate sensitivity” (which is what Lewis and Curry and most workers actually calculate), slow feedbacks are ignored.
Lord Moncton: Thirdly, his characteristically malicious and unfounded assertion that I had engaged in a deception about the sensitivity equation is in error, for I have captioned the equation with a plain explanation that the equation will serve as well for sub-equilibrium as for equilibrium sensitivity. When Roe, or I, use the equation for equilibrium sensitivity only, we label the temperature change accordingly; when I also consider the application of the same equation to sub-equilibrium sensitivities, I label delta-T accordingly.
Frank replies: After your first post and comments pointing out that you had used transient warming in an equation for equilibrium warming, you changed the description of deltaT from “equilibrium climate sensitivity” to “climate sensitivity”, contrary to what it says in the reference you cited.
Lord Monckton replies: Fourthly, he has failed to understand the basis on which the exaggeration factor X is determined. The zero-feedback element is is determined on the assumption that warming to date is approximately equal to the pre-feedback warming, which occurs near-instantaneously in response to a forcing; and the post-feedback element is determined by reference to the exaggerated values of climate sensitivity that are determined from the CMIP5 models’ overstatement of equilibrium sensitivity.
Frank replies: The difference between equilibrium warming and transient warming is mostly due to dQ, not slow feedbacks (that we can’t quantify). Using the current best estimate of dQ and current TRANSIENT warming, I CORRECTLY calculated ECS and then the gain factor appropriate for current warming using the method employed by Lewis and Curry and many others.
Fifthly, he has assumed that I had treated the warming since 1850 as equilibrium warming, when I had done nothing of the kind in determining the exaggeration factors X.
As best I can tell, you are still ignoring the difference between transient and equilibrium warming and sensitivity. I’ve used the method of Lewis and Curry (and many others) to calculate EFFECTIVE climate sensitivity and arrived at a different answer than you did. Either you are wrong or they are wrong. It is that simple.
I’ll be glad to agree with Lord Moncton that slow feedbacks create a small difference between EFFECTIVE and EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity. However equilibrium climate sensitivity is slightly LARGER than effective climate sensitivity (because small slow feedbacks aren’t include in the latter). Lord Monckton’s value is SMALLER than effective climate sensitivity – when calculated according to L&C. So I repeat, either Lord Moncton has made a mistake or the method of L&C is wrong. This passage from this post clearly show the mistake:
“The method of determining the X factor begins with the observation that pre-feedback warming only takes a few years to manifest itself fully following a forcing. Therefore, little error arises from the assumption that transient and zero-feedback sensitivities are approximately equal.”
Most feedbacks have their impacts within months of warming. With annual temperature data, all warming is “post-feedback”. However, it takes decades of heat flowing into the deep ocean (below the mixed layer, which warms seasonally) to bridge the gap between transient and equilibrium warming. Hopefully, Lord Moncton will stop chasing this red herring and focus on the IPCC’s real problems: 1) Observed warming and heat flow into the ocean is compatible with ECS of 2 or lower. 2) The feedbacks abstracted from climate models for AR5 are incompatible with the high ECS extrapolated from the same models!

Reply to  Frank
August 14, 2016 2:24 pm

Frank:
As the equilibrium temperature cannot be measured, to base a global warming argument on the magnitude of ECS is scientific nonsense. Isn’t that obvious?

Frank
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 15, 2016 9:19 am

Terry asks: “As the equilibrium temperature cannot be measured, to base a global warming argument on the magnitude of ECS is scientific nonsense. Isn’t that obvious?”
In theory, the concept that the planet (or any other object) will warm in respond to a radiation forcing is straightforward. Once the planet or other object has warmed so that incoming and outgoing radiation are equal, the system will be at a new equilibrium temperature. Technically, we say the radiative forcing (from doubled CO2, for example) persists, but the radiative imbalance at the TOA forcing created is negated by increased radiative cooling to space from a warmer planet.
In practice, equilibrium is often approached and only reached when systems respond quickly. In the case of our planet, there is a lot of ocean to warm and ice to melt before a new equilibrium is reached. This is what Lord Monckton has ignored. The top 50 m of the ocean – the layer that is mixed monthly by the wind – has a heat capacity large enough that the current radiative imbalance of roughly 0.5 W/m2 can warm it at a rate of only 1 K/decade. However, some heat transport into the deeper ocean. It takes about a millennium for the “meridional overturning current” to complete one cycle that begins with sinking in the Arctic or Antarctic. Eddy diffusion transports heat below the mixed layer over decades. (We have tracked the diffusion of CFC’s below the mixed layer.) So we will approach true equilibrium with today’s aGHGs over several centuries in the case the top half of the ocean and several millennia for the deepest ocean and ice caps.
The two numbers that best characterize this approach to equilibrium are effective climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). These numbers are not scientific nonsense to me. Transient climate response (TCR) tells us how much warming we have or will experience as radiative forcing gradually increases (at a rate of about 1% per year, doubling in 70 years, about twice as fast as CO2 alone is increasing right now). If TCR is 1.4 K (as Lewis and Curry calculate) or 1.8 K (the average IPCC model), it will be 0.7 K or 0.9 K warmer halfway to doubling (that is where we are right now) and 1.4or 1.8 K warmer when we reach doubling. TCR is relevant to the 21st century. Whenever radiative forcing reaches a plateau, a radiative imbalance will persist until a negligible amount of heat is going into the deep ocean or melting ice caps. During this period (the 22nd-century), the temperature will approach ECS as less heat goes into the ocean. At the end of most climate model runs, heat is still going into the ocean and equilibrium warming is extrapolated, not modeled. To avoid complications from very slow feedbacks (melting ice caps), we use the term effective climate sensitivity to describe “equilibrium” warming from those feedback that are currently being experienced and ignore the minor slow feedbacks that will change equilibrium over the next millennium.
For the most part, the IPCC ignores ECS and TCR and simply tells us what their models PROJECT the temperature will be in 2100. Their projections require ASSUMPTIONS about emissions, including a rise in other GHGs and a fall in sulfate aerosols (whose influence is probably exaggerated). TCR and ECS are fundamental descriptors of how our planet behaves; projections are not.
If you still think ECS is nonsense, I find the climate feedback parameter more tangible. When anything warms, it emits more blackbody radiation. A blackbody at 255 K (the temperature at the altitude from which the average photon escaping to space is emitted), emits 3.8 W/m2 more radiation for each degK it warms. A blackbody’s “climate feedback parameter” would be 3.8 (W/m2)/K. Our planet doesn’t behave like a simple blackbody, because water vapor, clouds and lapse rate change with warming and not all the increased emission caused by warming reaches space. Let’s say that only half reaches space, making our climate feedback parameter is 1.9 (W/m2)/K. ECS is the reciprocal of the climate feedback parameter. If multiply the reciprocal by 3.7 W/m2/doubling, you get an ECS of 2 K/doubling. GMST actually warms 3.5 K every year (due to the lower heat capacity of the NH), a phenomena that is lost when temperature anomalies care calculated. Satellites observe the resulting increase in radiative cooling to space (about 2.2 W/m2/K for LWR) and changes in reflected SWR. The planet has a very TANGIBLE climate feedback parameter associated with seasonal warming (warming in the NH with cooling in the SH). Seasonal warming differs from global warming, but the planet still has a tangible climate feedback parameter (and associated ECS).

Reply to  Frank
August 15, 2016 11:29 am

Frank
Your argument is flawed by application by it of the reification fallacy. It does so by treating an abstract object as if it were a concrete object.
For a properly designed scientific study, the concrete objects are the sampling units belonging to the statistical population underlying the model but for the models of modern global warming climatology there are no sampling units.
Sampling units are replaced through application of the reification fallacy. Under application of this fallacy the builder of a model thinks of an Earth under which there is a linear relationship between the change in the radiative forcing and the change in the equilibrium temperature. While an equilibrium temperature is a feature only of an abstract Earth the model builder overcomes this barrier by reifying the abstract Earth. Thus is born “the climate sensitivity.” Reification is accomplished by placement of “the” before “climate sensitivity.”
“Reification” is the name of a process. Opposing it is the process called “abstraction.” The latter is accomplished through removal of selected features in the common set of features of the statistical population underlying the model. For global warming climatology abstraction cannot take place
as the statistical population does not exist.Thus the only tool left to the builder of a global warming model is reification.
Abstraction is marked by a loss of information. Reification is marked by a gain in information. The information that is gained is fabricated by the model builder but fabrication of information violates the principle of entropy maximization.
Thermodynamics is a product of abstraction and conformity to the principle of entropy maximization. “The climate sensitivity” is a product of reification and violation of this principle.

JPeden
Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 12:59 pm

@ Lord Monckton of Brenchley [Then from Frank August 10, 2016 at 8:38 am]
It is at once evident that the bulk of the warming comes not from the direct CO2 forcing but from consequential temperature feedbacks, particularly in the high-sensitivity case.
And about which the CO2-Climate Changers imply a net positive feedback loop from increasing water vapor concentrations, which supposedly wasn’t acting before all on its own and hadn’t reached its limit of action given whatever negative feedbacks must be limiting it in the first place!
They instead claim water vapor increases from CO2-Climate Change suddenly spring into action at just the right time to assist CO2 increases, then claim this overall mechanism is not a positive loop = runaway feedback, by apparently claiming that negative feedback limits it, which they’ve also presumed wasn’t acting before!
Then Frank August 10, 2016 at 8:38 am comes along and says Monckton is wrong because he ignores that:
The planet’s surface temperature has not come into equilibrium with the current forcing.
When Monckton wasn’t ignoring that! He simply used the idea of shorter term, instantaneous equilibriums to show that the CO2-Climate Change numbers, equations, and predictions are functionally useless, have been wrong, and will continue to be so, as proven by their failure to pin down Climate Sensitivity to anything more than wild X “Factor X” limits and by their empirical failure to successfully predict the shorter term GMT’s.
But then Frank dredges up his/their own much longer mythical “equilibrium” to find the answer to the Hidden Heat “travesty” – delayed so long that we might never see the “committed warming”, because this prediction is very ‘very likely’ to be just as wrong as the rest of the ones CO2-Climate Change has put forth, such that CO2-Climate Change is already Scientifically Falsified:
(The future [equilibrium] warming that is expected to occur if the increase in radiative forcing were to stop now is called “committed warming”.)
Yes Children, Frank, enc.Climate Experts expect to find it “just around the next bend”, which of course we can never get close enough to see. But we have seen around the previous bends!
The Climate has been continuously affected by feedbacks on whichever direction its temperature was taking, which have kept, and are still keeping to this very day its temperatures and conditions within natural limits now for millions if not billions of years, including from the previous glaciation on.
Yet now the CO2-Climate Changers again appeal to another convenient [delayed] positive feedback which will suddenly spring into action at just the right time to deliver their Apocalypse, but which allegedly wasn’t acting before to keep the Planet out of Apocalyptic conditions to begin with. At all the Times when the essentially non-existent CO2 “forcings” at levels greater than 100ppm weren’t doing much of anything to influence Temperatures.
Again “non-existent” 1] because no predicted empirical effect of increased CO2 concentration on the current climate since 1950 has been found by the CO2-Climate Changers to date. Nor 2] back when CO2 was at much higher levels, the same level, and lower levels such as when the Little Ice Age started to warm up while the CO2 levels didn’t; or when the ice cores have shown that CO2 levels follow Temperature moves; and when at least many of the same feedbacks on Temp changes were also acting over short and long periods. Which they still are, so as to make the effect of increasing CO2 levels on Temps and every other thing predicted to happen from CO2-Climate Change invisible!
Yeah, that must be it!
Meanwhile, poor Ptolemy has probably already “ate his heart out”. “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” But now there’s also CO2-Climate Change! It’s invisible but “you can see it happening!”

Frank
Reply to  JPeden
August 15, 2016 12:52 pm

Frank wrote: The planet’s surface temperature has not come into equilibrium with the current forcing.
JPeden objected: When Monckton wasn’t ignoring that! He simply used the idea of shorter term, instantaneous equilibriums to show that the CO2-Climate Change numbers, equations, and predictions are functionally useless, have been wrong, and will continue to be so, as proven by their failure to pin down Climate Sensitivity to anything more than wild X “Factor X” limits and by their empirical failure to successfully predict the shorter term GMT’s.
Frank replies: There is no such thing as “instantaneous equilibrium”! You know this because ARGO shows that the ocean has been warming during The Pause in surface warming. Over the past half-century, changes in GHGs and aerosols have increased enough to keep 2.5 W/m2 of heat from escaping to space. If equilibrium between the increase in radiative forcing and surface temperature developed every year, the planet would need to warm enough to emit an additional 0.05 W/m2 every year (2.5/50). However, ARGO shows about 0.5 W/m2 of heat entering the ocean every year, 10-fold more than one would predict if the planet reached a new equilibrium state every year. There is little doubt about the MAGNITUDE of this 2.5 W/m2 forcing and 0.5 W/m2 flowing into the ocean. (Before ARGO, the consensus believed that 0.9 W/m2 was flowing into the ocean, so the amount of “committed warming” in the system has been cut in half by ARGO.)
So we have a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W/m2 (total change) and a current radiative imbalance of only 0.5 W/m2. So, increased cooling to space due to current warming has negated about 80% of the current forcing and we have about 20% more to go to reach equilibrium. (However, the IPCC’s climate models predict that we are only about half way to equilibrium, which appears unlikely to me.)
When replying to Terry immediately above, I discussed the climate feedback parameter – a quantity related to ECS that is much more tangible. We observe it from space every year.
If you take the average amount of water vapor and liquid droplets in the air (total precipitable water, about 32 mm per unit area) and the average daily rainfall (about 3 mm/day per unit area), you will see that the average water molecule returns to the surface about 10 days after it evaporates. So water vapor in the atmosphere responds quickly to changes in temperature, evaporation rate and convection. This has nothing to do with aGHGs. When it warms (say in the summer), more water vapor in the atmosphere slows down the rate at which thermal radiation escapes to space.
Feedbacks (quantified in terms of (W/m2)/K) are not unique to anthropogenic climate change. They have always been present and they amplified whatever natural forcing occurred (unless feedbacks are net negative).
As for an Apocalypse, I personally believe in the GHE and GHE, but not any specific value for ECS or feedbacks. Chaotic fluctuations in the exchange of heat between the colder deep ocean and the warmer surface – unforced variability – can easily account for the 2000’s and 1960’s Pauses, and the relatively rapid warming in the 1980’s and 1930’s. It may account for longer phenomena like the LIA and MWP. El Nino – a slowdown in the upwelling of cold water off South American and the downwelling of warm water in the Western Pacific Warm Pool (among other phenomena) – is an example of unforced variability that occurs chaotically several times a decade. Unforced variability makes it difficult to know how much warming (or cooling) should be attributed to natural or anthropogenic forcing and how much might be due to chaotic fluctuations in heat flow in the oceans.

Frank
August 10, 2016 9:18 am

Lord Moncton writes: In the words of Roger’s follow-up email:
“Since CO2 levels have continually increased from year to year since 1850, it could be argued that we have never achieved a new steady state, so present temperature readings are lower than they would be at steady state (“equilibrium”). This argument had some plausibility during the rapid temperature rise from about 1950 to 1998.
“But the 18-year hiatus in temperature rise is most PROBABLY EXPLAINED by a relatively short time constant, so that present temperatures must be fairly close to steady-state temperatures, with maybe a time-lag of a couple of years.
“Why would people invoke ad-hoc time constants of centuries, and search for “missing heat”? In order to save a failing theory, that doubling CO2 results in an “equilibrium” climate sensitivity of 1 + 2 = 3 K after positive feedback owing to increased water vapor.”
This conclusion is incorrect because heat has continued to flow into the ocean (dQ) during the hiatus, much of which has been covered by ARGO.
ECS = F_2XCO2 * (dT/(dF-dQ))
TCR = F_2XCO2 * (dT/dF)
Transient and equilibrium warming are similar only when relatively little heat is flowing into the ocean. Contrary to what Lord Moncton and Roger believe, the continuing flow of heat into the ocean during the hiatus tells us that present day temperatures are not “fairly close to steady-state” and that the lag is not “a couple of years”. If that were true, ARGO would be reporting no heat flowing into the ocean during the second half of the hiatus. Their dedections are clearly wrong.
The amount of heat observed flowing into the ocean is modestly less than most AOGCMs project. This is one of the reasons energy balance models afford a lower ECS than AOGCMs.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 10:02 am

Frank
When was the last time you heated something up without raising the temperature of the thing you are heating it with? In other words how can the warming ocean temperatures be caused by an atmospheric process but at the same time that process is not warming the atmosphere? You give me all the blah blah about how CO2 can raise the oceans temperature by creating an insolating barrier the slows the lose of heat to the atmosphere (which is a total bunch of BS) but it can not happen with out the atmosphere heating at the same rate so for CO2 to be the cause of the oceans warming you would still need to see the atmosphere warm at the same rate.
As for the equilibrium BS, you nor anyone else has any idea what the long term trends will be whether they will be positive or negative but I can tell you with 100% certainty there will never ever be and equilibrium reached.

Frank
Reply to  Bob Boder
August 16, 2016 3:09 pm

Bob asked: When was the last time you heated something up without raising the temperature of the thing you are heating it with?
Frank answers: Last time I put on a jacket! The temperature of an object rises when you slow down the rate at which it loses heat (as well as when you increase the rate at which it gains heat). We call that insulation. Rising GHGs temporarily slow down the rate at which heat is being lost to SPACE. The earth as a whole will warm until incoming and outgoing radiation are again in balance. Such a balance is technically referred to as a steady state, not equilibrium.
The average photon transferring heat to space is emitted from about 6 km above the surface, where the temperature is about 255 K. With more CO2 in the atmosphere, the average photon that escapes is emitted from a higher altitude where it is colder, and fewer photons are escape. That means the atmosphere warms, which reduces convection, which eventually warms the surface, including the ocean. (There is also a modest increase in DLR reaching the surface. But everything starts with less radiative cooling to space.)

Gabro
Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 10:14 am

There was not a rapid temperature rise from 1950 to 1998. The earth cooled from before 1950 until the PDO shift in 1977, despite steadily increasing CO2.
CAGW was born falsified. Callendar considered his 1938 hypothesis beneficial global warming falsified by the severe winters of the 1960s.
Rising T and rising CO2 accidentally coincided during 1977 to 1998.

Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 10:39 am

An elegant summary. I’d be delighted to have the reference for Callendar’s remark.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 10:45 am

I’ll look for an on line source, but the winter of 1962 figures in this biography:
The Callendar Effect: The Life and Work of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964)

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 10:51 am

Your Lordship,
In 2014, your compatriot and climate historian Tony B, aka “Climatereason”, posted this useful comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/guy-stewart-callendar/#comment-1788347
Do you have his contact information?

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 3:38 pm

Milord,
Also here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/guy-stewart-callendar/#comment-1788389
Thanks for the “elegant” appellation, despite the missing “of”.
The fact is that the alleged global warming combating which has cost the world so much in human and animal livfe and misallocated treasure, if it occurred, happened only for about 20 out of the past 71 years (assuming as is likely that the Plateau will reemerge soon, with the fading of El Nino). And that’s in cooked books.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 16, 2016 12:09 pm

I found this, which doesn’t quite say what I wrote. Would need to see what Callendar actually stated in his letter (note 70 for this chapter):
The Callendar Effect – Colby College
http://www.colby.edu/sts/callendar_effect_ebook.pdf
“Callendar’s final publication was a short exchange with a bird watcher,
G. Harris, on how the recent climate cooling trend was affecting European
birds. While Callendar warned of possible computational errors in the temperature series and changes in station location as reasons for the assumed
cooling trend, Harris was sure that Callendar would agree with the picture
of “a general decline of temperature in recent years.”70 Unquestionably, the
global climate was cooling in the 1960s. The bitter winter of 1962–63 was the
coldest on record in England and Wales since 1740. The noted climatologist
Hubert H. Lamb, one of Callendar’s correspondents, has written about
the “clustering” of harsh winters, referring to a sequence of three “skating
Christmasses” in England with very severe frosts or snow in 1961, 1962, and
1963. Such frosty or white Christmases in England were exceedingly rare in
the preceding half century.71 Callendar must have been pondering his scientific legacy on climate warming as he was shoveling the walkways during
the record snowfall of December 1962 (Figure 2.12) and shivering through
his final December in 1963.”

Reply to  Gabro
August 16, 2016 2:41 pm

The logical deficiency of CAGW is not that it is falsified but rather that it is not falsifiable. The lack of falsifiability follows from non-existence of the equilibrium temperature as a feature of the concrete Earth. Does a rise in the equilibrium temperature always follow a rise in the CO2 concentration? As the equilibrium temperature is not a feature of the concrete Earth this cannot be known.

Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 11:18 am

Frank is, as usual, ignorant of elementary climate science. ARGO measures not heat content nor radiative flux but ocean temperature. Since there has been far less ocean temperature change than surface air temperature change, numerous questions arise about the reliability of ARGO, and about the reliability of the surface temperature measurements. If heat is going into the ocean heat-sink but is [barely] evident in the surface layer, then we do not need to concern ourselves too much with it.
But all of this is a deliberate and pointless diversion on Frank’s part, for it irrelevant to the manner in which the exaggeration factors X are determined, as Frank would discover if he had actually read the head posting.

Kurt
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 12:01 pm

One small quibble – temperature is a measure of heat content (proportional to the thermal capacity of the measured object). You’re right that temperature can’t tell you what the net heat flux is across a boundary of a surface, and the mere fact that ARGO reports ocean temperatures increasing certainly does not indicate anything about whether equilibrium has been reached or how far off it might be to reach it.

David A
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 11, 2016 11:29 pm

In addition the so called climate scientists who predict the C in CAGW, (attribution specialist who know zip about atmospheric physics) base their predictons on the modeled mean of atmospheric warming from CIMP5.
The CIMP5 forecast for atmospheric T is what the X factor is cogent to.
As the oceans are NOT warming as fast as expected, even with highly questionable data, then there is zero evidence of missing heat in that location.
As C. Monckton points out, if heat is being diffused in the ocean, it can never return to the atmospher except in a greatly reduced and non consequential form.

Frank
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 16, 2016 5:09 pm

Lord Monckton wrote: “Frank is, as usual, ignorant of elementary climate science. ARGO measures not heat content nor radiative flux but ocean temperature. Since there has been far less ocean temperature change than surface air temperature change, numerous questions arise about the reliability of ARGO, and about the reliability of the surface temperature measurements.
Frank replies: One can (and I have) back calculated the temperature change associated with the reported changes in ocean heat content. I have some doubts about the accuracy of the small changes in temperature and therefore heat content and heat flux below 700 meters, but much of the heat flux has been deposited in shallower layers where the temperature change is bigger. That change is based on thousand of measurement, so the confidence interval due to noise is low. One can always hypothesize systematic error. In agreement with the Pause in the rise of surface temperature, ARGO shows no increase in the heat content of the top 100 m.
Even if you discard the ARGO data, the observed diffusion of CFCs and C14 (from atomic bombs) demonstrates that convection (of heat and molecules) below the mixed layer is slow, but not negligible. So does the data from Pinatubo, which isn’t compatible with a model with a single compartment for the ocean.
The increase in forcing from rising CO2 has averaged about 0.02 W/m2/yr since Keeling started measuring it about 65 years ago. If there was negligible lag between forcing and surface temperature response, only 0.02 W/m2 would be flowing into the ocean. Instead, the current flux (imbalance) has grown to 0.5 W/m2 (according to ARGO) – 25X bigger, because heat transport below the mixed layer lags behind surface warming.
In addition to ARGO, we have three other independent lines of evidence that there must be a substantial lag between surface warming and equilibrium warming.

Kurt
Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 11:55 am

Frank:
“Transient and equilibrium warming are similar only when relatively little heat is flowing into the ocean. Contrary to what Lord Moncton and Roger believe, the continuing flow of heat into the ocean during the hiatus tells us that present day temperatures are not “fairly close to steady-state” and that the lag is not “a couple of years”. If that were true, ARGO would be reporting no heat flowing into the ocean during the second half of the hiatus.”
I think you’re confusing equilibrium or steady state with stasis. In an equilibrium climate response to any given change in input, heat will still move around in the climate system. Ocean convection is not going to stop simply because the climate system reached its “equilibrium response” to an increase in CO2, any more than evaporation would stop carrying heat from the oceans into the air or rainfall would return it to the surface.
You would have us believe that, in response to the ocean surface being hit with a paltry incremental increase in heat flux, the glacially slow process by which heat is carried from the ocean surface to the depths below somehow manages to squirrel away so much of that teeny bit of extra heat it received – and before the surface can react to just radiate, evaporate, or convect it away – that a huge chunk of the equilibrium temperature increase from rising CO2 is still “in the pipeline” such that current temperatures are not an accurate estimate of the mythical and forever-incapable-of-being-measured “equilibrium” temperature.
Any real system is going to use the most efficient methods of heat transfer at its disposal to approach equilibrium temperature as quickly as possible. While the climate system may not technically be at its “equilibrium” response in response to the last century of CO2 emissions, and regardless of how long it takes to get there, it has to be very close to where it’s going. The idea of any meaningful quantitative difference between “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “total climate response” is silly. It always was just an excuse to conveniently brush off the fact that predictions of temperature rise from CO2 have always been grossly exaggerated.

Frank
Reply to  Kurt
August 16, 2016 11:46 am

Kurt: Your comments about the difference between equilibrium, steady-state (a better term) and stasis are important. First, let’s remover seasonal changes by dealing with anomalies. Before aGHGs, there was a steady state where the same amount of heat was transferred from the sun to the atmosphere and surface and an equal amount from the atmosphere and surface to space. There was also a steady state transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. Those transfers were driven by heat flowing from hot to cold and represented steady state, not equilibrium. There was equilibrium (no net transfer) between the mixed layer of the ocean and the atmosphere and between the mixed layer and deeper ocean. However, ARGO shows that neither equilibrium nor steady-state currently exists in the ocean in response to the current forcing.
Laboratory measurements and radiative transfer calculations tell us with reasonable certainty (within two-fold at worst), that the TOA forcing from the rise in CO2 from about 320 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm today (1/3 of a doubling) is 1.2 W/m2 or 0.02 W/m2/yr.) If a steady-state existed from year to year, the earth would warm enough each year to radiate or reflect an additional 0.02 W/m2/yr of heat back to space each year. That is for CO2 alone. Unfortunately, the heat capacity of just the mixed layer (50 m) is so large that a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m2 can warm it at an INITIAL rate of 0.2 K/year or 0.004 K/yr for 0.02 W/m2/yr. (0.24 K for 60 years). ARGO shows that heat is penetrating far below the mixed layer. That is why we have built up a current radiative imbalance of about 0.5 W/m2 from a forcing that has been recently growing about 0.02 W/m2/yr.
These numbers are grossly incompatible with the idea that there is negligible difference between transient and equilibrium warming

Reply to  Kurt
August 16, 2016 1:20 pm

Frank
A critique on logical grounds of your argument follows:
You could have mentioned that steady state aka equilibrium is not a feature of the concrete Earth on which we live but is a feature of an abstract Earth. In drawing a conclusion your argument reifies this Earth and in doing so applies the reification fallacy. Application of this fallacy violates the principle of entropy maximization.
In the literature of climatology “prediction” is polysemic; it changes meaning in the midst of your argument. Thus, this argument matches the description of an equivocation. Though an equivocation looks like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, while a conclusion may properly be drawn from a syllogism, a conclusion may not properly be drawn from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”
It is through applications of the reification and equivocation fallacies that your argument reaches its conclusion.The conclusion is that “…predictions of temperature rise from CO2 have been grossly exaggerated.”

Frank
Reply to  Kurt
August 16, 2016 4:16 pm

Terry wrote: “A critique on logical grounds of your argument follows:
You could have mentioned that steady state aka equilibrium is not a feature of the concrete Earth on which we live but is a feature of an abstract Earth. In drawing a conclusion your argument reifies this Earth and in doing so applies the reification fallacy. Application of this fallacy violates the principle of entropy maximization.”
As discussed above, steady-state and equilibrium have different meaning. At steady-state, incoming and outgoing radiation are equal. “Equilibrium warming” is a confusing term for the amount of warming after returning to steady state and “equilibrium climate sensitivity” is the “equilibrium warming” after a doubling of CO2 and a return to steady state. I fail to see why you feel these are abstract concepts. We routinely study equilibrium and steady state in science laboratories.
One problem is that weather and climate vary chaotically, but I don’t think you are referring to the complications this causes. With chaotic systems, we need to discuss long-term average behavior, not short-term phenomena like ENSO or AMO – which are examples of unforced or internal variability exhibited by chaotic systems.
According to ice cores, the temperature of the planet has been fairly constant for more than 10 millennia (with the exception of cooling in the Arctic associated with our slowly changing orbit). The blips in the record (LIA, MWP etc) appear to be about 1 degC globally (2 degC in Greenland) – which is small compared to the scary predictions from AOGCMs. Likewise natural forcing from volcanos and changes in solar activity appear to be short or modest compared with future (but not current) anthropogenic forcing from GHGs. So, there appears to have been a somewhat steady state, that we could significantly perturb with GHGs.
I’m fairly skeptical of the predictions of consensus climate science. There is no way to know if AOGCMs are right or wrong, so I can’t place any faith in their projections. I try to focus on tangible aspects of climate science that we should be able to trust: the flux of heat into the ocean being measured by ARGO, the interactions between GHGs and radiation that have been carefully studied in the laboratory, warming during the satellite era, the large changes in outgoing LWR and reflected SWR observed by satellites during seasonal warming, etc. We can estimate TCR and ECS from some of these observations, but the confidence interval is wide and the calculation assumes that all warming is forced and none is attributable to unforced variability. However, if Lord Monckton is going to calculate ECS, he should do it correctly (which got me into this dialog). We have good evidence from satellites that feedbacks accompany seasonal warming.
To the best of my knowledge, the principle of entropy maximization has not been proven and we don’t understand how to apply it to predict further warming. I read the review article Judith Curry posted recently, but don’t claim to fully understand it.

Reply to  Frank
August 16, 2016 7:09 pm

Frank:
Thank you for taking the time to respond and for the provocative issues that you raise. You are correct in stating that “At steady-state, incoming and outgoing radiation are equal.” Nonetheless, the phrase “equilibrium warming” makes sense given that the response to the change in the forcing is the change in the steady-state aka equilibrium temperature. This use of language implies that the Earth being referenced is not the concrete Earth on which we live but rather is the abstract Earth of global warming climatologists’ imaginations. With rare exceptions these climatologists habitually reify the abstract Earth of their imaginations in making arguments through false and placement “the” in front of “climate sensitivity.”Though “climate sensitivity” is a property of a running instance of a computer model, “the climate sensitivity” sounds like a property of the concrete Earth. That that “the climate sensitivity” is a property of the concrete Earth is, however, a false and misleading proposition. It bamboozled the distinguished delegates to the Paris climate conference into supporting reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that were logically unwarranted.
Regarding the principle of entropy maximization it is a principle of information theory, one application of which is the second law of thermodynamics and another application of which is the classical logic; the latter is the logic of mathematics and computer science. Information theory is extremely well validated thus meriting the description of “natural law.” Like all scientific theories its conclusions cannot be proved; however, they can be cross validated.
While you don’t know how to use the principles of information theory to predict further warming I know how to do so. If you wish I’ll help you to understand how.

Frank
Reply to  Kurt
August 16, 2016 11:14 pm

Terry: Thanks for the kind reply.
FWIW, I usually think in terms of the climate feedback parameter, not equilibrium climate sensitivity: How much more LWR escapes to space and SWR is reflected back to space as the planet warms (or cools)? I don’t care why the temperature changes: GHGs, solar activity, or simplest of all, unforced variability. Say a massive El Nino shuts down all upwelling and downwelling between the surface and mixed layer. Or the opposite, a doubling or more of the turnover rate. There is a lot of cold water in the deep ocean, so we don’t need an external or anthropogenic forcing to imagine changing the planet’s surface temperature a lot!) For whatever reason, imagine it is 1-3 degC warmer or cooler than before. A blackbody near 255 K radiates 3.8 W/m2/K radiation as it warms or cool. What does the earth do? That value (expressed in terms of W/m2/K) is the climate feedback parameter, a property of our planet that is independent from forcing (and best exemplified by unforced variability). The climate feedback parameter also is the sum of all feedbacks (Planck, WV, LR, clouds, surface albedo), but we don’t need to break it into all of these component. Climate sensitivity is the reciprocal of the climate feedback parameter (multiplied by 3.7 W/m2/doubling).
You complained about abstract models, but “a” climate feedback parameter is very tangible and easily monitored from space every year. Due to the low heat capacity of the NH, it warms and cools much more than the SH every year, producing a 3.5 K rise in GMST. (Such seasonal changes disappear when temperature anomalies are calculated.) Satellites in space monitor the change in LWR and reflected SWR during this seasonal cycle. A blackbody near 255 K at would emit an additional 3.5 K * 3.8 W/m2/K = 13.3 W/m2 more LWR. (Consensus scientists use 3.2 W/m2/K instead of 3.8 W/m2/K, because they input more warming at the poles than at the equator when they calculate Planck feedback using AOGCMs.) 3.5 K * 3.8 W/m2/K = 11.2 W/m2. The paper linked below shows what we have observed from space and what AOGCMs predict we should observe.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.long
They report the seasonal change in LWR from clear skies, where only WV and LR feedbacks operate. They look at the difference between clear and cloudy skies in both the LWR and SWR channels, two aspects of cloud feedback. And they look at the change in reflected SWR from clear skies – surface albedo feedback. Unfortunately, we are seeing the response to warming in the NH and cooling in the SH, not the response to global warming. Since there is a lot of seasonal snow cover in the NH and little in the SH, surface albedo feedback during seasonal warming has nothing to do with the change in surface albedo that would follow 3.5 K of global warming caused by GHGs. One can question the relevance of the other feedbacks to global warming. Most importantly, however, AOGCMs do a lousy – and mutually inconsistent – job of reproducing these seasonal feedbacks, so there is no reason to trust them during global warming.
So there is nothing abstract for me about “a” seasonal climate feedback parameter, and by analogy, a global climate feedback parameter relevant to global warming. I don’t have to imagine waiting several centuries for heat to stop flowing into the ocean and equilibrium (steady-state) warming to be reached. I just think about how much more LWR escapes to space and SWR is reflected to space (in W/m2/K) as the planet warms today; and take the reciprocal to get climate sensitivity (in K/(W/m2)).
I don’t have time for maximum entropy production at the moment. If you haven’t seen these links, you may find them useful.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/01/10/nonequilibrium-thermodynamics-and-maximum-entropy-production-in-the-earth-system/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-009-0509-x

Reply to  Frank
August 17, 2016 9:13 am

Frank
I didn’t mean to complain about abstract models. I did mean to complain about reification. Reification is a process by which abstract objects are converted to concrete objects. Reification is deplorable because it is among the fallacies. It is a fallacy because it violates the principle of entropy maximization.

Gabro
August 10, 2016 10:39 am

Geologic history shows that, if ECS exist, it is low.
Consider the Ordovician Period, which ended with a severe ice age, despite an average CO2 level of 4200 ppm. For the whole period, GASTA was two degrees C higher than now, if our present average T be 14 degrees C.
So more than three doublings in CO2 concentration yield only two degrees, not the over 10 degrees called for by IPCC’s “canonical” three degrees for each doubling.
In the following Silurian Period, CO2 rebounded to 4500 ppm, but temperature was only three degrees higher than now on average. In the Carboniferous Period, concentration fell to 800 ppm, but GASTA was about the same as now. In the following Permian Period, CO2 hit a mean of 900 ppm, but average temperature was only two degrees higher than now, not more than three, again as called for by the IPCC.
In the Triassic Period, CO2 reached an average of 1750 ppm, but GASTA was only three degrees above the present, same as during the Jurassic, despite even higher CO2, at 1950 ppm. The Cretaceous Hot House climate occurred at 1700 ppm, but still GASTA rose only by four degrees over now, despite more than two doublings.
In short, the history of the past 543 million years shows little or no correlation between CO2 and average global temperature, except that warmer oceans release more of the gas.

Reply to  Gabro
August 10, 2016 2:28 pm

Toneb, in a posting laden with characteristic malice, says I have used a transient rather than an equilibrium value for climate sensitivity. Like the other anti-scientists commenting here (whether paid to do so or simply ignorant), it has failed either to read or to understand the head posting, in which it is made explicit that the pre-feedback element in the exaggeration factor X is determined on the assumption that the warming to date is approximately equal to the official pre-feedback sensitivity, not, as it maliciously suggests, the equilibrium post-feedback sensitivity.
And the post-feedback element in the X factor is determined on the basis of CMIP5’s overstatement of equilibrium sensitivity following the ensemble’s sharp reduction in the feedback sum.
When Toneb has learned to read, and if it can overcome its overweening prejudice, it my eventually come to a dim understanding of these matters.

Kurt
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 4:47 pm

I don’t think that equilibrium settling time is limited to a systems that have feedback. In other words, the climate scientists presume some time to reach equilibrium even for the first, pre-feedback term in your equation. For example, on a daily basis temperatures usually peak in the afternoon noticeably after the sun has reached its highest point in the sky and providing the most direct radiance. That would seem to indicate that air surface temperatures take time to reach equilibrium of heat in/heat out since temperatures are still rising after radiance starts decreasing. That does not necessarily mean there is feedback that amplifies the input- it just means that there is a time lag in the response of the system.
The argument you’ve been getting here is that the existing temperatures don’t fully reflect the equilibrium pre-feedback response of the climate system. While technically that may be correct, for the reasons I’ve already stated, I can’t imagine that the remaining difference is significant.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 10, 2016 10:58 pm

As the graph in Roe (2009) shows, sensitivity to pre-feedback forcing is near-instantaneous.

Toneb
August 10, 2016 12:27 pm

“If heat is going into the ocean heat-sink but is barle evident in the surface layer, then we do not need to concern ourselves too much with it.”
It is and it wont disappear. It has to escape to space at some point, having heated the atmosphere before doing so.
It is energy that is in excess of equilibrium – has to be, as even if your *pause* were real all TSI has not gone into it pausing it. Has it now.
Therefore there is an element NOT accounted for in your calc. Ergo you have not computed a ECS value. You have computed a TCR.
BTW: feel free to employ your usual rude dismissive comeback as displayed in your responses Nick Stokes, Toncul and Frank (and in every and all responses of yours to defenders of physics that seems to be your habitual want in the years I’ve been reading your comments here and elsewhere).
It’s just bad manners my friend, even from a Lord.
You are not an expert.
The experts therefore must either be…
a)Incompetent.
b)Fraudulent.
Or
c)They know more than you.
Answers on a postcard please. (sarc)

Kurt
Reply to  Toneb
August 10, 2016 2:20 pm

“It is and it wont disappear. [The heat in the oceans] has to escape to space at some point, having heated the atmosphere before doing so.”
If what you mean is that, before equilibrium is reached, the oceans have to give back up to the atmosphere the net heat they gained by having the atmosphere heat the ocean due to a rise in CO2, that’s wrong. If what you mean is that the little quanta of energy that flow into the ocean eventually flows back out of it, you’re technically right but it’s irrelevant.
Doubling CO2, say, will create a new equilibrium balance where layers of the atmosphere, the land surface, the ocean surface, the layers of the ocean depth, etc. all reach new steady-state temperature oscillations. Thus, the mere fact that sometime after CO2 has risen, the oceans instantaneously have more heat in them, does not tell you anything about how far off that equilibrium state is, or whether its already been reached. The heat content that’s in the ocean at this very moment could be what is needed for its temperature to balance the heat flux into the ocean with the heat flux going out of the ocean based on the existing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Let me re-phrase Monckton’s statement slightly – If the man-made heat that sunk into the ocean depths was barely evident when it passed through the surface layer, then we do not need to concern ourselves too much with it. I think that about sums it up. If the equilibrium state of the ocean surface, in response to all the CO2 that has so far been spit into the atmosphere, has yet to be reached because some quantity of heat made its way from the air to the ocean depths, it must have passed through the surface layer of the ocean before now. If radiative equilibrium in response to ONLY PAST CO2 emissions isn’t going to be reached until that heat somehow makes its way back into the atmosphere, again passing through the surface layer of the ocean, at some point in the past (and again at some point in the future) wouldn’t the ocean surface temperature have to have risen above the temperature it is going to be at in the equilibrium state? In other words, wouldn’t the equilibrium temperature of the ocean surface be somewhere in the range of what we’ve already seen?
Radiation exchange between the ocean surface and the atmosphere adjusts near instantaneously. Convective and evaporative exchanges more slowly, but again, the radiative exchange should instantaneously adjust to convection, evaporation, and rainfall to restore radiative balance between the air and the oceans. Any component of equilibrium ocean surface temperature caused by a bubble of heat that somehow zipped through the surface layer of the ocean, and destined to do again as it makes its way back home must cause the surface temperature of the ocean to oscillate above its ultimate equilibrium temperature as it moves through the surface layer, and all back down as it leaves.

Kurt
Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 2:25 pm

Slight edit – This should have read “Convective and evaporative exchanges occur more slowly, but again, the radiative exchange should instantaneously adjust to convection, evaporation, and rainfall to balance the heat exchange between the air and the oceans.”

Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 2:30 pm

Kurt is right again. And, in the first 11 years of the ARGO record, the warming of the top Mike and a quarter of the ocean was at the unalarming rate of 1 degree every 430 years.
[The mods are wondering if that was a calibrated Mike (in Jordan height units or Phelps spans)? .mod]

Gabro
Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 3:46 pm

In the armed forces, Mike Mike can mean millimeter, as in the “40 Mike Mike” grenade launcher.

Reply to  Kurt
August 10, 2016 4:57 pm

How alert are our wonderful moderators! Mike and a quarter should read mile and a quarter.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Toneb
August 10, 2016 3:41 pm

Give the lord a break… these climate forums are nasty entities and we should all commend MoB for wading into the filth. (he’s a stand up guy) All those guys you’ve mentioned including born in the last post (but excepting stokes, who’s also a stand up guy) seem to have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the good lord. It’s quite surprising that he should even waste one moment of one day on them and yet here he is. And then you come along and harp on him for being insolent to the insolent. If these people want to be treated with respect, then they can begin by treating Lord Monkton with respect. RESPECT is a two way street, even at a climate science blog…
To your point about oceans storing heat, why would we expect the heat to leave the ocean? The ocean has a temperature gradient and if the surface temp changes then the whole ocean adjusts to a new equilibrium state. The heat will stay in the ocean until the surface temps cool to a temperature below the current equilibrium state. (yes, SSTs could actually cool while the ocean continues to warm) Let me know where i’m going wrong here…
BTW, i’m kind of new here at wuwt, only came crawling over here when dr spencer had a “hiatus” with his comment page. From what i’ve gathered from your comments, you seem to have a gift for being able to handle yourself in these forums. (mustn’t be easy to find yourself in enemy territory…) Not everybody has your gift, perhaps not even lord m, so go easy on us lesser animals. Besides, there’s nothing more repugnant to an american audience than two brits squabbling… (☺)

Frank
Reply to  Toneb
August 16, 2016 8:05 am

Tony: Let me simply add that the method used by the experts (Lewis and Curry 2014 and previous workers) doesn’t give the ECS that Lord Monckton reports. I can be wrong, but that is unlikely in such a simple calculation. The forcing for 280 to 400 ppm is 1.9 W/m2, slightly more than half a doubling
ECS = F_2XCO2 * (dT/(dF-dQ)) = 3.7 * 0.83 / (1.9-0.5)
This equation gives effective climate sensitivity, not equilibrium climate sensitivity (which will be bigger). So he is wrong or this method is wrong.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Toneb
August 21, 2016 2:08 pm

Toneb
I agree with you about Monckton’s dismissive attitude.
He seems to take a delight in referring to anyone who disagrees with him as “it”, rather than “he” or “she”. That grates on the sensibilities of the reader, and detracts from whatever arguments are being presented.
I surprised that the moderators have acquiesced to this puerile stupidity
[it did not bother us. .mod]

Reply to  Richard Barraclough
August 21, 2016 7:35 pm

Richard Barraclough:
Amen. I’d like to engage Lord Monckton in logical discourse but he perennially thwarts my desire. The topic sentence in many of his posts is a disparaging characterization of his opponent in debate by which he portrays this opponent as a nitwit. Whether disparaging or laudatory, characterization of a debater plays no part in logical discourse as there is not a logical way in which characterization of one’s opponent is of assistance in reaching a logically defensible conclusion from a debater’s argument. This being the case, debaters are faced with the requirement for attacking their opponents’ allegedly bad ideas rather than attacking their characters. Unlike character assassination, this approach leads to elimination from science of bad ideas. By adopting this approach Monckton could assist in ridding global warming climatology of its numerous bad ideas.

Toneb
August 10, 2016 3:24 pm

“Kurt is right again.”
If you say so.
However I say not – sorry.
That leaves us evens then, eh?
“in the first 11 years of the ARGO record, the warming of the top Mike and a quarter of the ocean was at the unalarming rate of 1 degree every 430 years.”
Oh, right … so, lets see. Lets take the first 2000m as around half of the oceans.
Then, if that amount of heat were to be applied to the atmosphere (and it could magically be retained) it would raise it’s temp by 2000C.
So then a rise of ~5C per year.
Yeah, that’s definitely irrelevant.
BTW: I assume you know the SH of water vs air and ocean mass vs atmosphere.
PS: Temp is not heat.
But then you knew all that, as you’re an expert and know more than the real experts …. or else they’re either incompetent and/or frauds.
As I say – if you say so.

Reply to  Toneb
August 10, 2016 9:50 pm

The sneering but accident-prone Toneb seems unaware that the surface stratum of the ocean did not warm at all in the first 11full years of the ARGO record. So it is difficult to see how the ocean could have warmed the air by 2000K; and the record shows that that did not occur. It is perhaps unaware of the concept of heat capacity, which is what prevents any such warming from occurring.
It is also perhaps unaware that, even if the atmosphere had warmed over that period, which it did not, a small atmospheric warming could not cause so large an increase in the heat capacity of the ocean, which, according to the stratified ARGO data, is warming from below, not from above.

Kurt
Reply to  Toneb
August 10, 2016 10:31 pm

“Toneb
August 10, 2016 at 3:24 pm
‘Kurt is right again.
If you say so.
However I say not – sorry.
That leaves us evens then, eh?”
Kurt is not a ping pong ball.

Frank
August 10, 2016 5:26 pm

Figures 3 and 4 in this post are very interesting. Lord Moncton is asserting that if one calculates ECS from the widely-used equation in Roe (2009), one gets values that are much less than usual value cited by the IPCC from extrapolating from 4XCO2 experiments. Since Lord Moncton confused transient warming with equilibrium warming, the data he cited is appropriate for an ECS of 2.2 K rather than 1.6 K. 2.2 K happens to be the mean ECS for the newer CMIP5 models derived from abstracting feedbacks from model output (not 4XCO2 experiments). This agreement wasn’t apparent in CMIP3 models. Section 9.7.2.4 and Figure 9.43b present the internal inconsistency produced when two different methods are used to determine ECS from model output.
9.7.2.4 Relationship of Feedbacks to Modelled Climate Sensitivity
The ECS can be estimated from the ratio of forcing to the total climate feedback parameter. This approach is applicable to simulations in which the net radiative balance is much smaller than the forcing and hence the modelled climate system is essentially in equilibrium. This approach can also serve to check the INTERNAL CONSISTENCY of estimates of the ECS, forcing, and feedback parameters obtained using independent methods. The relationship between ECS from Andrews et al. (2012) and estimates of ECS obtained from the ratio of forcings to feedbacks is shown in Figure 9.43b. The forcings are estimated using both regression and fixed SST techniques (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 2005) by Andrews et al. (2012) and the feedbacks are calculated using radiative kernels (Soden et al., 2008). On average, the ECS from forcing to feedback ratios underestimate the ECS from Andrews et al. (2012) by 25% and 35%, or up to 50% for individual models, using fixed-SST and regression forcings, respectively.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2009/Fig9-43.jpg

Reply to  Frank
August 10, 2016 10:03 pm

Frank is, as usual, wrong on every material point. As the calibration strep carefully set out in the head posting demonstrates, use of the feedback-sum interval for the CMIP3 ensemble in Fig. 9.43a gives an equilibrium-sensitivity near-perfectly coincident with the that interval.
It is plain that the CMIP5 feedback-sum interval is considerably below the CMIP3 interval, while the values of all other inputs to the equation were identical in both ensembles. Accordingly, the CMIP5 climate-sensitivity interval should have been correspondingly lower than that of CMIP3.
And no, I did not confuse transient and equilibrium warming.

Theron
Reply to  Frank
August 11, 2016 1:10 pm

Since none of the thermodynamic gibberish you’re referring to actually refers to energy handling by compressible fluids, it’s as irrelevant and useless as all the other proclamations of there being more energy held by an atmospheric mix which has more CO2 added to it.
CO2 has lower specific energy than atmospheric air and furthermore it contact cools then radiates identical spectra parallel to the planetary surface which heats it.
CO2 providing an additional path for radiant loss at identical frequencies is called an overall larger total combined yet cooler mass, sharing a thermal load that, were the CO2 not there, would be radiated by the mass of the surface alone.
You can’t provide any actual mathematics for compressible fluids that show more CO2 in an atmospheric mix, making that mix hold more energy.
Why don’t any of the people who believe CO2 can warm an air mix, use proper mathematics for compressible fluids?
Because if they should do this, temperatures calculated out several places past zero, matching gas temperatures reflected by instruments in ovens, kilns, vacuums, jet engines, internal combustion engines, free combustion – would prove how ignorant it is, to claim to believe in any sort of GHE.
One of the greatest threats to scientific knowledge today is the widespread belief temperatures of Earth, as well as Venus with it’s CO2 atmosphere, vary from standard gas equations’ calculated temperature.
The atmosphere has an international standard setting it’s known density and it’s known average temperature, and a bunch of men caught claiming their hockey stick generators were a whole new form of mathematics aren’t going to change that.
The International Standard Atmosphere is able to be set due to mankind’s satisfactory knowledge and overall understanding of gas energy handling. Everything from the inside of light bulbs to air conditioners to the tires autos and jets use have standards set for their performance based on how accurately the gas equations calculate temperature – and there is no reference to green house anything, at any time, in the gas equations.
This is why the promise that soon you’ll see, it’s real, always turns out to be nothing more or less than vaporware. If it were possible to make a green house effect heating of 30 degrees using earth atmospheric mix, at earth atmosphere density, there would be a calculation involved specifying some ”Green House Effect” we’d all know about from high school and college, and work.
The fact is actual calculation of the earth’s temperature involves zero reference to a green house effect of any kind. And the temperature standard equations give, matches the earth’s overall temperature SO exactly
that there is the International Standard – known, as the Standard Atmosphere. And it is perfectly obvious when you check, that there is no reference to Green House anything, anywhere, in the calculation for establishing that
International Standard,
that make international treaties, regulations, and engineering standards for aviation, space travel, automobiles, anesthesia, air conditioned skyscrapers and everything else under the sun – pun somewhat intended – possible,
It’s vaporware and purest fiction, this mythological CO2 even being ABLE to heat the planet.
It’s why climatology/AGW/GHE places are the only ones on earth where you can be told your presence isn’t desired, if you’re going to keep referring to the laws of physics written for the subject: the Atmosphere. That’s with a capital letter as in the Standard Atmosphere, the international standard that doesn’t refer,
to CO2/Green House anything, when it’s provenance is checked.
The GHE is vaporware proven by the fact legally binding standards exist worldwide for myriad gas temperature applications and there is zero ”GHE” heating in any calculation referencing a real physical gas application.
When someone tells you he thinks such exists, have him explain to you how the international Standard Atmosphere nor any other engineering standard on the planet – in any field – has a calculation in it where some ”Green House” quantity is included.
You’ll see the vaporware portion of the conversation so many real scientific minds have run up against where a lot of talk happens but no capacity to predict comes from it. This comes from not dealing in the truth. Truth in engineering and mathematics brings capacity to predict.
AGW/GHE believers don’t have that capacity.

Reply to  Theron
August 11, 2016 5:09 pm

Theron is incorrect. There is a greenhouse effect. It is the reason why the Earth’s surface temperature is about 34 K warmer than its emission surface. It operates via the interaction between near-infrared long-wave radiation at a peak wavelength of 14.99 microns and molecules of CO2, whose symmetrical atomic disposition allows them to mimic the dipole moment of a more complex molecule, causing quantum oscillation in one of the vibrational modes of the molecule. That molecular oscillation is, by definition, heat. Some of the heat passes harmlessly to outer space; most passes harmlessly into the oceans, whose vast heat capacity is more than capable of handling the additional radiation without breaking a sweat; and some remains in the atmosphere.
Since the mechanics of the greenhouse effect are well understood down to the quantum level, it is no longer credible to say there is no greenhouse effect. However, one can question the magnitude of the forcing influence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and that, like it or not, is the question around which the real climate debate is centered.

Kurt
Reply to  Theron
August 11, 2016 11:46 pm

“There is a greenhouse effect. It is the reason why the Earth’s surface temperature is about 34 K warmer than its emission surface.”
Qualitatively, I have no issues with that, but I have to wonder about the accuracy of that 34 K number. My reading on how it’s calculated is that it is set to be the difference between the ideal black body temperature of the Earth not considering an atmosphere and the measured average temperature with an atmosphere that radiates heat.
My problem is that I have a hard time believing that the mere existence of an atmosphere, liquid water, and a complex climate system – irrespective of whether the atmosphere radiates – doesn’t act to raise the effective temperature of the Earth such that an unknown part of that 34 K has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
The touchstone characteristic of a black body is its instantaneous efficiency at adjusting its temperature to balance its outgoing emissions with whatever changes are made to in its incoming absorption. In other words, it doesn’t absorb heat, spend a little bit of time churning it around, and then emit the extra energy at some later point in time. But that’s what our climate system is all about. The wind, the rain, the hurricanes and tornadoes, the ocean currents, the glaciers – they all are the very process of the Earth churning around the incoming energy received from the sun before the Earth spits it back out to space. Those processes themselves have to raise the effective temperature of the Earth relative to a black body because they use incoming solar energy to drive them. In other words, because the Earth’s climate system spends time using the incoming solar energy to drive it, the Earth is less like a black body and it’s temperature rises relative to a black body.
And I can’t believe that all of these processes (wind, rain, ocean convection and currents etc.) owe their existence to the radiative exchange between the surface and the atmosphere Just the opposite – because GHGs moderate the temperature swings that would otherwise exist on Earth, and moderate the difference in temperature between the surface and the air aloft, and because GHGs let the air emit the heat to space that it receives via evaporation, conduction, and convection from the surface rather than having to have the heat return to the surface before the Earth can get rid of it, I think that the greenhouse effect moderates the severity and swings of the climate.

Jim Simasko
August 10, 2016 9:01 pm

[trimmed]

PI&e
August 10, 2016 10:28 pm

Great article and informative comments. Perhaps it is just me but I think the issue boils down to a couple of facts: 1) By their vary nature, Complex Systems resist accurate predictions of their future state. 2) CO2 moving from 3 parts per ten thousand to 4 parts per ten thousand is unlikely to be the controlling variable of projected trapped energy measured as temperature increase. Call me simple but it just smells wrong.