# Leading climate scientist Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory

Guest essay by Kyoji Kimoto

Dr. Robert D. Cess led the following Intercomparison Projects of GCMs for the IPCC

Assessment Reports.

• 1989: Interpretation of Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by 14 Atmospheric General Circulation Models.
• 1990: Intercomparison and Interpretation of Climate Feedback Processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models.
• 1991: Interpretation of Snow-Climate Feedback as Produced by 17 General Circulation Models.
• 1993: Uncertainties in Carbon Dioxide Radiative Forcing in 15 Atmospheric General Circulation Models.
• 1996: Cloud feedback in 19 atmospheric general circulation models: An update.

His profile is here.

http://www.somas.stonybrook.edu/people/faculty/robert-cess/

Soden & Held [1] shows climate sensitivity is 3K for 2xCO2 from the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) as follows:

Climate sensitivity = no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks

= 1.2K x 2.5 = 3K

Here, feedbacks are water vapor, ice albedo, lapse rate and cloud feedback.

In the AGW theory of the IPCC, the central assumption is that the Planck response is 1.2K. Cess [2, 3] obtained the Planck feedback parameter0 of -3.3(W/m2)/K utilizing eqn (1), giving the Planck response of 1.2K with the radiative forcing RF of 4W/m2 for 2xCO2 as follows:

OLR =Ts4 (1)

0=-dOLR/dTs = -4Ts3 = -4OLR/Ts =- 3.3(W/m2)/K (2)

Planck response = -RF/0=4(W/m2)/ 3.3(W/m2)/K =1.2K (3)

Here, OLR (outgoing long wave radiation) = 233W/m2

: 0.60, the emissivity of the earth-atmosphere system

: Stefan-Boltzmann constant

Ts: the surface temperature of 288K

Coincidently, the Planck response of 1.2K by eqn (3) is in very good agreement with the Planck response of 1.2 – 1.3K obtained with one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies in the literature [4, 5, 6]. Therefore, the Cess method has been followed by many researchers, including the IPCC 1st Assessment Report (1990) and the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007).

The Cess method is the sole theoretical basis of the central assumption of the IPCC that the Planck response is 1.2K at present time [7, 8, 9], because the 1DRCM study is fudged due to its strong dependence on lapse rate used according to Hansen’s idea expressed in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA here..

https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/24309-1

The above derivation, however, is a mathematical error since the emissivityis not a constant enabling us to differentiate eqn (1) as shown by eqn (2). Cess admits his mathematical error in his reply to Kimoto’s mail on 23 August, 2016.

Schlesinger [6] proposed eqn (4) giving the Planck response of 1.2K, which is only a transformation of eqn (2) to disguise the Cess’s mathematical error as follows:

-1/0 =0=Ts/ (1 – ) S0 = 0.3K/ (W/m2) (4)

Planck response= 0.3K/ (W/m2) x 4 (W/m2) =1.2K

Here, surface albedo = 0.3 and solar constant S0 = 1370W/m2.

At the equilibrium, OLR = (S0/4) (1 – )

From eqn (2), 0 =- 4OLR/Ts = -4x (S0/4) (1 – )/Ts

Then, -1/0 = 0 = Ts/ (1 – ) S0

Read more: Leading Climate Scientist “Admits Mathematical Errors in The AGW Theory”! by P. Gosselin on 2 October 2016.

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.PMVWprcT.A2poPAWr.dpbs

(References)

1. Soden, B.J. and Held, I.M., An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Climate, 2006, 19, 3354-3360.

2. Cess, R.D., An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, 33, 1831-1843.

3. Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Le Treut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Riches, M.R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M., Wetherald, R.T. and Yagai, I., Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models, Science, 1989, 245, 513-516.

4. Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1967, 24, 241-259.

5. Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D. and Russell, G., Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Science 1981, 213, 957-966.

6. Schlesinger, M.E., Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 1986, 1, 35-51.

7. Wetherald, R.T. and Manabe, S., Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model, J. Atmospheric Sciences, 1988, 45, 1397-1415.

8. Tsushima, Y., Manabe, S., Influence of cloud feedback on annual variation of global mean surface temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2001, 106, 22,635-22,646.

9. Tsushima, Y., Abe-Ouchi, A. and Manabe, S., Radiative damping of annual variation in global mean temperature: comparison between observed and simulated feedbacks, Climate Dynamics, 2005, 24, 591-597.

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Dave Yaussy
October 4, 2016 5:50 am

Can someone explain to me where the admission is here? I don’t expect to understand the math, but I don’t see where anyone is admitting to an error.

Steve Case
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 4, 2016 6:00 am

Looks to me like it’s the line about emissivity not being a constant.

Anonymoose
Reply to  Steve Case
October 4, 2016 8:19 am

Yes, apparently emissivity has several components which are likely to change in various situations. Thus using it as a constant is only an approximation. Any climate models which use it as a constant are technically imprecise, although the range of values for emissivity would have to be studied to consider how much error this adds.

Reply to  Steve Case
October 4, 2016 8:35 am

I’m not sure why this paper was not referenced in the post:
it seems to be written by the ‘guest author’…
And is a good read.

Marcus
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 4, 2016 6:10 am

From Kim Komoto…
On 23 August, 2016, Dr. Robert D. Cess gave me the following answer to my mail, admitting his mathematical errors in the derivation from eqn (1) to eqn (3). Dr. Cess was the leading climate scientist of Intercomparison Project of GCMs for the IPCC Assessment Reports. He wrote:
” I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there were no interactive climate feedback mechanisms?. Simply stated, it is a hypothetical reference sensitivity. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY.“

Uncle Gus
October 4, 2016 10:27 am

Seems to me everyone has claimed this!
At least everyone who has the attention of the public, and those who don’t, keep quiet. This is what happens when what is supposed to be a scientific theory gets taken over by politicians and activists.

Greg
October 4, 2016 12:08 pm

No, usually they take that ‘no feedback’ value and double it due to assumed feedbacks which they have based on assumptions like rel. humidity being constant, which is known to be incorrect from observations.

Louis
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 4, 2016 10:59 am

Here’s the line containing the admission of error:
“The above derivation, however, is a mathematical error since the emissivity is not a constant enabling us to differentiate eqn (1) as shown by eqn (2). Cess admits his mathematical error in his reply to Kimoto’s mail on 23 August, 2016.

David L. Hagen
October 4, 2016 5:54 am
Marcus
Reply to  David L. Hagen
October 4, 2016 6:07 am
paqyfelyc
October 4, 2016 6:09 am

Sorry, but it seems to me that Dr Cess DO NOT admit error.
let’s quote the thing :

On 23 August, 2016, Dr. Robert D. Cess gave me the following answer to my mail […] wrote:
I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there were no interactive climate feedback mechanisms?. Simply stated, it is a hypothetical reference sensitivity. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY.“
You need a lot of bad faith to read this as admitting error. He’s basically saying that it’s just legitimate first order analysis, that can be modulated if there is some sort of interactive climate feedback mechanisms that change sensitivity.

Marcus
October 4, 2016 6:13 am

..They are not claiming the Scientist is wrong, but the way it is used by AGW Theory…
“mathematical errors in the AGW theory” , as stated in the headline…

prjindigo
October 4, 2016 6:39 am

What he’s saying is it’s a thrown dart and they’ve never checked to see if it hit the bulletin board at all let alone the facts.
Its an admission that there has been ZERO scientific study done to back up the underlying premise of the entire theory of egregiously overstated CO2 infrared scattering causing a remissive impedance to energy transit from ground to space.
The entire theory of CO2 “global warming climate change luddism” is based on three WRONG conclusions: #1 The 1980’s supposition that since CO2 absorbs *all* heat energy any increase in its creation will increase the temperature of the planet to the destruction of all life. #2 That a study done by the USAF to determine if infra-red IMAGING was usable above normal ground missile ranges determined that the infra-red energy of a ground target mired in the humid air mass of Vietnam would not survive in a form that could be focused and used for guided missiles. No implication that the IR never made it to the sensor, just that the target would blur to the point that it disappeared into the ‘noise’. #3 That the “large cylinder of glass” shows any kind of useful example about CO2 and infra-red heat energy – The “cylinder of glass” is a literal green-house effect and the heat trying to escape is reflected back within until the cylinder walls heat enough to create a stable out-flow through emission and conduction: if the CO2 wasn’t in the glass it would rise, create turbulence and emit its energy freely without MECHANICAL reflection or re-emission by the inner wall of the cylinder which converts the infra-red back into a frequency the CO2 can actually absorb.
You need ZERO bad faith to know he’s in error. All you need is to check the findings of other morons who got published for simple laboratory errors in comprehension and set-up.

prjindigo
October 4, 2016 6:43 am

Sorry, correction: I drank coffee and realized I typed 1980’s, It is supposed to be 1890’s.
The entire theory about CO2 world destruction was created by a man with literally NO education by today’s standards as a scare tactic.

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 7:20 am

… there has been ZERO scientific study done to back up the underlying premise of the entire theory …

(prjindigo)
Fine work, prj, getting that revealing response above from Cess!
***********************************
“math error” my eye.
The Titanic’s builder to owner: The ship is sound, although, I do admit, we did miscount a few things, the number of dinner forks, pillow cases, and bottles of Scotch Whiskey. Other than that, she’s ready to launch tomorrow.

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 7:27 am

Nice work, paqyfelyc, getting that Cess response.

steveta_uk
October 4, 2016 8:08 am

JM, paqyfelyc was simply copying from the linked post.

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 8:18 am

Thank you for that, steveta_uk.

October 4, 2016 1:14 pm

Janice,
Ever the nitpicker, me, says Scotch Whisky, not Whiskey. Whiskey is made everywhere but in Scotland.
Otherwise, your point is absolutely on the button.

Bill Hunter
October 5, 2016 12:31 am

It appears he admits the error. His argument is a lot has changed, it was hypothetical anyway, and nobody ever considered to be a real sensitivity. But such waffling is what one would expect.

October 5, 2016 6:21 pm

Would anyone care to try to prove Cess’s assertion of the existence of the constant that Cess calls the “REAL SENSITIVITY” in his response to Kimoto? As the “REAL SENSITIVITY” is the ratio of the change in the equilibrium surface air temperature to the change in the radiative forcing and as the change in the former quantity is not observable, it seems to me that this assertion cannot be proved.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
October 6, 2016 8:04 am

As the “REAL SENSITIVITY” is the ratio of the change in the equilibrium surface air temperature to the change in the radiative forcing

You can take the measured temperature change at a surface station, and divide that by the calculated maximum solar possible. You can then calculate an effective sensitivity.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
Curiously there was a change in sensitivity about 1997 in the band of 20 to ~40 North latitude.
But mostly only there.
Now I am limited to the extra tropics, but it happened the same time the step in temps happened.

October 6, 2016 10:41 am

micro6500:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify. Several different “sensitivities” are floating around in our respective arguments. To reach a logical conclusion from these arguments we must disambiguate “sensitivity.”
The “sensitivity” that my prior remarks reference is ofteh called “the equilibrium climate sensitivity.” Often climatologists reference it by the acronym “ECS” but I reference it by the acronym “TECS” as this usage makes clear that a constant is being referenced; according to the IPCC, the value of TECS about 3 C Celsius per doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, that TECS is a constant cannot be observationally confirmed as TECS is the ratio of the equilibrium surface air temperature to the radiative forcing but the former quantity is insusceptible to being observed.
That the ratio of two quantities is a constant is the exception rather than the rule. We don’t expect the ratio of the price of turnips in Moscow to the price of gasoline in Chicago to be a constant but climatologists purportedly know that the ratio of the equilibrium surface air temperature to the radiative forcing is a constant.
The purported knowledge is fabricated. This fabrication creates a illusion of inexorable rise in Earth’s surface air temperature with rise in the CO2 concentration that is ideal for the purpose of alarming naive citizens into funneling grant money into the coffers of participating climatologists. It has the additional effect of ensuring that the climate models which are used in regulating CO2 emissions provide the regulators with no information about conditional outcomes for Earth’s surface air temperature. For a participating climatologist, generation of grant money trumps the effectiveness of his or her research facilitating regulation of the surface air temperature, evidently

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
October 6, 2016 11:35 am

Terry,
“The purported knowledge is fabricated.”
What they have done is claim that the sensitivity is approximately constant (that is, the relationship between forcing and the surface temperature is approximately linear) around its current equilibrium state. This is actually true, except that the sensitivity is the slope of this relationship around the current state of the surface and not a relative slope from the current state of the surface through zero.
Consider that the NET power input to the surface must exactly offset its BB emissions at its equivalent temperature of about 287 K which is about 385 W/m^2. If we divide the surface temperature by the NET input to the surface, we get about 0.75 K per W/m^2 and this represents the slope of the current state, relative to the origin. If we consider the slope of the SB relationship between temperature and emissions at 287K, we get a value closer to 0.2 K per W/m^2. If we consider the SB relationship at 255K, we get a value closer to 0.3 K per W/m^2.
The error they made barely rises to the level of a math error, but is just a simple arithmetic error that led to the wildly overestimated sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 used as a justification for the formation of the IPCC and all of the BS that has followed.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
October 6, 2016 11:52 am

However, that TECS is a constant cannot be observationally confirmed as TECS is the ratio of the equilibrium surface air temperature to the radiative forcing but the former quantity is insusceptible to being observed.

I agree, but what I suggest is that it would be hard for me to believe it is more efficient at warming the surface than solar is, and I think we can say it’s likely less efficient. And we can measure the effect of changing solar, we have regular tests of solar effective.
And if you look at the effect of 3W’s change in solar, it’s less than about 2 thousandth of a degree, and even that doesn’t matter because night time cooling is non-linearly regulated by dew point temps and clouds, and it dumps any co2 warming to space prior to dew points impacting slowing.

October 6, 2016 12:52 pm

micro6500:
To state that TECS is “approximately constant” (regardless of the value of this constant) is to draw a conclusion from an equivocation in which the term “approximately” changes meaning in the midst of the argument thus being guilty of applying the equivocation fallacy. Through the use of this fallacy, climatologists create the illusion that their models provide regulators with information that is usable in control of Earth’s climate when in fact these models provide no such information.
The information that appears to be presented by the models to regulators is fabricated through use of the equivocation fallacy by IPCC climatologists. The “lukewarmists” are as guilty as the “alarmists” of fabricating information through the use of this fallacy. Members of both groups assert that TECS is a constant but differ in the purported magnitude of this constant. In truth, TECS is scientifically and logically nonsensical.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
October 6, 2016 12:55 pm

To state that TECS is “approximately constant”

But I didn’t, and my data shows it’s not constant.

October 6, 2016 1:52 pm

micro6500:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. As I defined TECS it is the ratio of the change in the equilibrium surface air temperature to the change in the forcing. As the change in the equilibrium surface air temperature is not observable, TECS does not exist for scientific purposes as it lacks observable values.
When fit by the method of least squares to the global temperature in a specified interval interval in time, a straight line exists but the slope of this line varies with the identity specified interval. Thus,” the global warming” (TGW) is multi-valued. A “measure” is single valued Thus, the “”TGW” is not an example of a measure. A change in a temperature is an example of a measure. Thus, the term “TGW” is doubly misleading.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
October 6, 2016 1:58 pm

When fit by the method of least squares to the global temperature

Oh, for this I use the change in temp recorded by that specific station and solar for that specific flat surface latitude. Then I average them together by whatever area I’m looking at.

October 6, 2016 10:04 pm

micro6500:
Thank you for setting me straight on your approach to processing the available data on surface temperature values. As I understand it your approach differs from the IPCC’s approach but shares with this approach a logical shortcoming. This is that it provides a would be regulator of the spatial average of Earth’s surface temperature with no information enabling regulation of this temperature. In information theory, information that enables regulation is called the “mutual information”; it is Shannon’s measure of the intersection of two state-spaces of which one is a regulatory model’s sample-space and the other is this model’s condition-space. For meteorology, the set {cloudy, not cloudy} is an example of a condition-space while the set {rain in the next 24 hours, no rain in the next 24 hours} is an example of a sample-space.
Through the use of available technology, the value of the mutual information is maximized through constraints on entropy maximization that are similar in intent to the constraint upon entropy maximization which, for a thermodynamic system, is imposed by energy conservation. This technology is not in current use by global warming climatologists. In current use by them is a technology that pegs the mutual information at nil. That the value is nil proves the global warming research that was performed to date to be worthless for its intended purpose.

Paul Westhaver
October 4, 2016 6:36 am

Hello Lord Christopher Monckton?
Do ya think Cess may have peaked in at your sensitivity eval?

October 4, 2016 6:52 am

The no feedback sensitivity of ~1.2 is correct. The post is wrong. A mathematical derivation was discussed by Judith Currynonnher blog back in 2010. Lindzen uses 1.2. A ‘truer’ value is 1.165 derived by Monckton here recently. This post is the sort of misunderstanding /misinterpretation of an email that gives all skeptics an undeserved black eye. There is lots wrong with CAGW. The no feedbacks CO2 doubling value is not one of them.

kevinmackay
October 4, 2016 7:06 am

Truth.

Alan Robertson
October 4, 2016 7:08 am

You’re likely right, Rud. I’ll check with Dr. Currynonnher to confirm.
/s

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 4, 2016 7:36 am

Yup

October 4, 2016 7:15 am

:
Go back and read the analysis…
The no feedback sensitivity is claimed as a basic ‘constant’. However, it is not since the emissivity is not a constant. Thus, the derivative of the “no feedback sensitivity” equation should have another term. Since there are no experimental observations confirming that the emissivity term can be ignored, such simplification is not justified.
At least that’s my understanding from briefly reading through the post…

October 4, 2016 7:36 am

You are wrong. Emissivity is integrated over the vertical column. The result is a constant. Learn calculus.

October 4, 2016 7:50 am

:
Two things:
1. Calculus is Calculus. A calculator will give an answer based upon its inputs. And Calculus will give a result based on the terms in your starting equation which are based on your assumptions of what it is that you are calculating.
2… Don’t argue with me. Argue with the author of the post… that’s what seems to be claimed above.
2B… The logic of the post seems likely to be true. It is likely that the emissivity varies within a column of atmosphere as well as across all possible columns within the global atmosphere.
However, I do know Calculus. I will admit that it took me several attempts at passing Calc 2 [Solids] … and that was more than a long time ago. Once I applied myself, differential equations was fun too.

October 4, 2016 11:33 am

Didnt mean to argue with you. Was tryingntomexplain why your point 2b can be true whithout meaning Cess is wrong. And already said the guest post is wrong. The integration for ‘blackbody’ was explained at Judith’s years ago and comes out almost exactly 1. The world is a ‘grey body’. The integration can be done numerically by stripped down climate models, or done algebraically by using constants that already embed the emissivity ‘integration’ over altitude, which is what Monckton did here last month in his third Feet of Clay guest post.

Editor
October 4, 2016 12:24 pm

I agree with ristvan here. When Dr Robert D Cess says the no-feedback sensitivity “is a hypothetical reference sensitivity”, he is saying that the maths is OK, it’s the interpretation of it that is incorrect.
Basically, a no-feedback sensitivity of 1.2 looks about right. The major errors re sensitivity are in the feedbacks.

October 4, 2016 7:32 am

Being diverted into this issue because of the amateurish math and physics I saw pervasive on all sides of the debate , I have been interested in understanding the essential physics first — which to me means implementing the calculations . I am interested in the big factors first . And that is James Hansen’s and others claim that the higher surface temperature at the bottoms of atmospheres , 3% in the case of earth , 125% in the case of Venus ( energy density ratios 1.12 and 25.6 respectively ) , that the gray body temperature calculated simply by integrating the energy impinging on a point in their orbits , is due to some optical greenhouse effect . That is the runaway boogeyman that is held up to frighten the serfs into energy poverty , crippled appliances , and despoiled landscapes for the sole benefit of eKo-crapitalists .
Mean planetary temperature is a much simpler issue than the chaotic eddies of climate . It is more akin to gas laws which apply to entire volumes whatever the eddies within may be .
As demonstrated by the most basic computations of equilibrium temperature for a radiantly heated colored ball , Hansen’s claim that the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops due to some spectral effect and may runaway to some arbitrarily high ratio , is quantitatively absurd by an order of magnitude .
The elephant which a number of people have pointed out , but is outside the paradigm , is the other macroscopic force : gravitation which is ubiquitous and obvious and inescapable , is accounted for in the energy balances .
I think in many cases it is hiding in talk of lapse rates , etc , but the fundamental force has to be recognized as gravity — which immediately becomes straightforwardly calculable by Newton’s equation . That implies a very deep relationship between static kinetic energy density balancing gravitation energy , but we see that ubiquitously .

steveta_uk
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 4, 2016 7:58 am

I am reminded of Pauli’s reply to Lev Landau, “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”

October 4, 2016 9:20 am

Sorry about that . Peruse my http://CoSy.com for the computation in a very succinct APL of the equilibrium temperature of a ball with a uniform color ( absorption=emission spectrum ) irradiated by a disk of a particular power spectrum in terms of a ratio of dot products of spectra times the gray body temperature , ie : the total energy impinging on the ball .
It’s all experimentally testable and I wish someone would , and post it on YouTube . It would be a first step towards putting this endlessly fuzzy AGW debate on the sort of classical analytical quantitative foundation one expects in any other field of applied physics .
Frankly , I feel the silence in this foundational pole of the discussion is deafening .

Eph
October 4, 2016 8:49 pm

What he said’s clear, actually. Hansen said there is a claim by him and others, that – there is a divergence from classical gas equations, of the temperatures of both Earth and Venus.
However standard gas equations that govern everything else in the world cover this: and in fact the portion that Armstrong notes being ignored by Hansen et al – the GHE nuts – is the density portion of the calculation of temperature, which, in Earth and Venus are determined finally by gravity.
Gravity pulls those atmospheres downward at a rate far larger than any other variable thus effectively bounding density. Obviously the quantity of gas could be important, except that – the law for solving temperature of gases dictates that adding CO2 to atmospheric mix lowers temperature of that mix: not raises it.
That’s why GHE nuts invented science based on who you are, not replicable science.
Their claims aren’t repeatable and don’t stand up to experiment; which is also what led them to claim their religion is so big even experiment won’t defeat it.
But it does. Because when you calculate the temperature of Earth or Venus, and you put earth atmospheric mix into the calculation for temperature on Venus, it’s several tens of degrees warmer than the CO2 atmosphere there, just like predicted by the world of mathematics and the standard gas equations everyone uses – except scamatologists.
They and they alone among all the world’s physical ”scientists” – claim to be able to calculate the temperature of compressible fluids without the hydrostatic equation involved – establishing the compressible gases’ density.

Javier
October 4, 2016 7:58 am

Oh no, not another article with a title that it is contradicted by the content. That is a yellow press trademark and more effort should be done on preventing that. I suggest more neutral titles on non-political articles. After all science is not settled… in any direction. Funny how so many people believe that only applies to their opponents.

John Bills
October 4, 2016 8:03 am

related: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf
interesting in particular for “El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Impact Adjustment using the MEI Index “

kim
October 4, 2016 8:08 am

Heh, well, sensitivity with feedbacks is not likely a constant. That’s what counts, so all this is counting CO2 molecules at the head of a lapsed pin.
==========

October 4, 2016 11:38 am

Kim, that is probably true in general. But it is also likely true that over small temperature intervals it mostly is a constant. And since the multiplier on No feedback is actually an interval based in Kelvins off ~288, even the dreaded 3C ECS is probably a ‘constant’.

Editor
October 4, 2016 12:30 pm

Aggain, I agree with ristvan here. Although sensitivity is not actually a constant, over any modest temperature interval no-feedback sensitivity is very close to constant. I am not so sure about the ‘dreaded 3C ECS’ though, because it has so many unknowns.

asybot
October 4, 2016 8:18 am

Will some body tell the libs in Canada please? Justin T has implemented a carbon tax @ \$30/tonne to be accepted by the provinces by 2018 or else.

October 4, 2016 8:49 am

asybot:
And the Canadian Federal Environment Minister called it a “POLLUTION TAX”. My guess is, she has no idea that she is emitting “CARBON” Pollution with every statement she makes. Typical politician wanting to implement a tax. They keep saying “revenue neutral” to sell it. But then aren’t all taxes “Revenue Neutral”? You tax certain things and certain groups and give the money to other groups or projects – it’s not like the government keeps the money, they just take a rake off before returning it. But you still end up being poorer at the end of the day.
Funny how they never mention poor old carbon dioxide but tell us that GHG’s are destroying the world. One finger pointing at CO2 and three fingers pointing back at them. That about covers it.

nc
October 4, 2016 9:58 am

Trudeau, 2.0 the prime minister of Canada who got elected by the liberal left media extreme bias threatened to force the carbon tax on the provinces if they don’t fall in line.
This is a man who stated he admires the Chinese government in how they get things done. You know that communist dictatorship.

Caligula Jones
October 4, 2016 11:14 am

You spelled Trulander incorrectly…

commieBob
October 4, 2016 12:45 pm

Jean Chretien and his finance minister Paul Martin massively cut the federal deficit by reducing transfer payments to the provinces. They looked like geniuses. The provinces, with less money to work with, did the cutbacks that people noticed and took the blame.
Junior Trudeau has made sure everyone will know who to blame. Smooooth. He should have a long chat with Premier Mom of Ontario. She just had to backtrack on electricity rates because some folks can’t afford them any more and she was going to lose even more votes.
Hint: If things look like they’re going sideways, let the NDP win the next election so they have to take the blame.

Ron Clutz
October 4, 2016 11:43 am

Trudeau is mostly engaged in virtue-signalling.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/political-climate-action/

Joe
October 4, 2016 8:26 am

I have never seen clearly stated whether the 3.3W/m2 for doubling of CO2 is for dry air (absent other greenhouse gases) or normal humidity. I would think that it is easier to do the theoretical calculation for dry air. The presence of water vapor would increase the combined greenhouse effect, but reduce the CO2 portion, as the long IR absorption bands overlap.
Still, listing water vapor as a feedback is a crock, because that implies water vapor variation depends on CO2. Given that water is the larger greenhouse effect, it should be CO2 that is the second order effect.

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 9:16 am

Yes, Joe (re: water vapor as a feedback is a crock), especially since CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle**:
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, 2013

[13:52] — Temp. and CO2 evolve coherently on all times scales longer than 2 years.
— CO2 lags temp. by a quarter cycle (i.e., in quadrature [14:03], using cosine and sine, lags by 90 degrees) – Note: Differing periods means no single lag value will align all components, thus, CO2 and temp. must be distributed widely over positive lag [13:22].
[21:44] — CO2 phase lags temp. by 90 degrees (i.e., evolves in quadrature, i.e., a quarter cycle out of phase).
**********************************
**Note: Some of you have said that you disagree with Dr. Salby’s analysis on some points. If you disagree with this point, it would make your argument much more persuasive to say how he is incorrect here, rather than merely a weak, summarily dismissive, “wrong” (or an appeal to lukewarmer authority, “Dr. Curry says…”).

October 4, 2016 11:46 am

Janice, both Salby’s Hanberg presentation and his UK presentation are wrong with respect to both facts and calculation logic. Period. Don’t waste time on him if he repeats basic errors. Such as his convoluted equivalent to the erroneous saturation argument. Or confusing bomb spike atmospheric half life (individual molecules) with concentration half life given biological sinks (all molecules on average, since there is both absorption and emission. Those sorts or errors are so fundamental salby can simply be dismissed.

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 12:42 pm

Given that you are asking me to dismiss Dr. Salby essentially, just because you say so, I will go with Allan MacRae’s and Bartemis’ (and others’ — even Ferdinand Engelbeen only disagrees with Salby on the point about human v. natural CO2 levels, based on FE’s “mass balance” view) assessment of Salby’s analysis which is: it stands on an excellent science foundation and is solidly reasoned.
That you (not this time, heh) nearly always cite lukewarmer Dr. Curry as your go-to authority for rejecting Salby is an argument FOR Dr. Salby’s analysis. Further, Dr. Salby’s published works and credentials are, imo, more directly applicable to what he lectured on in Hamburg (and elsewhere) than those of backseat driver (on this issue) Dr. Curry.
***********************************
You have proven by your many replies. Mr. Istvan, that refuting Dr. Salby is very important to you. I wonder why…. And, no, that you are, mainly, simply altruistically trying to make sure the truth about human CO2 gets out, is not believable; if that were your main motivation, you would be refuting many other assertions regularly made on WUWT (which, unlike Salby’s, are clearly erroneous). You have made Salby a special target….

October 4, 2016 1:31 pm

“assessment of Salby’s analysis which is: it stands on an excellent science foundation and is solidly reasoned.”
So why can’t it ever be put in writing? Why always video?

Janice Moore
October 4, 2016 4:35 pm

Dear Mr. Stokes,
The slides in the video are in writing. You could make copies of them from a screen capture and, then, convert them from digital to paper, if you like.
Sincerely yours,
Janice from the Grassroots of the USA 🙂

David Riser
October 4, 2016 4:54 pm

Lol. Dr. Salby wrote the book on atmospheric physics. twice. I would say that he gets it better than most.

October 4, 2016 5:07 pm

“Lol. Dr. Salby wrote the book on atmospheric physics. twice.”
Yes. And what he says in the book (both) is quite contrary to what he says on these videos.

David Riser
October 4, 2016 5:10 pm

Well nick, what does he say in his text books that he violates in his video discussions. Since your making a rather blanket statement.

October 4, 2016 7:18 pm

“what does he say in his text books”
Quotes are in the link I gave. Or, if you prefer, you could show how his books support what he is saying now.

Joe
October 4, 2016 3:54 pm

In the preliminary phase of an inquiry, it might be reasonable to take a first crack writing a simplified equation with the main factors as first order variables and modeling other variables as second order feedbacks, in this case assuming the sun is a constant (zeroth order). But the entire AGW case is based on assuming that CO2 is driver, and then claiming that it alone determines variations in feedback mechanisms of greater magnitude. All without any basis!

ulric lyons
October 4, 2016 8:37 am

Feedbacks.
Water vapour, cools the sunny side, warms the dark side. CO2, warms the sunny side, cools the dark side. Looks all good to me.

The Old Man
October 4, 2016 8:46 am

Whatever the problem is, the Model is clearly broken.
For asbot: I tried to let ‘Just in’ in on the problem, but CBC has figured out that blocking all comments lets them say that the majority of Canadians love the tax. Must have something to do with how they’re funded.
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=876

asybot
Reply to  The Old Man
October 4, 2016 11:33 am

@ The Old Man, I have also noticed that method is now being used on most left wing Media, but I get the point. It is sad to see, they obviously know what the commentary would be. And I really do not know what is going to happen now that the net has been let go from the US regulators, that whole thing just happened (on the weekend as usual). I wonder how long it is going to be before it will be run by the UN . I am not completely sure on how this “takeover” works I can’t seem to find an clear explanation anywhere. If there is anyone with some clear explanations I would appreciate a link , Thanks beforehand.

ferd berple
October 4, 2016 8:50 am

NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT THE NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY IS A TRUE INDICATION OF THE REAL SENSITIVITY.“
==============
This statement would however appear to be incorrect. CAGW is based on the premised that:
NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY * FEEDBACK = REAL SENSITIVITY
Now it appears that Dr Cess is telling us that “NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED”, but in point of fact the IPCC and other have claimed exactly what Dr. Cess is telling us no one has ever done.
So which is it? Either
Climate sensitivity = no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks
Or it doesn’t. Dr Cess appears to be telling us that it doesn’t. Moreover Dr Cess appears to be telling us that “NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED”
In which case:
Climate sensitivity (NOT =) no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks

Reply to  ferd berple
October 4, 2016 10:19 am

ferd,
“Climate sensitivity (NOT =) no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks”
Absolutely correct. Climate sensitivity is defined by the IPCC as the gain of a feedback network that amplifies forcing into a temperature change. The feedback network does not amplify sensitivity which is otherwise dictated by physical law to be the slope of the SB relationship. Feedback can not under any circumstances modify the T^4 dependency between temperature and emissions (consequence of forcing). All it can do is modify the effective emissivity.

Editor
Reply to  ferd berple
October 4, 2016 12:48 pm

ferd – The statement “CAGW is based on the premised that:
NO-FEEDBACK SENSITIVITY * FEEDBACK = REAL SENSITIVITY

shows that No-feedback sensitivity is NOT being used as the real sensitivity.

Hivemind
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 4, 2016 5:59 pm

The problem arises because you can’t use the no-feedback sensitivity this way. It is a ‘snapshot’ of sensitivity at the particular conditions in which it is calculated. Feedback changes those conditions and the value is then wrong.
This is probably academic though, since they are using the wrong sign for the feedback from cloud formation. They assume that clouds are positive feedback, when evidence show they are actually negative.
The net result is that the after-feedback sensitivity is actually much lower than the no-feedback sensitivity.

October 4, 2016 9:31 am

[snip – show your work. just saying “debunked” doesn’t cut it -mod]

tony mcleod
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 4, 2016 3:49 pm

Snip “just saying “debunked” doesn’t cut it -mod”
There is a lot of “that’s been debunked/it’s a hoax/scam/etc that seems to be eluding your scissors.

Simon
Reply to  tony mcleod
October 4, 2016 6:06 pm

Yes does seem a little double-standardy doesn’t it?

October 4, 2016 9:55 am

“Schlesinger [6] proposed eqn (4) giving the Planck response of 1.2K, which is only a transformation of eqn (2) to disguise the Cess’s mathematical error”
This is not the first time Schlesinger has used a mathematical transformation to hide errors. One is with feedback, where he transformed the gain equation from one of feedback amplifying forcing producing a temperature into one where feedback amplifies the sensitivity which was done in order to hide the implicit assumption of unit open loop gain. Another is with the formulation of forcing itself transforming the linear units of W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing into the non linear units of degrees per W/m^2 which obfuscates the obvious violation of COE since 0.8C per W/m^2 of forcing seems plausible, while 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is not, while both are representations of the exact same thing.
It’s disturbing that he has used this methodology of obfuscation repeatedly. Perhaps he has applied these many levels of obfuscation on purpose? Either that, or his mathematical skills are exceptionally flawed and he thinks that by cancelling out errors with other errors it makes them go away.

Clyde Spencer
October 4, 2016 10:23 am

Why is it that no attention is being paid to the number of significant figures in measured and calculated values? Albedo (undefined) is given to 1 significant figure, while emissivity is given to 2 significant figures, and solar constant is given to 4 significant figures. Is this carelessness, ignorance, or what? Someone who claims that there is a mistake in calculations should show more attention to detail if they want to be taken seriously.

October 4, 2016 11:13 am

I will try this one more time, and then I will give up.
This statement suggests that there was considerable back and forth between Cess and Kimoto not detailed in the article. It also suggests that Cess tried several times to explain his position to Kimoto, and this last quote is more indicative of him giving up in frustration than it is of him admitting to any error.
Without the entire email chain, it is impossible to judge. But I agree with others upthread. I don’t see an admission of error, and I cannot help but suspect that the entire exchange would reveal that there wasn’t one.
Just because the other side cherry picks comments doesn’t mean our side should too.

richard verney
October 5, 2016 3:28 am

I am of like impression.
I consider it probable that his comment is being over egged.

Mike M. (period)
October 4, 2016 11:26 am

“The Cess method is the sole theoretical basis …”
Wrong. That is not even how the calculation is done. See B.J. Soden
and I.M. Held, An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models, J. Climate, 19, 3354, (2006).
“… of the central assumption …”
Hardly central and certainly not an assumption.
“.. that the Planck response is 1.2K …”
Actual value varies with the model in the range 1.1 to 1.2 K. Although that is not actually the Planck response.

Reply to  Mike M. (period)
October 4, 2016 11:52 am

Your range is what I quoted upthread, and depends on details of the ‘greyearth’ in the stripped down model. Monckton got 1.165 in his third Feet of Clay post here a few weeks ago. The algebraic derivation works because the measured constants effectively include the emissivity integration over altitude lapse rate otherwise numerically integrated in the models.

phi
Reply to  Mike M. (period)
October 5, 2016 2:26 am

“Actual value varies with the model in the range 1.1 to 1.2 K.”
Yes, with a lapse rate independent of the radiative structure of the atmosphere. These numbers are just a joke.

October 4, 2016 11:50 am

The error from emissivity being non-constant is small because the thermal infrared emissivities of water, vegetation, soils and rocks are generally within a few percent of .96 despite varying with texture as well as with the material.

Leonard Weinstein
October 4, 2016 4:59 pm

The analysis is flawed for at least 3 reasons (and likely more):
1) The average temperature is not usable since large day to night, summer to winter, and latitude variations in temperature applied to local responses of highly non-linear radiation equation gives a bad average if assumed to be one single value. You have to do an integration of all local and temporal values to get reasonable approximations, even if all else is well defined.
2) Absolute humidity varies greatly with latitude and season and type of land (desert, trees, etc). Water vapor is the largest optically absorbing gas, and clouds also varies with season, time of day, latitude, etc. Feedback of CO2 obviously would likely vary if the medium the CO2 is working on is not constant everywhere, and is subject to different conditions. Using a net average value misses the local variation, which plugged into the non-linear equations, produce a misleading average.
3) The values selected do not consider that a significant portion of the OLR is direct surface to space radiation, which occurs highly non-uniformly. On a clear night, in a dry location, much of the local OLR is direct surface to space. Also it does not include direct absorption of solar radiation to the atmosphere, which results in a significant portion of the OLR, but which does not pass through much of the lower atmosphere, and thus is less affected by CO2 concentration, and water vapor feedback.
The above do not even consider the slowly varying large scale ocean current variation, and since most of the absorbed solar radiation at the surface is absorbed and radiated/convected/evapotransporated (and possible removed to larger depths) from the oceans, the variation in movement of this energy from low to high latitude before release changes with changes in currents (which may have periods of variation up to thousands of years). There are likely even more effects, but this should do for now.

Amber
October 4, 2016 5:08 pm

Prime Minister Photo – Op is perfect for the CBC government funded propaganda tools .
Co2 is essential to life and we breath it out 20;000 times a day . Shouldn’t joggers pay more .. you know a polluter pay pricing signal ?
Yes by all means tax Canadians more as long as you are safe in your cozy government job .
The carbon tax is a complete joke in volatile energy markets and will do absolutely nothing to change the direction of climate .
Warming is good . No one denies that and we sure are not going to take Mother Nature’s job of changing climate despite the puffed up ego’s of politicians like Photo Op .

Johann Wundersamer
October 4, 2016 10:11 pm

The problems are:
Coarse grid size, GHG radiation belts, ‘what’s the clouds are made of’, what’s about ozone, what are aerosols made of, sulphuric or nitrate, viscosity in fluids/clouds/air streams, what with proxies – CO2 radiation or water vapor convection, is there a 18000 correlation CO2 / temperature ore can we bring an other colleague into the boat.
Better asking: what’s NOT problematic.

Johann Wundersamer
October 4, 2016 10:29 pm

Should we go bottom up like weather models or top down in GCM’s with fudging – can lapse rates help or ocean heat capacity and how much time requires AMOC, to what oceandepths.
___________________________
But first off all – who is interested to work in this fields / pays for the next years. Duh.

October 4, 2016 11:34 pm

“At the equilibrium, OLR = (S0/4) (1 – α)”
The atmosphere is NEVER at equilibrium.

October 5, 2016 1:43 am

What has been left out is the vast amount of heat absorbed to vaporize water and the vast amounts of heat released and radiated to space upon condensation into clouds that reflect 90% of Infrared Solar Radiation and vast amounts of heat released and radiated into space when that condensation turns to snow and ice. Greenhouse effects of Water Vapor override every other gas and CO2 by thirty to one. The common Water Cycle transports such vast amounts of heat that it dominates temperature control along with the ocean currents. See Paullitely.com for the full details on this and the indirect effects of solar activity long term. We have already tipped into a mini iceage of 30 to 50 years, but El Nino hid the cusp in 2015/2016. This 2016/2017 Winter will be wickedly cold and no amount of CO2 will make any difference. See the indisputable details at Paullitely.com. Also view Icecap.us for more on the medium term Solar Activity Indirect effects..

October 6, 2016 11:49 am

one hundred years from now after WW3 it won’t matter if it was 2 or 3 degrees. No humans worth their salt will be around to see who was right. Sadly, nuclear winter will be the dominate weather feature. We will look back and recall the Nobel Peace winner Obama’s deal with Iran as the straw that broke the camels back.

ulric lyons
October 7, 2016 3:18 pm

Earth’s sunlit side as a blackbody would have an average surface temperature of 331.3K (58.15°C), 394k *0.5^0.25 = 331.3K. With 0.3 albedo that would be reduced to 303K (29.85°C), 331.1K *0.7^0.25 = 303.05K. which is higher than observed. Oceanic thermal reservoirs will dampen heating rates on the sunlit side and carry that heat to the dark night side. And so will the water vapour atmospheric greenhouse effect, because of its absorption bands in the solar near infrared. CO2 will function in the opposite way, amplifying warming on the heated hemisphere, and amplifying cooling on the cooling hemisphere. CO2 has a heat capacity of about 2/3 of dry air so it is useless for transporting heat.
The greenhouse effect cannot be perceived in terms of global averages. It doesn’t actually add up.

ulric lyons
Reply to  ulric lyons
October 7, 2016 3:37 pm

Using the correct hemispherical rather than the illegitimate spherical transformation of solar irradiance on a body, the correct average temperature of the Moon can be arrived at very simply.
The black-body temperature for the heated hemisphere is 331.3K, the average of the cold side is around 95K. (331.3+95)/2 = 213K. That implies the albedo is not having much effect, corroborated by the observed temperatures of up to 400K at the Lunar equator.
It doesn’t make much sense looking for why the Moon is colder than you think it should be, while already knowing that it is warmer than it would otherwise be because of its heat capacity.

ulric lyons
Reply to  ulric lyons
October 16, 2016 3:20 pm

How about a post on this Anthony. Roy Spencer tried his hardest to argue against it but had to concede.