Study: no acceleration in global warming, climate sensitivity to CO2 too high

New research yields old result: Climate warming slow, steady. Observed value is half that of CMIP5 climate models.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

This work might also indirectly affirm recent research showing the atmosphere is less sensitive to the warming effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than global climate models have suggested.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” said Christy, the lead author in the study, which has been accepted for publication in the 2017 fourth quarter edition of the Asia- Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and is available online. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Mathematically removing the natural but transient climatic effects of volcanoes and El Niño/La Niña Pacific Ocean warming and cooling events leaves an underlying climate trend, all or some part of which might be attributed to human causes — including enhanced greenhouse forcing caused by rising levels of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

At present, however, there is no accepted tool or technique for confidently estimating how much of the warming in the past 38+ years might be due to natural causes.

“For the purposes of this research, we assumed the climate was stable during that time, that the natural climate trend would have been zero,” Christy said. “If the natural trend was zero, then the climate models say the atmosphere is more than twice as sensitive to CO2 as the data might suggest.

“Of course, if the natural trend was greater than zero — if the natural climate was warming even a little bit — then the models have the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 even further out of whack than that.”

The paper also describes a new index for determining the sensitivity of the climate system to extra greenhouse gases. Previously, indexes of this kind were based on the surface temperature.

Christy and UAH’s Dr. Richard McNider created a new index: the Tropospheric Transient Climate Response, which is based on the bulk atmosphere. That is a more representative quantity for any impact of increased greenhouse gases.

“The idea behind this index is to determine what the temperature increase will be by the decade when anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing — which is dominated by CO2 — doubles what it was in about 1880,” Christy said. “We should reach that level — about 560 ppm of CO2 — in the latter half of this century.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said. “Again, this indicates the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models. This suggests the climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

In their research, which was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Christy and McNider found the climatic effects of El Niño/La Niña warming and cooling events in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean largely cancelled each other out over the study period.

That left the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991 as the remaining major natural perturbations to the climate trend, although that had as much to do with the timing of the eruptions as it did with the cooling caused by the nearly global distribution of volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said. “While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling.

“By taking them out of the equation, we leave behind only that part of the climate influenced by nature’s long-term changes and human influences.”

Other researchers have tried to calculate the climate’s sensitivity using temperature data collected at the Earth’s surface. But that data lacks complete global coverage, especially over the oceans. Changes in the character of the land surface near thermometers (such as paving and urban growth) and changes in the thermometer instruments over time also add uncertainty to the data.

“Additionally, surface temperatures used for tracking climate change use the average of daily maximum and minimum temperatures,” said McNider, a distinguished professor emeritus at UAH. “Those minimum nighttime temperatures reflect only the temperature of a shallow layer of air near the surface and not temperatures in the deep layer of the atmosphere.”

Using satellite instruments to collect temperature data from the bulk atmosphere is a better and more robust tool for detecting the addition of energy related to extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Christy said.

The unadjusted climate trend in the deep troposphere from January 1979 to June 2017 was +0.155 C (about 0.279° F) per decade.¹ After adjusting for the volcanoes and other less significant effects, including the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation, the trend drops to 0.096 C per decade — or about 0.364 C (0.66° F) total since December 1978.

Christy and McNider suggest two other possible explanations for the discrepancies between climate model forecasts and reality:

  • The transfer of heat energy between the atmosphere and the ocean isn’t well understood, including the roles of wind, currents and ocean conditions. If more heat is transferred to the oceans than is accounted for by the models, that “is a negative atmospheric feedback, at least on shorter time scales.”
  • Heat the models suggest should be staying in the atmosphere might instead be expelled more readily through the atmosphere into space, or is being more rapidly mixed into the oceans. In either case, that heat would not be available for warming the atmosphere.

“Also, if the atmosphere isn’t accumulating heat at the rate forecast by the models, then the theoretical positive climate feedbacks which were expected to amplify the CO2 effect won’t be as large,” McNider said. “For instance, one of the major climate feedbacks built into the models is increased water vapor. It was hypothesized that if CO2 warmed the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor — itself a powerful greenhouse gas — in the atmosphere should increase.

“The water feedback built into the models, however, depends first on warming in the deep layer of the atmosphere,” he said. “The lack of warming there means this feedback will be much less.”

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.

Since the first microwave sounding unit was launched into orbit in November 1978, satellite-based instruments have measured the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.

This is an especially important region of the atmosphere because climate models have forecast the deep layer of the lower atmosphere is the area where CO2-influenced warming should occur first and by the greatest amounts.

Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are archived for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

— 30 —

(1) The 0.155 C per decade trend reported here differs from the 0.13 C per decade trend recently reported in the Global Temperature Report, which is published monthly by UAH’s Earth System Science Center. The research reported here was done using an earlier version of the satellite microwave sounding unit dataset. That dataset was revised and updated, and the revisions published (Spencer et al., APJAS 2017) while the research reported here was under peer review.

The new 2017 paper: 2017_Christy_McNider (PDF)

The 1994 paper: 1994_ChristyMcNIder

Advertisements

311 thoughts on “Study: no acceleration in global warming, climate sensitivity to CO2 too high

  1. It has to be fairly obvious now that the sensitivity of CO2 is less than previously thought. Maybe much less. If we agree that there are other factors such as UHI not only making collecting land based temps problematic, but actually adding thermal heat and water vapour to local atmospheric conditions, then an equal amount of supposed CO2 induced warming must be removed from the equation. As well as acknowledge that the entire temperature record is dubious at best.

    The same for other natural variability such as solar cycles, or long term ocean circulation which we now understand much more than previous generations. The higher temperature predictions by the models from 10-15 years ago are definitely not materializing, so perhaps time that the IPCC re-define this sensitivity, and not continue parroting the same old story. There is a danger of crying wolf so much that it will become painfully obvious to everybody sooner or later.

    • But the UHI problem is compounded, in terestrial measurement, by the reduction in temperature reporting stations over the last decade or two, and the “migration” of temperature reporting stations to lower altitudes and lower latitudes, The coverage of of rural areas, the cneters of Africa and South America, and the oceans is not particularly good, except, of course, by satellite.

    • Earthling2 … at 10:25 am
      It has to be fairly obvious now that the sensitivity of CO2 is less than previously thought.

      You can go outside and spit and have the same
      effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” – Reid Bryson

    • Sensitivity of CO2 is not in doubt, 1.6K /doubling of CO2.

      But the UN IPCC AGW hypothesis depended on WATER VAPOR in its effect. Since modelling water vapor is too complex they treated its effect on sensitivity as a fit parameter. That’s fine. But they determined the gain factor using relative temperature and not absolute temperature (which massively overestimates the sensitivity).

      Plus, the expected CO2 effect on water vapor concentration is unknown. It is known that the water vapor concentration is affected by solar magnetic activity (evidenced by Forbush Decreases – see the work of Svensmark and Shaviv).

  2. Christy is stating that the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is ~1 C if there is no underlying warming trend or cooling trend. I wonder how this would work out plugging that sensitivity to proxy estimated CO2 levels in the several thousand PPM level to proxies for what the temperature was then.

    • You’d have to know what the temperature would have been without the high CO2 levels. The problem is that there is no control Earth, where either CO2 or all other factors are held constant.

      • So that means that technically, the argument can never actually be won, one way or the other. At least in the short term. So is sort of true that we will never actually know what would have been had we not started using fossil fuels. But if the climate doesn’t accelerate with increasing temperatures over the years and decades to come, then we obviously have an honest answer about the sensitivity of CO2. Since it is logarithmic with increasing CO2 levels on increasing temps, and most of the LWIR that is delayed is in the first 200 ppmv, it is probably safe to assume that CO2 is not the monster that the greens, academics and politicians make it out to be. Or that the good Earth will ever experience run away global warming with additive CO2 going forward. We maybe have a 1/3 degree C ‘baked’ in to the present climate from human forcing, which is much better than a 1/3 degree C cooling.

      • Yep. As the article stated:

        At present, however, there is no accepted tool or technique for confidently estimating how much of the warming in the past 38+ years might be due to natural causes.

        If none of the warming was natural, the climate sensitivity is low… TCR ~1.35 C, ECS ~1.75 C. If any of the warming was due to natural trends, the climate sensitivity is much lower…

        “Of course, if the natural trend was greater than zero — if the natural climate was warming even a little bit — then the models have the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 even further out of whack than that.”

      • David Middleton: “there is no control Earth”

        We do have the planet Mars with its much simpler atmosphere of 95% CO2. You have said that you believe the temperature on Mars is higher than it would be if an equal mass of nitrogen replaced the Mars’ CO2.

        I enjoy and have learned from your posts. I would really like to see you produce a graph of daily temperature swings on Mars (sine wave) and then show how that graph would look different with the CO2 replaced by hypothetical nitrogen. What is the amount and duration of the temperature variance? Does Mars shed temperature (> 100F) more slowly overnight? Does the Mars atmosphere warm quicker or more slowly during the morning?

      • My thought was that using proxy levels of several thousand PPM of CO2 would at least give an extreme bound of the effects of CO2. Because of the proxy record, i conclude the full-up Hansen runaway feedback scenario is implausible.

      • You have said that you believe the temperature on Mars is higher than it would be if an equal mass of nitrogen replaced the Mars’ CO2.

        I’m 99.9% certain, I’ve never said anything that stupid.

      • David Middleton: – “I’m 99.9% certain, I’ve never said anything that stupid.”

        I was surprised myself, so surprised that I copied it. From somewhere on or shortly before 11/22/2016, this is what you responded to me with:

        [ We probably could measure it on Mars. It would just be insignificant. The problem is that the Martian atmosphere is too thin to retain much heat, with or without GHG’s. If the atmosphere was 95% N2 oxide instead of CO2, Mars would be even colder. ]

        That last sentence is what puzzled me. I’ll gladly dismiss my request, and encourage you to continue with your informational posts to this site.

      • I misread your comment. I thought you posted that I said Mars would be warmer if nitrogen replaced the CO2. My bad.

        Nitrogen (N2) is not a “greenhouse gas.” If Mars’ extremely thin atmosphere was composed of 95% N2 instead of 95% CO2, it would probably be even colder than it is.

        The Red Planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect. Mars does have some atmospheric carbon dioxide, but almost no atmosphere! The existing atmosphere is so thin that it cannot retain energy from the Sun. There are therefore extreme temperature contrasts between day and night and sun or shade.

        http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets

        However, since there’s no way to replace Mars’ atmosphere with N2 and measure the temperature, we have the same problem as we have with Earth – No control planet with which to run an experiment.

        According to Stefan-Boltzmann, Mars gets a 5 K boost from its minuscule greenhouse effect.

        https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

        Mars’ average surface temperature would be a frigid 213 K instead of its balmy 218 K if the CO2 was replaced by N2.

        However, due to the huge diurnal temperature range on Mars, 5 K wouldn’t make any difference…

        http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html

      • David, you need to explain that word ‘control’ to mosher (and perhaps stokes) sometime when he brings up Arrhenius’ prediction about future warming. Might be tough as mosh goes into moron mode every time he says it. (explaining such a word brings up ghosts of inigo montoya past) We do actually have a control for the earth and that would be the ice ages. There is no way on god’s green earth that trace co2 can compete with water vapor during the glacial cycle. At just 4-5C warming, there is not enough warming to go around for all the various associated forcings and feedbacks. (ghg feedbacks are just one slice of the pie and co2 is just a small portion of that) The deduced warming for co2 during the glacial cycle would indicate that sensitivity is low, nowhere near the 3C ECS that warmists claim…

      • I think Mosh & Stokes probably understand the concept of a controlled experiment.

        Shortly after Arrhenius demonstrated the greenhouse effect, Angstrom demonstrated that greenhouse warming was severely limited by bandwidth saturation. Neither one of them was 100% correct.

        ECS might be 1.5 to 2 C. But, the sensitivity that matters is transient climate response (TCR). This is demonstrably less than 1.5 C and might be indistinguishable from Zero-point-Zero.

      • One would almost think their jobs or peer-reputation rested on them NOT understanding..

        ..and continuing to push what they MUST KNOW is an anti-science agenda-based farce.

        Neither is DUMB enough not to know…… Therefore it is wilful and spiteful.

        Nick, Why do you support the socialist global totalitarian lie that is AGW ?

      • David Middleton: Exactly! It is impossible to do this experiment. Other possibilities are that the models are UNDERESTIMATING the heating effect of CO2 but that the effect is being masked by an underlying natural cooling trend. Who knows? The whole exercise is futile and we should forget it and assume that we are intelligent and resourceful enough to adapt to whatever the future holds for us. Use the resources spent on this conjecture to help mankind out of the poverty and misery caused by a lack of cheap, abundant energy.

      • Trebla, there are no known
        natural factors that would be
        causing warming. got any?

        What? Are you stupid? The Oceans store energy for over 100 years in the conveyor, we have decadal ocean cycles, as they move warm water around, when it moves into the NH, it causes global temps to go up because temps follow dew points.

      • “(it’s the sun stupid)…”

        and how does your chart show that?

        after 1950 TSI is flat to declining. yet
        temperatures keep increasing. how does
        that happen?

        (it’s the sun stupid)…

      • Crackpipe , are you really that stupid? Read my lips: high solar activity correlates with warming, low solar activity correlates with cooling. What you have presented here is a strawman argument. Solar activity since 1950 has been high, thus warming. (THAT’S the correlation)…

      • afonz – your chart shows
        increasing temperatures while
        solar activity is flat-to-slightly decreasing.

        so how does that show that
        solar activity is responsible for
        modern warming?

        what extra energy is pouring
        into the earth’s climate system to cause
        this warming?

      • poor crackpot has never boiled an egg.

        Leave the stove on , and the water warms up.

        Seems poor little mite even dipped out on “social science” at high school.

        So sad.. …

      • “what extra energy is pouring
        into the earth’s climate system to cause
        this warming?”

        WOW, you really don’t know anything, do you.

        Maybe that is why your posts are all just empty bluster and comedy sketches.

      • You could compare the recent trend (High co2) with the trend over the first 100 years since coming out of the little ice age.

      • You could… If you had comparable data. Instrumental data have much higher resolution than proxy data.

      • Crackers345, the most important factor in major climate shifts of the past is likely the brightness of the Earth, particularly over the northern hemisphere. Higher overall cloudiness is what makes a brighter Earth, causing more overall sunlight to be reflected directly into space, never to enter the climate system at all. A higher percentage of cloud cover over northern land areas of course leads to cooler surface temperatures and more deposition, creating ice sheets, which then create a cooling feedback, which reflects even more marginal sunlight. Local and regional and perhaps even global cooling takes place, but it cannot cool the tropics too much, because the tropics must stay warm in order to pump lots of oceanic and atmospheric water to more northern climes to create the clouds and the deposition in the first place. Once the cooling reaches the tropics, the convection pump is slowed or turned off, and the northern land areas suddenly begin to receive much more direct sunlight that melt the ice sheets, because there is no longer enough convection to build the clouds and maintain the ice. As it melts, the glaciers pour massive amounts of fresh water into the oceans, which floats on top of the saline water and the existing currents, further inhibitsing convection, denying clouds the water vapor needed to form. With less cloudiness and less deposition, eventually the glaciers disappear, and the climate shift only balances out after the salinity of all that fresh water becomes more well mixed and the oceans convective currents are free to pump now warming water back northward at the surface.

        The relative content of CO2 in the world’s oceans during these big shifts is probably not a significant factor in glacial to interglacial shifts, even when measurable. If it does play are role, it’s biggest contribution may be from CO2 starvation in land-based plants. That is to say, when CO2 gets too low, large areas of living plant life may die out, either through direct CO2 starvation, or more likely, via overgrazing by animal herds in an environment that now has a lower production level, and thereby creating deserts that release high volumes of cloud nucleating dust particles into the atmosphere.

    • Tom Halla wrote:
      “Christy is stating that the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is ~1 C if there is no underlying warming trend or cooling trend”

      he most certainly is not.

      he’s saying tcr is ~ 1 K.
      tcr is very different from
      equilibrium climate sensitivity (ecs).

      • David, I don’t know
        where you graph came from,
        and you didn’t say (how come?),
        but tcr and ecs are not close to
        each other as that graph
        suggests.

        in any case, tom halla is
        getting mixed up about what
        christy+ actually wrote.

      • “David, I don’t know”

        Your continued admission of total ignorance is not really required, crackpot.

        Everybody already knows.

  3. CO2 is only a negligibly small bit player, while the natural variability is the driver of the global temperature change.
    Natural variability points to change in direction of acceleration from positive to negative (i.e. fall in temperatures) during next 2-3 decades, while the degree of the fall will be determined by solar activity. More details here

    • Natural variability doesn’t argue for altering the our current economic systems and collecting Trillions of dollars for re-distribution through the UN and NGO’s.

      Hence natural variability can’t be the cause if you’re climateer scientist or an Al Gore pol trying to get in on the action.

      • You wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what science says.

        You have shown that in post after empty comedic post.

        Produce the science that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

        Or remain forever, a low-level village idiot.

      • AndyG55 is right. Heck, I’m just a lowly Corporate Statistician and even I know what the science says (WUWT helps A LOT). I grew up during the nuclear winter scares of the 1970s. You didn’t fool us then…

      • Crackers345. Do you understand the difference between Solar Luminosity and the Solar Magnetism ? you don’t seem to.

        The variability in solar luminosity is well below 1%. Your post points that out. We all agree.

        The variability in Solar magnetic activity is MUCH larger. This is what the sunspot data shows.

        Do you not know the difference ?

        As to why the Solar magnetic activity matters, see the excellent observational work of Svensmark with Forbush Decreases and the theoretical work of Shaviv.

        But even if it was not this effect (an Alternative Hypothesis to the IPCC AGW Hypothesis) then we would still have to reject the empirically falsified IPCC model and revert to the Null Hypothesis instead.

        It appears it is you who doesn’t understand the science.

      • Moa commented – “The variability in Solar magnetic activity is MUCH larger. This is what the sunspot data shows.”

        solar magnetism or
        solar anything can’t create
        more energy in the earth’s
        climate system
        than is delivered (TSI).

        no matter how you count it, it
        all comes down to conservation
        of energy.

  4. “We should reach that level — about 560 ppm of CO2 — in the latter half of this century.”
    I would certainly qualify that with the conditional “if things continue as before.”
    Personally,I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.

    • “I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.” Why not? What makes you think natural emissions aren’t driving the level?

      • Because natural sinks are larger than natural emissions, the natural (emissions minus sinks) net flow is negative and not driving. Simple as that.

      • Hugs, if the sinks and sources depend on the current atmospheric concentrations, then the current rates don’t necessarily reflect what the rates would have been in a zero human emission scenario. We cannot say what the “natural” concentration of CO2 would be in our absence, because we don’t understand the processes to that level of precision.

      • Hugs, since nature is observed removing half the mass of aco2, then there is no reason why nature couldn’t be removing closer to to 100% of the mass of aco2, natural sources making up the difference. Thus the rise could be natural even though nature is a net sink for carbon…

        Bart, always nice to “see” you. The ‘psuedo mass balance argument’ is such a pathetic shame. (it’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it)…

      • Hi, Fonz. It always amazes me that people who think in such simple terms are nevertheless so confident in their judgments. In science, if you think it’s simple to the point of being self-evident, you probably don’t understand the problem.

      • crackers345: Because in a dynamic feedback system, one cannot attribute an observed change to a particular input merely on the basis that the sum total of the input is greater than the observed change.

        If you eat a load of sweets and gain a bit of weight, it is not because the sum total of all the water you have drunk over your lifetime is greater than your weight gain.

        If a lake level rises due to a dam being constructed, it is not because the sum total of micturition from the town upstream since its founding is greater than the level of the rise.

        These would obviously be very stupid conclusions. Yet, that is basically what the pseudo-mass balance argument boils down to.

      • @bartemis
        You cannot dismiss a simple explanation based on the possibility of a more complicated one.
        So you cannot dismiss the rise is due to the “sum total of micturition from the town upstream”, on account of a dam being constructed downstream, unless you actually SHOW the dam.
        Besides, the “pseudo mass balance argument”, as you call it, is NOT based on the sum total, it is based on yearly flux.
        The fact is, no natural process would had extracted from the deep ground (as opposed to peat or forest fires) and burn so much fossil fuel as human do, if human didn’t. So no natural process would had produced the very same CO2 anyway if human didn’t (as opposed to bovine farts; wild animal fart, too, reducing meat consumption change just the farting from domestic to wild, for zero effect).
        So, obviously, humans DO emit CO2 that wouldn’t be input without them.
        The fact is, no process can distinguish this extra CO2 from all other CO2, meaning no process is specifically removing fossil fuel CO2 (as opposed to the town micturition of your example, which could be pumped from the river beforehand, so that any rise in micturition would be cancelled by pumping — this would be the case for, say, CO2 from food, all of it coming from CO2 ate by crops beforehand). Meaning sinks are not a direct function of this human input.
        The fact is, yearly human fossil fuel emission of CO2 currently exceed the yearly increase in the atmosphere. Meaning, without our burning fuel, the quantity on CO2 in atmosphere would drop (and that would be BAD for all living being depending on it, that is, pretty much all of them).
        It is that simple. Period.

      • “You cannot dismiss a simple explanation based on the possibility of a more complicated one.”

        It’s not just a possibility. It is a fact, as is attested by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is obviously induced by temperature. This relationship accounts essentially for the entire observed increase. Human inputs are superfluous.

        “The fact is, no natural process would had extracted from the deep ground (as opposed to peat or forest fires) and burn so much fossil fuel as human do, if human didn’t.”

        Sources of CO2 inflows are not confined to combustion. Human inputs are a small fraction of those from natural sources.

        “Meaning sinks are not a direct function of this human input.”

        Sinks react dynamically to the amount extant. As a result, they take out human inputs in the same proportion as their contribution to the natural flows. And, the amount that remains is distributed proportionally as well. Our proportion, as noted above, is small.

        “Meaning, without our burning fuel, the quantity on CO2 in atmosphere would drop…”

        It does not follow. We are peeing into a lake established by a mighty river. Tiny variations in that river flow easily overwhelm our best efforts.

        “It is that simple.”

        It isn’t.

      • “It’s not just a possibility. It is a fact, as is attested by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is obviously induced by temperature. This relationship accounts essentially for the entire observed increase. ”
        “essentially” or “entire”? make up your mind.

        “Human inputs are superfluous.”
        So you claim that without them, the very same increased of pCO2 would had occured. Meaning, somehow, either the source would had but higher or the sinks lower. Which could be true only if somehow human CO2 directly commanded natural sinks and sources, so as to cancel each other out. Do you really believe that? What’s make you have such a belief?

        “Human inputs are a small fraction of those from natural sources.”
        Small indeed, but they are not a “fraction”, somehow related to natural sources, they are something added.

        “Sinks react dynamically to the amount extant. As a result, they take out human inputs in the same proportion as their contribution to the natural flows. And, the amount that remains is distributed proportionally as well. Our proportion, as noted above, is small.”
        Which directly contradict your previous statement. our small proportion translate in a small proportion in the stimulation of sinks/inhibition of source. So then again, make up your mind. Are human input superfluous (in command of natural flux), or are small as to don’t impact those flux, meaning they simply add to them?

        “We are peeing into a lake established by a mighty river”.
        our peeing is high enough to be measured.
        “Tiny variations in that river flow easily overwhelm our best efforts.”
        They do, as evidenced by seasonally up and down. However, this doesn’t mean our “best effort” account for nothing.

        ” “It is that simple.” It isn’t. ”
        Well, prove it, or stick to Occam’s razor.

    • I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.

      Yeah. They are larger due to China and India, possibly also Nigeria. But the atmospheric fraction and growth of ppm annually will be smaller. That’s my bet.

      I really hope India and Africa get out of energy poverty.

      • @crackers345
        why are you carriage returning every 5 words?
        Why don’t you tell us how much more Al Gore and other COP attendants emit more than an American?
        Why are you shaming lay American people, but not the high priests of your church?

    • Higher or lower. I will guess, and hope for higher, because that would mean prosperity and health for now under developed lands.

      • some countries in Africa are
        already
        choking on
        smog.

        they need energy. they
        need it from the cleanest
        source possible, just like
        we all do.

        in any case, we’re rich
        enough to pay for clean
        energy, even if they aren’t.

      • Your word are “countries”, “we”, “they”… you cannot think outside abstract collection, do you?
        I would make so much more sense if you only used “I”.
        When will be the day when you write “in any case, I AM rich enough to pay for clean energy, so I DO IT” ?
        Never. There is no such thing as “clean energy”. Hydro drowns huge surface. Bird choppers are just that. Solar panels are dirty electronics, etc. Maybe only nuclear qualify as clean, but many people object.

      • “some countries in Africa are
        already
        choking on
        smog.”

        Its not coming from modern coal fired power stations though, is it.

        Smog was cure in western countries by the advent of modern, out-of-urban-area coal fired power.

        Yet this is what the green anti-CO2, anti-human agenda would deny the developing world.

        It really is an evil agenda. And those that support the agenda are the lowest scum of the Earth.

        Thank goodness for China, helping fund some 1600 new coal fired power stations around the world.

        The World Bank and its cronies are utterly contemptible in that respect.

    • “I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.”

      1600 new coal fired power stations say otherwise.

      And once people realise that they have been CONNED by this anti-CO2 scám, even more will be built, protecting the highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 levels we currently have..

      maybe even boosting them to 600 or more ppm and Mother Nature will LUV it…

      .. and give back in abundance. :-)

      • True. note that every bit of fossil carbon used to be in the atmosphere. We are just putting it back where it belongs to the benefit of all living things.

        “It’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.”

  5. Well … there the deniers go again … using direct observation and empirical data to DENY what a consortium of scientists. Top people. Top. Really Top … people … with computers … nay, SUPER computers have PROVEN (on paper) (and charts) … that we are ALL gonna dieeeeeeeee!!!!! Soon. Really, really soon. We’re all gonna die … really soon.

    Therefore, according to billionaire Tom Steyer … we must act NOW. Urgently. Immediately. No time to waste. We must impeach Trump NOW! Because Trump (and his slack-jawed, racist, denier-followers) are systematically UNdoing everything that Tom Steyer has PAID-for … his whole life. All the Steyer-sponsored Studies, policies, investments, and acts of human salvation are swirling the drain … because evil dead white men invented a thing called the Electoral College. What was once HER Blue Firewall … spontaneously combusted HER into flames (a conflagration made worse, of course, by Global Warming). So we MUST act NOW! Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!

    /dripping sarc. off.

    • “Therefore, according to billionaire Tom Steyer … we must act NOW. Urgently. Immediately. No time to waste. We must impeach Trump NOW! Because Trump (and his slack-jawed, racist, denier-followers) are systematically UNdoing everything that Tom Steyer has PAID-for … his whole life.”

      I think that sums it up nicely.

      I hope Steyer wastes a lot of his money trying to get Trump impeached.

      Steyer the Liar. Everything he accuses Trump of is a distortion of the truth. Steyer is just like all the other Leftists: The truth is not in him.

      Trump’s base is rock-solid. Trump’s base is not fooled by the lies of the MSM or billionaires like Steyer. In Trump we Trust.

  6. But in fact there was a doubling of dubious global warming what-if publications for promotion and tenure on top of that minimal CO2 effect. The rate of doubling now extends to non climate science fields to keep the acceleration rate in place at the margin. It’s the inflation theory of the publication mill universe.

  7. I take modern measurement methods and technology over those of the 16th century any day of the week.

    Great work, Dr. Christy! So long, (C)AGW.

    One day It wil be proven that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 = ZERO, which is my hypothesis.

    • “I take modern measurement methods and technology”
      So UAH V6 TLT, before this latest adjustment, gave a lifetime trend of 0.13°C/decade. UAH V5.6 TLT, still being produced, says 0.16°C/decade. I guess V6, two years old now, is more “modern”.

      • Nice try, Nick. Glad i could make you dive in the mud to find some diversion. Much appreciated.

        Lesson nr 1: never bring a thermometer to a satellite fight.
        Lesson nr 2: never build a windmill next to a molten salt reactor.

        You made me think about an episode from this guy. Have nice day! Thanks for the laugh.

  8. As the climate warms, the characteristics of the underlying surface will change (ice cover, vegetation). Not sure what kind of non-linearity this may or may not introduce to the temperature trend (if any) but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

  9. A first order effect of increased greenhouse gas is to increase the L.W. radiation flux (“sky” radiation) on the earth’s surface.Since the oceans cover nearly 70% of the surface, perhaps the increase of ocean energy content or sea surface temperature are better indicators of the greenhouse gas effect than the TTCR (which involves complex secondary heat transfer processes).

    • Anthony: they are indeed.
      Roger Pielke Sr has been preaching
      for years
      that ocean heat content is by far the
      best measure of the warming effect of
      man’s ghgs.

      • Average temperature of all ocean water: 3.9 °C.

        The ‘heat’ is ‘well hidden’. And what is even better hidden (in climate science) is the enormous cooling potential of the oceans. We just need a bit more wind (on the right places) to get that cooling potential to expression.

      • No, no, no … it’s hiding in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean. And Trump is about to release it all and slaughter mankind … because that’s what “Developers” do … slaughter everything. We must URGENTLY impeach Trump … NOW! No time to waste.

    • Anthony Mills:

      In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.

      http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.

      Please note the sky radiation of which you speak supposedly comes from an elevation which has a temperature below 33C. Ergo CO2 has no effect on the earth has it has no emissivity.

      • you can’t just consider CO2 alone, as it will thermalize with the rest of the atmosphere when it absorbs short wave radiation. If there is any gas present that radiates at that temperature, it will.
        That doesn’t mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is as big as advertised, just that your above argument isn’t a silver bullet.

      • “Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.”
        I don’t believe any of that. Your link is dead, but anyway leads to a crackpot site.

      • Count to 10 please note it says CO2 and water vapor not CO2 alone. This gent wrote books on combustion chambers. His graphs are in my heat transfer book. If CO2 does not emit as he shows then the 300 W coming from the sky is not from CO2.

        Nick Stokes: You don’t believe any of it, but his charts for figuring heat transfer in combustion chambers are based on his experiments. As I said above his formation is taught in engineering heat transfer. So whether you believe or not is irrelevant. The experiment showed t and it was confirmed by someone else. And I fixed the link.

        http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

      • ” If CO2 does not emit as he shows”
        But he doesn’t show. Where is your source? What paper? All you give are links to a crackpot site. What I don’t believe is that Hottel wrote any such thing.

      • A clue to the crackpottery is
        ” a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm”
        Wrong units. Partial pressure is in atmospheres. What Nasif Nahle is doing is reading from Hottel’s charts the emissivity of a layer 6mm thick at 1 atm. That is small. But the atmosphere is equivalent to a layer of several metres of CO2 at 1 atm. NN (a slayer) has no idea what he is doing.

      • Nick Stokes:

        This is an emission chart for CO2 temperature vs emissivity vs partial pressure. This does differ from the one I have in my text book, which I tried to photo and place here, but the idea is the same.

        Now you can quibble about which emissivity to work with but for low partial pressure, .0004 for CO2 at 1 atm, the emissivity is very low. Less than .01, close to .007, for temperatures between 300-400 K. The chart in my text book shows zero emissivity for temperatures below 143 C at any partial pressure below .02.

        I do not know who NN is, but show his work is wrong rather than attack the person.

        If you have a chart from Hottel showing something different please provide.

      • ” for low partial pressure, .0004 for CO2 at 1 atm”
        Same error as Nahle. Read the units. The curves are marked in bar cm, not bar. They are not for partial pressures. And gas does not itself have an emissisivity, or absorptivity. The absorption or emission depends on both concentration and path length, as in Beer’s law. So you can talk of the emissivity of a layer, or a product of partial pressure and length, and that is what they are tabulating. So to put it on the atmosphere scale, the .0004 bar would have to be multiplied by the effective thickness of the atmosphere (pressure/surface density), which is about 700,000 cm. It isn’t very meaningful; Hottel’s charts were meant for an engineering scale.

        It is a strange fantasy that the whole scientific endeavour from Tyndall, through Arrhenius to now, can be overturned by just reading a standard engineering chart. The first thing to suspect is a misreading, as here.

      • “I do not know who NN is”
        He is a “slayer”, sky dragοn etc. And apparently someone whose name puts your comment in moderation here, which is where my reply sits.

      • Nick Stokes;

        You are correct as to multiping by a path length, but if emissivity is zero at a temperature and partial pressure then no matter the length the out come is zero.

        I have asked you for your chart showing what emissivity is at various temperatures and partial pressures but you yet to do that.

        I will continue to use the information from my heat transfer text book. The sensitivity to CO2 is almost zero or zero.

      • mkelly,
        “I have asked you for your chart showing what emissivity is at various temperatures and partial pressures but you yet to do that.”
        Your chart is fine,; others would be similar. You are just misreading it. If you multiply by the length, you get something like 280 atm cm. That means you are looking at a curve above the top of that range (top curve has 100 atm cm). The standard emissivity is far from zero; it is more than 0.2. That is an average over all frequencies.

        You can’t get CO2 climate sensitivity from a heat transfer textbook. But this chart confirms the GHG property of CO2.

  10. “The water feedback built into the models, however, depends first on warming in the deep layer of the atmosphere,” he said. “The lack of warming there means this feedback will be much less.”,/blockquote>
    There is very little warming there, CS <0.5C. This is why I have focused on clear sky radiative cooling.

    If you just measure the effects of non-condensing GHG's, it will show an increase in CS.
    If they show the overall effect on temperatures, ie if they include the negative water vapor feedback, CS is well below the Plank value of ~1.1C

  11. John Christy states clearly that ” there is no accepted tool or technique to confidently estimate how much of the warming in the last 38 years might be due to natural causes”
    That is a clear statement .
    In plain language a human finger print cannot be identified from natural causes.
    This was the finding of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC AR4 report and Ben Santer a lead author wrote his report to contradict that finding and said that man made emissions had been identified as a driver of the climate and they would lead to dangerous warming .
    The politicians lapped this up and as it had been published by the UNIPCC it was beyond question .
    When we question the global warming dogma we are labelled as deniers yet many lies have been perpetrated for the global warming cause .
    The hype that the scare mongers generate in every news outlet is based on absolute unfounded conjecture .
    We need far more honest scientists like John Christy to get out of this stinking swamp of deceit

    • I couldn’t agree more.

      The good news is, many people that used to believe the CO2-mythe are starting to realize that it is all al load of bull. Times are changing for the better. Keep your spirits high, victory is near!

      • In what alternate universe is this true? Victory is farther away than ever. The move to EVs is gaining huge momentum. The Fortune 1000 is moving to RE. If utilities want to stay with fossil fuels, they can, but they won’t have many customers. Wind is not cheaper than any fossil fuels, and Telsa and Vestas just announced a partnership to bundle storage with wind turbines.

      • You really are BLINKERED and EMPTY, aren’t you crackpot.

        You wouldn’t see the main natural cause from within your inner city ghetto basement, would you.

      • crackers, do you know what an ad ignoratium argument is? My favorite example of that fallacy was Lord Kelvin’s “proof” that the sun was less than a few million years old, as he knew of no other source of energy than gravitation.

      • Nice pretense of being thick as a brick, crackers. Failure to identify what other natural factor is associated with climate is no proof that CO2 controls climate.

      • Your inability to make a serious relevant comment …..

        or produce one single scrap of anything to do with science…..is noted.

      • @crackers
        what natural causes for your thinking ?
        If you know, I hail you as next year Nobel Prize.
        If you don’t, this leaves you three options
        1) you actually don’t think
        2) your thinking comes from your soul, as taught by religion,
        3) your “argumentum ad ignoratium” is crap, and not knowing anything about natural causes is no proof they do not exist, no proof it’s all human doing.
        Your choice ? 1,2 or 3?
        I bet your choice will be to just decline to answer, as a cracker you are.

      • paqyfelyc commented – ”
        @crackers
        what natural causes for your thinking ?
        If you know, I hail you as next year Nobel Prize.”

        instead of ever
        more insults, why
        don’t you tell us
        the natural factors
        that are
        responsible
        for the warming
        we’re seeing

      • I told you, changes to the distribution of water vapor as it follows the ocean cycles. It dies thus because cooling is regulated to near dew point because of the energy barrier of condensing water.

        You can see the effect as net rad drops by 70% in the middle of the night.

      • paqyfelyc commented – “I won my bet, cracker just declined to answer, as a cracker he is.”

        i’m not interested
        in playing your games.

        i simply asked you what
        natural causes are responsible
        for the warming we’re seeing.

        you declined to answer.
        enough said.

    • The position/hypothesis that there’s nothing to worry about, is not conducive to the upward spiraling grant money model, it seems to me, crackers . .

      • Obvious to see that crackpot has never had to hunt for grants.. dole money instead??

        Because you are moronically naïve.. …

        … if the grantee doesn’t cow-tow to the beliefs of those dispersing said grant….

        …… the grantor does not give to the grantee.

        Simple enough for you to wrap your feeble little mind around??

      • “John – so you think that grant money influences science.”

        I consider such ambiguous language use a warning that I might be speaking to a con artist, crackers . . clean it up if you want a concise response.

        “did it influence this science that everyone here is so willing to trust? if not, why not?”

        I’m just me, not everyone here, OBVIOUSLY, slick . . and the phrase “the science” means the whole field to me . . so clean that stuff up, please . .

      • Crackers’ point flies right over AndyG’s head. You can hear the whooshing sound as it moves by.

        What he was saying was that skeptics continually attack papers and data that support the AGW position, calling it biased and based on grant sucking up. Yet when ESSC, which gets grants, publishes a paper that questions the amount of warming, the science is rock solid and the grant link is not questioned. What’s the phrase that comes to mind? Selective outrage. Or perhaps hypocrisy.

      • And empty words from AndyG which ignore the point made, that an obvious point about his hypocrisy about grants and science which flew right over his head.

    • PS: Coming from a guy who has declared that getting any money whatsoever from a fossil fuel company is immediately disqualifying, your comment is rich.

      • crackpot .. you were surrounded by mirrors when you said that, weren’t you.

        Look inside yourself, and see your ignorant blankness staring back at you.

    • Crackers
      The moderator told me to be nice to you as you were supposedly adding something to the debate .
      So here goes .The climate has warmed and cooled for millions of years on this rock traveling at a tremendous pace around the sun .Only 12000 years ago ,a blink of an eye in time the world warmed and the ice retreated from the continents in the northern hemisphere..This was an entirely natural event no human input .
      The climate warmed up and humans started working their way towards civilization .It is a proven fact that the climate in the northern hemisphere has been warmer or at least as warm as it is at present three times since the Ice retreated .
      Natural warming natural cooling .
      What John Christy is stating here is that there is no tool or technique to establish whether the warming is man made or natural
      The warmist scientists believe that it is mainly man made by C02 and other gasses .
      This is a theory which has not been proven but it has been seized on by activist scientists and the political left .
      Co2 may warm the world by .6 of a degree Celceus

      • My Computer froze Must be a sign of global cooling
        .CO2 may warm the world by .6 degree Celsius as others have pointed out but that is not worth getting uptight about Cracker and Mcleod , How did the planet warm after the little ice age and the dark ages if it was not natural .You two are just useful idiots for the warmist Meme

  12. Although far from definitive we can compare the results to the same approximate conditions the last time we had the AMO and PDO were in a similar state. If we look at 1910-1950 the Hadcrut4 trend is .12 C / decade. This would be comparable to the .13 C / decade with UAH 6. Also note the UAH 6 trend is probably overstated by the recent El Nino. Stopping in 2015 before the El Nino influences the trend lowers the recent warming to .11 C / decade.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1950/trend/plot/uah6/from/to:2015/plot/uah6/from/to:2015/trend

    Based on this analysis it appears there is no difference in the trends which could be driven 100% by the PDO+AMO cycles. This would lead one to conclude that CO2 has a very low climate sensitivity.

  13. “Heat the models suggest should be staying in the atmosphere might instead be expelled more readily through the atmosphere into space, or is being more rapidly mixed into the oceans. In either case, that heat would not be available for warming the atmosphere.

    Niether of those explanations is mutually exclusive of the other. Both could be at play.

    The reason the models are running hot is because they are tuned to run hot. Given the wide range of tuning parameters available to GCM modellers, that statement (in bold) is hardly debatable. What is debatable is whether those parameters in a given model are realistic or imaginary to meet another goal of sensitivity to CO2.

    Tuning includes parameters for precipitation, convection, and cloud microphysics. None of those parameters are firmly constrained. The modellers adjust those parameters until they “feel right” by achieving the confirmation bias in their sensitivity projections.

    Convection (and resulting precipitation and cloud formation) is a major heat transport process to expel heat from the surface to the troposphere where it can more easily be expelled to space. If the Earth were a blue sky sphere with only transparent water vapor and not condensing water vapor, then the models would have a hope of being correct without much tuning. Of course the Earth is not a pure blue sky planet, so the models fail because the modellers tune them to meet expectation for a higher than observed climate sensitivity.

    There is little evidence that the missing heat is being hidden in the deep oceans. But the measurements are grossly incomplete so there could be some. (Argo buoys only go down to 2000 meters).

    It is likely therefore that the missing heat is actually being expelled by poorly modelled convective transport. (the first case)

  14. l suspect one of the reasons for the lack of warming has by sheer irony been the warming of the Arctic during the winter months. One of the factors l believe for this warming in the Arctic has been a increase in warm air flowing into the Arctic due to the increase in looping of the jet stream. Because the only way the Arctic is going to warm up during the winter months is by taking from elsewhere across the globe. This increase in warm air moving up into the Arctic leads to a greater increase in heat loss.

    • The Arctic can also warm by changes in the ocean. The +AMO brings warmer water into the Arctic which melts more ice which then allows warmer ocean waters to vent heat into the atmosphere.

      • Yes l believe that the recent warming of the Arctic during the winter months combined with the lack of warming during the summer may suggest that this current warming is nearing it limits. Because such a situation leads to greater heat loss.

      • Richard,
        That would explain a warming in the summer/fall, but when the Arctic is ice covered, the ocean below the ice is 0C ish while and is insulated from the air above. The ocean has almost no effect on Arctic air temperature once it is ice covered. All the currents do is delay the onset of ice cover by a few days to weeks and accelerate the spring melt.

        When it is warm in the Arctic after the sun goes below the horizon, only the air mass can affect that.

      • OweninGA, maybe you missed the “melts more ice” part of my comment. This removes that insulation and allows the oceans to vent considerable heat into the air. It is the winter where the biggest difference is seen.

      • OweninGA, maybe you missed the “melts more ice” part of my comment. This removes that insulation and allows the oceans to vent considerable heat into the air. It is the winter where the biggest difference is seen.

        It’s the planet’s natural cooling system, not a stupid tipping point.

    • Exactly what I think. One of the ways the Earth cools down is by driving more heat into the winter Arctic. The warmists write alarming articles about how warm is the Arctic, and then watch the surface average temperature go down. I’ve tried to explain it to them repeatedly but they can’t get it.

      • Agree Javier. A warmer Arctic with melting sea ice probably is a cooling mechanism.

        Eskimo’s stay (relatively) warm below a wall and roof of ice: the shelter we know as an igloo.
        The covering sea ice at the North Pole normally prevents ventilation from the much warmer ocean below (above zero, + 2 C) to the much colder polar atmosphere in exactly the same way. However, the situation without sea ice results in ventilation of the energy hidden in huge quantities in the waters below.

        The warmer Arctic also attracts low pressure areas. Low pressure areas suck up heat energy as far as from the mid-latitudes and bring it to the North Pole freezer where it cools. In the same time the warmer (but still cold) and more humid air brings moisture from the Arctic to the continents to the south (North America, Siberia) and causes an early snow pack in autumn, enhancing albedo and so cooling.

        As long as not is proven that an Arctic summer warming by the sun in case of ‘no ice’ is more important than the extra upwards ventilation of heat by (more) ice free circumstances and by the cooling albedo effect of more early snow, a (more) ice free Arctic seems to be a cooling mechanism, Low pressure areas bring enormous quantities of energy to the upper layers of the atmosphere where the energy can be radiated into space, free of clouds. And the cloudy low pressure area’s below prevent extra insolation during summer time. No much warming, a lot of cooling. Al together, a strong cooling mechanism I suppose.

  15. Well, this here is both good news and bad. The good news is that we do not have to worry about catastrauphic global warming caused by CO2. The bad news is that CO2 emmissions will not be sufficient to stave off the next glaciation.

  16. We all know that the warmists will say that Christy undercooks the temps because of clouds etc. And it has to be said that Christy uses models to try to eliminate ‘factors’ that produce outliers. Satellites don’t measure temps, they measure radiance and then its all down to ‘models’. So one lot of models disagrees with another set.
    Its nice Christy’s models seem to produce more sensible results, but they are still only models.

    • TedL November 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm says;

      OT check this out – Mann (among others) attacks Crockford.

      “comments closed”; kinda says it all really,…..

      • Commens on Dr. Crockford’s site have been always closed, or so I believe. Or did I misunderstood what you said? If it is the case, apologies.

    • David,
      All that says is that Dr. Crockford does not have an army of volunteers to help her moderate blog comments.

  17. I’d really like to see these dates go back further….I know, satellites
    …but temp increase is entirely too linear to be CO2

    • Over 80% of that graph prior to 1978 is just made up. (no measures for most oceans, Antarctic, Arctic, Amazon, Africa, Russia, Northern Canada, Himalaya’s etc, etc,)

      No honest scientist should ever present that graph without huge error bars and a warning about uncertainties.

      • If it is GISS, over 90% of it after 1978 is just made up for the same reason!

        Mis-Application of the law of large numbers when the measurements aren’t of the same thing is criminal. The error bars are +/- 0.5 C as a minimum because the readings are +/-0.5 C and then there is distribution error, homogenization error, TOD error, siting error, error error, etc. Each error is additive in quadrature.

        If I make 100 measures of the thickness of the same wing, I have a valid N=100 for error correction. If I measure 100 wings, not so much.

      • Owen,
        It’s really a fundamental confusion between accuracy and precision. Accuracy can’t be improved by any post measurement process. Precision can be, but the amount of improvement depends a lot the the circumstances. In the case of the surface temperature record, I don’t think most of the uncertainty is due to noise, so averaging won’t help much.

      • OweninGA :

        You’ve been reading some recent posts. You hit the nail on the head with each mathematical manipulation. The error bars would be wider than the graph! Using a graph like this is simply trying to get the ignorant to believe that the whiz kids can manipulate numbers to come up with exact projections.

      • Except GISS is not reality, its “adjusted” to try to fit the models.

        Proof Is the 98% correlation between “adjustments” and CO2

        FACT is that models have a STUPIDLY wide range.

        And yet they still miss the side of the barn against REAL un-fabricated temperature data

        PATHETIC. !!!

  18. I would be nice if the microwave sounders could be calibrated to reflect water vapor content or maybe a multiple year GPS interferometry study. Having a solid, global measurement from space of water content would allow the value of the positive feedback mechanism to be analyzed.

  19. One has to wonder why there are not 1000s of new unmanned land based temperature stations placed in remote locations. Solar cells, Lion batteries and satellite internet make costs ridiculously low for the amount of valuable data that could be gained. Perhaps they are afraid that the new data will ruin a perfectly good agenda.

    • The US Climate Reference network shows a cooling trend (slight). Probably worried that such would replicate world wide.

      Personally I would want to know that. It is easier to prepare for conditions you see coming from real data. Otherwise you could spend a billion dollars on desalination plants since it “just won’t rain anymore”!

      • Not important enough..

        is that what you are telling us?

        But spending TRILLIONS on a baseless anti-science conjecture, is important ?

        DATA FIRST…… see what is really happening.

        Certainly it is NOT MUCH

        Apart from a highly beneficial, and totally natural 1ºC or so warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years……….

        In what way has the “climate” changed?

  20. A other reason l suspect for the lack of warming has been lack of change in the snow cover extent during the last 30 years. This has simply tracked sidewards over this time rather then decreased as am sure the models would have expected with any global warming.

  21. So the question is, what do we do now?

    1. Say the paper was not published in the right journals and dismiss it?
    2. Say the writers are on big oil pay?
    3. Go right to the lawsuit?

    Or… perhaps we can discuss the science behind this study… maybe?

  22. The 2018 United Nations climate summit COP24 will be held in Katowice, the heart of Poland’s coal-mining industry.
    What a party that will be, with a declaration that we no longer face extinction due to global warming. All those Paris delegates will be able to pack up and go home and do some real work, the junkets are over. I think suitable work for them would be to work in the mining industry, producing real wealth for poor nations, not simply handouts.

  23. From No Tricks Zone:

    CO2 Warming Grossly Exaggerated… 60 Published Papers Find Extremely Low Climate Sensitivity To Doubled CO2!

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/13/co2-warming-grossly-exaggerated-50-published-papers-find-extremely-low-climate-sensitivity-to-doubled-co2/#sthash.QlikUIzX.dpbs

    and,

    Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7XMO8Gby.dpbs

  24. So, having just read the paper, I can say that I truly enjoy reading a well written paper. Although I don’t personally have the knowledge base necessary to fully judge it, the conclusions are narrow, and potential alternatives are presented. This is a credit to the authors.

    I do have one lingering question, though, which was identified by the paper. In section 3.c, while discussing potential reasons for the discrepancy between models and observations, the paper offers the following explanation (as one of two):

    First, the excessive model warmth in the
    upper troposphere is related to latent heat released from
    convective precipitating systems and the subsequent rate of
    emission of that heat to space in the descending regions. In
    terms of traditional calculations of climate sensitivity this
    transfer of heat and moisture to higher levels in the model
    atmosphere means that the equilibrium radiative temperature
    of the Earth system will be at a higher elevation. This is
    because radiation emitted by water vapor or liquid water at the
    lower temperatures of these higher altitudes would decrease
    outgoing radiation which in turn would require the Earth’s
    temperature to increase more to come to radiative equilibrium.

    I feel kind of embarrassed to admit this, but (and this is something that’s bugged for a while now) I just can’t understand why the higher elevation of the effective radiation level has a net reduction to the amount radiated. I presume the logic is that since the temperature drops as elevation increases (in the troposphere), transferring the effective radiation level to a higher elevation will result in radiating at a lower temperature…which means less radiation, which ultimately leads to higher temperatures. If I’ve understood this correctly, then I can’t help but feel this is simply a clever way to claim that as more heat is added to the atmosphere, less heat can radiate away…

    I understand, obviously, that the lower temperature at elevation means a lower intensity to the radiation flux…but isn’t radiative flux also directly proportional to the magnitude of the area? And isn’t there geometrically more area to radiate from with each incremental increase in elevation? So, it evens out, right?

    And furthermore, isn’t non-physical to assert that more heat is going to cause the radiative level be at a lower temp? This seems like it’s predicated on an assumption that temperature of the atmosphere is only dependent on distance from the earth’s surface (height), which is then correlated to pressure. But, since volume is not constrained, pressure at any altitude can vary. So…yes, while, all other things being equal, gas at a higher elevation has a lower temperature, adding more heat means all other things aren’t equal.

    Sorry, what am I missing here? I know I must have some error in my thought process, I just don’t know what it is. I’m open to any offers of clarification on this…

    rip

    • The increase in height results in a tiny increase in the effective area, compared to the effect of the lower temperature. The effect is well explained in this link https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
      The final altitude of emission is determined by the decrease in density with altitude of the emitting gas. At low densities there are not enough molecules to emit significant amounts of radiation. As you add more CO2, the altitude at which CO2 density becomes too thin to radiate increases, and the temperature of radiation becomes lower.

      • Thanks, all, for the responses.

        eadler2, reading through your link is instructive. Thank you. I’ll admit that most, if not all, of the information presented is quite familiar to me. So, from that perspective, nothing new. Interestingly, that site itself says something that I interpret to be exactly my point. To wit:

        At some altitude, the convection processes driven largely by energy transported from the surface finally reach a limit and the atmospheric temperature stops dropping. This limit, the top of the troposphere, is higher in the warm-surface tropics, up to about 20 km, than over cold-surface polar regions, about 7 km. If there were no sources of energy above the limiting altitude, the atmospheric temperature would remain roughly constant or drop slowly with increasing altitude.

        https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html

        This seems to confirm my understanding that you can’t force CO2 to emit at a colder temperature by simply driving it to higher altitude. (Unless the theory is proposing that the sum of energy is fixed, and the more CO2 added drops the average of each molecule.)

        I don’t know. I guess I have more studying to do and more grappling with where my error in understanding is.

        Thanks again.

        rip

      • Ripshin:

        “but isn’t radiative flux also directly proportional to the magnitude of the area? And isn’t there geometrically more area to radiate from with each incremental increase in elevation? So, it evens out, right?”

        A quick calc makes the increase in area from the Earth’s surface to a sphere at 8km above about 0.8%.
        At ~8Km (corresponding to ~255K) then that “sphere” is radiating at 240 W/m2
        Whereas at the surface (288k) it’s radiating at 390 W/m2

        0.8% of the difference+diff = 150×0.8 = 12 W/m2

        So decrease in radiative emittance = 150-12 = 138 W/m2

        Not even sure the increase radiating area applies as it is primarily the CO2 molecules that are radiating there, and they will be less than at the surface.

        “This seems to confirm my understanding that you can’t force CO2 to emit at a colder temperature by simply driving it to higher altitude. (Unless the theory is proposing that the sum of energy is fixed, and the more CO2 added drops the average of each molecule.)”

        The Co2 molecule when taken to altitude (say 8 km), naturally cools by the LR. To an average of -18C. It therefore is bound to radiate at that temp and thus do so at a rate of 150 W/m2 (maybe minus 12 of that) than if at the surface.

      • Thanks Toneb. I had actually just gotten around to actually calculating and came up with 0.38% increase for 12km (looks like 0.25% by my calc for your 8km altitude). I guess this pretty much puts this to bed for me. I was neglecting to take into account the relative size of the earth’s radius. Just focusing on how big the atmosphere was relative to my own diminutive self. (Diminutive relative to the size of the earth, that is. And that delta has been significantly reduced following Thanksgiving!!!)

        Should have done this originally instead of wasting people’s time with a dumb question. Thanks for your patience.

        Also, regarding the second point, I completely understand that CO2 at elevation will radiate at a cooler temperature than at the surface. And, if that’s all that’s being proposed, then I withdraw my question since I clearly misunderstood. I had thought it was being suggested that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would drive the effective radiating level of CO2 from wherever it was to start (some X km’s above the surface) to a higher elevation (x + y km’s above the surface), and that this increase would necessarily reduce the effective radiating temperature from the 230ish Ks it started at, to something below this. That was what I was having trouble understanding.

        rip

      • “A quick calc makes the increase in area from the Earth’s surface to a sphere at 8km above about 0.8%.”
        quick indeed. And wrong (anyone can be sometime wrong, but when it comes from Toneb it is more than sometime… )
        from R= to R’= R+e, e<<R, the relative increase in surface is ~2e/R = ~16/6400 = 0.0025 = 0.25 %

    • Radiation is related to temperature to the fourth power while surface area is to change in altitude squared. Lapse rate would have to be pretty small to make that work. (to be exact 4\pi \left(h\delta h +\delta h^2\right) greater

      • Owen,

        I understand this point. I guess my only thought here to clarify is that, yes, radiation emits to the 4th power…but it’s related to the 4th power of a really small number…but, as you point out, this is directly calculable. I guess I’ll have to make the effort to run through the actual math myself. (Apparently I’m too stubborn to just take your word for it…I have to see for myself that the math works. :) )

        rip

    • I find it helps to think of these things in terms of total energy, not temperature. The key here is to realize that the atmosphere is less dense the further you travel from the surface of the planet.

    • “Should have done this originally instead of wasting people’s time with a dumb question. Thanks for your patience.”
      You are NOT wasting people’s time, crackers and Co are. And Toneb, seeing his answer, just doesn’t understand what he is trying to explain, and cannot even do basic calculation right, so HE is wasting your time.
      I advise you duckduckgo “optical depth”. The best way to understand GHE is as follows, from space point of view:
      * Earth is more or less at radiative equilibrium. It radiates as if at ~ -18°C / 255K
      * radiation, on average, looks like it comes from somewhere in atmosphere (even though it really doesn’t, some of it comes from the ground and any altitude)
      * lapse rate command Earth surface temperature, so the higher the apparent emission altitude, the higher surface temperature
      * GHG make atmosphere more opaque, increasing optical depth, rising the emission apparent altitude and thus surface temperature [All the controversy is about this point only: to what extent CO2 really increase optical depth? a lot? very little? not at all? some say it even reduce optical depth, which could indeed happen if radiation from low altitude CO2 substitutes itself to higher altitude emitters’]
      This answer you question,
      and also explains Mars and Venus GHG. Venus is much hotter at surface, despite with close to ~2 less incoming radiation at surface level and only marginally more efficient GHG (Earth’s are already >90% efficient, Venus’ are more but still <100%, so Venus only enjoy a less than 10% increase in pure greenhouse effect). But its emission apparently (seen from space) comes from much higher altitude in its much thicker atmosphere. With the very same GHG, but a thinner atmosphere, Venus would be colder. Like Mars is. Mars has as much CO2 as Earth, but so thin atmosphere the lapse rate has very small effect.

      • Thanks paqyfelyc. I’ll take your suggestion on searching optical depth. It definitely sounds like approaching it from this perspective could resolve some nuances that I’m having trouble understanding. Appreciate the time and patience!

        rip

  25. Did the authors use TLT data sets other than their own, UAH? This is significant, since exactly the same data used by UAH is also interpreted by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). RSS finds a much stronger warming trend over the period mentioned. RSS is also in better agreement with the surface data trends over the same period than UAH.

    • DWR, according to the article they used v5.6 for the study and uah v5.6 is fairly close to rss v4. (see footnote 1)…

    • “RSS is also in better agreement with the surface data trends “

      Of course it is.. That was the whole aim of the “adjustments”.. DOH !!!

    • If I read Zeke’s comment about RSS 4.0 when it was announced, they now replace some of the data with either model results or surface data. In either case it is no longer pure satellite data. UAH is the only satellite data set.

      • uah’s data is itself a model.

        the satellites they use are not measuring
        temperatures.

        they are measuring microwave insensities
        and using a model to convert them to
        temperatures. after adjusting for all
        kinds of biases….

      • Again crackpot shows his ignorance of suppository models ie climate models, based on imaginary assumptions….

        and engineering models based on known physics of satellite motion.

        You really do not have the slightest clue about anything, do you crackpot. !

      • All measurements of temperatures are based on models, crackers. Are you telling me you didn’t know that? LOL.

  26. “Using satellite instruments to collect temperature data from the bulk atmosphere is a better and more robust tool for detecting the addition of energy related to extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Christy said.”
    Inconvenient fact – this article says the warming rate based on V6 was 0.09°C/decade. But UAH V5.6 TLT, which they still publish, says it was 0.16°C/decade. Not so robust. RSS TLT V4 says 0.15.

    • Nick,
      The .09C/decade value was based on a data set where natural events such as volcanoes and ENSO warming/cooling have been removed. I’m guessing you didn’t really read the paper.

      • That’s reasonably close to what I get from the surface stations, it just starts at a climatic low, so of course it’s gone up, just from shifting waters.
        That doesn’t mean it’s linear, it’s just the rising edge of a cycle!

      • “Caused by what?”
        The same things that caused all variations before, when any human influence is ruled out.
        It is up to CAGW crowd to calculate them right (or at least have some reasonable estimate), then subtract them from actual temperature, and the difference will be human influence. Not the other way round.
        Nobody can calculate those natural variation? Indeed. So the whole CAGW meme is unscientific, as of now. Just hope it will turn scientific some day, as alchemy turned into chemistry.

      • paqyfelyc commented – “The same things that caused all variations before, when any human influence is ruled out.”

        what are they?
        which of them explains
        today’s GW?

        “It is up to CAGW crowd to calculate them right (or at least have some reasonable estimate), then subtract them from actual temperature, and the difference will be human influence.”

        this has been done many many times.
        it makes no difference to
        people like
        you

      • “what are they” ? it is up to “climate scientist” to calculate them.
        And, as i said, they are unable to do that. For very good mathematical reasons, exposed by Lorenz himself decades ago, that no one challenged .
        this has been exposed many many times.
        it makes no difference to
        people like
        you
        people that dare use Bloomberg as a scientific source, and afterward talk about “big money” behind WUWT, and don’t even see the irony… Seriously…

    • Yes, Nick, that looks to be a problem. (christy’s claim brings to mind the ol’ saying, “very important… if true!” ) v5.6 clearly had a couple problems. v6, in the same way, may have problems which have yet to come to light. Hopefully we’ll have data soon which has all the data sets going in one direction or another. Clear warming or clear cooling. (at that point maybe we’ll actually learn something)…

  27. Initial radiametric calculations came up with a climate sensivity of CO2, not including any feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. One researcher has pointed out that these initial calculations fail to take into consideration that the doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere effectively decreasing the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2, not including feedbacks, of less than .06 degrees C.

    The IPCC likes to use numbers like 3 for the amplification of CO2 based warming caused by H2O. The theory is that CO2 warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is an even stonger absorber of IR than is CO2. However what has been ignored is the fact that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmoshere transfering heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via that heat of vaporiation. According to some energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The net cooling effects of H2O are exemplified by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate. So instead of applying an amplification of 3 a better amplification factor to apply would be 1/3, yielding a climate sensifity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount.

    Include the observation that a radiametric greenhosue effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system will drive one to the concludion that the climate sensivitry of CO2 is effectively zero. The radiametric greenhouse efect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.

  28. Good paper. I have two issues though.

    1. They have not included the sun’s activity. The magnitude of the effect of the sun’s activity, as characterized by the sun spot number) is similar to that of ENSO, as they have characterized it.

    2. The effect of ENSO is not linear. In this paper, they have correlated the temperatures to the immediate effect of ENSO. However there is a secondary, long term, effect that is even more important. This effect can be seen by putting the ENSO numbers through an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) filter.
    EWMA (ENSO) at (time T) = EWMA (ENSO) at (time T-1) * (1-λ) + ENSO at (time T)*λ

    For λ of about 0.01 the correlation is highly significant. In fact if this would be done, it would likely account for the entire increase in temperature over the time period.

    Note that ENSO was very much below normal in the 1950s through the 1970s, and has been above normal since.

    • “The magnitude of the effect of the sun’s activity, as characterized by the sun spot number) is similar to that of ENSO, as they have characterized it.”

      but there hasn’t
      been an increase in
      sunspot number for
      50+ years.

      in fact, there’s been a
      decreasing trend:

      • The last 50 years has had the highest average sunspot count for a long time.

        So much so that real solar scientists called it a Grand Solar Maximum.

        You seem to be trying to wear people down with your stupidity and ignorance.

      • Even a blind monkey could see that surge in sunspots during the latter half of last century

        But you choose to remain blinkered and naïve.

  29. mkelly; Many thanks for your reply to my comment. I will certainly look at further into the work of Hottel and Leckner.I have used data from Staley, D.O., and Jaluria,G.M., “Effective atmospheric emissivity under clear skies” J.Applied Meteorology,v.11,349-356,March 1972.” to estimate an increase in sky emissivity of 0.006 (0.7%) for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from 300 to 400 ppm, and corresponding increase in back radiation of about 2W/m^2–in line with measurements of ocean energy content increase.

  30. To quote my hero, Prof. Richard Lindzen:

    “We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer.
    This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2 only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts.”

    “Discussion of other progress in science can also be discussed if there is any interest. Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from today’s. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.
    You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.”

    Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    November 17, 2010

    Never forget, AGW is all about positive feedbacks. Fight them there! Because that is its Achilles’ heel.

    • “You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.”

      Keep this in mind the next time you hear some dope claim that some weather event is caused by human-produced CO2.

      • “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.” Quote from Prof. Lindzen.

        That’s why.

        Prof. Lindzen is a true scientist. You are just an alarmist and a living example of the illiteracy and susceptibility that he mentions in this quote.

        Any more questions?

      • Because he knows the field extremely well and is a very succesfull scientist and professor.

        “According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.”

        Still more questions from Soros?

      • It could argued the “The notion of a static, unchanging climate” is a bit of a straw man. Who thinks that?
        Isn’t it universally accepted that the climate is a non-linear dynamical system? I think that was universally accepted back in 2009 when he penned that op-ed piece.

      • @tony mcleod:

        Very brave of you to attack the opening line of a paper.

        And for your information, we have been presented the notion that man is responsible for the 20th centruy warming, so an unchanging climate must have been the default position. Right?

        Now try to debunk the second sentence:

        “The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”

        Guess you can’t.

      • universally accepted that the climate is a non-linear dynamical system

        Then why do the child-minds like you, crackpot and the rest of your AGW trollups insist on putting monkey-like linear trends across obvious “event” changes that have nothing to do with human CO2.

        Because its the ONLY way you can show there is any warming trend… that is why

        Outside those El Nino “events’ (NON-LINEAR)…… there is NO WARMING

        I’m very glad that you are finally starting to wake up to REALITY McClod.

        Stay awake, stay of the mind-numbing addiction of klimate kool-aide…..

        ….. and don’t slip backward into the slime of the AGW agenda.

      • Scarface
        “And for your information, we have been presented the notion that man is responsible for the 20th centruy warming, so an unchanging climate must have been the default position. Right?”

        No, why? Who thinks that.

        ““Debunk…

        The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”

        Guess you can’t.”

        Debunk something with the word hysterics in it?

  31. “The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years”

    Hmm. In other words: the rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has accelerated over the past 23 years. So bad news right?

    [?? .mod]

    • Last 23 years.. just the two El Ninos.

      No other warming.

      Only a trend if you use either or both El Ninos..

      which are NOTHING to do with human CO2 or human ANYTHING.

    • The “good news” is the acceleration is not great. The elephant in the room is that warming has accelerated.

      • Tony McLeod,appears determined to try fogging up the thread with an unsupported claim,a lie probably since Andy TWICE using charts shows ZERO warming outside of El-Nino events,

        From the article you didn’t read:

        “The unadjusted climate trend in the deep troposphere from January 1979 to June 2017 was +0.155 C (about 0.279° F) per decade.¹ After adjusting for the volcanoes and other less significant effects, including the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation, the trend drops to 0.096 C per decade — or about 0.364 C (0.66° F) total since December 1978.”

        The IPCC report says a .30C per decade warming is projected based on emission scenarios. Yet the Satellite data shows only about .15C per decade warming since 1979.

        You are as usual full of baloney.

      • Crackers comes along in a dumb defense of a Tony lie, by trying to shift it to ocean waters,with his unsubstantiated claim.

        You like Tony, are here to make nebulous claims then flit away. You are boring me.

      • “the top 0.7 km of the
        ocean shows a clear
        acceleration in OHC.”

        BS, based on gullibility…..as usual.!

        Show us where ocean were measured before 2003.

        There is absolutely NO WAY anything before 2003 could be calculated.. data is way too sparse for any sort of accuracy, especially to the TINY amounts they talk about.

        Its based on modelled suppositories.

        And the first bit of the ARGO data showed COOLING until Josh got his weedy little hands on it.

      • “The elephant in the room is that warming has accelerated.”

        Again, a load of total BS.. based only on the recent El Nino.

        Keep letting your ignorance shine through, McClod. !!

      • Ignore me, just go by John Anthony say:

        “If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

        That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.”

        The rate was 0.9, now it’s 0.96.

        Anthony Watts: “Accelerating.”

      • crackhead shows his inability to read.

        Its a MODEL.. assumption driven.

        And it represents an immeasurable amount of temperature…. do you even know how much?

        Show us where the data for pre-2003 came from for that MODEL of OHC.

        There was little to NO DATA.. Phil Jones said most of the surface data was just “made-up”

        FABRICATED.

        Repeat after me…. (in a vain attempt to educate you.)

        Basically No Data.. assumption driven model..

        Do

        You

        Under-

        stand !!

      • Do

        You

        Under-

        stand !!

        ..that I am just repeating what Dr. John Christy and Anthony Watts said. Parrot your mindless squawking at them.

  32. SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS ARE POSTED HERE FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR AND LAST YEAR.

    I BELIEVE THE MINOR TEMPERATURE CHANGES EXPERIENCED SINCE THE LAUNCHING OF THE SATELLITES IN 1979 ARE LARGELY NATURAL AND FOLLOW THE INTEGRAL OF SOLAR ACTIVITY. THIS SUGGESTS THAT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS NO MORE THAN 1C/2xCO2, AND PROBABLY LESS, NEAR-ZERO.

    IN ANY CASE, EVEN AT A CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF 1C THERE IS NO REAL GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS. TOLD YA SO, 15 YEARS AGO. :-)

    ALSO, IF I AM CORRECT, MODERATE GLOBAL COOLING WILL PROBABLY START BY 2020-2030 – AS I ALSO PUBLISHED IN 2002. I AM NOW LEANING TOWARDS GLOBAL COOLING STARTING CLOSER TO 2020, AND POSSIBLY AS EARLY AS 2018.

    I HOPE TO BE WRONG ABOUT ANY GLOBAL COOLING – COLD KILLS.

    REGARDS, ALLAN

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/14/the-divergence-between-surface-and-lower-troposphere-global-temperature-datasets-and-its-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-2320319

    UPDATED HERE:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/20/from-the-the-stupid-it-burns-department-science-denial-not-limited-to-political-right/comment-page-1/#comment-2616345

    NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!

    Unlike the deeply flawed computer climate models cited by the IPCC, Bill Illis has created a temperature model that actually works in the short-term (multi-decades). It shows global temperatures correlate primarily with NIno3.4 area temperatures – an area of the Pacific Ocean that is about 1% of global surface area. There are only four input parameters, with Nino3.4 being the most influential. CO2 has almost no influence. So what drives the Nino3.4 temperatures? Short term, the ENSO. Longer term, probably the integral of solar activity – see Dan Pangburn’s work.

    Bill’s post is here.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066

    Bill’s equation is:
    Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant

    Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!

    My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
    UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
    Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

    It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.

    Here is the plot of my equation:

    I added the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index (h/t Bill Illis) to compensate for the cooling impact of major volcanoes, so the equation changes to:
    UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex

    The “Sato Index” is factored by about -8 and here is the result – the Orange calculated global temperature line follows the Red actual UAH global LT temperature line reasonably well, with one brief deviation at the time of the Pinatubo eruption.

    Here is the plot of my new equation, with the “Sato” index:

    I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
    THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

    Regards, Allan

    • Alan wrote – “It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo”

      what exactly do you mean by “recovery?”

      volcanic emissions reflect sunlight. that sunlight
      didn’t get into the earth’s
      climate system – it
      goes to
      space.
      so there wasn’t heat hiding somewhere waiting
      for the volcanic emissions to
      dissipate, when it then
      came out and said hello.

      so i don’t
      know what “recovery”
      means. do you?

      • “so i don’t know ”

        Just leave it at that.

        You just DO NOT KNOW… anything.

        Mindless bluster is all you even manage.

        The REAL Recovery is the 1ºC or so warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

        Be VERY thankful for that small amount of warming. Means your fossil fuel heating bill is less in winter.

        And be VERY thankful for the enhanced atmospheric CO2, providing the biosphere with much needed fundamental building blocks.

        Also be very thankful of the 1600 or so coal fired power stations being built around the world.

        There will be PLENTY of extra CO2 for the world’s plant life for a long time to come :-).

        And all your mindless yapping can do absolutely NOTHING about it. :-)

      • Recovery just means a return to natural processes. If someone gets locked in a freezer and ‘recovers’ from hypothermia after being rescued, nobody is claiming that their body temperature rose due to hiding heat that popped out to say hello.

      • Mark – and how
        does this “recovery” take
        place, if, in the case of
        volcanic cooling, the heat
        has already left the planet?

        where does the new extra
        heat come from?

      • Mark commented – “If someone gets locked in a freezer and ‘recovers’ from hypothermia after being rescued, nobody is claiming that their body temperature rose due to hiding heat that popped out to say hello.”

        that’s a bad
        analogy, because in the
        freezer case the temperature
        outside the freezer is constant.

      • Stil the mindless empty posts.

        Come on crackhead.. even you can do better than empty papa and mindless comic graphs… or not !!

      • Crackers, once the temporary factor is removed, the temperature goes back to where it was. That’s a recovery in both cases. No hidden heat required.

      • Crackers, once the temporary factor is removed, the temperature goes back to where it was. That’s a recovery in both cases. No hidden heat required.

        Oh there’s delayed heat storage in the oceans, but you’re 100% right, once the support (water vapor) goes away, temps drop like a rock.
        The changes in Co2 doesn’t matter in this.

        If all the water condensed out, it would matter, and we’d be doing everything we can to make more of it.
        But we’re not getting rid of the water, and it’s not because of co2, it’s the Sun.

      • Mark commented –
        “Crackers, once the temporary factor is removed, the temperature goes back to where it was.”

        except
        many try to claim that
        modern warming
        is a “recovery” from
        the LIA.

        It isn’t.

        there is new heat
        into the
        earth system.

      • “there is new heat
        into the
        earth system.”

        Yes, the sun is much more active than during the LIA, especially during the latter half of last century.

        Still waiting for empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        Still.. crackpot remains EMPTY.

    • Allan,

      You have a remarkable ability to forget your past ‘misses’ when it comes to predictions of global cooling. For instance in September 2008, ICECAP published a piece of yours in which, due to a (then) cooling trend starting Jan 2007, you rhetorically ask “Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle?” Your answer is an emphatic ” YES” (your emphasis). You also stated back then that, starting January 2007, “… we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.” http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

      Here we are almost 11 years later and, according to UAH v6, about 0.4 C warmer! Even if we generously leave off the El Nino influenced warming that started around mid 2015, i.e. if we only count monthly temperatures from Jan 2007 to June 2015, there is ‘still’ a warming trend in UAH v6 (~0.14 C/dec). That period includes the 2010/11 ‘double-dip’ La Nina. All the other data sets, including RSS TLT, show even more warming than UAH since 2007.

      On the bases that a broken clock is right twice a day, I guess we have to say it’s possible that you’ll be right about global cooling this time around. However, if I were you I wouldn’t put too much money on it.

      • DWR54 (aka WD40, the slippery one):

        The previous natural global cooling period occurred from ~1940-1975, even as fossil fuel consumption strongly accelerated. That fact is sufficient to prove that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low, equal to or less than ~1C. There is no real global warming crisis, as we published in 2002:
        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
        Reference:
        PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
        http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

        Note that alarm about this previous real global cooling period was only raised circa 1975, ironically when that ~35-year cooling period was about to naturally reverse, in the Great Climate Shift of ~1976.

        It will probably take several decades of global cooling data before there is a consensus on when the next natural global cooling period actually started.

        There are posts here on wattsup by credible parties that state that natural global cooling started circa 2003.

        We will just have to wait and see what nature tells us. I do hope to be wrong about imminent moderate global cooling – cold kills – that is incontrovertible.
        Reference:
        “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
        by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
        https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

        Question for you:
        When have your warmist friends actually made a correct prediction? The correct answer is NEVER. Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions about catastrophic global warming, wilder weather, etc. has proven false to date. The warmists and the IPCC have a perfect negative predictive track record, and hence perfectly negative credibility. The heat is not “hiding in the ocean”, nor is it hiding “up their butts”.

        It is time for the warmist mob to fold their tent on their global warming sc@m (aka “climate change”), the greatest fr@ud in dollar terms in human history.

        ********************

      • Allan,

        There are posts here on wattsup by credible parties that state that natural global cooling started circa 2003.

        The best estimate trend in global temperatures since 2003 is between 0.16 and 0.19 C/dec warming in the satellite data sets. In the surface data sets it’s between 0.18 and 0.23 C/dec and statistically significant in all cases. What sort of natural long term cooling trend starts off with 15 years of statistically significant surface warming and continued best estimate warming in the atmosphere?

        Question for you:
        When have your warmist friends actually made a correct prediction? The correct answer is NEVER.

        You do like those rhetorical question Allan; but if you permit me an answer also, then I would say that by simply projecting further warming (as opposed to cooling) from 2007 onward, the IPCC (AR4) has the advantage over your own 2007 prediction. Getting the direction of travel correct at least is a step in the right direction, would you not agree?

        You’re right that they may have gotten it wrong in one sense though. IPCC AR4 (2007) stated that “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.” [Page 12]: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

        As of October 2017, almost 11 years on from that projection, all the surface and satellite data sets show warming trends far in excess of 0.2 C/dec since Jan 2007. It’s been nearly double that according to UAH (0.38 C/dec). Obviously that is influenced by the 2015/16 El Nino, but it’s fair to say that unless things cool off slightly over the next decade then the IPCC’s projection of ~ 0.2 C/dec warming for 2 decades starting 2007 would represent another ‘failed prediction’.

      • Taking a linear trend from a cycle is going to give you junk.
        Temps just followed to ocean cycles, since the hemisphere’s do not have equal land masses, the same warm water in the southern hemisphere causes a larger temperature response when it moves to the northern hemisphere than it had in the southern. What happened at the end of the 1999 el nino was the AMO went positive, that was the cause of the step in 2000.
        This is the measured temps from the Air Forces temp data set

        Min T just follows dew point, which follows the ocean. Max T follows min T, and water vapor during cooling at night regulate the amount of energy released late, when it slows and stops surface temps from falling till sunrise.
        Since water vapor regulates the final temp based on the change in temp, in reference to dew point (it’s like an Op Amp Comparitor), so it doesn’t slow cooling until after it’s already released most of the heat from the prior day, including any excess from co2. If co2 makes it a little warmer, it just cools a little bit longer, cools that excess, then slows cooling. Co2 has less than 0.5C Climate Sensitivity, and compared to actual measurements, it’s 0.0004C/W insolation/m^2 . Ouch!

      • Allan (and the other global cooling alarmists here), it has been getting warmer and despite the Grand Solar minimum this and the plunging PDO cycle that it’s going to continue warming at least until human CO2 emissions plateau, maybe longer if we’ve significantly disturbed natural sources of carbon. In terms of your lifetime – think of it as forever.

      • Allan, in 2008 you wrote “Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.”

        http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

        that cooling didn’t happen.
        you were wrong. Just wrong.

        in what way has this made you
        reevaluate your ideas
        and conclusions?

      • Wow, it is hilarious reading the silly comments of the trolls who think building a trend with two La Nina years at the start is somehow an intelligent thing to do. Of course it will show warming over a single decade.

        It’s easy to play games. The anomaly for January 2017 was .43. Now it is at .36. Obviously Allan was right. It has cooled.

      • “who think building a trend with two La Nina years at the start is somehow an intelligent thing to do”
        The forecast was made in 2007. It predicted cooling. So they checked. It has been warming since then. How else do you check a forecast?

        As to La Nina, the original forecast said
        “Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared!”
        Now that is building a trend! Seemed fairly insouciant about La Nina.

    • Allan,
      Apply volcanic and ENSO corrections to the models also (same formula) and I guess there would be very little warming in the satellite era. (You can do it quick and dirty with the model average only).
      You see, the model average trend in Nino 3.4 SST is around 0.20C/decade, whereas that of real world is almost flat.
      This study by Christy & friends seems quite silly, adjusting observations but not models,
      a classical apples to oranges comparison fallacy…

  33. Crackers
    The moderator told me to be nice to you as you were supposedly adding something to the debate .
    So here goes .The climate has warmed and cooled for millions of years on this rock traveling at a tremendous pace around the sun .Only 12000 years ago ,a blink of an eye in time the world warmed and the ice retreated from the continents in the northern hemisphere..This was an entirely natural event no human input .
    The climate warmed up and humans started working their way towards civilization .It is a proven fact that the climate in the northern hemisphere has been warmer or at least as warm as it is at present three times since the Ice retreated .
    Natural warming natural cooling .
    What John Christy is stating here is that there is no tool or technique to establish whether the warming is man made or natural
    The warmist scientists believe that it is mainly man made by C02 and other gasses .
    This is a theory which has not been proven but it has been seized on by activist scientists and the political left .
    Co2 may warm the world by .6 of a degree Celceus

  34. While working or playing outside I’m still looking for those “Heat Trapping Clouds”.

  35. O R wrote:
    “This study by Christy & friends seems quite silly, adjusting observations but not models,”

    Your statement is false – technically wrong – what you describe is actually the tactics of the warmist fr@udsters, not those of John Christy and colleagues. Tony Heller posted this sequence – all “global” surface temperatures – see the “inconvenient” global cooling of ~1940-1975 disappear?

    Your comment is “quite silly” and suggests that you are a warmist troll – or simply an imbecile.

    Do you have any idea who Dr. John Christy is? He and Dr. Roy Spencer, received NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 for developing the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Christy and Spencer have unequaled credibility in the accurate measurement of global temperatures.

    The original paper on this subject by Christy et al was published in 1994. I doubt that you have the intellect or the integrity to follow what is being said here, based on your utterly false and ignorant comment.

    Also, consider posting under your own name, instead of “sniping from the bushes”, spreading false nonsense while you hide under a pseudonym.

    • Reference:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/11/noaa-la-nina-is-officially-back/#comment-2663837

      From: John Christy
      Date: November 4, 2017 at 7:28:22 PM GMT+7
      To: Allan MacRae
      Cc: Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Joe D’Aleo, Joe Bastardi
      Subject: Re: Sorted – atmospheric cooling will resume soon

      Allan
      Yes. We’ve seen this correlation since our first paper about it in Nature back in 1994. The Pacific gave up a lot of heat between July and October – and some of it is making its way through the atmosphere. We think the anomalies will drop soon too.
      John C.
      Sent from my iPhone

      On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Allan MacRae wrote:

      FYI friends.
      I was curious why the UAH LT was diverging above its predicted value based on the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly – I re-plotted the data vs UAH LT Tropics (instead of UAH LT Global) and the situation became more clear- atmospheric cooling will resume soon, imo.
      Best, Allan

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/02/while-global-surface-temperature-cools-the-lower-troposphere-has-record-warmest-october/comment-page-1/#comment-2654147

      Sorted – atmospheric cooling will resume soon. See the plot below of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly and the situation becomes more clear.

      This is a typical pattern after major El Nino’s, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship with the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The pattern will converge again soon, and atmospheric cooling will resume. WHY this happens after major El Nino’s is still to be explained. Perhaps the El Nino heat in the atmosphere just needs time to dissipate.

      • Allan M R MacRae

      • 1994 paper by Christy and McNider:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/1994_christymcnider.pdf

        [excerpt]

        Sulphur compounds are often injected into the stra-
        tosphere during volcanic eruptions and,
        when in contact with water, may become
        aerosol particles of sulphuric acid. These
        aerosols can scatter sunlight back to
        space, resulting in less solar energy
        reaching the lower atmosphere and therefore
        cooling it4
        ·
        These same aerosols also
        trap thermal energy coming from below,
        leading to a warming of the stratospheric
        air. The warming in the MSU stratospheric
        temperature (MSU 4 or T4) after the
        eruptions, then, can represent the magnitude
        of the volcanic shading effect9

        We found the temperature increases ( Ll T4) to
        be 0.75 and 1.10 degrees C for El Chich6n and
        Mount Pinatubo, respectively. We devised
        a formula in which the Ll T4 predicts
        the magnitude and duration of the T2R
        cooling

        T2R voL =ex jY exp ( -j/r),
        where a=a0 (LlTS15
        ; j is months since
        eruption; y=y0 ; and r=r0 (LlT4)05.

        We selected the coefficients a0 , r0 and
        yo (0.11, 9.0 and 1.20, respectively) to fit
        the observations (curve c) of the volcanic
        impact on T2R.

      • ALLAN MACRAE November 30, 2017 at 4:32 am “Perhaps the El Nino heat in the atmosphere just needs time to dissipate.”

        WR: If that delay shows the time heat (energy) needs to dissipate, some calculations could be made about the time that the El Nino energy needs to disappear from the troposphere. This would give us information (facts) about the concrete functioning of the greenhouse effect.

        There is also a season dependent temperature difference between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. This too (I think) will give possibilities to make calculations about the time delay between a certain surface temperature and the complete exit of that surface energy from the troposphere.

        Did someone ever made those kind of calculations?

      • There is also a season dependent temperature difference between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. This too (I think) will give possibilities to make calculations about the time delay between a certain surface temperature and the complete exit of that surface energy from the troposphere.

        Did someone ever made those kind of calculations?

        Yes i have.
        And it doesn’t need time, it’s cools just fine every night.
        But it would take time for the underlying warmer surface to cool.
        Here is the warming/cooling seasonal slope
        SH

        NH

      • Note that this 2017 paper ASSUMES “that the net impact of this decadal scale natural variability has been near zero since 1979 and that the underlying trend due to the net impact of human influences is +0.096 ± 0.012 K dec−1”, and STILL concludes that “the tropospheric transient climate response (TTCR) is 1.10 ± 0.26 K.”/(2xCO2).

        This ~1.1K is a conservative (upper bound) estimate of TTCR, which suggests that there is NO REAL GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS, and that any warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor – and either benign or beneficial to humanity and the environment.

        This is similar to the conclusion that we reached in our article written in 2002:
        “CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
        Reference:
        PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
        http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

        Reference – 2017 paper:
        Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-518, 2017 pISSN 1976-7633 / eISSN 1976-7951
        DOI:10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z
        “Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity”
        John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
        Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama, USA
        (Manuscript received 9 June 2017; accepted 14 September 2017)
        © The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2017
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

        [excerpts]

        Abstract: We identify and remove the main natural perturbations
        (e.g. volcanic activity, ENSOs) from the global mean lower
        tropospheric temperatures (TLT) over January 1979 – June 2017 to
        estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered
        value is +0.155 K dec−1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096 K dec−1,
        related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part
        of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in
        1994 (+0.09 K dec−1, Christy and McNider, 1994) using only 15
        years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096 K dec−1 represents the
        net TLT response to increasing greenhouse radiative forcings, this
        implies that the TLT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔTLT at
        the time CO2 doubles) is +1.10 ± 0.26 K which is about half of the
        average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31 ± 0.20 K. Assuming
        that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing
        over this period is near zero, the mismatch since 1979 between
        observations and CMIP-5 model values suggests that excessive
        sensitivity to enhanced radiative forcing in the models can be
        appreciable. The tropical region is mainly responsible for this
        discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the
        extra sensitivity are (a) the parameterized hydrology of the deep
        atmosphere, (b) the parameterized heat-partitioning at the oceanatmosphere
        interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.
        However, here we shall assume that the net
        impact of this decadal scale natural variability has been near
        zero since 1979 and that the underlying trend due to the net
        impact of human influences is +0.096 ± 0.012 K dec−1, where
        the error range represents the spread of the various simulations.

        **************

        We are not defending this rather bold assumption regarding
        natural variability, but simply stating it as a basis for going
        forward to derive climate sensitivity estimates, acknowledging
        the strong dependence on this assumption to what follows.

        ***************

        Conclusions

        [excerpt]

        The assessment of tropospheric climate sensitivity from the
        calculation of the underlying trend above requires significant
        assumptions. If we assume, among other things, that the
        impact of the net of natural external and internal forcing
        variations has not influenced the observed trend and that
        anthropogenic forcing as depicted in the average of the IPCC
        AR5 models is similar to that experienced by the Earth, then
        observations suggest the tropospheric transient climate response
        (TTCR) is 1.10 ± 0.26 K. This central estimate is likely less
        than half that of the average of the 102 simulations of the
        CMIP-5 RCP4.5 model runs also examined here (2.31 ± 0.20).

        ****************

      • micro6500 November 30, 2017 at 5:31 am

        WR: Micro, thanks for the graphs, but I have got some problems in reading them well. What are the numbers on the Y axis? And what means for example MXRAV in the legend?

      • Wim – please see the plot posted here:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/02/while-global-surface-temperature-cools-the-lower-troposphere-has-record-warmest-october/comment-page-1/#comment-2654279

        This is the plot of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly, lagged 6-months to show the ~5-month lag of UAH Tropical LT after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. UAH Global LT temperature follows UAH Tropical LT ~1 month later.

        There is a typical pattern after major El Nino’s, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship between LT temperature and the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. I suggest that the relationship will converge again soon, as atmospheric cooling resumes.

        The temporary divergence is caused by the time it takes this excess heat to dissipate from the LT into the upper atmosphere and then into space.

        Based on this generally-robust long-term relationship, I expect that within ~6 months, the UAH LT Global anomaly will decline to about 0.0C. I have no time to work on this further now, my apologies,

        See also my related correspondence with John Christy, posted on this page.

      • micro – you are writing about something different, and probably irrelevant to my comment. Perhaps you realize that but many readers will not.

        What temperatures you are referring to in your paper – surface or satellite? At what altitude? Source?

        Your comment “And it doesn’t need time, it’s cools just fine every night.” is incorrect IF you are referring to my post.

        Tropical and Global Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures lag Pacific Ocean East Equatorial temperatures (0-300m) by 5 and 6 months, respectively. as shown in my graphs and those of Bill Illis.

        This correlation is robust, but tends to diverge after major El Nino’s and then re-converges after a number of months, as the excess LT heat takes time to dissipate to the upper atmosphere and thence to space.

        The two main drivers of Tropical and Global LT temperatures are equatorial temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, moderated by major volcanoes. The heat is overwhelmingly contained in the oceans and atmospheric humidity and atmospheric LT temperatures simply follow. The details are described in my previous posts.

        The two drivers of equatorial temperatures in the Pacific Ocean are (probably) the integral of solar activity (ref. Dan Pangburn), moderated by the El Nino Southern Oscillation .

        For clarity, and in contrast to the IPCC position:
        Increasing atmospheric CO2 may have a minor impact on global warming, but this impact is small, less than 1C/(2xCO2), which is probably beneficial to humanity and the environment and certainly not harmful.

      • What temperatures you are referring to in your paper – surface or satellite? At what altitude? Source?

        Your comment “And it doesn’t need time, it’s cools just fine every night.” is incorrect IF you are referring to my post.

        surface 2m temps.
        Source is gsod dataset, and nightly observations and measurements.
        That lag you see, could be the delayed action of dew point reduction, but you can get 40°F drops in temp over night. But temps settle near dew point in the morning, and that’s because water store energy during the day, and releases it at night to limit min T.
        This happens in hours, not months. Dew points are slower reacting, but not temps.

        The change in slope in the middle of the night, is water vapor regulating cooling, prior to that, the high cooling rate, is the none water vapor affected rate(though it too is effected by absolute humidity).

      • micro wrote:
        “surface 2m temps.
        Source is gsod dataset, and nightly observations and measurements.”

        As I expected, you are talking about something totally different from my post.

        Your points may or may not be correct, but you are talking about Surface Temperatures (ST’s) at 0-2m elevation (from an unspecified data source) and I am referring to Lower Tropospheric (LT) Temperatures at up to ~10,000m.

        I typically use UAH LT data because I believe it is more credible than the alternatives.

        I am especially concerned with all the data manipulation of the ST data.

        I can comment no further because I have not studied your points in detail.

      • Oh, then your LT, is reacting to the more seasonal variation is absolute WV. Min T at the surface follows dew point, LT is the warmth of the surface heating the LT as the hear is leaving the planet, that where the delay is. That follows the delay day 2 day change average, also on my pages

  36. Q1: isn’t cooling the trend going by the last million+ years?
    Q2: treating the atmosphere as a static entity seems ‘odd’
    Q3: Which is a better indicator of future predictions? C02 or Antarctic core samples or (other)

  37. This new Christy paper continues to make the same basic error of the establishment scientists by ignoring the recent peak in the millennial cycle at about 2003/4 in the RSS data seen in Fig 4 in
    https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html

    Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
    “Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.
    The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”
    Here is an abstract of the paper:
    Energy & Environment
    sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488

    ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

    And forecasts to 2100:

    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
    “Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.”
    Regarding climate sensitivity the paper says:
    “The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
    What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures. “

  38. This oversensitivity was written about in a paper from 1962 by Kaplan. Kaplan wrote that the numbers generated by Plass for CO2 sensitivity were 2-3X over stated. If you look at Gavin Schmidt’s list of papers that he approves, Plass is one of the early ones at the top of the list.

    Kaplan used empirical data measurements by the USAF in their “upper atmospheric” research. Plass used models.

    • Thank you Dennis, Re your statement:
      “Kaplan used empirical data measurements by the USAF in their “upper atmospheric” research. Plass used models.”

      One of my co-authors, an accomplished senior meteorologist, recently said to me of the warmist camp:
      “These people live in a Virtual World – they believe that their models are more credible than actual scientific observations.”

      This, sadly, is the basis of the warmists’ belief that global warming is manmade and catastrophic. This belief system is so obviously false nonsense that nothing more needs to be said about it – it is a childish delusion that is utterly inconsistent with the scientific method.

      To date, there is ample evidence that humanmade global warming, if it exists at all in significance, is benign and probably beneficial to humanity and the environment.

      Regards, Allan

    • “flat-earther, flat-earther” say the people who invented, use and abuse of a flat-earth diagram of its energy budget. Oh the irony. Quite usual, actually, to project one’s one sin on the opponent.
      Well, i surely would not trust such people. Apparently you do.

  39. And again, I must point out that both sides here are tacitly accepting the proposition that CO2 causes global warming through the greenhouse effect. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN BY HARD DATA ANALYSIS! The climate-related, peer-reviewed literature is astonishingly free of such studies, which means that the concept is purely theoretical. This is anything but scientific, and that needs to be pointed out to the rabid “warmist” community and to the world at large. ALL hypotheses and theories MUST be subject to hard-data studies that unequivocally show proof of concept. This has never happened in the case of the supposed CO2/warming link. I know of three such studies, based on hard data, that unequivocally disprove it. Why on Earth do we go on giving credence to this theory when there is nothing behind it?

    • My question is: is the back-radiationfrom CO2 warm enough to cause warming of Earth’s surface?

      No. Water vapor temperature regulates cooling at night, and has about 10 times as much forcing as co2 has to work with (if not a lot more), but it adjusts to temperature, so it just converts a little less water vapor to water, and temperatures will not measurably change.

Comments are closed.