Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Even worse than we thought ™. Despite a recent sanity test study which demonstrated that high end climate models hindcast impossible Eocene temperatures, climate scientists are pushing ahead anyway with their new, even more extreme climate projections.
Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows
Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than thought
Jonathan Watts @jonathanwatts
Sat 13 Jun 2020 16.00 AEST…
Modelling results from more than 20 institutions are being compiled for the sixth assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is due to be released next year.
Compared with the last assessment in 2014, 25% of them show a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity – the amount of warming projected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million. This has shocked many veteran observers, because assumptions about climate sensitivity have been relatively unchanged since the 1980s.
“That is a very deep concern,” Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said. “Climate sensitivity is the holy grail of climate science. It is the prime indicator of climate risk. For 40 years, it has been around 3C. Now, we are suddenly starting to see big climate models on the best supercomputers showing things could be worse than we thought.”Advertisement
…
Timothy Palmer, a professor in climate physics at Oxford University and a member of the Met Office’s advisory board, said the high figure initially made scientists nervous. “It was way outside previous estimates. People asked whether there was a bug in the code,” he said. “But it boiled down to relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating
A month ago WUWT reported a study which demonstrated the new high end climate sensitivity projections (specifically CESM2) are incompatible with the fossil record.
CESM2, one of the new models, hindcasts tropical temperatures in excess of 55C during the early Eocene, temperatures which would have made photosynthesis impossible, creating lifeless tropical deserts.
The fossil record says different; the early Eocene was a period of abundant tropical life.
“Some of the newest models used to make future predictions may be too sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus predict too much warming,” said U-M’s Chris Poulsen, a professor in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and one of the study’s three authors. – source Science Daily
Poulsen’s team are not climate skeptics. They suggested CESM1.2, the predecessor of CESM2, did a “remarkably good job” of simulating early Eocene temperatures. CESM1.2 has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2C (7.6F), vs 5.2C (9.3F) for CESM2.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If 25% forecast ” a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity – the amount of warming projected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million.” it implies that 75% either show no increase, or less than the specified increase, or a decrease in sensitivity. Which?
It’s not a forecast, but model projections which have no actual predictive power. What it means is that 25% of the models are so incredibly wrong that whatever grad student(s) wrote them should not get academic credit for it. As for the rest, the only accurate prediction would be the warming of the room containing the computers running the model.
The IPCC’s original presumed effect from doubling CO2 was 3C +/- 1.5C and even its low end was prima facia absurd. For a 1.5C increase, the surface emissions must increase by 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing, which is more than twice the forcing. They can’t explain where the 1.2 W/m^2 in excess of the forcing is coming from in order to offset the incremental emissions. They try and arm wave feedback, but they don’t have a clue about how feedback actually works because there’s no possible way to show horn the non linear relationship between forcing and temperature into the linear feedback amplifier model misapplied to model climate feedback.
Measurements show unambiguously that the last, average and next W/m^2 of solar energy all contribute equally to the net surface missions at a rate of 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. The 620 mw per W/m^2 in excess of the forcing is replenished from energy returned by the atmosphere which absorbs about 77% of what the surface emits (latent heat is not emissions), returning about half to the surface. Even if 100% of the incremental surface emissions arising from the next W/m^2 of forcing was absorbed by the atmosphere, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up the 1.2 W/m^2 required. Geometry just won’t let you avoid the 50/50 distribution up/down of surface energy absorbed by the atmosphere, even as the IPCC requires more than 100% to be returned to the surface.
Plus 1,000 CO2isnotevil!
There are 40 models listed above. 2 of them, 4%, show ECS in the range of Lewis & Curry. Not 25%.
This is a propaganda exercise aimed at ginning hysteria.
OH, NO, IT”S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT. WE”RE ALL GONNA DIE.
Do not expect anyone in the media to call them on this bovine dejecta.
Shouldn’t they go back to 1850, and recalculate all the model outputs that were based on the too-low sensitivity figure? That would even push the new millenium curves high and dry above the satellite and balloon probe curves.
Co2NotEvil, you write
“…there’s no possible way to show how the non linear relationship between forcing and temperature into the linear feedback amplifier model misapplied to model climate feedback. ”
In another reply some days ago you wrote: “The concept of runaway isn’t even relevant when the linear, feedback amplifier analysis misapplied to the climate is applied properly to a linear amplifier or when non linear feedback analysis is applied to an oscillator.”
I read all your comments to climate modelling with deep interest. However, I don’t follow your argument here.
Could you please clarify?!
of course not.
he is talking bs
How can you know?
I think the confusion is caused by the typo “show.” It gave me pause, because at first I, too, thought the typo was in the word “horn.” The sentence should actually have read “…there’s no possible way to shoe horn the non linear relationship…”
OK Leo, If you think you’re so smart, answer this question:
How does the climate system distinguish the next W/m^2 from the average W/m^2 so that the average W/m^2 results in only 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions while according the the nominal ECS claimed by the IPCC, the next W/m^2 will result in 4.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions?
If you deny that this question need an answer, then you lack the legitimacy to have an opinion about climate science in the first place, whether it’s about feedback or anything else.
Read shoe horn for show how and it makes more sense.
Yes, it should have been shoe horn. The ‘e’ key on my laptop has a problem and it sometimes is missing and other times it’s turned into a ‘w’.
Klasom,
I understand why you’re confused, climate science misapplied feedback analysis is a highly convoluted way, including misapplying many of Bode’s terms, like feedback, forcing and sensitivity and then called the bastardized result ‘settled’.
You might also want to look at this where I explain this in more detail and provide an alternative model that gets the correct answers:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gbm.pdf
The bottom line is that to apply Bode’s feedback analysis,
1) The input and output must be expressed the same units.
2) The ratio between the input and output must be constant for all possible inputs and outputs
3) An implicit, internal source of Joules must power the open loop gain
You should read Bode’s book, which is the ONLY reference ever cited as the origin of feedback analysis. In the first two paragraphs he lays out the prerequisite for using feedback analysis whose implications are summarized above.
This article explains how positive feedback and oscillators are connected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_oscillator
Regarding 1) some people cite amplifiers with voltage in and current out, but you can’t apply Bode until you pass the output current through a resistor and generate an output voltage.
Regarding the prerequisites, the presumption is that approximate linearity around the mean is sufficient to met the linearity constraint. This is incorrect because it assumes 2) isn’t satisfied. The second presumption is that the average not accounted for by the incremental analysis satisfies the requirement for an internal power supply. This is also incorrect, as the forcing and feedback not accounted for by the incremental analysis is implicitly and completely accounted for by the average temperature that’s also not accounted for.
The arithmetic error (or purposeful obfuscation?) made by Schlesinger and canonized in AR1 was to replace the feedback fraction, f, with the feedback factor which is the feedback fraction times the open loop gain. The result after deriving the gain equation was that the presumed open loop gain that converts W/m^2 into a temperature and upon which temperature feedback coefficients are based cancelled out of the derived gain equation and is no longer within the feedback loop. In other words, everything quantifying climate feedback isn’t even inside of the modeled feedback loop.
They also made the rather silly conclusion that the feedback function is not a function of temperature which isn’t true, Indeed the formation of cloud over ocean is distinctly non-linear and results in a negative temperature vs forcing function (Corresponds roughly to saturation in an amplifier).
The function converting energy to temperature is also non-linear and given the discontinuities in the atmosphere isn’t going to be a consistent relationship.
For more information see my critique on using Bode for climate.
Oh and the poles are not in the same place, as Lord Monkton clearly shows.
Let me answer that, Even the average of 1.62W/m2 (lets call W/m2 = wpms for ease) is absurd because for each incoming watt of energy 1.62 wpsm must be emitted – over all time- the average incoming energy must be *MORE* than the average outgoing energy unless there is another energy source – that’s the law of conservation of energy. 2.2 wpsm of emission is just more absurd because of the same law. It needs to be MORE, much more because there are a number of surface processes driven by incoming energy that cause losses, a major loss is for example photosynthesis that can extract up to 60% or more of incoming energy.
Some of our devices say airconditioning can violate this, they use one energy source to concentrate another, but even with an airconditioner, to make one space hotter we have to make another place colder by the same amount. The overall energy balance is equal to the sum of all the energy inputs. We have to force the process with the independent power supply (motor energy) and we have to insulate the output space from the input space (A situation not present in the natural climate)
There is no equivalent mechanism that can suck energy in from the other parts of the system to add the necessary 0.62/1.2 wpsm, and even if there was, somewhere else would have to become 0.62w/1.2 wpsm COOLER to compensate.
Now let me add to this.
CO2 traps (Is opaque to) less than about 2.5% of the entire spectrum, of 340W/m2 of average insolation only 0.025 x 340 can be emitted in the stop band of CO2- Thats 8.5 Watts of which 85% ( around 7.225 watts) is already “Trapped” this leaves a maximum of about 1.3 wpsm for CO2 to absorb before the CO2 stop band becomes totally opaque. If we adjust for water feedback according to the IPCC of 3.3 x (feedback which satellite data shows doesn’t actually exist ). Then we get a maximum effect of 4.29 wpsm – Ever. There is a problem here, Climate scientists assume that the emissions within the CO2 stop band can rise without bound, but in fact this isn’t true. Any claim over 1.3 wpsm (Direct CO2 effect) is non-physical because it would violate the law of conservation of energy and the principles of entropy.
With reference to the misapplication of feedback theory to the climate let me fill in the gaps. Bode theory from where this is stolen has limits. I’m an Electrical Engineer, so I’ll try to explain in lay terms
Bode theory only works for systems that have the following characteristics
– linear ( y=mx characteristic)
– invariant ( IE contains no saturation,discontinuities or hysteresis or chaos [strange attractors])
– Contains no feedback delays.
The Climate however is Non-Linear, Variant, it exhibits saturation, discontinuities, hysteresis and chaos, and primary feedbacks contain significant and variable delays.
The amplifier must have an independent energy source (EG an independent power supply – you can’t power an amplifier from its input signal)
The amplifier must have a power amplifying element (EG a transistor)
The climate doesn’t have an independent power source, the only power source is the input – solar energy and there is no power amplifying element.
So Bode feedback theory is clearly not applicable to the climate
Bobl,
You’re missing the origin of the extra 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. Yes, the surface will be emitting 1.62 W/m^2 over all time, but this is not a violation of COE. The reason is that while the surface emits 1.62 W/m^2, only 1 W/m^2 leaves TOA and the 0.62 W/m^2 not emitted is recycled back to the surface. The 0.62 W/m^2 returned to the surface to offset the additional emissions is not new energy, but is simply old energy emitted by the surface and delayed before being returned to the surface.
The only real non linearity in the climate system relevant to calculating the sensitivity is the T^4 relationship between temperature and W/m^2. No other non linearity matters relative to what the steady state is or what the sensitivity is and only effects to path taken to a new steady state.
If you really wanted to apply Bode to the climate, the output of the gain block is not degrees, but W/m^2 of equivalent emissions. In fact, the average relationship between W/m^2 of surface emissions and W/m^2 of solar forcing is demonstrably linear since the average of 0.62 W/m^2 of emissions at TOA per W/m^2 of surface emissions is remarkably constant from pole to pole and indpendent of the temperature or the forcing. Of course, if you applied Bode to this model, you still need to conserve energy between the input and output since the output power originate from the input forcing and not from an implicit power supply.
“…It was way outside previous estimates. People asked whether there was a bug in the code,” he said. “But it boiled down to relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models…”
Unintentional admission that previous models were garbage and that just a slight alteration dramatically influences results. Clearly not-ready-for-prime-time.
Clouds do what they need to do which you’ll never be able to model until you understand what they need to do.
Clouds modulate the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere which adjusts the ratio between the emissions of the surface and the emissions at TOA above that surface maintaining an average ratio of about 0.62, i.e. an effective emissivity, which while heavily dependent on the average amount of clouds, maintains a remarkably constant average value from pole to pole. The only thing the seemingly chaotic behavior of clouds is correlated to is maintaining a constant effective emissivity.
To clarify further, clouds also reflect the energy source for the climate – shortwave light, on a dull day perhaps 70wpsm average hits the ground and in band CO2 IR emission can be at most 0.025 x 70 = 1.75Wpsm of which at least 85% gets absorbed. This leaves only 0.26 Wpsm warming potential under moderate clouds. Because water vapour is already high ( water stopband is saturated) the supposed water vapour feedback doesn’t operate and we are left with only 0.26 wpsm warming potential EVER under cloud. Cloud stops supposed AGW in its tracks as well as reflecting up to 80% of incoming energy out to space. A small error in cloud leads to big modelling errors. These macro effects (IE that AGW doesn’t operate under cloud) aren’t modelled. Since on average 67% of the earths surface is cloudy AGW estimates global warming potentials are at least three times overstated on this measure alone.
Clouds are not represented in the models at all. Well, not in the sense that the physics of clouds is built into the models. Models can’t do that, because cloud formation occurs on too small a scale to be represented. So clouds are just parameterised. ie, the modellers guess how clouds might behave and code it into the models. It necessarily follows that the “relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models” tell you absolutely nothing about the way that clouds actually behave. You can get any result you want, that way.
GIGO. Models, schmodels.
Non-linear, chaotic physical processes tuned in silico to give the output desired and then proclaimed as some form of truth that directs major public policy = Junk science bordering on the delusion of a pagan religion belief.
Reading dove entrails would show more skill.
Make that “sk!ll”.
“But it boiled down to relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models.”
Pretty much says it all, since clouds are a minor positive feedback in some models, while a walk outdoors on a scattered cloudy day will show you that clouds are a large negative feedback.
Have you forgotten about night time clouds?
Nope.
At night clouds are also a negative feedback because they work against the cooling.
A square meter of night time cloud doesn’t reflect 2/3 or so of the 1000 watts/sq.m. of incident sunshine like daytime clouds do. Sure, at night clouds are a higher temperature than outer space for the, say 288 K surface to radiate to, thus keeping the surface warmer with clouds overhead, but that’s the same outgoing IR number as equal cloud cover of equal cloud temperature and 288 K surface temperature would during the day….(but assuming nighttime surface temperature is cooler….and so on….)
Yes, clouds are represented in the models, but cloud formation isn’t – it is parameterized. That is, the modellers make assumptions about cloud formation, and hence, clouds.
I’d like to see a complete accounting of what was changed between the older and newer models, for each model, with scientific justification.
Actually to model cloud formation would require orders of magnitude more computing power than now available. Grids would have to tens of meters rather than hundreds of kilometers. Grids have gotten smaller, but are still on the order of 100 km by 100 km horizontally by 10 km vertically. Thus, to hope to handle clouds (grid of 10m x 10m x 10m) rather than parameterizing their formation would need 100 billion times more computing power. Even 100m x 100m x 100m resolution would call for 100 million-fold more power.
They “adjusted” all the feedbacks crazy wrong.
That is all.
Chuck the model and start from scratch.
Even Rahmstorf (!) had to admit, these models are running to hot.
So the argument is that for forty years the climate sensitivity assumptions have nor been challenged and now, finally, they are being scrutinised.
Three things;
1) Why did anyone make policy on science that had not been challenged?
2) When the assumptions were challenged by sceptics pointing out the historical record they were cut out of the debate as the science was settled. Perhaps that ought to be reconsidered now?
3) Why would the sensitivity be too low in the existing models when they over-estimate the warming so far?
“1) Why did anyone make policy on science that had not been challenged?” Don’t know first hand about much of the climate science profession, but not rare elsewhere. I think it was someone from the EPA, maybe another agency that I was doing something with concerning Mississippi River diversions at the time (around 1994), asked me “What about the Dead Zone.” He didn’t like my reply, which was that the only dead zone I ever saw was the Houston Ship Channel in the late 1950s. Had to do with the demon nitrogen, short supply in some ocean places. Climate change, dead zone, land loss (mostly marsh conversion to open water), ocean acidification, and so on ad infinitum are all like conversational “you know,” which since you already know don’t require any discussion. Of course all of these have varying degrees of what are considered serious problems.
As to the panic phrase “Dead Zone” the literature is correcting what us skeptics were kept out of the discussion by the media and enough of the oceanography profession from challenging, but challenged it was. Among others, beginning a more positive, realistic trend– Nixon, S. W. And B. A. Buckley. 2002. “A strikingly rich zone”–Nutrient enrichment and secondary production in coastal marine ecosystems. Estuaries. 25(4b):782-796. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02804905
“Concerns over the growing nutrient (especially N) enrichment of coastal marine waters are clearly valid and deserve the attention of scientists and managers, but the recent demonizing of N ignores the fact that nutrients are a fundamental requirement for producing biomass.” Sounds like carbon dioxide?
Seems that those doing models predicting its size didn’t know that the oceans were 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional ones have quite a problem. Seems that they are still in the flat earth stage of computers.
As to the Houston Ship Channel, someone just told me that they caught a redfish (red drum to the politically correct), not that rare apparently, in the middle of Houston.
Conclusion– problem outside of science, at least what they now call STEM. Maybe those searching out there as sort of a displacement activity will discover it. Maybe not. Number 2), see above, number 3), others will have to answer.
1) Why did anyone make policy on science that had not been challenged?
Because it was politically and financially convenient.
2) When the assumptions were challenged by sceptics pointing out the historical record they were cut out of the debate as the science was settled. Perhaps that ought to be reconsidered now?
It would not be politically or financially convenient to so do. Once your lie is so big you simply cannot own up to it.
3) Why would the sensitivity be too low in the existing models when they over-estimate the warming so far?
Because it is politically and finacially convenient.
Bingo!
I like the ‘cafeteria selection’ of CMIP6 models and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities one can choose from, to select agreement with their own beliefs about Climate Change. Such diversity of opinion, in a settled science, eh? Mayhap, that is the subliminal source of my mind reading CMIP6 as CHIMP6…..
Except that all their contrived ECSs are too high. Actual observations show that, to the extent that the concept has any validity at all, ECS lies between 0.0 and 1.6 degrees C per doubling of plant food in the air.
As we’ve supposedly already enjoyed 1.0 C more warmth since the end of the LIA c. AD 1850, thanks to ~120ppm increase in CO2, there is at most 0.6 degrees more to go for the last 165ppm, which comports with the logarithmic effect of gains in this essential trace photosynthesis nutrient.
Except….. You’re ‘singing to the choir’, John.
I like John’s song. 🙂
He’s right.
No top tenors, that’s for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBwF1yNJ-ak
A tenor capable of top but with superhuman range:
Tom,
He is correct, except he directs his ‘exceptions’ at one who long ago came to those same conclusions. Hence, ‘singing to the choir’.
If you are ‘singing to the choir’, it means you are presenting an argument or opinion to people who already agree with it.
Lots of commenters here aren’t in the choir. Please see Loydo, below.
Well yeah John, but. you forgot the null hypothesis. Much of that 1.0 C came before appreciable levels of anthropogenic CO2 so, unless anyone can tell us exactly when that slow natural uptick suddenly leveled off (which they can’t), then that slope is the baseline. So it is actually worse than the climate liars thought – for them and their bogus conjectures.
PS the doubling of the logarithmic effect was at 396 ppm.
PPS BTW John, I was agreeing with you in case that didn’t come across so well.
My falsifiable hypothesis is that it’s going to be zero plus or minus 0.2 C, but we’ll have to have independent auditing of the climate liars’ cooked books in order to know.
Yes, natural surely predominates before 1945, and IMO thereafter as well, since from then until 1977, Earth cooled dramatically, despite rising CO2.
Nothing the least bit out of the ordinary has happened to Earth’s climate, thus the null hypothesis can’t be rejected. Hence, now climate emergency and no worries.
“Much of that 1.0 C came before appreciable levels of anthropogenic CO2 …”
Speaking of climate liars…not true, temperatures are now rising at +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
As with trying to fix your scientifically infantile thoughts, there’s no fixing your reading comprehension sk!lls either, and your deflection sk!lls are pretty shiite too Loydo.
….. and yes, I know you have no idea what I’m talking about, but do carry on.
I comprehend perfectly, “Much of that 1.0 C came before appreciable levels of anthropogenic CO2 …” is a lie. So that makes you the “climate liar”.
So, on your planet, the Little Ice Age didn’t end until 1945 or 1977?
Who knows what the climate is like in Loydo’s head.
I could teach a simpleton how to look up and post the data, but she hasn’t graduated to that level yet.
A month ago, she thought that temperature was linear with respect to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and she probably still does.
“A month ago, she thought that temperature was linear with respect to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and she probably still does.”
Your default seems to be when in doubt just lie.
Ha ha ha, It’s like that joke about the guy who says he comes from Newcastle and has a 10-inch ****.
You know, the one where the the punchline is “I lied, I’m from Gateshead”.
I lied, it was 5 weeks ago
Either quote me or just stop it Pinocchio.
@Loydo,
It doesn’t matter – IPCC ascribes 50% but ascribing all warming from the LIA results in only 1.4 degrees per doubling . 50% gives you 0.7 degrees per doubling so claims of 5.2 are just junk.
Put another way, are you saying that in spite of the reducing effect of CO2 warming, future CO2 warming is going to be over 7 times what they were in the last 150 years. The physics of the universe hasn’t changed in the meantime Loydo.
“..As we’ve supposedly already enjoyed 1.0 C more warmth since the end of the LIA c. AD 1850, thanks to ~120ppm increase in CO2, there is at most 0.6 degrees more to go for the last 165ppm, which comports with the logarithmic effect of gains in this essential trace photosynthesis nutrient…”
The first thing that popped into my head when I read this posting is: What the Hell happened to the logarithmic effect? We’ve already warmed about 1.0 deg. C since the LIA with CO2 levels at 410+ ppm today, correct? And they want me to believe we could warm as much as 3.0C to 4.0C more between now and 560 ppm? Really? Am I missing something here? If not, they can pull my other leg.
And I’m not even a scientist.
I think the hot highpoints of 1998 and 2016 were at 1C above pre-industrial levels. Which left us 0.5C short of the 1.5C “tipping point” the alarmists are all supposedly worried about. Btw, the year 1934, in the USA was 1.5C warmer than 1998, which would put it right at 1.5C above the pre-industrial global average used by the alarmists. Right at the “tipping point” according to the alarmists, but nothing tipped over.
We are currently at about 0.7C above the pre-industrial global average, having cooled off about 0.3C since 2016.
Correction: 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998 and 2016, not 1.5C warmer.
The year 1934 put the USA right at the 1.5C so-called “tipping point” of the Earth’s atmosphere. Nothing tipped over. Then it got much cooler for decades and decades to the point that climate scientists were musing that the Earth might be entering another Ice Age. Many Climate scientists have this unusual blind spot of thinking a trend will continue in the same way from now until the end of time. Of course, they don’t, and the temperatures started warming up in the 1980’s and have warmed up where we are now about 0.7C below the alarmist’s tipping point. But still, the alarmists think this trend will continue upward from now until the end of time. And of course, it won’t
The Human-caused Climate Change/CO2 narrative is just about to run out of gas.
CO2 is not the driver of the earths temperature.
That is a indisputable fact.
Now I will explain before some of the trolls put the boot in .
The world has been warmer than present 3 times since the last Ice age over the last 12,000 years .
The little Ice Age from 1500 to 1850 AD had nothing to do with the lack of CO2 was not caused by or recovered with the amount of CO2 in the earths atmosphere.
The ice ages were not caused by a sudden drop in CO2 ,or warmed with a rise of CO2.
The axis of the earth and a weaker sun and continuous volcanic activity are some of the reasons put forward but never a drop in atmospheric CO2 as that has been proven that as the earth recovered from ice ages the rise in CO2 lagged by several centuries.
I agree 100% with John Tillman that the majority of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has already occurred as the effects are logarithmic and the first 100 ppm warmed the earth the most, the second 100 ppm only half as much and the next 200 ppm which is where we are now by only half again .
All the models run hot and when you look at the range from 1.8 to 5.6 degrees C warming we could save vasts sums of money by employing a monkey to throw a dart at the global temperature dart board .
Looking at the range I will state that they are all wrong as 1.8 is far to high when all factors are taken into account .
Graham
Thanks for your support!
Yes, between natural warming during a warm cycle following the cool cycle of the LIA, and the log effect, there is scarcely any room for an anthropogenic effect. Cleaner air has probably had more AGW effect than our trifling climatic, yet biologically significant CO2 effect.
‘Supposedly’ is right. The prophets of doom proclaim the 1C rise since 1850 as due to our CO2 sins but say nothing of the dramatic drop in temps of the LIA, and the nicer and warmer-than-now climate of the Minoan, Roman and Middle Ages periods. If temps were higher in the past when civilization was progressing, and when temps dropped it was a time of famine and plague, why are they doing everything they can to promote de-developing our society and holding back developing nations? Sounds like there’s some crazy population control/racist/nazi scheme hidden behind the climate change curtain
I think, you are not far away with your conclusion, + one world gouvernement.
Conspiracy ideation has blinded you.
There was no “dramatic drop”. The so-called LIA was not uniform nor global nor severe. So-called warm periods were likewise patchy and weak. Late Holocene neo-glaciation was following the script – a bumpy decline – until industrial man emerged. Whether you think that is a good thing of a bad thing is a different disussion but modern warming caused by human emissions has been abrupt, severe and global and has dwarfed ealier natural Holocene fluctuations so that now neo-glaciation is a thing of the past.
Loydo, the link that you have provided is to the much derided Marcott 2013 paper. Even the authors of this garbage have admitted that the 20th century spike is not statistically robust. I am not aware of a single credible scientist who thinks that we are currently higher than the Holocene Climate Optimum temperature. In the future, please do some research before posting discredited alarmist drivel.
Instead of just repeating other poeple’s opinion, how about you post evidence that supports it.
And you skip over this to get to me?
“there’s some crazy population control/racist/nazi scheme hidden behind the climate change curtain”
Real truth-seeker aren’t you.
Lloydo here again spouting rubbish again.
You have swallowed the propaganda pushed by the alarmists that CO2 is the driver of temperature on earth.
The alarmists were aware that the MWP was warmer than present as it is an indisputable that the Vikings farmed in Greenland but were forced to leave when the LIA took effect.
Greenland’s climate still doe’s not support farming so then the alarmists said that the LIA only occurred the northern hemisphere.
There is a large amount of evidence that the MWP and the LIA were global events.
I don’t no were you are getting your information from but you are being led astray .
The world was being warned by scientists in the 1970s that we were heading for an ice age and many schemes were touted to reverse the imagined threat .
When the earths temperature started to rise again the imagined threat then became global warming .
Then the temperatures flattened except for two El Nino events and the pause or the hiatus is still with us and the threat is now Climate Change .
There is no proof that the mild warming that the world has experienced in the last 40 years is being driven by rising CO2 .
As I have told you before Lloydo the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere can only raise the earths temperature by .6 of one degree Celsius .
That is a scientific fact and the only way that the earths temperature would rise more than that is through positive water vapour feedback and the tropical hotspot .
Neither of these factors have been proven to exist despite frantic searching and some falsified studies that have not stood up to scrutiny .
Graham
Loydo, when I was at school, all of my geology textbooks said that the Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer than today and that the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer still. Then the Hockey Stick was manufactured and a small number of gullible morons fell for it. The Hockey Stick is the most discredited scientific artefact since Piltdown Man. I actually enjoy watching climate alarmists making fools of themselves attempting to defend the Hockey Stick: this simply demonstrates their utter lack of scientific credibility. I have a piece of advice for you; when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Gwan, you’ve rehashed all the debunked talking points without a skerrick of a link to anything to substantiate them. Instead of just mindlessly repeating them I suggest you go through them one by one and see if you can find some actual evidence for any of them. I think you’ll be surprised.
Bill, there is a mountain of evidence of a late Holocene neo-glaciation followed by a modern warming spike. Do you have a link to some data that refutes that?
That “mountain of evidence” consists of :
1) Marcott et al (2013)
2) Errrrrr … that’s it !
Remember Alinsky Rule 4 ? … “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”
Provide, say, 3 (three) references from this “mountain of evidence”.
If the “mountain” actually exists, you should be able to manage 5 (five).
Loydo, I think it’s time that you stopped digging the hole that you have created for yourself.
I actually thought that the Marcott 2013 paper had been retracted. This is climate audit’s utter destruction of it:
https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
Not the whole paper, just the “uptick” part of the last century or so (what Bill Toland called “the 20th century spike”).
Link to Real Climate’s “Response by Marcott et al.” page (if the “auto-translate to HTML tags” works …) :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Pertinent FAQs (and answers).
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
…
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which PRECLUDES US FROM examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
J Mac, that’s not fair! Some CHIMPS are really smart. I especially like the video of a chimp using a stick to knock a drone out of the air.
I saw a chimp in Vietnam that was a pet of an army officer, and one day the chimp, which was about three feet tall, was chained up to a tree outside the officer’s hooch with a chain about 25 feet long, and an ignorant South Vietnamese soldier walked up to the chimp one day and started poking at the monkey with his M16 rifle.
And he would poke at him, and the monkey would back up a little, and then he would step forward and poke at him again, and laugh, and the monkey would back up a little farther, and then when the monkey got enough slack in his chain, he charged forward and snatched that M16 right out of the shocked troops hands and started beating him with his own rifle! It was hilarious!
That monkey was smarter than the human.
That monkey also ripped the handguards off that rifle which is not an easy thing to do. Not the way he did it anyway.
Are the Watts bro’s on opposite sides of the fence? Sarc
I was wondering if the guy changed his name to buy some credibility.
To all the geothermal deniers still out there, please explain this evidence:
https://photos-eu.bazaarvoice.com/photo/2/cGhvdG86ZmxpcnN5c3RlbXM/2ec38f12-af93-5f46-9f55-bca22f504f3e
As you can see: the conductive heat flux from bottom to top of the tall pot is essentially 0 W/m^2. Is 0 W/m^2 what emerges at the top?
The fact that the Greenhouse Effect masks Geothermal is the BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL of our time.
Wake up sheeple!
Love, -Zoe
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
Off topic (as usual)
Not to mention completely wrong.
Explain the tall pot, jerk.
Taking flak and ad hominems, means you are over the target.
Thank you.
But not having my idea formally discussed or “debunked” means I’m not quite there yet.
My idea is so simple and profouns that I suspect no one can believe a woman from a completely different field figured it out.
Climate scientists are too busy giving thumbs up to each others’ ignorance.
Truly Zoe, you are not there yet.
And it’s not surprising that you are a woman, and from a completely different field. Your ignorance of all things Geological is shocking and undermines all of your claims. Round out your education and study real geology. Your reward will be enlightened understanding of the phenomena you investigate.
WBWilson,
Hi malaccuser, here is some “geology”:
You see how the geotherm goes to 0C?
0C is not 0K, genius.
There is no need for greenhouse effect.
People asked whether there was a bug in the code,” he said. “But it boiled down to relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models.”
And, as cloud are very poorly underestood and impossible to model realistaclly, this demonstrates the value of the model i.e. none
Agree that the models are too chaotic to be useful, at least to base any kind of policy on.
A far better idea would be to extrapolate the last 100 years to 50 years from now.
A 50 year extrapolation would be fair for dike projects, building requirements, etc.
Just follow the example of Al Gore and Barack Obama, who both tell us indirectly that the oceans will only rise a few millimeter a year, thus not flooding their cute mansions.
Maybe there are some other things the Green Industry can earn their money on.
Climate is chaotic!
How can the models then be “too chaotic”?
Maybe, just maybe, the answer is both or neither–just how prophetic can a chaotic model be?
Rocky
Ask Neil Ferguson, the virus genius.
just how prophetic can a chaotic model be?
the first person to answer that gets a PhD and probably a Nobel Prize. Or possibly an early unexplained death.
Hmmm . . . I could have sworn I was assured many years ago that the science on climate change™ was settled.
Now I’m being told that “Compared with the last assessment in 2014, 25% of [climate models from more than 20 institutions] show a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity.”
I guess I was “misinformed” . . . or, wait, maybe I’m now being misinformed . . . hard to say which.
Mauna Loa CO2 trend hasn’t changed one bit despite 6 months of drastically reduced emissions. Can someone please explain? It seems to me human activity has no impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Here you are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/
The reductions aren’t dramatic. 10% at the peak and dropping as the world’s economies start opening back up.
Vaporware causes excessive heating of climatic social change advocate journalists.
C’mon fellas, let’s be honest here (after all this is SCIENCE). It’s high time for another “it’s worse than we thought” to ramp up the fear quotient and get those Green New Deeds done. And it’s all passed muster with the impressively dependable supercomputers whose previous outputs already run hot 1/5 of the way into this century against those too flat actual temperature observations to conform to the golden hockey stick, so naturally a predicted catch up spurt upward will be necessary. Fortunately we just know what’s in store (and even what’s best for the planet instead) and we’re stickin’ to it. Please understand, we can’t climb down now that we’re personally so invested (salary/funding grants/career track/prestige/politically).
“Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than thought”
Climate sensitivity may be the holy grail of climate science but for human cause it needs the assumption that atmospheric composition is sensitive to fossil fuel emissions. This sensitivity is found in the models but not in the data.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/10/a-monte-carlo-simulation-of-the-carbon-cycle/
Did anybody ever attempt to measure the climate sensitivity, or is it a pure fairy tale?
Every refined barrel of oil causes climate activists to lose 10 brain cells.
Yes, many times. The ‘best’ papers are the two Lewis and Curry energy budget method papers, the second responding to quibbles about the first and producing essentially the same results. TCR ~1.35, ECS ~1.65. Both values relatively insensitive to the exact time frames chosen, so robust.
Both papers are available on her blog, Climate Etc. Just use the search function.
You can also derive ECS ~1.65 using Monckton’s ‘irreducibly simple equation derivation’ paper with generally accepted observational inputs for the constants. Judy also posted my longish mathematical commentary on that Alternative method for getting into the same vicinity.
Would that result – ECS about 1.65 – be a reason why CMIP6 models in the graph use a set of values from 5.6 all the way down to 1.8? Or do they have a secret way to determine the ECS?
Didn’t both of those papers assume that all of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age was due to CO2?
Lindzen’s Iris Hypothesis, repeatedly confirmed by observations despite hand-waving alarmists’ attempts to label it “discredited” or “debunked”, also implies low ECS. A 2017 confirmation:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD025827
Revisiting the iris effect of tropical cirrus clouds with TRMM and A‐Train satellite data
Since net feedback effects might well be negative, ECS could be less than the no-feedback figure of 1.1 degree C. Hence, the range is liable to be 0.0 to 2.0 degrees C, rather than Charney’s (1979) WAG of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, based upon the then available model outputs of 2.0 (Manabe) and 4.0 (Hansen), with an arbitrary MoE of 0.5 degree. IPCC’s range has hung onto the central value of 3.0 degrees C as “canonical”, despite repeated evidence that even the low end of the range is probably too high.
So now wonder know the models, already running way too hot, are being further cooked, to keep up the scare.
“No” for “now” before “wonder”, please.
No-one has actually EVER measured any warming from increased atmospheric CO2.
Some of the folks that put men on the moon decided that was a good project. They got it as less than 1.6C.
See https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
Thanks for that.
We are halfway to doubling already and temp has gone up less than 1C. Up zero in the contiguous US for the past 15 years. Seems we are safe.
It’s my observation that the future is going to be vastly more distributed. There is no need to live in densely packed urban environments any longer. Giant cities are relics of the industrial revolution. I strongly suspect that this will drastically reduce the need for fossil fuels. No need for a GND.
Adam, respectfully, you haven’t been following the social engineer’s antics have you?
Adam
You said, “I strongly suspect that this will drastically reduce the need for fossil fuels.” How so? When you live in multi-family dwellings, your apartment is heated/cooled by those around you. Most people take public transportation, which is generally considered to be more efficient than one-person per car.
A car?? Everybody will be a hunter-gatherer. Hunting and gathering 14 hours a day. Studying ecology in the spare time.
Mass transit is more efficient, when the buses and trains are nearly full. The problem is that they run nearly empty for most of the day. At least a private car doesn’t consume energy when it isn’t being used.
Distributed living means greater travel for food deliveries. More fossil fuels will be expended.
Yet the world is still rapidly urbanizing. How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm, once they’ve seen Paree?
Viral plagues might help.
Its like this
https://bit.ly/2zrUamK
Amazing how, whenever they find an “error”, it is always in favor of even more alarmism. What are the odds?
High, when the butter for your bread depends on it.
I wonder if the new and improved warming reflects a conscious effort to circumvent Pat Frank’s point that residual GCM cloud errors in excess of modeled warming impacts indicate the models are useless.
From the article: ““That is a very deep concern,” Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said. “Climate sensitivity is the holy grail of climate science. It is the prime indicator of climate risk. For 40 years, it has been around 3C.”
This gives the impression that 3C is a good estimate of the ECS. What it really is, is a guess. This has been a guess for 40 years or more and they haven’t narrowed the range in all those years. The alarmists don’t really know what this ECS number is, but it is certainly lower than 3C, not higher.
I’ll go with the Russian model that predicts 1.8C per doubling. And that’s probably high, too.
“But it boiled down to relatively small changes in the way clouds are represented in the models.””
What that means is that small changes in poorly constrained parameters, representing poorly understood processes, cause large changes in outputs.
In ordinary science, this is properly taken to mean the model is unreliable.
Similar things happen in Molecular Dynamics models (simulating the behavior of dissolved molecules), causing modelers to be cautious about their conclusions.
Not in climate science, though. Oh, no. There, model flightiness is gospel. Model loop-de-loops are taken as physically real.
If ever there was an indication of the blind conceit of subjectivist narrators, that is it.
Subjectivist narrators assume what should be proved, grant their assumptions the weight of evidence, and their every study is confirmatory.
Climate modeling at-a-glance. There it is. A pseudo-scientific crock.
Committing the fallacy of begging the question, on steroids.
Loved your paper + lecture. Going to be a bit tougher in future for climate scientists to diss your claims about cloud error.
Thanks, Eric. So far, they’ve been totally silent on it. That might be their strategy. Just keep on, keeping on.
After all, there are no consequences to promoting the agendized pseudo-science and the money keeps coming in.
Three physicists approached me after that talk to thank me for stepping out. One of them took a copy of the slides for a class he teaches.
There is already proof systemic error has a substantial impact on climate model projections, that the error gets amplified by each iteration of the model.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/oops-same-climate-models-produce-different-results-on-different-computers/
Using a different computer is a bit like putting tiny changes into initial conditions, Eric. The new projection quickly diverges from prior runs.
Climate models always fail so-called perfect model tests, which involve multiple runs with bitty changes in initial conditions. They show the models cannot even re-predict their own simulated climate.
Such failures are hardly mentioned in IPCC reports, if at all.
Despite her interest in models, by the way, JoNova has not mentioned word one of my paper on her blog. Neither has Jennifer Marohasy.
Ken Haapala gave it a brief grudging mention in his SEPP Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup after I pushed him a bit. After that, silence.
I don’t know what their problem is, because they’re silent about that, too.
I think they have to keep tweaking these models because they have an agenda to hit 3-8C rise in temps by the end of this century and we are already 20% of the way through this century with absolutely no sign the planet is going to co-operate and produce a meteoric rise. So all they can do is keep adjusting those models so they can achieve their 3-8C rise in less time. But. Its still all models… After 40 years of models which have failed to reflect the real world gentle, benign rise which is far below their predictions , I do wonder when they will stop having quite so much faith in these models….
….. when they get fired ??
“But. Its still all models”
That’s right. All they have to base their alarmist predictions on are computer models. Computer models that don’t reflect the real world.