Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new climate study has dismissed utterly implausible high end climate models. But the new study also seeks to raise the low end of the range of estimated climate sensitivity into the discomfort zone.
The climate won’t warm as much as we feared – but it will warm more than we hoped
July 23, 2020 5.52am AEST
Steven SherwoodARC Laureate Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
Eelco RohlingProfessor of Ocean and Climate Change, Australian National University
Katherine MarvelAssociate Research Scientist, NASA
We know the climate changes as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, but the exact amount of expected warming remains uncertain.
…
A major new assessment has now calculated a range of 2.6–3.9℃. This implies that alarmingly high estimates from some recent climate models are unlikely, but also that comfortingly low estimates from other studies are even less likely.
…
In 1979, a farsighted report estimated for the first time that equilibrium climate sensitivity falls somewhere between 1.5℃ and 4.5℃. So if carbon dioxide concentrations doubled, global temperatures would eventually increase by somewhere in that range.
The width of this range is a problem. If equilibrium climate sensitivity lies at the low end of the range, climate change might be manageable with relatively relaxed national policies.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/the-climate-wont-warm-as-much-as-we-feared-but-it-will-warm-more-than-we-hoped-143175
The abstract of the study;
An assessment of Earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence
Authors: S. Sherwood, M.J. Webb, J.D. Annan, K.C. Armour, P.M. Forster, J.C., Hargreaves, G. Hegerl, S. A. Klein, K.D. Marvel, E.J. Rohling, M. Watanabe, T. Andrews, P. Braconnot, C.S. Bretherton, G.L. Foster, Z. Hausfather, A.S. von der Heydt, R. Knutti, T. Mauritsen, J.R. Norris, C. Proistosescu, M. Rugenstein, G.A. Schmidt, K.B. Tokarska, M.D. Zelinka.
We assess evidence relevant to Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6-3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains within 2.3-4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5-95% ranges are 2.3-4.7 K, bounded by 2.0-5.7 K (although such high – confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent, and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.
Read more: https://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/WCRP_ECS_Final_manuscript_2019RG000678R_FINAL_200720.pdf
The study uses an unusual definition of equilibrium climate sensitivity, though they provide a detailed explanation for their choice. From the main body of the study;
In choosing the reference scenario to define sensitivity for this assessment, for practical reasons we depart from the traditional Charney ECS definition (equilibrium response with ice sheets and vegetation assumed fixed) in favor of a comparable and widely used, so-called “effective climate sensitivity” S derived from system behavior during the first 150 years following a (hypothetical) sudden quadrupling of CO2. During this time the system is not in equilibrium, but regression of global-mean top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance onto global-mean near-surface air temperature, extrapolated to zero imbalance, yields an estimate of the long-term warming valid if the average feedbacks active during the first 150 years persisted to equilibrium (Gregory et al., 2004). This quantity therefore approximates the long-term Charney ECS (e.g., Danabasoglu and Gent, 2009), though how well it does so is a matter of active investigation addressed below. Our reference scenario does not formally exclude any feedback process, but the 150-year time frame minimizes slow feedbacks (especially ice sheet changes).
Read more: Same link as above
The treatment of cloud feedback is interesting. The study acknowledges large cloud feedback uncertainties, mentions the Lindzen et al. (2001) “iris effect”, and admits GCMs cannot be trusted to reproduce observed cloud response, yet still appears to attempt to derive a cloud feedback factor based on satellite observations, and mix this observational cloud factor with model predictions.
The treatment of clouds may turn out to be one of the most controversial assumptions in the study – as Pat Frank has pointed out on a number of occasions, the magnitude of model cloud response error is significantly greater than the CO2 driven warming which models attempt to project, which calls into question whether climate models have any predictive skill whatsoever.
To the author’s credit they have described their method in great detail, so I’m looking forward to detailed responses to this study.
So, now they’re claiming a 95% confidence interval of 1.3C? (2.6-3.9C, with a mean of 3.25C).
Nice…I don’t believe it.
And the historical record since the late 1800s doesn’t back up this level of precision, either.
The historical temperature record is bogus. You can’t learn anything from a bastardized temperature record.
“John Pickens July 24, 2020 at 10:41 pm
So, now they’re claiming a 95% confidence interval of 1.3C? (2.6-3.9C, with a mean of 3.25C).
Nice…I don’t believe it.”
I don’t either
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/25/a-new-climate-sensitivity/
her·me·neu·tics
noun
the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
(Or in this case, other sacred texts such as the Epistle of St Charney and the Summa Theologiae of St Michael of the State Pen)
See also:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu5_5Od7WY
Sorry for my ignorance. But I am still trying to grasp the numbers for TCR and ECS.
I know what TCR and ECS are but –
What are the reference points( starting ppm, date of starting ppm, what data set)where are we now, and how far do we have to go.
I keep hearing changing the goal posts, but what are the actual original goal posts?
Thanks in advance
“I keep hearing changing the goal posts, but what are the actual original goal posts?”
One answer, perhaps the best answer is this.
The Charney Report. – 1976
Charney et. al. defined “Climate Sensitivity” as the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 from “natural levels”. “Natural” CO2 was stated as 280 ppm., and the start date is widely accepted as 1880 (or so). In any event, before modern industrialization could have much effect. Remember, opinions vary on these parameters.
In any event, the Charney Report forecast was based on two studies, one which calculated a Climate Sensitivity of 1.5 deg. C., the other which calculated 4.5 deg. C. The report just averaged them together and came up with 3.0 deg. c. and +/- 1.5 deg. C.
(How Convenient)
What Happened Next:
The IPCC has issued it’s famous reports, FAR, SAR, TAR, (First, Second, Third Assessment Reports), over a span of ~11 years (1990 – 2001), which held with the Charney Sensitivity.
The fourth Report (AR4), increased the all-important “Climate Sensitivity” factor (2007). Then the fifth Report (AR5) dropped the “Climate Sensitivity” back down to where it was (2014).
This was seen widely as a tacit admission that the “facts on the ground” and the satellite datasets (especially) could not support an assertion of such a high Charney Sensitivity. Indeed, the data was pouring in that it was feared could conclusively disprove such a high Sensitivity value.
Today:
AR6 is due to be released, and previews have shown that the Charney Sensitivity has been raised again, even more than in the other reports. The Climate Models are running hotter than ever.
NOTE: That since the original Charney Report in 1976, no real progress has been made in improving the original estimate of the critical parameter Climate Sensitivity. And this after decades of research and Billions in funding.
Also:
Goalposts:: 3.0 deg. C. above “Normal”, then, The Paris Accords, 2.0 deg. C. then a bit later, 1.5 deg. C.
And that 280ppm/v in 1880 was an ESTIMATE! No-one actually knows what it was in 1880.
Natural recovery from LIA, with natural ocean outgassing as it warms. Charney sensitivity below .85 as half is due to banned CFCs.
Not a measure. THE point!
Thank you! Notice that the original report was *natural* CO2, over which we have NO control. As it is, human activity only adds a trivial 3.4% to that load.
So, since we have no measurable control over the CO2 load, what is all the fuss about?
Thanks tony.
I want to know so I can tell when we’re nearly there.
If start date 1880 @280 ppm
In 2020 @415 ppm
Current temp increase about 1.1deg C
Based on 1% increase pa suggest we reach 560 ppm by 2060.
What TCR can we realistically get by 2060 – how are we tracking.
If say we maintain .15 deg c per decade then TCR could be 1.7 deg C making ECS only around 2.5 dec C.
I Know simplistic but how much would temp need to accelerate for high TCR to be possible.
They say they are now taking the first 150 years after quadrupling CO2. This is nothing like standard sensitivity to doubling CO2. What gives?
David Wojick,
You ask,”What gives?” and the answer is everything.
This study does not merely “shift the goal posta”: it imagines a different ‘playing field’pitch and analyses what has been imagined.
The pertinent statement in the paper says,
“In choosing the reference scenario to define sensitivity for this assessment, for practical reasons we depart from the traditional Charney ECS definition (equilibrium response with ice sheets and vegetation assumed fixed) in favor of a comparable and widely used, so-called “effective climate sensitivity” S derived from system behavior during the first 150 years following a (hypothetical) sudden quadrupling of CO2. During this time the system is not in equilibrium, but regression of global-mean top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance onto global-mean near-surface air temperature, extrapolated to zero imbalance, yields an estimate of the long-term warming valid if the average feedbacks active during the first 150 years persisted to equilibrium (Gregory et al., 2004).”
First, they redefine “climate sensitivity” to be “so-called “effective climate sensitivity” S “.
Then they determine “S” from what they think to be “system behavior during the first 150 years”.
But nobody knows the system behaviour over the last 150 years (there were insufficient temperature measurements for a global temperature to be determined in early decades of the period since 1870) and the study purports to be determining future system behaviour.
On this side of the Atlantic we have a word for any study like that being discussed here. It is bollocks.
Richard
It’s what they do all the time. When the evidence doesn’t match their desired outcome they re-set the debate on new terms to rig the outcome in their favour!
You’re right with that word, Richard.
“Moving the Goal Post”
I was curious about the phrase. I found this.
We use phrase at work quite a bit. Usually when a project is agreed upon and a completion date is set. Then half way through project the end goal is changed. More features added to the project that we’re never agreed to in first place, yet deadline remains the same. This we refer to as moving the goalposts. I think about in terms of American Football. You get down the field and are in position to score then the goalposts are moved backwards, thereby the original goal line was changed.
“Richard S Courtney July 25, 2020 at 10:45 am”
Good to see you posting again Richard. Hope you are well.
Patrick MJD,
Than you for your greeting.
Every day is a bonus for me and my pain relief inhibits thought so I need to reduce it when I want to contribute to discussions. Also, although I can cope with – and enjoy – dispute of my comments, I lack resilience so I fail under distress from troll barrages.
Therefore, I now only make contributions when I think I can make a useful contribution to an important discussion. In this case, the discussion is of a paper which is clearly intended to be a false foundation for the next IPCC Report similar to how a previous IPCC Report was founded on the false MBH 98 ‘Hockey Stick’ paper (does anybody now remember that nonsensical graph which the IPCC dropped in its following Report?).
Richard
Why did they pick Mauna Loa, a volcano, as the place to measure global CO2 levels?
How much CO2 gets emitted from volcanos?
Wouldn’t Easter Island have been a better place to use as a measuring platform? It would seem to be more isolated from outside influences.
Stephen,
I suggest quick seach on Mr Keeling and his determination of how to measure free atmosphere CO2 levels, quite a clever bod, lots of practical research ML is a good place to measure CO2.
regards
Pick your place:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/
In short, wait till the wind is blowing from off the ocean, and not over the volcanoe.
The original goalposts wee wider than the actual field. After 40 years of computer models and billions spent on research that can only pass Pal review with zero reference to real world data they have narrowed that to the range of very unlikely art both ends. They have carefully set the stage for 40 more years of useless research based on the idea that CO2 causes atmospheric temperature increase despite clear evidence that temperature increase cause C)2 increase by steadily driving C)2 outgassing from the oceans.
The most spectacularly obtuse and political “science” that mankind has ever paid through the teeth for.
We are expected to believe that the Chinese are so bad at science that they don’t understand Global Warming and so proceed to commission a coal fired power plant every week.
We are being betrayed by our intellectual class, who despite their immense intellect are proving that some subjects are so complicated that they defy human understanding while these same “scientists” are perfectly capable of every venally inspired self delusion that can get them a rung up on the disgusting academic ladder.
At least they binned the ludicrous upper end values, the RCP8.5 nonsense.
Its something, even though its all still just models and assumptions.
Pat, good point…and look at the author’s list, a who’s who of the warmist camp….expecting a reduction in the bottom end is not going to happen with this group since their jobs depend on their own stated existence of a problem, but it appears even they are having issues with the recent high upper end predictions that the stats don’t corroborate….
The inability to determine Climate Sensitivity with any semblance of accuracy is the defining problem of the Global Warming “Industry”.
The classic scientific method method of solving such a conundrum would be through the use of a controlled experiment.
Impossible in this context they say, however the Australian Government inadvertently have been conducting such an experiment over the last 65 years at a manned weather station in the middle of the Australian desert which arguably over that time has had but one variable being CO2 concentration
Its remote location and total lack of local human influence make this a unique site, as is the quality of the climate data.
The raw data, available on the web (BOM,Giles weather station) is very revealing
No rise in minimum temps
No reduction in Tmax-Tmin … Therefore surely no trapping of ANY extra heat due to enhanced greenhouse effect
Therefore climate sensitivity is zero or so close to it it doesn’t matter
Easy
It could even be negative and not measurable above 280ppm. Here’s a 30X view too:
philincalifornia
Thats within 1000 km of Alice Springs since 1880. And 15 years of data from the highest quality remote site weather stations ever installed show this temperature trend in the US:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2020&month=6
The use of Mk1 eyeballs on graphs is always a danger, but there are two apparent step functions in the data: 1) A mid-1910s drop; and 2) a late-1970s rise. I’m aware of the late-1970s climate shift in the Pacific. Anything in the literature about a mid-1910s shift?
The inability to establish the climate sensitivity is a direct result of the physical sensitivity being far less than required to sustain the existence of the IPCC/UNFCCC and given how vested the political left is in the IPCC’s broken science, the actual physical sensitivity is an existential threat to them as well. This combination of fact is deadly to the scientific truth.
The physical sensitivity can ONLY be legitimately expressed as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing. The Earth unambiguously produces about 1.62 W/m^2 of surface missions per W/m^2 of solar forcing and each W/m^2 of solar input MUST and I repeat MUST contribute equally to the result. There’s no possible way that the next W/m^2 from the Sun, or from any other real or imagined source, can result in the 4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions required to support 3C from doubling CO2., Restating the physical sensitivity as the temperature change from doubling CO2 adds several levels of indirection from the physics, each one of which becomes a level of misdirection taken advantage of to the maximum extent possible in order to claim an impossibly large effect.
It is not going to happen…
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2020/07/07/brrr-it-is-getting-colder/
pat frank is wrong
next
on “settled science”
1. Settled means that no one in their right mind who wants to make a contribution to knowledge, spends any time challenging it. Why? because if the “settled” part is wrong then OTHER PHYSICS, more fundamental physics is ALSO WRONG.
2. What is Settled
A) C02 is a GHG.
B) GHGs Slow the release of energy to space, and contribute the net positive radiative forcing
C) When the radiative forcing is net positive, from increased positive forcings ( the sun, GHGs) or
from decreased negative forcings ( like aerosols) the planets average temperature at the surface
will increase.
3. What is Not settled
Not Settled means that everyone in their right mind who wants to make a contribution to knowledge, spends their time trying to improve understanding of it. Nic Lewis would be an example of such a person
A) It is Not settled HOW MUCH warming c02 will cause
1) we dont know how much we will emit
2. ECS is uncertain
B) We dont know how much damage/benefit warming will cause and how it will be regionally distributed
Mosh still doesn’t have the mental faculty to grasp statistical error.
Sad. Quite sad actually.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
How on earth do you conclude that? (your first sentence, not your last one) I see nothing in Mosh’s post about statistical error. But perhaps you don’t have the mental faculty to understand English? Like maybe you’re a bot that just spews out random sentences.
His dig at Pat Frank. That reference totally escapes you apparently.
GCMs are just massively iterative error propagation machines. Any “answer” they spew out that looks “reasonable” is just happenstance after lots of tuning and pre-run “calibration” tests.
Let me add that it is not just statistical error. It is uncertainty in general. Uncertainty includes many different things. Measurement uncertainty, combined variances of different, multiple station’s data, UHI effects, and yes, statistical error, plus probably even more.
Uncertainty reduction is not amenable to statistical manipulation. Uncertainty is a descriptor of what you don’t know and can never know. You simply can’t reduce what you don’t know through statistical means. In fact, uncertainty is combined by root sum square of the measurements but is not divided by the number of measurements.
Mosher continually derides Dr. Pat Frank’s assessments of uncertainty which does nothing but illustrate Mosher’s lack of education and lack of real actual experience on measurements and uncertainty. He needs to study the GUM and Dr. Taylor’s “An Introduction to Error Analysis” and perhaps a metrology course then refute their findings before criticizing anyone’s analysis of uncertainty.
Poor mosh.
Sorry by Pat Frank is CORRECT
The fact is that YOU DO NOT have the mathematical knowledge to comprehend.
And you NEVER WILL HAVE.
Heck, you aren’t even very good at your chosen profession.. Hired frontman and propagandist.
“Steven Mosher July 25, 2020 at 12:07 am
A) C02 is a GHG.”
No it isn’t. CO2 is, but then the IR spectra is almost completely smothered by H2O. If you can’t even get the chemical symbol correct you’re not worth listening to.
Patrick
I think that the focus on CO2 is an example of trying to prove that the tail wags the dog.
The behavior of absorbers is logarithmic. To predict the change of temperature one has to calculate the impact of ALL the absorbers, not just one minor component. That is, water vapor (WV) dominates the system typically, and while it is apparently fairly constant for a given latitude, it tends to be nearly saturated with respect to the impact on IR absorption. In the absence of significant WV, as in the Arctic, CO2 is the dominant absorber. But, for mid-latitude and tropical latitudes, WV is dominant and CO2 has a minor effect. Therefore, the proper way to analyze the problem is to consider all absorbers together, not just deal with a minor component, especially when the dominant absorber has large spatial and temporal variations. Alarmists are confusing noise with signal.
The climate change hypothesis is that ~3% of CO2 *IS* the driver of the change. Look at the IR spectra for CO2.
“C02 is a GHG.”
Please present some empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming..
You have NOTHING, Mosh
Just an anti-science acceptance of your bosses meme.
” GHGs Slow the release of energy to space”
Utter and complete mantra BS. !!
No. This is correct, but what’s not correct is that GHG’s create new energy in the atmosphere which is the assumption made by considering a change in GHG concentrations is equivalent to new ‘forcing’ power arriving from the Sun.
Clouds also slow the release of surface energy to space returning some of that energy back to the surface, so much so that any GHG’s between the surface and clouds are moot since the clouds would be absorbing that energy anyway. In other words, nearly 2/3 of atmospheric GHG’s have little to no incremental effect on atmospheric absorption.
“Clouds also slow the release of surface energy to space returning some of that energy back to the surface,”
Absolutely not possible.
In no way shape or form does energy return “back to the surface.”
Passing energy back and forth between RH & DB energy surge tanks is evident in USCRN data, and that is kinetic and latent not radiative.
The thermal resistance of the atmospheric “blanket” obeys Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa). For a fixed Q, U and dT become co-dependent.
If my house furnace has a fixed output, dT is controlled by changing the U or 1/R.
Not that it matters.
Radiative Green House Effect theory says downwelling “extra” energy “trapped” and “back” radiated from the GHGs makes the earth warmer. (The atmosphere and its 30% albedo make the earth cooler.)
Where from, exactly, do the GHGs “trap” this “extra” energy? They must deduct it from the atmosphere’s energy debit card. If a credit isn’t applied to that card there will be an embarrassing deficit in the ToA balance.
So how does this atmospheric energy debit card get refilled?
Per RGHE the surface radiates as an ideal black body upwelling “extra” energy to recharge that debit card.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules ideal black body LWIR upwelling and recharging that “extra” energy from the surface is not possible.
No “extra” upwelling energy, no “trapped” or “back” radiated “extra” downwelling energy, no GHG warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.
The concept of “extra” and “trapped” energy violates physics and thermodynamics.
The alleged upwelling and downwelling “extra” energy measurements are the illusion of improperly configured instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy turned out to be stray electrical currents in the apparatus.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
And a summary just because.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_greenhouse-globalwarming-climatechange-activity-6690278760157192192-CS81
When we look at clouds from space, we see the radiation they emit and it’s significantly colder than the surface below, which is actually how we can tell there are clouds there, especially at night. What makes you think clouds also don’t radiate energy back to the surface and where do you think the energy being radiated comes from?
BTW, the radiation ‘trapped’ by GHG’s is temporarily stored by the atmosphere as a flux of absorption band photons passing among GHG molecules until about half of these photons are eventually returned to the surface and the remaining half emitted out into space. It’s only a temporary entrapment and each bundle of energy is ‘trapped’ for seconds at most manifesting the aforementiond delay.
The surface of the Earth is about as close to an ideal BB as nature can get. If you don’t think the SB Law with only a different emissivity applies as the relationships between the surface temperature and the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation emitted into space, what law of physics do you propose applies? Please be specific and be sure to connect the dots between the radiation emitted by the surface and the radiation emitted by the planet.
“What makes you think clouds also don’t radiate energy back to the surface 1) and where do you think the energy being radiated comes from 2)?”
1) Energy from cold to hot without work violates thermodynamics.
2) As I have demonstrated by experiment the IR instrument are incorrectly configured and detecting downwelling energy where none exists.
But that downwelling “extra” absolutely MUST be there otherwise the RGHE sideshow all falls apart.
So the instruments are tweaked to confirm that bias.
Go ask Apogee, Kipp-Zonen and Eppley if that is not so.
“The surface of the Earth is about as close to an ideal BB as nature can get.”
I have demonstrated by experiment why this is not possible.
Radiation does not stand alone or separate from the non-radiative kinetic energy processes.
Upwelling = (cond+conv+advec+latent+rad) = all five are interrelated. More of one means less of some other.
Emissivity = rad/all = 63/396=0.16 theory or 63/160 = 0.36 physical.
Once the energy reaches 32km there are no molecules or kinetic energy so radiation is the only option.
Surface to 32 km all five processes are in play.
No upwelling = no downwelling = no need to “confirm” the instruments.
Let’s cut to the chase here and the fundamental root cause.
All of this pretentious handwavium exists to explain the mechanism behind the atmosphere’s warming of the terrestrial system aka greenhouse.
But the atmosphere and albedo it creates makes the earth cooler than it would be if they were not there.
Remove that atmosphere and the earth becomes much like the moon, a total contradiction of the greenhouse effect..
Nikolov, Kramm and UCLA Diviner all tacitly admit that to be the case.
And that alone destroys the RGHE theory.
All the rest is moot.
“Energy from cold to hot without work violates thermodynamics.”
You can’t apply what happens with conduction to what happens with radiation. It’s not something cold making something warm, but two streams of energy, one direct from the Sun and the other returning from the atmosphere are which summed together to replace emissions by the surface. 1 Joule plus 1 Joule is 2 Joules, no exceptions. You’re trying to claim that 1 Joule plus 1 Joule is only 1 Joule.
The average 240 W/m^2 from the Sun is ‘cold’ by your definition, so how can the surface be warmer than 255K unless another source of energy is added to the solar flux? Suppose our orbit was around 2 closely orbiting stars, each contributing 120 W/m^2 to the planet. Would the temperatures be any different then they are now if we had the same 24 hour day and 365 day year?
This other source is not new energy, but old surface emissions that were prevented from leaving the planet, temporarily stored by the atmosphere and returned to the surface at a LATER time. Understanding this consequences of this delay is crucial to understanding why this is not any kind of violation of COE.
“But the atmosphere and albedo it creates makes the earth cooler than it would be if they were not there.”
What? This is absolutely incorrect. Without an atmosphere, the average temperature of the planet would be a little under 0C and this would about the same even if the atmosphere was 90 bar of N2 with no gases or clouds.
The Moon gets so much hotter during its daytime because it’s day is 28 Earth days long. If the Earth spun at such a slow rate, while it would get warm enough to boil water during any day in the tropics, it would get still cold enough to freeze that water at night.
If you calculate the temperature associated with the average emissions of the ENTIRE surface of the Moon, it’s only about 0C. You can also average T^4 between the day and night side and get about the same result.
“You can’t apply what happens with conduction to what happens with radiation.”
I did just exactly that.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
Pat Frank is right. An iterative model which contains a substantial systemic error which cannot be trusted to trend to zero because it is not a random error amplifies that error.
Cloud error is not something you can simply factor away, it is not a constant unknown which can be treated as a black box deviation from theory, because the models all get clouds wrong in different ways.
GCMs are not physical.
“Pat Frank is right.”
Pat Frank is wrong. He dos not even have a clue as to what Lauer’s number (4 W/m2) meant. And neither do you.
I like Lord Monckton’s response.
If Professor Frank is correct in saying that the models are finding that the uncertainty in the longwave cloud forcing, expressed as an annually-moving 20-year mean, is 4 Watts per square meter – and his reference is to the Lauer/Hamilton paper, where that figure is given – then applying the usual rules for summation in quadrature one can readily establish that the envelope of uncertainty in any model – however constructed – that incorporates such an annual uncertainty will be plus or minus 20 K, or thereby.
However, that uncertainty envelope is not, repeat not, a prediction. All it says is that if you have an annual uncertainty of 4 Watts per square meter anywhere in the model, then any projection of future global warming derived from that model will be of no value unless that projection falls outside the uncertainty envelope.
The point – which is actually a simple one – is that all the models’ projections fall within the uncertainty envelope; and, because they fall within the envelope, they cannot tell us anything about how much global warming there will be.
Propagation of uncertainty by summation in quadrature is simply a statistical yardstick. It does not matter how simple or complex the general-circulation models are. Since that yardstick establishes, definitively, that any projection falling within the envelope is void, and since all the models’ projections fall within that envelope, they cannot – repeat cannot – tell us anything whatsoever about how much global warming we may expect.
Your version of what Pat Frank says makes even less sense than what PF actually said:
“as Pat Frank has pointed out on a number of occasions, the magnitude of model cloud response error is significantly greater than the CO2 driven warming which models attempt to project”
You can’t compare “the magnitude of model cloud response error” with “the CO2 driven warming”. Different units, apart from anything else. And it makes no sense to talk airily about “if you have an annual uncertainty of 4 Watts per square meter anywhere in the model” unless you know what it is that is actually uncertain to that degree.
“the CO2 driven warming”.”
Which doesn’t exist in the real world.
As you say Cloud response is FAR greater than the NOTHING of CO2.
You can’t compare them.
Poor Nick, lack of understanding of mathematical uncertainty.
Back to school Nick !
The uncertainty associated with the typical baseline temperature data, i.e. the pre-industrial age, is at least +/- 0.5degC. That error is systemic and not random. You can’t wave that error away using the theory of large numbers. That requires measuring the same thing using the same measurement device many times. The temperature data base for that period consists of a multiplicity of independent measurements, i.e. many measurements of different things using different measurement devices. This violates the rules for using the theory of large numbers. Therefore that error has to propagate using quadrature addition just as the error of 4 w/m**2 is propagated. By the time you are done over a 30 year period the uncertainty associated with the baseline is greater than what you are trying to predict. Therefore when you run a comparison, i.e. anomaly derivation, between then and now you have no idea what the anomaly derivation is actually telling you.
It’s the old bugbear of experimental results. If your error is larger than what you are trying to find then you simply don’t know if you have found what you are looking for!
Something that Mosher and Lewis simply refuse to admit. You simply cannot assume all error in the CGM’s are random and will cancel.
Nick Stokes is wrong
Pat is several steps above him in Mathematical knowledge.
Make it up as you go, Nick.
Avoid the total lack of evidence.
GCM are NOTHING but a child’s computer game. !
Nick Stokes, on the wrong end of every argument.
It is the difference between a mathematician and someone who has actually been responsible for reconciling physical measurements made by physical instruments such as in a lab and having to verify them to a customer (or instructor)! Without this hands on experience one simply has no innate knowledge of what uncertainty is.
One will quickly find out why significant digits and uncertainty is important when there is a contract requiring one to be responsible for reporting accurate and verifiable results.
Yes!
HOW MUCH warming c02 will cause”….
Please present some actual empirical evidence , ie measured scientific data, that shows any warming by atmospheric CO2
It has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet. !
It exists ONLY in un-validated models.
Actually it has been measured. Barrow Alaska was one of the locations, I forget the other. I can’t put my hands on the paper at the moment, but it was reviewed in detail on WUWT. The methodology was sound (IMHO) and the results showed a rather small amount of increased w/m2 directly observed to be from CO2.
I think the paper has not gotten much attention since because while is proves conclusively, by measurement, that CO2 causes warming. But the amount of warming in no way supported the alarmist narrative , and so it faded from the headlines.
No, they did not measure any direct temperature change from CO2. It actually cooled in Barrow over the period of the study.
There was no mention of warming in the papers, just this tiny “forcing” from CO2 which they say they measured by creating an unrealistic negative temperature gradient.
uh no. They measured in w/m2 and got pretty much bang on direct theoretical forcing (ie no feedbacks) from the corresponding increase in CO2.
If you wish to argue that an increase in w/m2 doesn’t warm anything above the temperature it would otherwise have been at, be my guest.
LOL, you still haven’t cottoned on that they had to create a negative temperature gradient to measure it, have you !.
The mean free path of that frequency of radiation at atmospheric pressure is some 10m.. !
You are welcome to show some actual proof of any measurable warming effect… or not !
And of course, any increase in downwelling radiation would be match by an increase in upwelling radiation from within that 10m.
Balance is maintained, so no warming effect.
fred, if the watts measured don’t warm anything, where do they go? black hole?
They didn’t create a “negative temperature gradient ” they didn’t “create ” anything.
Its fools like you who make actual skeptics job 1000 times harder by spouting complete nonsense about physics. You can look up the experiments by Heinz Huggs as well if you want direct measured evidence. Or go to any spectroscopy lab and have the people who actually measure things like this every single day for a living, and who lose their jobs if their results don’t match reality, and have THEM explain it to you. Or run around in circles with your fingers in your ears shouting la la la, you’ll make just as much sense.
And of course, any increase in downwelling radiation would be match by an increase in upwelling radiation
Poor fred. He just disproved his own hypothesis and doesn’t realize it . There can be no increase in upwelling radiation without an increase in temperature to drive it. LOL.
I think you’re talking about Feldman et al., 2015:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Have at it ……
steven mosher is wrong.
Often, not always.
97% wrong would be a good approximation.
Methinks that Naomi Oreskes, the queen of logical fallacies, doth project too much.
All you wrote is very true. IMO this paper more contradicts the “extra rapid warming” of some CMIP6 models than shifting up the central estimate for ECS. It could be a “monster paper” (166 pages) for generating evidence, that ECS > 4 K/2*Co2 is unlikely indeed to take some CMIP6s out of the race.
Pat Frank knows what he’s talking about. You don’t.
Steven Mosher,
The first half of this video explains what is wrong with current model.
Assumed static conditions and Parameterization is the BIG bugs in the modeled system. That and not properly mathematically accounting for the inherent chaos of the climate.
https://app.media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11155-mathematical_diseases_in_climate_models_and_how_to_cure_them
What an absolutely ridiculous statement! All science should therefore be settled. The Big Bang? Stop all research! General Relativity? How dare you ask! Dark matter? The models say it’s there. Isn’t that enough for you?
It just isn’t possible that we’ve interpreted the problem incorrectly. The whole fate of the universe depends on our obviously cock-eyed version of climate. This is where intellectual arrogance meets utter delusion!
“pat frank is wrong” steven mosher is wrong. What does either statement accomplish? Mosher’s statement just reinforces the generally held position that he thinks so highly of himself that he considers it sufficient to make pronouncements without citations, verifiable facts, or logical analysis. I think that we can safely “ignore that man behind the curtain.”
Masher
Your July 25 comment at 12:07 am was a very good summary of climate science.
I have never complemented a comment of yours before so I wondered if you had a ghostwriter?
heh heh
In my opinion ECS is a meaningless term because our planet is never in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Nothing in science is really settled — just assumed to be settled.
Since there has been warming for over 300 years, and NO damage, there is no logical reason to claim that continued warming in the future MUST be bad news.
“A) It is Not settled HOW MUCH warming c02 will cause”
That’s not settled, either.
See Moeller. He claims CO2 may actually have a cooling effect on the Earth’s atmosphere.
”A) It is Not settled HOW MUCH warming c02 will cause”
So does that mean it is not known if co2 won’t cause warming?
The absolute a priori imperative the authors were working under was to somehow find “evidence” to reject the S < 2.0º C value produced by Nic and Judith from actual data.
I saw that AGU review article earlier yesterday, but the paywall stopped me from seeing what they did. Their "3 lines of evidence" no doubt includes model junk.
Just more junk science from the Climate Dowsers.
Now with access to figures and methods I'll go see what climate divining methods they employed.
We know that the assumption that vegetation is fixed is garbage. The Earth has greened like crazy in the satellite era (which is when we can easily measure it). link
… because that is their desired outcome. Do they deal with Lewis and Curry?
It sounds like they are treating models as a line of evidence. Oh dear.
Good point. If you can refute even one assumption then their whole study fails. And it would seem that you have done so.
Only in Climate “Science” is the output of an unvalidated and unphysical computer model considered to be data.
Climate “Science” is really Cargo Cult Science as defined by the late and great Richard Feynman.
The BBC have just announced a series of 15 minute programmes starting next Monday at 13.45 called ‘How they made us doubt everything;
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1/episodes/guide
Looking at the schedules it looks as if they are conflating smoking & cancer with global warming.
It gives the appearance of a run-up to their output for the next COP.
It will be interesting to see what they have to say.
Looks like they binned Willie Soon’s letter.
Acknowledging Willie’s letter that says their whole premise is hooey, isn’t going to get very far with the theme developers…..
I doubt it will be worth looking at, after-all it is a BBC program (nuff said!)
That reminds me of those who proclaim that since we can model circuits and architecture, that therefor we can model the atmosphere.
Almost as bad are those who proclaim that since atmospheric models are garbage, therefore all models are garbage.
Mosh
1. I’m an an Australian taxpayer.
2. I don’t need to do any experiment s
3. The Australian government I pay tax to does.
4. If the Australian government says I have to pay extra tax due to climate change, I have the right to ask “prove it”
5. Once again I don’t have to prove anything.
6. I live in a mountainous part of Melbourne not impacted by sea level rise.
The local government lga area had said we need to address the impacts of climate change.
7. The lga states climate change will cause more drought and more extreme floods.
8. I call BS on more drought and more extreme floods.
9. The lga will NOT provide any data on the details of the worse drought and floods so I double down on my calling BS.
Can you please provide any reason why I must do my own calculations to prove the government non calculations are wrong
“Waza July 25, 2020 at 12:42 am
3. The Australian government I pay tax to does.”
Actually, you don’t pay a thing. It is taken at source, paid to the Govn’t by your employer. If I had the choice to pay myself from my earnings I would not pay a cent in tax to the Govn’t.
As if that is the only tax. Dumb comment.
It’s the largest tax we pay here in Aus and the one we have no choice in. Chew on that!
Patrick I agree with Jeroen.
There are many tax.
A simple tax as an example would be council rates.
Part of my council rates goes to paying for sustainability officials who are paid from my money to do bs like youth climate resilience workshops.
It doesn’t matter who or what taxes are paid in this example $$ are spent by my local government on BS climate change projects. These $$ could be spent on other council services.
Whatever government department it is, must justify the spend on climate mitigation vs other services. It is not me that must prove they are wrong.
My specific example is local governments in eastern Melbourne claim there will be more droughts and more intense floods. This claim has no basis, there is no calculations about how much droughts or floods.
So I cannot come up with my own calculations to challenge my local governments as Steve mosher wants, because the governments have not even done themselves. They have just made it up. It’s a LIE
Taxes paid to the government based on your work is part of your earnings. Only a very myopic person would not realize that if the employer were not giving that money to the government, in a competitive environment, that money would go to you.
Perhaps this will make it clearer: assume the income tax laws change. The employer now simply sends forty percent of your current salary directly to the government, decreases your salary by forty percent, and issues you a wage statement based on your new salary, showing nothing taken out for taxes. You, personally, pay no income taxes. Would you maintain that you are no longer paying taxes? Would you still contend that the taxes cost you nothing? Taxes ARE being paid solely based upon your labor, and the taxes paid is money earned by said labor.
Where is choice?
“not impacted by sea level rise.”
NOWHERE in Australia will be impacted by a tiny 1-2mm/ year or so natural sea level rise.
Then the ultimate situation would be to let Govn’t take ALL ones income and then Govn’t provide ALL services. I think old Al Gore and Obama might have an issue with that, and most people in fact.
This is a long study. 166 pages long. Question to those who read it: Does it actually cite any new key evidence we should consider?
Mark Paweleck,
The paper provides no evidence of any kind concerning change to any actual climate. It presents outcomes of computer models of what the modelers think to be climate system behaviours.
Computer gaming is NOT conducting scientific research.
Richard
Richard-
I briefly scanned the paper, and looked at Figure 1. It seems to me that they redefined “climate sensitivity.” They use S represent their new definition, and, as far as I can tell it is this term that varies from 2.6K to 3.9K. Figure 1 of their paper, which purports to show the relationship between S and TCR, shows that as S varies from 2 to 5, TCR varies from 1 to 2.
i may have misinterpreted this completely, but that’s what I got out of my brief look.
old engineer,
Yes, that is exactly what they did. Please see my above comment (at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/settled-science-new-climate-study-shifts-the-goalposts-to-2-6-3-9c/#comment-3039598 ) which quotes the pertinent paragraph from the paper and explains it.
Richard
“New Climate Study Shifts the Goalposts to 2.6-3.9C”
It narrows the goalpost range.
No, it puts them out of the realm of reality.. where they always have been.
It is an unmeasured fantasy, that exist ONLY in models.
Attribution modelling is easy if you attribute everything to an unsubstantiated fantasy, and you neglect all the real causes of climate variability.
Or hadn’t you realised that is what they have done here. ! DOH!
People usually grow up from having imaginary friends, but I suppose imaginary friends like climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 above 280 ppm are harder to grow out of. Mosher’s still stuck at the “simple physics” level and Nick’s faking it, obviously.
It’s infuriating, but also amusing at the same time.
It’s just narrower fantasies on taxpayers’ dime
The 2020 Zelinka paper explicitly identifies the treatment of low level clouds as explanation for the higher CES values of the CMIP6 ensemble compared to its predecessors (and NOT by a ‘better’ understanding of the forcing by CO2). This ought to tell us everything we need to know about the models, namely that the feedbacks are not understood. Settled science indeed!
For those interested, INMCM5 forecasts to 2015 to 2100 are now available.
Article is Simulation of Possible Future Climate Changes in the 21st Century in the INM-CM5 Climate Model
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433820030123
My synopsis: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/07/24/best-climate-model-mild-warming-forecasted/
I am on my mobile now but in relation to this discussion you can check shortwave radiation at different levels with and without clouds here. https://cfys.nu/GTA
The data I use is ECWMFs ERA5 re-analyses data sets.
I don’t think you have seen the data in this dynamic way before. To get started select a dataset then play with long lat.
I’ll explain more when at the computer if there is any interest here
I wouldn’t waste my time reading anything written by Sherwood.
Projection based on a whole lot of assumptions. I shall insist on wait and see.
😎
I thought Hansen and his model was the last word …er… goalpost?
This statement doesn’t say CC happens because GHGs rise, rather AS they rise, so perhaps a kernel of doubt in GHG theory has been planted.
A large problem is an assumption by almost everyone that the annual May-Sep/Oct fall in ML CO2 is just due to NH biota, with no consequential corresponding SH CO2 drawdown in this interpretation. The truth is CO2 is completely temperature dependent on the tropical ocean and isn’t following the consensus’ NH drawdown scenario, and it definitely bears no significant relationship to man-made emissions. There is no TCR or ECS.
I can understand why some think it’s possible for CO2 to cause warmth, as CO2 outgasses at a temperature just lower than the range where evaporation starts and clouds are formed:
However detrended CO2 lags by 1-2 months, ie CO2 is being driven by ocean T changes:
I don’t have time to read 166 pages that don’t conform to the above facts.
The following essay is in the current issue of Scientific American. Strange, but I know a lot of climate change skeptics and not one is a “science denier”- and in particular, they all believe in evolution. Some climate change skeptics probably also have doubts about Covid-19 but that’s irrelevant. I post the entire essay here rather than just give the link because you probably wouldn’t be able to get to it unless you subscribe to the magazine.
***********************
Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science
at Harvard University. She is author of Why Trust Science?
(Princeton University Press, 2019) and co-author
of Discerning Experts (University of Chicago, 2019).
The False Logic
of Science Denial
Arguments against the reality
of COVID-19 mirror those against
climate change and evolution
By Naomi Oreskes
In college, I learned about the myriad logical fallacies that pervade
our world. Good logic, it turned out, was pretty restrictive.
It consisted primarily of modus ponens —“If A is true, then B is
true. A is true. Therefore, B is true”—and modus tollens —“If A is
true, then B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true.”
In contrast, there is a universe of logical fallacies. In science,
the most vexing typically takes the following form: My theory says:
if P, then Q. I design an experiment to see if Q obtains. It does.
Therefore, P is true. Sadly, this conclusion is logically incorrect. Q
might hold for a variety of reasons having little or nothing to do
with my theory. Yet scientists make this mistake all the time, which
led philosopher Karl Popper to argue that the method of science
is—or at least should be—falsification. Popper insisted that one
can never prove that a theory is true, because that would require
you to test it in every conceivable circumstance, which is impossible.
But just a single counterexample can prove a theory false.
While Popper’s theory was profoundly counterintuitive, many
scientists were attracted to it for its clarity and (apparent) logical
rigor. Yet there is a logical flaw here, too. My experiment could
have failed for reasons having nothing to do with the theory itself.
My experimental setup, for example, might have been insufficiently
sensitive to detect the predicted effect. This problem has no logical
resolution, but scientists grapple with it mostly through consilience
(asking which explanation is most consistent with
evidence from a variety of sources) or inference to the best explanation
(looking at a problem from a variety of angles and seeing
which explanations hold up best).
All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not
always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident.
And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate
and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial,
about everything from climate change to COVID-
19, is rampant,
informed by fallacies of all kinds. John Cook of George Mason University
has, for example, undertaken an analysis of the logical fallacies
and distortions tied to climate change denial, which include
jumping to conclusions, cherry-picking data, raising impossible
expectations, relying on fake experts, encouraging conspiracy theories
and questioning the motivation of scientists. But there is a
meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other,
specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people
who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate
change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.
Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers
have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as
a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret
implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don’t like
Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that
underlies most science rejection.
Climate change: I reject the suggestion that the “magic of the
market” has failed and that we need government intervention to
remedy the market failure. Evolutionary theory: I am offended
by the suggestion that life is random and meaningless and that
there is no God. COVID-
19: I resent staying home, losing income
or being told by the government what do to.
In many cases, these objections are based on misunderstandings;
evolutionary theory does not prove the nonexistence of God.
In others, the implications are real enough. Climate change is a market
failure, which will take government action to address. And absent
a system for widespread testing and contact tracing, there was no
known way to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. without
the majority of us staying home. COVID-19 has shown how dangerous
the fallacy of implicatory denial is. When we reject evidence
because we do not like what it implies, we put ourselves at risk.
The U.S. could have acted more quickly to contain COVID-
19.
If we had, we would have saved both lives and jobs. But facts have
an inconvenient habit of getting in the way of our desires. Sooner
or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question
is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way.
“It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change”
What evidence?
There is no scientific evidence for Human-caused Climate Change. Anyone who says there is doesn’t know what scientific evidence is, or else they are just lying to you.
Here’s the logic.
“Somebody said, “2+2=4”. I agree with that.
Therefore, I say “2+2=5 and, furthermore, 5+5= doom!
I must be right because I agreed that 2+2=4!
You don’t agree!? How can you deny that 2+2=4!”
“Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality.”
So does scienfitic charlatanism like we have with the Human-caused climate change narrative.
Naomi Oreskes got her opinion piece published in Scienfitic American. They’ll put anything in that magazine, won’t they. It was an article witjhout substance. Just like the Human-caused climate change narrative is without substance.
“My experiment could have failed for reasons having nothing to do with the theory itself.
My experimental setup, for example, might have been insufficiently sensitive to detect the predicted effect. This problem has no logical
resolution, but scientists grapple with it mostly through consilience (asking which explanation is most consistent with evidence from a variety of sources) or inference to the best explanation
(looking at a problem from a variety of angles and seeing which explanations hold up best).”
She obviously has no metrology training. This is what error analysis and uncertainty analysis is all about. If your experimental measurements do not lie outside your uncertainty interval, you experiment has proven nothing one way or another and logical arguments do not apply. It is as simple as that.
Why does SA accept articles about experimental science from someone who has no experience in conducting experimental science and analysis of results?
Ha ha ha. If false logic were an Olympic sport, Naomi would be in the medals – probably gold.
Post-normal science is the denial of the limits of observation, replication, and deduction, specifically that science is a philosophy and practice, which with cause is viable in a limited frame of reference that is limited by chaos (e.g. “evolution”). It’s notable that this divergence (or liberalization) is driven by a modern religion (or its relativistic cousin “ethics”) and is a progressive (i.e. unqualified monotonic) condition motivated by secular incentives to consolidate capital and control (e.g. suppress competing interests).
Say what?
So, computer model forecasting is now proclaimed evidence. Since when has forecasting (predicting the future) become fact.
Only in Climate “Science” is the output of an unvalidated and unphysical computer model considered to be data.
Climate “Science” is really Cargo Cult Science as defined by the late and great Richard Feynman.
“A) It is Not settled HOW MUCH warming c02 will cause
1) we dont know how much we will emit
2. ECS is uncertain
B) We dont know how much damage/benefit warming will cause and how it will be regionally distributed”
I do not understand why some are bristling at Mosher’s above comment. It is the basic and quintessential question that “climate science” is attempting to answer. I would posit that without clear and compelling evidence that it is otherwise, that the answer to A) is 0° of warming and B) any warming will be toward the poles and not in the tropics which would be a net benefit. Do not omit from the consideration the strong benefit of CO2 fertilization. Plants are the source of all the food we eat, if the plants starve, people starve. All the carbon in the food you eat was CO2 in the air last month, last year, ect.
They say they are now taking the first 150 years after quadrupling CO2 for ECS. This is nothing like standard sensitivity to doubling CO2. What gives? There is no comparison. No wonder they rule out the lower values. Quadrupling!
Note too that they must ignore the dozen or so observational studies that put sensitivity near 1.0 degrees.
Bots?
There are a number of comments in this thread that say nothing more than “Person X is wrong”, or “Person X doesn’t understand math”, or “Person Y is smarter than person X”. These are such contentless comments that I’m wondering whether this page is a bot target, and these comments are just random bot-speak.
If you’re not a bot, then I suggest you refrain from making contentless comments. If you think person X is wrong, then provide evidence in favor of that assertion. Otherwise it’s mostly “hooray for our side” as Buffalo Springfield put it. (Or, for many of the comments from non-bots, wishful thinking.)
If 2.6C was even plausible, then we should have seen at least twice to three times more warming over the last 80 years.
YES!
The fact is that any high sensitivity number applied to actual CO2 increases since they became significant in 1950 would yield current temperatures that are implausible. The higher the sensitivity number goes, the harder it becomes to reconcile with current temps.
Tuning past parameters will get you any hindcast you need. Please note that individual CMIP5 model hindcasts vary wildly before about 1975, neck down in their ranges from then to about 2005 and then vary wildly after that point. Tuning, anyone?
If Lewis and Curry’s 1.8C was remotely plausible we would see it. Makes me wonder what game they’re playing.
That’s easily fixed. If they observe warming they say see we were right. If they don’t see it they say there are unknown natural factors affecting the temperature rise but it’s still there. Prove me wrong!
Evidence is always in the data!
Refer to earlier post which details total lack of effect due to enhanced greenhouse effect in Central Australia where the effect should be well and truly evident by now.
No signal in the data. NONE!
test
If we get 1.2°C warming with a half-doubling of atmospheric CO2 (280-415ppm) how can we get another 1.2 or more, if the doubling is completed? Doesn’t this up-end the whole concept of *climate sensitivity*?https://reason.com/2020/07/23/how-much-will-the-planet-warm-if-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-doubles/?fbclid=IwAR2dd3oBJqQ-s7igRwoXPMcfM0HiKx742-TDW3QIgpfIOuJdyu9S0NWEx0I
….. and that’s if you use a flat baseline for the 1.2°C warming which could only happen if you had huge confidence in a fortune teller with a wonderfully-calibrated crystal ball showing that natural warming went flat around 1950, and it would still only give another 0.6 – 0.7°C from 396 (the logarithmic mid-point) to 560 ppm, including natural warming if it continued.
Nope, not by any null hypothesis rules of real science. At these levels of CO2, its effect on global warming continues to be indistinguishable from zero.
From the article: “We know the climate changes as greenhouse gas concentrations rise,”
You don’t know that. You are guessing. Quit lying.
Since climate has not measurably changed during the 21st Century while CO2 has dramatically increased, how does that square with the assumption?
Easily, if you avoid calculators, backs of envelopes/pencils and all that kind of stuff that the big oil industry pushes.
Wow, 25 authors for this report – no need for any peer review then. And they all agreed with each other and looked forward to their invitation to the next IPCC party. And despite the climate emergency, the IPCC has extended the time for submission of papers from July 1 to November 1, 2020. The Fourth Lead Author Meeting to prepare the final draft of Working Group 2 will also be postponed by about four months to March 2021.
The intention is to release all the Reports of the three Working Groups and the Synthesis Report in time to inform the 2023 Global Stocktake by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Who wants the science to be settled when more studies will see them through to retirement?
It must be gospel since unrealclimate is praising it.
[[We assess evidence relevant to Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record.]]
When will this U.N. IPCC octopus quit churning out fake science for big govt. bucks? To understand CO2 “climate sensitivity” they have to study the historical and paleoclimate record?
Guess what, bozos? You only have to know basic physics, which proves that CO2 can’t melt an ice cube because its absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, and hence isn’t even heat. Let’s say that atmospheric CO2 absorbed all of Earth’s 15 micron radiation and managed to send it back at full strength. Then it would effectively keep the surface from NOTHING, since it’s always hotter than -80C, and hence if it wants to cool via radiation it will do it with shorter wavelengths. CO2 GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX, AS IS CO2 CLIMATE SENSITIVITY! MAKE THEM GIVE THE MONEY BACK AND RETRAIN FOR USEFUL CAREERS LIKE UBER DELIVERY DRIVER!
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
It’s OK. We’re still doomed.
Analyzing and calculation of ECS is irrelevant because the IPCC has written like this in AR5 [48], (p. 1110): “ECS determines the eventual warming in response to stabilization of atmospheric composition on multicentury time scales, while TCR determines the warming expected at a given time following any steady increase in forcing over a 50- to 100-year time scale.” IPCC has changed the TCS to TCR (Transient Climate Response). On page 1112 of AR5 IPCC states that “TCR is a more informative indicator of future climate than ECS.”
Talking about the ECS is highly theoretical with multicentury timescale involved.
old engineer,
Yes, that is exactly what they did. Please see my above comment (at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/settled-science-new-climate-study-shifts-the-goalposts-to-2-6-3-9c/#comment-3039598 ) which quotes the pertinent paragraph from the paper and explains it.
Richard
Radiative Green House Effect theory says downwelling “extra” energy “trapped” and “back” radiated from the GHGs makes the earth warmer.
How and where, exactly, do the GHGs “trap” this “extra” energy? They must deduct it from the atmosphere’s energy debit card. If a credit isn’t applied to that card there will be a deficit in the ToA balance.
So how does this atmospheric debit card get refilled?
Per RGHE the surface radiates as an ideal black body upwelling “extra” energy to recharge that debit card.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules ideal black body LWIR upwelling “extra” energy from the surface is not possible.
No “extra” upwelling energy, no “trapped” or “back” radiated “extra” energy, no GHG warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.
The concept of “extra” and “trapped” energy violates physics and thermodynamics.
The alleged upwelling and downwelling “extra” energy measurements are the illusion of improperly configured instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy turned out to be stray electrical currents in the apparatus.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Why the instruments are wrong.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_irinstuments-greenhouseeffect-climatechange-activity-6691709852550606848-rW8w
Why the surface cannot radiate as an ideal black body.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
And a summary just because.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_greenhouse-globalwarming-climatechange-activity-6690278760157192192-CS81
Why do these numbers matter when this is the basis for the scary 2 degrees. WHY?
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697.html