Modern Climate Change Science

The first modern theoretical estimates of ECS, the equilibrium climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, were reported in 1979 in the so-called “Charney Report” (Charney, et al., 1979). They reported, on page 2, a theoretical ECS of 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling of the CO2 atmospheric concentration. This estimate included an estimate of water vapor feedbacks, the effect of ice and their assumed uncertainties. Absent any water vapor feedback their computed value was 1°C per doubling of CO2. They also supply a likely value of 2.4°C on page 9, although on page 2 they offer a value “near 3.0.” The page 9 value is not far off from the empirical estimate of 2°C made by Guy Callendar in 1938, but significantly higher than the 1.2°C to 1.95°C (17% to 83% range, best estimate 1.5°C) given by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry (Lewis & Curry, 2018).

The IPCC, in their AR5 report (Bindoff & Stott, 2013), estimate ECS as lying between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and provide no best estimate. This range is precisely the same as the Charney Report made 34 years earlier. While the empirical, observation-based, estimates have narrowed significantly, the theoretical range has not changed, despite thousands of government-funded scientists spending billions of dollars trying to do so. The data is very much the same today and churning it faster with more powerful computers and billions of dollars doesn’t seem to matter. It works the same way with manure.

Digging deeply into the AR5 internals, as Monckton, et al. did in MSLB15, a paper entitled, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015), we see that the elements of the AR5 theoretical calculations suggest that the range is narrowing in a downward direction. Given the political environment at the IPCC, one can easily suspect that the politicians do not want to admit the theoretical risks of CO2-caused climate change are lessening. As more empirical estimates of the CO2 effect appear and more theoretical work is done, one wonders how long the politicians can support the clearly inflated range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C?

Estimates of ECS have been declining for a long time, as shown in 2017 by Nicola Scafetta and colleagues. Figure 1 is from their paper:

The decline in estimates of ECS from 2000 to 2015. Source: Scafetta, Mirandola, and Bianchini, 2017.

The 1980s was when the catastrophic man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming catastrophe (CAGW) idea was developed. The alarmists have been beating the drum year-after-year ever since. In the United States, a Senate committee meeting, hosted by Senator Tim Wirth, on CAGW took place in the Washington, DC Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 23, 1988. It was a hot and humid day in swampy Washington, DC. The meeting was a watershed moment, in no small part due to Dr. James Hansen of NASA. In his presentation to the Congressional committee, he said:

“It is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.”

“Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, … the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

“The present observed global warming is close to 0.4 degrees C, relative to ‘climatology,’ which is defined as the thirty-year (1951 – 1980) mean. … we can state with about 99 percent confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period.” (Hansen, 1988)

ExxonMobil believed that natural variability was ±0.5°C. They thought that a change had to be larger than that to be significant. Obviously, Hansen somehow narrowed this natural range. The world cooled globally from 1944 to 1977, then began warming in 1978. An increase of 0.4°C is not much, so using that to determine that the “greenhouse effect” has been detected after a long period of cooling should have raised eyebrows and questions. Notice Hansen says, “greenhouse effect,” when he means “human-caused greenhouse effect” or “enhanced greenhouse effect.” There is a natural greenhouse effect, caused by natural CO2 and other greenhouse gases, especially water vapor. This is the beginning of a deceptive tactic commonly used by the alarmists. To ignore natural causes of climate change, they equate “greenhouse effect” with “human-caused greenhouse effect.” Also, they use “global warming” as synonymous to “human-caused global warming” and “climate change” is synonymous with “human-caused climate change.” This sort of deceptive and manipulative language is still used today.

The IPCC Reports

The first IPCC report (FAR), chaired by Bert Bolin, determined that global warming to 1992, when the report was published, fell within the range of “natural climate variability” and was not necessarily due to human activities (IPCC, 1990, p. XII). They thought the unequivocal detection of a human influence was “not likely for a decade or more.” Bert Bolin thought James Hansen’s congressional testimony in 1988 had exaggerated the significance of recent global warming.

The second report, SAR, published in 1996, found that “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.” (IPCC, 1996, p. 4). But this was based upon unpublished and unreviewed work by Benjamin Santer and colleagues. His study suggested that climate model predictions about warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere, were like what was occurring. He called this a “fingerprint” of human influence on climate (Santer, et al., 1996a). After the paper was published, it was found that Santer had cherry-picked his fingerprint (Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996). The study was dismissed, and the IPCC humiliated. This humiliation was compounded by the fact that the politicians in charge of the IPCC were caught changing the scientific reports within SAR to match their political Summary for Policymakers (Seitz, 1996).

The third report, TAR, published in 2001, found that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” (IPCC, 2001, p. 10). They based this decision on the “hockey stick,” which was later shown to be flawed. By the time the fourth report (AR4) was published in 2007, numerous investigations of the hockey stick showed it was incorrect and showed too little variability. This was acknowledged in the fourth report, AR4, by Keith Briffa, who wrote, somewhat euphemistically, that the hockey stick was too sensitive to particular proxies (tree rings) and the statistical methods (principal components) used to construct it (IPCC, 2007b, p. 436). Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas demonstrated that the hockey stick did not reflect the data used to build it (Soon & Baliunas, 2003). The hockey stick turned out to be an elaborate fiction created solely from a flawed statistical procedure and a poorly selected set of temperature proxies (National Research Council, 2006, pp. 112-116) and (Wegman, Scott, & Said, 2010, pp. 4-5, 48-50).

By the time AR4 was published in 2007, the leadership of the IPCC had given up on finding any direct evidence that humans dominate climate change. They had tried Santer’s “fingerprint” and Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” and failed to convince the public with either. So, in AR4, they tried to use climate models to convince the public that, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (IPCC, 2007b, p. 10). They present no observational evidence, just model results. The fifth report, AR5, was just a repeat of AR4. Same two models, same result. As already mentioned, deep in the AR5 internals, MSLB15 (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015) showed that the newer AR5 model results suggested IPCC headlines are overstating the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, but this result was not explained or acknowledged in the report.

So, while empirical calculations of the climate sensitivity to CO2 now show ECS to be between 1.1°C and 2.45°C (see Table 1), the theoretical estimates have remained 1.5 to 4.5, except for AR4 when it was changed to 2.0 to 4.5. The ranges in Table 1 are all 5% to 95% ranges as far as I can tell.

Table 1. Various estimates of ECS. All are theoretical calculations except for Lewis and Curry, their estimate is based on observations.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 111120_2051_modernclima1.jpg

Thus, thousands of scientists and billions of dollars later, we still have the same theoretical uncertainty about the impact of CO2 on climate. The one empirical estimate of ECS shown is about 1.5°C. Most such empirical estimates are less than 2°C and cluster around 1.5°C to 1.6°C (Lewis & Curry, 2018). Guy Callendar’s empirical estimate was 2°C (Callendar, 1938) and Arrhenius’ theoretical estimate (Arrhenius, 1908) was 4°C, so it can be said all the work and money spent since 1938 to attribute climate change to humans was wasted.

Is it getting any better? What about the latest generation of theoretical models, CMIP6? Early indications are that the results are getting worse, not better, as reported by Ron Clutz and John Christy. While most of the new models show absurdly inflated values for ECS, it is interesting that the latest version of the Russian model, INM-CM4, referred to in my previous post, now predicts an ECS of 1.83. So, except for INM-CM4, we’ve seen no progress since 1938. As my late Grandmother Marie McCartney would say, “now isn’t that just dandy.”

This is a condensed excerpt, with minor modifications, from my new book, Politics and Climate Change: A History.

To download the bibliography, click here.

169 thoughts on “Modern Climate Change Science

  1. The Charney report relied upon two model outputs available in 1979. Manabe derived ECS of 2.0 degree C for doubling of CO2. Hansen hadn’t yet published his result, but told Charney it was 4.0 degrees C.

    So Charney accepted these two numbers, slapped an arbitrary 0.5 degree C margin of error on them, and voila! the now 41 year-old range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C was hatched. And thus the central figure of 3.0 degrees C became “canonical”.

    This GIGO exercise is not science, which is based upon observations of nature.

          • And… It’s really the transient climate response (TCR) that matters. TCR is the direct warming that occurs as atmospheric CO2 rises. TCR is generally about 2/3 ECS. The other 1/3 occurs over hundreds of years after the doubling.

            With a 1.5 °C ECS and a doubling of atmospheric CO2, about 1.0 °C of warming occurs simultaneously with the CO2 rise and the other 0.5 °C occurs over the next several hundred years.

          • “The other 1/3 occurs over hundreds of years after the doubling.”

            Don’t you mean:

            “The other 1/3 is falsely claimed to occur over hundreds of years after the doubling.”

            There’s only 1 sensitivity metric that has any physical significance which is the dimensionless ratio of W/m^2 of black body surface emissions to W/m^2 of captured solar energy. It’s current average value is about 1.62 and exhibits no discernible trend over 3 decades of satellite measurements. Starting from an average surface temperature of 288K (390 W/m^2 BB emissions), adding 1.62 W/m^2 to the emissions and converting back to a temperature is about 288.3K, or 0.3C per W/m^2.

            An ideal BB at 288K has a sensitivity of EXACTLY 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponding to less than 0.2C per W/m^2. A non ideal BB (gray body) has a sensitivity of EXACTLY 1/e W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing, where e is the emissivity. Since the atmosphere radiates equally up and down, the minimum possible emissivity is 0.5 corresponding to a maximum theoretical emissions sensitivity of 2 W/m^2 of surface BB emissions per W/m^2 of forcing.

            The increase of 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing (0.3C per W/m^2) is the consequence of GHG’s and clouds. An ECS of 0.8C per W/m^2 requires BB emissions to increase by about 4.4 W/m^2. There’s no possible way without creating energy out of thin air to support an emissions increase of 3.4 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing more than an ideal BB and 2.4 W/m^2 more than the theoretical max.

          • It’s not falsely claimed. It’s part of the hypothesis. A hypothesis that has never been tested, nor can it be tested.

            The TCR is is basically the black body warming plus whatever simultaneous feedbacks are in the model. The difference between between ECS and TCR is the warming that occurs due to geophysical inertia as equilibrium is restored after CO2 stops rising.

            I’m not saying that it’s real in a physical sense. I’m just explaining what the concepts are.

            The instrumental data don’t cover a long enough time period to truly test the hypothesis. However, the indications from the instrumental data are than ECS is about 2 °C per doubling and the TCR is about 1.5 °C per doubling. If Earth’s atmosphere was a true black body, it would be about 1 °C per doubling with no feedbacks.

          • David,

            If the Earth was an ideal BB at 288K, the sensitivity would be 0.19C per W/m^2. At a surface temperature of 255K, it would be 0.3C per W/m^2. At 0.19C per W/m^2, the sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about 0.7C and at 0.3C per W/m^2 it’s about 1.1C. The increase in the sensitivity factor from 0.19C per W/m^2 to 0.3C per W/m^2 is all that can be attributed to ‘feedback’. The ‘consensus’ claims more feedback piles on and increases this to 0.8C per W/m^2, which is prima facia absurd. There’s no possible ‘long term’ (> 3 decades) feedback that can accomplish this blatant violation of COE.

            The error made is that 0.3C per W/m^2 is not the zero feedback response, but is the measured long term steady state response after all things considered ‘feedback’ have had their complete, steady state effect on the temperature. The basic emissions sensitivity of 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 at TOA has shown no appreciable ‘trend’ since measurements began. It will never be the 4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing claimed by the IPCC.

            The actual ‘zero feedback’ response of 0.19C per W/m^2 is given exactly by,
            1/(4oT^3), where o is the SB Constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per T^4) and T is the average temperature. Considering the equivalent emissivity of e=0.62, the post feedback sensitivity is given exactly as, 1/(4eoT^4).

            ‘Feedback’ that warms the surface above and beyond what a black body would achieve MUST be accompanied with a non unit emissivity since T^4 emissions by the surface that are absorbed and then returned to warm the surface beyond what a BB will do is energy that doesn’t escape the planet, i.e., a linear reduction in the T^4 emissions which is represented with an emissivity. THERE IS NO PHYSICS THAT CAN CHANGE THE 4 IN T^4 AND ONLY A LINEAR ATTENUATION OF T^4 EMISSIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICS.

            The reciprocal of the equivalent emissivity is 1.62 and is the dimensionless surface power ‘gain’ of 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, as compared to an ideal BB which is exactly 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. Note that a ‘dimensionless’ emissivity can also be represented with units of W/m^2 of final emissions per W/m^2 of T^4 emissions. Confusion arises because the metric of degrees per W/m^2 is not linear, but dependent on 1/T^3 where this dependence is ‘approximated’ away. The IPCC ECS would only be consistent with an equivalent ‘incremental’ emissivity of 0.22 which is less than the theoretical min of 0.5 for a semi-transparent atmosphere.

            BTW, the idea of ‘thermal inertia’ is completely bogus. Show me any real system that when you take the heat source away, it continues to warm.

  2. ECS?
    Why do so many people use acronyms without defining what they are?
    I’m no wiz at writing, grammar or literature but I remember a lesson from one of my teachers long ago.
    The first time you use an acronym you also spell out the words it stands for.

    One shouldn’t have to scroll down to Table 1, near the end of the article to see Estimated Climate Sensitivity spelled out which explains what ECS in the very first line of the article means.

    • Myron you are absolutely right, although Mr. May is a good writer, and very generous with his work for cheapskates like me who think paperback books should cost 99 cents.
      Funny thing is after you know E stands for equilibrium, ECS doesn’t make sense, because our planet’s climate is always changing, which some people say “is not in thermodynamic equilibrium” so they sound smart, which i would never do.

      Another complication is calling computer games that make wrong climate predictions “climate models”. In real science a model has to make correct predictions — in the climate change “religion” the computer games only have to make scary predictions.

      The so-called climate models are just the opinions of the scientists who program them. Since the predictions are so far from reality, they should be ignored … but people are very impressed by computers, especially super computers and complex models. Like the ones that predicted 2 million Americans would die from COVID-19.

    • No, got that wrong, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. As opposed to Transient Climate Sensitivity. Both are useless non-scientific scare tactics from people who hate mining, hate anything that changes the natural world, despite the fact that withour mining and combustion, we would still be in the Stone Ages. Sadly, the University Presidents seem to support these mindless idiots….

    • The first sentence doesn’t say what ECS stands for but does show what it means, ie the temperature response expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

      Granted, it’s always good form to state what an acronym means when first used, but it’s so common in climate discussions that Andy could reasonably assume that readers knew what it meant.

        • Middleman:
          It’s best to assume irregular readers will come here too. Our goal should be to keep them coming back. They would prefer writing as simple as possible. Write as you talk. Explain acronyms the first time you use them. Use small words. Don’t gush about the “fracking industry”, as if everything there is perfect. Don’t go berserk when comments don’t agree with you. Don’t write while drinking beer. Don’t spell names wrong when replying to comments. The usual stuff. I try to make my own blog articles simple enough so a 12 year old child could understand them. Then I go out and find a 12 year-old child to explain them to me. A sense of humor, which I hope to have someday, can make science articles more interesting. And any article that fails to insult climate alarmists is not really complete.

          • The reading age of a newspaper is 10 years. Higher aiming publications like New Scientist should be comprehensible to a bright 12 or 13 year old.

            This blog is on a par with that for age. When writing here, I suggest that contributors use the standard of writing where the first time an expression is used, it is spelled out. If it is going to be repeated in the same message it should be followed the first time by (acronym) and then the short form used thereafter. In replied to the message thread there is no need to repeat the long form.

    • It’s actually Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity now, which is another sh!te made up construct to pretend something’s going to happen after the purveyors of this parasitism are dead.

    • You must of had the same English teacher that I had. Let people know upfront what the abbreviation or the acronym is and then continue on.

      • Teewee,
        My English teacher taugt me to write”You must have had … ”
        She would have died of shame if I wrote “You must of had … ” as that would be horrible use of English language. Geoff S

    • Very good point on proper journalism practice. However, it’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity ( and Transient Climate Sensitivity).

    • “Why do so many people use acronyms without defining what they are? … The first time you use an acronym you also spell out the words it stands for.”

      It’s a bit more nuanced than that. It’s really not necessary or even an especially good idea to rigidly spell out common acronyms that everyone who cares already knows — RADAR, BBC, NASA, LASER. Heck, some acronyms — radar and laser for example — have pretty much become words whose provenance is forgotten.

      But overall I agree about ECS, TCS, MSL (Mean Sea Level) and such. If the term is obscure enough that some readers may not understand it, it’s surely best to define it.

    • Agree. I attended a Department of Defense meeting and got tired of a speaker spouting acronyms so I asked him to let us all know what each one stood for. It was fun… because he could not.

      • I too read the first sentence of the article:
        “The first modern theoretical estimates of ECS, the equilibrium climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, …”.
        How does that not explain what ECS means?


    Models and Their Validity 13
    We proceed now to a discussion of the three-dimensional model simulations
    on which our conclusions are primarily based. Some of the existing general
    circulation models have been used to predict the climate for doubled or
    quadrupled CO2 concentration. The results of several such predictions were
    available to us: three by S. Manabe and his colleagues at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (hereafter identified as Ml, M2, and M3) and
    two by J. Hansen and his colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies (hereafter identified as HI and H2). Some results obtained with the
    British Meteorological Office model (Mitchell, 1979) were also made available
    to us but will not be described here because both the sea-surface temperature
    and the sea-ice distribution were prescribed in this model, thus placing strong
    constraints on the surface tlT, whereas it is just the surface tlT that we wish
    to estimate.

    M1: Manabe, S., and R. T. Wetherald (1975). The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model, J. Atmos. Sci. 32, 3.
    M2: Manabe, S., and R. T. Wetherald (1980). On the distribution of climate change
    resulting from an increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere (accepted for publication in J. Atmos. Sci., January 1980).
    M3: Manabe, S., and R. Stouffer (1979). Study of climatic impact of CO2 increase with
    a mathematical model of global climate (submitted to Nature).
    HI: Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1978). Proposal for Research in Global Carbon Dioxide Source/Sink Budget and Climate Effects, Institute for Space Studies,
    2880 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10025.
    H2: Hansen, J. E. Private communication. Paper in preparation for submission to
    J. Atmos. Sci. Information available from Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10025.

    • The simple test for any climate model is to compare what it produces for SST over the Nino34 region compared to what has actually occurred in the last 40 years:!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
      It is more than challenging to produce zero trend for this region and still have warming.

      If it is anything but flat then you know the model produces meaningless drivel. They cannot even get the calibration right.

      Nino34 is considered a very important region because its temperature variation has significant weather impact on the Pacific rim countries.

  4. Of course, 95+% of Co2 is entirely natural, and is emitted and absorbed every year. Humans contribute under 5% of the total. So, framing future climate in terms of doubling Co2 is factually dishonest. There is no way humans could ever double the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere. Might as well muse about a roller coaster that reaches to the moon – about as realistic.
    Not to mention the greening of the world due to more CO2 present – that is a good thing, and it means even less of the human emitted Co2 remains in the atmosphere.
    My commercial greenhouse, in the 70’s ran at 1500 ppm of Co2. We simply snipped off plant ends and threw them on a table with pea gravel with an overhead spray and they rooted like crazy.

    • Probably no one alive today will see a doubling from preindustrial levels, but it could be close and reach 600 ppm in about 100 years. And it if does, like you said, it’s a good thing.

    • If that is so, there’s no need to spend billions researching it. Oooops….
      No, we swear a few billion more and we’ll have this sucker nailed down.

    • A couple of modeled results added by the climate scammers in a vain attempt to counter Scafetti

      .. but you knew that already, didn’t you mosh. ! ;-)… !

    • Lord not another ‘hockeystick’.
      At the first link, the blue TCR line extrapolated would be up around 6C by now and from then on the sky’s the limit.
      Presumed observed surface temperature plotted as a function of observed CO2 concentration so far yields a TRC around 2C.

    • Good reference, Mosher; updated figures are always welcome.

      In my reading the updated figure, the rise in the TCR line (starting at about 2014) is due to a single outlier in the final year shown (2017): Lucarni et. al. report ECS slightly above 4.0, whereas no other TCR estimate since 2006 has reported ECS above 2.0.

      It seems to me that if Lucarni’s data point is removed, the TRC ECS at 2017 would be well below 2.0, not the 3.0+ shown in the updated figure.

      I am no expert in these matters, but it seems that in the updated chart, an outlier is causing a huge change in TCR ECS. How much credence should Lucarni et. al. be afforded?

      • “I am no expert in these matters, but it seems that in the updated chart, an outlier is causing a huge change”

        Hmmm, where have we seen that before? *cough*Mann*cough*Briffa*cough*

        • If something is trending towards insignificance, then the climate alarmists grant seekers, have a special “trick” they can use to “hide the decline”
          Mann oh Mann, I wish I was that smart….who knows, I could even be an advisor to a future President? If only we could get rid of George?

    • Steven, You don’t honestly believe ECS is 3 do you? There are no modern observation-based estimates that high, only models. With a model you can make ECS anything you want, they’re useless. I stand by Scafetta’s plot.

      • Andy,

        There is a version of the Knutti plot that breaks it down by methodology. The estimates based on instrumental observations reflect the Scaffetta pattern. The versions based on models and spectrally mismatched paleoclimate data are what bring the curve up.

        I’ll see if I can find it.

        • Loydo posted it down further in the comments. It’s something from Zeke Hausfather I think…

          I’ve never found a link to the input data. But I did once digitize it and the instrumental data look like the Scaffetta plot.

          • Here’s a plot of the instrumental data only:

            ECS study year  min   max   ECS mean 
            Harvey and Kaufmann 2002 2002   1.0          3.0              2.0
            Gregory et al. 2002 2002   1.6        10.0              2.1
            Kaufmann and Stern 2002 2002   2.0          2.8              2.6
            Knutti et al. 2002 2002   2.0          9.2              4.8
            Frame et al. 2005 2005   1.2          5.2              2.3
            Tsushima et al. 2005 2005   3.1          4.7              3.8
            Forster and Gregory 2006 2006   1.0          4.1              1.6
            Forest et al. 2006 2006   2.1          8.9              4.1
            Stern et al. 2006 2006   4.4          4.5              4.4
            Chylek et al. 2007 2007   1.1          1.8              1.6
            Schwartz 2007 2007   0.9          2.9              1.9
            Lindzen and Choi 2009 2009   0.4          0.5              0.5
            Murphy et al. 2009 2009   0.9        10.0              3.0
            Lin et al. 2010 2010   2.8          3.7              3.1
            Lindzen and Choi 2011 2011   0.5          1.1              0.7
            Aldrin et al. 2012 2012   1.2          3.5              2.0
            Schwartz 2012 2012   1.5          6.0              3.0
            Lewis 2013 2013   1.0          3.0              1.6
            Otto et al. 2013 2013   0.9          5.0              1.9
            Bengtsson and Schwartz 2013 2013   1.5          2.5              2.0
            Otto et al. 2013 2013   1.2          3.9              2.0
            Skeie et al. 2014 2014   0.9          3.2              1.8
            Loehle 2014 2014   1.8          2.3              2.0
            Lewis 2014 2014   1.2          4.5              2.2
            Kummer and Dessler 2014 2014   1.6          4.1              2.3
            Lovejoy 2014 2014   2.5          3.7              3.1
            Donohoe et al. 2014 2014   3.1          3.2              3.1
            Urban et al. 2014 2014   2.1          4.6              3.1
            Monckton et al. 2015 2015   0.8          1.3              1.0
            Loehle 2015 2015   1.5          1.6              1.5
            Lewis and Curry 2015 2015   1.1          4.1              1.6
            Cawley et al. 2015 2015   1.8          4.4              2.0
            Johansson et al. 2015 2015   2.0          3.2              2.5
            Johansson et al. 2015 2015   1.6          7.8              3.1
            Bates 2016 2016   1.0          1.1              1.0
            Lewis 2016 2016   0.7          3.2              1.7
            Loeb et al. 2016 2016   0.8        10.0              2.0
            Forster 2016 2016   1.1          5.3              3.0
            Armour 2017 2017   1.7          7.1              2.9
            Lewis and Curry 2018 2018   1.2          3.1              1.8
             Average               2.3
             σ               0.9
             -2σ               0.4
             +2σ               4.2

            A 2.3 average ECS would translate to about a 1.5 TCR.

          • Glad I could help. The funny thing is that Zeke tries to explain why the instrumental data are wrong and the models and paleo reconstructions are right. That’s like claiming that the dry hole you just drilled was wrong because the seismic interpretation and models were right.

    • Ah the inane comments by Mosher, what would we do without them?

      The hockey stick in TCR is particularly funny based on a single study. That alone labels your graph as misinformation or fake.

  5. “represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period.”

    Yes, as part of the AMO cycle…

    ….. so NOT a chance fluctuation

  6. In 1979, just like in 2020, there is no “Computed” ECS. ECS and TCS are both based on two hugely unscientific assumptions. One, that all the warming since 1850, or 1880, or some year, is due to anthropogenic CO2. And, Two, that the temperature records from the 19th Century accurately record a so-called Global Average Temperature.

    Really, you guys, knock it off. Do not play in their carefully falsifed game.

    Calculate it from First Principles. You cannot, no one can. There is an effect, which I have defined many times here, which does not happen in the first ten meters of altitude of the Atmosphere, but happens at the TOA. The magnitude of this effect has not been calculated, may very well be impossible to calculate.

    Just exactly how does the altitude at which the Atmosphere is no longer opaque to Outgoing Long-Wave Infrared change as we add CO2 to the atmosphere? Michael Mann does not know. Keith Trenberth, shamefully from my glorious U of Michigan, also does not know.

    There is no computed ECS nor TCS. Stop already….

    • Michael I agree. Those that peddle the ECS idea must be able to demonstrate that there are two Cp’s for a mass of dry air. One if IR involved and one without IR as the part of the energy input.

      They should be able to show that a mass of dry air would be between 5-33 C colder without IR involved.

      Thermodynamics clearly states that the energy input can be “any form”.

      If ECS is correct then thermodynamics is wrong. The shomate equation is wrong for calculating Cp of mixed gases. The Cp tables need addendum saying if CO2 and IR involved insert forcing equation. And the NIST data sheet for CO2 needs revision to include this capability.

    • That’s my view exactly, but it is useful to defeat them with their tricks.

      I used to tell Nick Lewis that the ECS calculations assume all warming is due to a change in CO2, but he never answered to that. I guess he is just following their methodology to show that even then they are wrong.

  7. I’m just a simple man living in Tennessee. Down here I think we’ve got a pretty good handle on what’s going on w/o spending Billions. Wrote this piece yesterday:

    The Climate She’s A-Changin’
    Tennessee Ken

    From where I’m a-sittin’ here in Tennessee, climate change ain’t all that bad! Ya see, more ‘n more armadillos keeps comin’ from Texas. They may be the first bonified climate refugees. The way I seez it, that ain’t all bad. ‘Cause ya see, armadillos taste a lot like chicken. They is gittin’ harder ‘n harder ta’ catch unless yer lucky enough ta’ run up on a road kill. My cousin Billy sez his cotton is gittin’ so high, them little critters are near impossible ta’ catch. My other cousin Billy is havin’ the same problem ‘cause his terbacky just keeps gittin’ higher ‘n higher if ya git my drift. Must be the extra carbon deeoxide don’t cha know. Them thar folks up at the university sure are in a ruffle over climate change. I guess savin’ all them beach houses is a good thang. Lookin’ from my front porch, one thang I don’t like is that thar carbon deeoxide haze up the holler. Wait a minute! . . . Never mind! Musta’ put too much coal under the ol’ moonshine still.
    11/11/20 kho

    There’s a lot to unpack in this little tung-in-cheek piece. The moral is “all the good things in life (moonshine and the huge revenue) come from coal being burned in factories hidden out of sight up the holler.” This is analaus to iPhones being manufactured at Foxconn at the bottom of the supply chain (the holler) where the pollution, labor, human rights violations, etc are well hidden and protected by a double-barrelled shotgun. BTW – I don’t concur that all good things are material but you get the picture.

    • Tennessee “Billy Bob” Ken
      Great piece. You must be a riot at parties. Especially when you wear them there farmer overalls and a fake ZZ Top beard, so guests don’t know you are really a Wall Street lawyer making $450,000 a year.
      Do you have a blog?
      You should have one.

      • Hey Richard – thanks & glad you liked it. The overalls & beard idea are great. I’m more of the dry humor type rather than the life of the party and am just trying to find some truth in this very complicated world. You’ve got to be your own news.
        I’m a retired engineer with an MS from one of those high falutin’ universities. Spent my career doing research and/or consulting writing hundreds of reports (flow sheets, environmental assessments, conceptual designs, final designs, technical specifications, test reports, audits, permit applications, you name it and have quite a few publications and a few patents). So you may say I’m a bonified word smither. The piece above shows what an engineer who can’t spell can do with the English language. I believe I can communicate. I may run this piece by my real cousin who’s a communications professor (occasional department head) at one of them thar universities in Texas that’s famous for it’s hornie toads.

    • “1906 1.6 C Revised estimate for the warming case.”

      Yes, “Friends of Science” said that; quoting dishonestly from his 1906 paper, where it says, about halfway through:
      In his later 1906 paper Arrhenius revised his estimates, writing:

      “In a similar way, I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of – 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.”

      But if you continue just to the start of Arrhenius’ next paragraph, he says:
      “In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. “

      That was just the no feedback calc. When he includes wv, as he did in 1896 and elsewhere, you come to the real figure:

      “For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “

      And that (from the 1906 paper) is the 4°C which Andy May correctly quotes.

      • “That was just the no feedback calc.”

        With atmospheric Feedback, and other REAL forcings taken into account….

        The answer is ZERO.

        You know that, don’t you Nick.

        Why do you continue to play the ignorant twit game of the AGW scammer. ?

        You do know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been actually observed or measured don’t you !!

        These calculations are all just correlation not causation calculations.

        Yes there has been some highly beneficial warming from the coldest period in 10,000 years

        Yes atmospheric CO2 levels have risen.. and plant life is luving it.

        But the calculations have the causation THE WRONG WAY AROUND. !!

      • Nick, the water vapor increase is indeed the main cause of the mild increase we’re seeing, but it isn’t caused by CO2; rather it is the result of the vast increase of irrigated areas over the past 50 years.

        There’s more water vapor aloft because there is more water surface to evaporate from due to…yes…human activities. Irrigation has prime responsibility for so-called “greenhouse warming”.

        Let me know when you stop eating.

        Not only is it a stronger “greenhouse gas”, it is 25 to 200 times more abundant in the atmosphere most everywhere there are plants.

        It’s not about climate change, it’s about who shall control energy and rule.

        • @ Larry Wirth.

          Sorry Larry but I’m not buying that.

          Water covers >70% of the worlds surface, but you’re attributing increased planetary warming due to irrigation from a relatively TINY land area of human-cultivated farmland?

          It’s a No from me.

          • How is your comment any different from stating that a tiny increase in overall CO2 caused by human activity compared to the large total CO2 caused by natural processes is causing global warming?

        • Larry- don’t attribute the rise in atmospheric moisture to irrigation that glibly.
          There is no one cause of variation in the climate. The closest we’ve got is the Sun, the root of all evil(Joke!).

          The climate models were all produced to satisfy the goals of the IPCC. While they are based, in small part, on observations the rest is simply made up. Given the complexity of the climate there is no way to show a cause of change. The climate models are simply models. I glued together plastic models of airplanes as a kid. I was a bit disappointed they didn’t fly at all, much less like a real airplane. It’s a given climate processes work all the way down to the sub-millimeter level. We won’t be able to come close to that until we get quantum computers.

          “It’s not about climate change, it’s about who shall control energy and rule.”
          That is right on. The Davos convention has been working on this for years, but the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP), which started the IPCC ,started much earlier and specifically ignored everything but human-caused global temperature changes. Damn the sun, damn the clouds,damn the volcanoes, it’s gotta be people(or we won’t have a lever to move the politics).

  8. Andy, again, I’m not trying to be a prick from your last post/thread, but have you found that falsifiable hypothesis yet?

    Here’s what a falsifiable hypothesis looks like:

    My hypothesis, which is falsifiable, is that Andy May cannot provide any falsifiable hypothesis that was ever written by the IPCC, any “climate scientist” or anyone else for that matter, including his Mom, in the entire written history of the human race, that elevation of CO2 in the atmosphere above pre-industrial levels of 280ppm will lead to any measurable effect on any global climate parameter.

    Try it, then you will understand what I meant.

    • philincalifornia, The hypothesis is that CO2 emitted by humans controls climate change. To falsify it you need to show that natural forces are the dominant factor in climate change or that the human influence is insignficant.

      • So you haven’t found a stated falsifiable hypothesis then?

        “Some blokes got together and said a tad o’this and a tad o’that will give something or t’other” is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

        You could just say “No, I’ve never actually seen one stated”. I would be gobsmacked if you or anyone could falsify my hypothesis.

      • Andy,

        Not quite. First it must be shown that there actually is climate change that is more than natural variation during a warming inter-glacial period. As nearly as I can determine no one has yet done that. Observational data simply doesn’t support such a claim.

        Add in the fact that the concept of “global warming” is meaningless and that models have higher uncertainty intervals than the increases being stated and the concept of global warming is an edifice built on a bad foundation.

        BTW, just how is the human contribution to CO2 levels actually MEASURED? As nearly as I can determine it is mostly calculated based on assumptions, is estimated, or is based on “models”. None of this seems to have any uncertainty intervals associated with them. Even levels based on satellite observations use an “assumption” of what natural CO2 levels should be in order to calculate the difference. Again, no uncertainty associated with the calculations at all.

        It’s estimates and models all the way down. It’s up to those making those assumptions and models to prove them, it’s not up to others to disprove them. Yet no one seems to be able to actually support the estimates and models objectively.

        • Also Tim, it has to be stated in order for it to be falsifiable. That’s what Andy seems to be missing (maybe you too) although I keep saying I’m not trying to be a prick here – you’re overthinking my point and telling us what these scientific nitwits should have formulated. My point is that they never did.

          Clearly, scientific nitwits like Jones and Travesty Dufus Trenberth and posssibly Hansen wouldn’t know a falsifiable hypothesis from their elbows. Jeeez, Trenberth is on record as wanting to change the null hypothesis for the sake of the children. Fcuk me, the whole notion of falsifiable hypotheses and the null hypothesis is to “out” scientific frauds (we know who that is), charlatans and scientific dufuses and nitwits.

          Don’t be giving them credit for having a falsifiable hypothesis. They’ve never had one, which is why the philincalifornia hypothesis is on its way to becoming “Philincalifornia’s Law” with capital letters.

          • I can’t grasp how it is that you can’t get this Andy. Can someone, anyone please help me?

            Please, before I lose my will to live, could you state a falsifiable hypothesis of man-made climate change that has ever been stated previously ever in the English language, and I’ll take foreign languages too, and skywriting, sign language and even cave art.

            Why don’t you just say that you can’t? None have ever existed, at least none that I’ve ever seen.

        • Tim Gorman,
          We know fairly accurately how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, since these are sold and we keep track. The addition also causes the uptake in the oceans and in additional plant life to increase. Revelle and others have worked this problem. CO2 from animals has a different 14C/13C/12C ratio than CO2 from fossil fuels or volcanos, so the additional CO2 from humans can be estimated, and it probably is not much.

          The real problem the alarmists have is that they cannot show the additional CO2 from human activities makes any difference, they can detect the CO2, but they cannot tie it to any climate changes. Showing the climate changes are dangerous, beyond normal, is also a huge problem.

          • The only way that it makes a difference is that we are taking carbon out of the slow (geological) carbon cycle and moving it into the fast (active) carbon cycle. Even though we only account for less than 3% of the CO2 sources, we are increasing the pool of CO2 in the fast carbon cycle.

            Have we caused some of the warming observed over the past 70 years? Probably.

            Is it a problem? There’s no evidence that it is a problem.

            Could it be a problem in the future? Maybe.

            Are there economically viable ways to reduce CO2 emissions? Yep. Nuclear power, natural gas and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS).

            Will it affect the climate? Not in any noticeable manner.

            Will it affect the weather? No.

      • Andrew Flay at 3:42 am:
        After 4.5 billion years of climate change, from ONLY natural causes, it is the responsibility of the climate alarmists to prove natural causes of climate change no longer matter.

        They have not even attempted to explain why, or how, in the twentieth century, natural causes became “noise”, and only man made greenhouse gasses were the global average temperature “controller”. That is sort of like believing natural causes died, and made CO2 “boss”.

        In typical leftist style, they assert their CO2 belief, and refuse to debate it. Those who object are character attacked as “science deniers”, unworthy of debate.

        The default position, (or null hypothesis, a term I use only to prove I’m smarter than I look, although I have had no idea what it means since first hearing it in the 1980s) is that natural causes of climate change are STILL the global average temperature “controller”.

        It is up to the climate alarmists to falsify that long term reality. A few lab experiments is weak proof. We climate science realists do NOT have any responsibility to falsify the unproven claim that CO2 is the “climate controller” and will cause a coming climate crisis.

        How can anyone falsify the “coming climate crisis” fantasy?
        Other than to point out the “crisis” has been predicted for 50 years — so where is it? The climate on earth today is better than it has been since the Little Ice Age. How is that a “coming crisis”?

        • Yep. The Null Hypothesis here is fairly simple as it relates to global temperature increases and pseudo-increases. It’s “The baseline is not flat”.

          Pre- high CO2 emissions the temperature “curve” was what it was. That’s the baseline. No one, with the possible exception of loydo and griff on here and others who ought to know better, can claim that the actual baseline at some point, of the voices in their head’s choosing, suddenly went flat so it’s all CO2 now, ner ner. That’s the Null Hypothesis here.

  9. Well, if they keep at it they will eventually get to the correct figure of 0 deg + or – 0.5 deg.
    Nobody has measured it.

  10. Because Andy May’s excellent article above gives historical context for ECS, it does not mention recent, detailed radiation/thermal energy transfer analysis* showing that atmospheric CO2 at its current concentration level may be “saturated”. This means that any further increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration (whether man-made or from natural sources) will NOT result in any further greenhouse warming. In other words, future CO2-driven ECS will remain at its current value, whatever it may be.

    *See the pre-print of a paper by Wijngaarden and Happer linked at

    Assuming the Wijngaarden and Happer paper will withstand critical review, one can insert something here about “beating a dead horse”.

    • There have been many references recently to the paper of Wijngaarden and Happer. The major message has been that CO2 impact is saturated meaning no more warming by elevated CO2 levels. It is true that you finding this statement in their paper. Odd enough, nobody refers to their final conclusion, which I have copied below:

      “Doubling the CO2 concentration will cause a temperature decrease of the upper atmosphere
      of about 10 K as shown in Fig. 11 to restore hypothetical radiative-convective equilibrium.
      For the case of fixed absolute humidity, the surface warms by 1.4 K which agrees
      very well with other work as shown in Table 5. The surface warming increases signicantly
      for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within
      0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups as well as a separate calculation where we used
      the Manabe water vapor prole given by (87). For the case of fixed relative humidity and a
      pseudoadiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere, we obtain a climate sensitivity of 2.2 K.

      For me, the statement of W&H about CO2 saturation is not justified and in these many references, their final conclusion has been ignored. My final conclusion is that the TCS/ECS value of W&H is in line with the majority of TCS/ECS estimates. So, what is the point?

      • The extra jump in temperature calculations is from hypothesised water vapour effects, not from CO 2 effects because the CO2 is saturated for radiation effect. This brings us back to the argument of secondary heating by water after CO2 has done its work. The projected hot spot in the upper troposphere remains to be found, as Roy Spencer notes.
        Emphasis mst be put on the MEASURED CO2 saturation, not on the THEORETICAL ECS comments by v W & H, which simply say that their measurements are similar to earlier ones, but more meticulous.
        Nck Stokes does not seem to understand this.
        Geoff S

      • The “point” is, there is no such thing as “fixed relative humidity” or “fixed absolute humidity” in Earth’s atmosphere, which is the stated basis for the conclusions re: ECS values.

        In order to have such, one would have to presume that weather fronts, especially those involving precipitation, do not exist (and have never existed on the planet). This is easily falsifiable based on personal experience and weather records.

        One would also have to presume that humidity over the oceans that cover about 70% of Earth’s surface is not a function of the underlying surface water temperature and geophysical location. This is easily falsifiable via physical chemistry/thermodynamic laws.

        One would also have to presume that the average percent of Earth’s atmospheric cloud coverage (representing a distinct volume of 100% relative humidity) has been and always will be constant. This is easily falsifiable via satellite imagery.

        And on very long time scales (~100,000 years) one would have to presume that atmospheric relative and absolute humidity remain constant independent of Earth being in a glacial interval or an interglacial interval or transitioning between such periods. This too: easily falsifiable via paleoclimatology data.

        And Geoff Sherrington is spot on in his post pointing out the distinctions between water vapor-driven ECS and CO2-driven ECS.

        I’ll just point out that relative humidity around the Earth can span a range of about two orders of magnitude (from a couple of percent to 100%), and even locally vary by about this much on a DAILY basis . . . atmospheric CO2, not so.

  11. Average global surface a air temperature is largely {70%} about ocean surface temperature.
    The global average ocean surface is about 17 C.
    It is about 17 C, due to 40% of ocean {the tropical ocean] has average temperature of about 26 C. And remaining 60% of global average ocean surface temperature is about 11 C.

    If average global air temperature were to increase, then it’s the 60% of ocean surface temperature of about 11 C, which will {it, must} warm the most.

    So, if you think a doubling of CO2 will warm global average temperature by 5 C, transforming our world from average temperature of about 15 C to global average temperature of about 20 C, it the average surface ocean temperature of about 11 C, which has warm “a lot”. And similarly if imagine global lowering by 5 C, the 60% of ocean surface has to cool “a lot”.

    What happens if the 60% of ocean surface warms a lot?
    The ocean which warms Europe is part of this 60% of the ocean. And considered that the Gulf Stream increases the average temperature of Europe by about 10 C.
    Or average temperature of Europe is about 9 C, and if Gulf Stream was not warming Europe, Europe instead would have average temperature of about -1 C. Or be similar to Canada which has average temperature of about -4 C. So if gulf stream was warmer than it is, then Europe would have higher average temperature and if this part of 60% ocean was colder, then, Europe is colder.
    Also if northern Atlantic ocean surface water was warmer, one would have less arctic polar sea ice.
    Both these are direct effects of having 60% of surface temperature increase in temperature.
    They would be profound effects- and something would could even choose to “cause” by mechanical hindering or enhancing the Gulf Stream {or if Europeans wanted to be colder, it would not cost much to make Europe colder {making them warmer would be more expensive}. But such warming or cooling effect upon Europe {though less polar sea ice would effect more than just Europe} is not why the 60% ocean must warm the most in order to get average global average temperature of 20 C. Why is simple math. Or 70% of earth surface is ocean.
    40% at 26 C = 1,040 and 60% at 11 = 660 AND 1700 / 100 = 17 C
    If 60% increase from 11 to 20 C. 60% at 20 C is 1,200
    1,040 + 1200 = 2240 giving average global surface temperature of 22.4 C
    So roughly that would be Earth with average temperature of about 20 C.
    Or there is no other way to do it.
    Anyhow how does effect land if the 60% of ocean is around 20 C.
    US west coast would much warmer- one probably grow orange trees in Oregon.
    Europe would be at least 15 C rather it’s average of 9 C, due solely to warming effect of a warmer Gulf Stream effect.
    Now we living in an Ice Age and reason we in Ice Age, is because we have cold ocean.
    With our ocean being about 3.5 C it’s hard to imagine the 60% of ocean surface warming from 11 to 20 C. But pretty easy to imagine it if one has ocean with average temperature of 10 C, rather it being 3.5 C

    • gbaikie, True, it is all about the ocean mixed layer temperature, and longer term (thousands of years), about the average ocean temperature, which is around 4-5C.

    • This state’s a pretty good reason for trash canning the Global Average Temperature (GAT). Besides the problems of averaging multiple time trends (stations) with differing variances and handling of data like significant figures, it does not allow a detailed look at what is happening regionally. Every study just assumes their location is increasing at the GAT.

      • Consider a simpler exercise: average the temperatures of just Vorkuta in far-north Russia and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. What would this mean?

        Not much.

  12. CO2 climate sensitivity is a figment of some loons imagination. CO2 does nothing. It cannot.

    Earth’s temperature is locked between two powerful negative feedback mechanisms. One works at the cold end where sea ice forms at 271.3K and insulates the ocean surface to reduce heat loss.

    The other works at the upper end where cloud formation goes asymptotic at SST of 305K dramatically reducing heat input before that temperature is reached. That is evidenced by the stability of the tropical SST; Nino34 for example – slight negative trend over the past 40 years:!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
    I could get it to be zero if I fiddled with the start date for the trend.

    The atmospheric heat rejection kicks into high gear when TPW reaches 30mm. That is where a level of free convection forms. At 38mm the atmosphere goes into daily cloud burst mode whereby monsoon and cyclones form to produce highly reflective cloud, insulating the sea surface below.

    These are simple observations, easily verified and quantified. Climate models are literally junk that dills waste endless time on and taxpayers are obliged to pay for.

    The radiating power of tropical oceans is as low as 160W/sq.m. But reflective power of the same cloud is 300W/sq.m. Reflection trumps reduced emissive power by more than two times. Try to fiddle MODTRAN to produce 160W/sq.m over a 302K ocean surface!!!!!!

  13. “Estimates of ECS have been declining for a long time…” – In other words “a little bit of trace gas is not going to hurt, all a storm in a teacup”

    Nope, Knutti, el al, 2017 put that lie to rest years ago. There is a good reason the Scafetti’s graph looks like that, they left out all this:

    …creative cherry-pruning, I wonder why on earth they would want to do that? So no, ECS has not fallen.

    And it “can’t be true” ’cause the models are wrong. Nope.
    Christy’s graph from falls into the same category, selective and misleading, repeatedly refuted, but pedalled for all its worth.

    Here is the ‘surface’ version of the models vs obs graph
    The predicted warming is happening right now and will continue for decades.

    ECS 1.5-4.5C, probably about 3C, 1.5C+ already, as predicted and ALL indicators: OHC, SST, land temps, sea-ice, sea-level, etc, etc, saying more to come. There is your whole ‘anything but CO2’ case on the ground in pieces.

    The question is on you. After 5000 years of a totally predictable cooling trend post the Holocene optimum high, why else would that trend so sharply reverse? It took 5000 years to fall 1C and instead of continuing, its abruptly warmed 1.5! What is your alternative hypothesis?

    You’ll say its natural variation – because that is all you’ve got – “lets see if the house burns down, then we’ll know, yep, it was flammable”. you’re pedalling misleading graphs to convince people that it isn’t.

    Leif Svalgaard November 10, 2020 at 7:03 pm
    Part of the reason is the spreading of bad science, biased opinions, and plain wishful thinking, e.g. what you are peddling on this very blog.

    You are pedalling bs and I’m guessing there will be a massive, steaming pile of it in your book if offerings like this are anything to go by.

    • There is much warming and cooling that happened in the last five thousand years. Yes, there was the Little Ice Age, but there were also the roman warming period and the medieval warming period lasting about 600 years and 300 years respectively. How do you explain that relative to ECS sensitivity to CO2?

    • Poor loy-dumb

      ALWAYS sucked in by nonsense, aren’t you little-mind.

      And certainly you are ALWAYS pedaling absolute BS.

      First link.. ONE point added in after Scafetta’s period by an AGW modelling farce…… Its FAKE !!!!!

      Christie’s graph HAS NOT been refuted.. certainly not by you or any other jackass.

      Third link…. a MANIC fabrication of temperature unrelated to any actual reality !

      Yes, leif peddles a lot of bad science on this blog… His own little brand of “adjustments”

      Refuses to admit that the data he points to, shows a strong series of solar cycles through the latter half of last century…

      Now let’s try again.. squirm little worm….

      1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

    • ECS is immeasurably small.. It has NEVER been measured, only “calculated from correlations where they get the causation the wrong way around.

      You have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes any warming whatsoever.

      It doesn’t exist.

      It CANNOT exist

      You KNOW THAT, otherwise you would produce it….

      …. instead of just rabbiting on with propaganda pap and non-science.

    • “The predicted warming is happening right now and will continue for decade”

      And loy-dumb drifts off into his little FANTASY DREAM-WORLD.

      The ONLY model that comes anywhere near to REALITY is the Russian one, that basically ignores CO2 warming.

      The predicted warming IS NOT HAPPENING.. ..

      … and anything into the future is just a bunch of computer nutters playing their crystal balls.

      Models which are PROVEN to be TOTALLY SKILL-LESS by their projection even over a short period.

      Belief in them is only for the MOST BRAINLESSLY GULLIBLE.. ie you.

    • “The question is on you. After 5000 years of a totally predictable cooling trend post the Holocene optimum high, why else would that trend so sharply reverse? It took 5000 years to fall 1C and instead of continuing, its abruptly warmed 1.5! What is your alternative hypothesis?”

      My alternative hypothesis is that you totally fabricated this paragraph, as if no one would notice.

      (Or, in the alternate, the person who wrote this – who you did the cut-and-paste job from, totally fabricated it)).

    • Tell the time resolution of the proxy’s used to determine how fast that cooling/warming occurred. I assure you that you’ll be unable to determine if it was one year or a century.

  14. ”Various estimates of ECS. All are theoretical calculations except for Lewis and Curry, their estimate is based on observations.”

    Pardon my ignorance but how do you base your ECS estimate on observation?

  15. The moment you decide that there is such a thing as ECS you will find it A little like believing in god.
    I can measure temperature in various ways. I can measure pressure in different ways. Same with humidity, pH. You can determine chemicals through spectroscopy or chemical means.
    All these ways are reproducible and the various methods to achieve the results are in close agreement.
    ECS and other acronyms used by climate ‘scientists’ are based on climate models. There is no other method they use to determine things.
    The bottom line point they are trying to make is that given the fixed amount of energy interacting with the surface an increase in CO2 will make the atmosphere warmer. That is not the case if you calculate using specific heat. The calculations I made show that the trend is towards cooling. A reduction of CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer. The tend is tiny but it’s there.
    From my perspective, I trust values that have been confirmed millions of times in high schools, universities and research centres around the world for over a hundred years. I don’t have any confidence in the IPCC and people who dance their tune.

    • I’ve thought this for a long time, but never had the time or energy (ha ha) to do the calculation. I’d like to see a summary of your calculations.

      Averaging temperature anomalies is bullsh!t and they know it.

  16. ”What is your alternative hypothesis?”
    You don’t need an alternative hypothesis to demonstrate that yours remains nothing but speculation but obviously the alternative is natural variation. It does not need to be understood. That is JUST AS VALID as your hypothesis. You seem to be from the Church of scientism. Do you believe science always knows everything?
    Do you believe any hypothesis is better than none? Do you think the words ”we don’t know” is unacceptable?

    • Alarmism is not science, and it’s up to them to empirically demonstrate their hypothesis without referring to modelled assumptions taken as facts.

  17. According to figure 1, ECS is declining at a rate of approximately 0.17 deg C per year. By 2025 it will be zero and we can move on to the next crisis. In the US, the president in power when an event occurs gets the credit or blame. We now know when this crisis will end and who will get credit. Sounds like pregress to me.

  18. I just remind once again about the IPCC’s statement that TCR/TCS is the best estimate for this century and ECS is applicable for multi-century estimates. For me, it is a highly theoretical issue to estimate temperature impacts longer than 100 years based on the models of highly theoretical positive feedback systems not identified so far in nature.

  19. “in the United States, a Senate committee meeting, hosted by Senator Tim Wirth, on CAGW took place in the Washington, DC Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 23, 1988. It was a hot and humid day in swampy Washington, DC. The meeting was a watershed moment,”

    Really ? I didn’t think anyone paid any attention to U.S. Senate Committee meetings.

    We know that the Global Warming story hit the big time when Thatcher started pushing it.

    • We know that the Global Warming story hit the big time when Thatcher started pushing it.

      This was also mentioned in the good old classic movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
      Maybe I have it on a HD somewhere, so maybe with a cool beer I will see it again tonight 🙂

  20. The last 20 years the positive WV (water vapor) feedback as a function of temperature has been Gordian knot for me, that makes no logic sense.

    As the major player WV as a function of temperature did not cause thermal runaway, but rather the opposite, one must assume the feedback is negative.


    If the major player WV caused positive feedback to temperature, we would have seen an oscillation between two boundaries, determined by the inertia of the system.
    That may happen on another planet, but not seen on the third rock from the Sun.

    • Oscillation? Doubtful. You would have seen destruction of the planet from the runaway process. The Earth would wind up looking like Mars long before humans arrived on the scene.

  21. Cooler and warmer periods occurred, but they do not seem global – no signature or even a reverse signature in Antarctic ice cores compared to Greenland, and were they any more than a few tenths of a degree from the trend taking centuries to ebb and flow.

    “…indicating the Holocene Climate Optimum was about 1.2°C warmer than LIA”

    The big trends are the decline into Neoglaciation and the abrupt reversal since industrialisation. They are trends that needs explaining and the explaination is in: Neoglaiciation is a response to falling obliquity and the abrupt modern rise is from the pulse of human CO2, a pulse that has overwhelmed the decline in obliquity.

    • It is extremely unlikely that warming and cooling events that happened over hundreds of years were localised. There is evidence of historical warming and cooling trends from Russia to Greenland and North America, and all the way down to the Alps and Italy. To say otherwise is denying science indeed.

    • “abrupt modern rise is from the pulse of human CO2”

      Again making NONSENSE scientifically unsupportable statements that you KNOW that you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for.

      These are NATURAL climate change.

      We are but a small bump above the coldest period in 10,000 years.

      And be VERY GLAD for that warming.

      1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

      Put up your EVIDENCE, little worm. !

    • Lloydo
      If human CO2 explains the warming peak at the end of a cooling Holocene, then does human CO2 also explain the similar (but even larger) warming peak at the end of the cooling Eemian, the previous interglacial 125,000 years ago?

      Hearty PJ, Hollin JT, Neumann AC, O’Leary MJ, McCulloch M. Global sea-level fluctuations during the Last Interglaciation (MIS 5e). Quaternary Science Reviews. 2007 Sep 1;26(17-18):2090-112.

  22. As a civil engineer I use two “models”for accessing pipe flow.
    1. Colebrook White for smaller smoother pipes,
    2. Manning’s for larger rougher pipes.
    Thus I accept you can have more than one Model.
    BUT why have 15-20 climate models.
    Most must be WRONG and must be discarded.

      • A leftists friend said the “Russian model” is colluding with Trump.
        Or so he heard.
        But maybe he meant a Russian fashion model.
        I’ll get back when I find out for sure

    • Awww’ now you went and done i!. TWO models? Unthinkable! That might mean that fluid flow(everywhere in the atmosphere and oceans) may change with scale. That kind of throws all the modelling into the waste basket.

      I look quite a bit at airfoils for planes, boats, etc. There are quite a few computer models out there for evaluating the flow around an airfoil. Every one fails at some point when the flow becomes turbulent.

      ALL airfoils have a nearly straight gain in lift in a straight line to about 11 degrees. Then the lift flattens out, the airfoil stalls, and the plane or whatever stops doing it’s business. Always.

      Many pilots and many passengers have tested these observations and many died doing so. As a result the biggest, fastest, costliest designs can be designed on paper. But every plane designed that can afford it also does a backup wind tunnel test to verify the design before committing a plane to the air.

      The climate is not understood at the level to do this with models at all. Red herrings like Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity were developed to give a target to shoot at, so to speak, but don’t actually model the climate. Given the sun so close by spewing out radiation and lots of charged particles modelling the Top of Atmosphere radiation flow is highly questionable. When is the weather broadly settled enough to be at “equilibrium”?

  23. Hi
    Can someone help?
    Is there a table that describes the key elements and differences in the various climate models?
    Thanks in advance

  24. So why can’t climate scientists look at the historical climate over the last few million years or so, or over a period of time where the climate swung back and forth a few times from hot to cold to hot to cold to………, examine the CO2 levels, and then figure it out.
    This would be more realistic than relying on the phony-baloney climate models that cannot even reproduce the climate over the last 30 or 40 years.
    By the way, in the past when CO2 levels were two or three times higher than today – and presumably it was warmer than today – what caused all that CO2 to “disappear” that then, presumably tossed the climate into a period of cold?? Where did all the CO2 go to? What caused it to diminish?
    And once the climate got very cold – presumably due to very low CO2 levels – how was it ever again possible for the earth to ever warm up again?
    From where, all of a sudden (geologically speaking) did all this CO2 come, that caused, yet again , the earth to warm??
    Surely an “ice covered” earth can’t be the engine for a resurgence of CO2, can it?

    The most basic and obvious questions about climate elicit ZERO answers from the AGW zealots.
    Because they , nor anybody else, know the answers.
    Yet they presume to tell us they can model the future climate.
    They are so FOS.

    • So why can’t climate scientists look at the historical climate over the last few million years or so, or over a period of time where the climate swung back and forth a few times from hot to cold to hot to cold to………, examine the CO2 levels, and then figure it out.

      They can. When they use temperature and CO2 estimates with compatible resolution, they get about 1.3 °C per doubling. However, most of the paleoclimate publications used much lower resolution CO2 estimates than the temperatures. This yields a higher ECS.

      By the way, in the past when CO2 levels were two or three times higher than today – and presumably it was warmer than today – what caused all that CO2 to “disappear” that then, presumably tossed the climate into a period of cold?? Where did all the CO2 go to? What caused it to diminish?

      The CO2 was mineralized by the silicate-carbonate rock weathering cycle.

      And once the climate got very cold – presumably due to very low CO2 levels – how was it ever again possible for the earth to ever warm up again?
      From where, all of a sudden (geologically speaking) did all this CO2 come, that caused, yet again , the earth to warm??
      Surely an “ice covered” earth can’t be the engine for a resurgence of CO2, can it?

      Changes in the Earth’s orbit cause cyclical variations in solar insolation (Milankovitch cycles). Over the past 2 million years, the Earth has cycled between glacial (ice ages) and interglacial stages. Colder oceans suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere during glacial stages. Warming oceans outgas the CO2 back into the atmosphere during interglacial stages.

      • “Colder oceans suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere during glacial stages. Warming oceans outgas the CO2 back into the atmosphere during interglacial stages.”

        In other words, CO2 does not lead temperatures and cause temperatures to rise and fall, CO2 follows temperatures.

        Mother Nature causes the Earth’s temperatures to decline, which causes CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be reduced as CO2 is absorbed by the cold oceans, and then Mother Nature warms the Earth’s oceans and the oceans outgas CO2 into the atmosphere. The cold and the warm changes come before changes in CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    • Tylenol:
      You’ve got ir wrong
      Real science studies the PAST climate.
      The future climate can’t be predicted, they say.
      Forget about those losers.

      “Modern climate change” predicts the FUTURE climate.
      And it will either be bad news, or worse than bad news.
      The future climate can never be good news.
      The only PAST climate of any interest to climate howlers,
      er … climate changers … was on June 6, 1755 at 3:06 pm
      — The climate was perfect then.
      — If it gets warmer than that, then we have a climate crisis.
      — If it gets colder than that, then we have a climate crisis.
      — Funny thing is people living then thought it was too cold.
      But what would they know?
      Today we know the exact temperature
      and CO2 level on June 6, 1755 at 3:06pm,
      from enormous ice cubes, sometimes called ice cores,
      which are accurate to four decimal places.
      Four decimal places is real science.
      Three decimal places is malarkey.

  25. Just an observation…

    If we extend the vertical scale down to zero, and then extend the linear trends for both ECS and TCR it appears they would both reach zero about 2030. So if we wait another ten years the CO2 climate problem will be solved.

  26. So assuming that the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels causes a measurable amount of warming, what amount would be acceptable?

    Remember that most of this warming occurs to areas that are cold, and mostly at night. Does anyone really care that northern Montana warms by 1.5C in deep winter at night? Or that the same place warms by 0.5C in high summer in the day? Could we reliably even measure that given the high variability in weather?

    If the “climate sensitivity” eventually reaches 2.0 or lower, I don’t know that anyone cares anymore. This will put a lot of pressure on activists to keep the numbers higher through any means necessary – propaganda, intimidation, any means necessary to elect the right officials, etc. If the public awakens to this scam, the activists lose their money and then their influence.

  27. [[Thus, thousands of scientists and billions of dollars later, we still have the same theoretical uncertainty about the impact of CO2 on climate. The one empirical estimate of ECS shown is about 1.5°C. Most such empirical estimates are less than 2°C and cluster around 1.5°C to 1.6°C (Lewis & Curry, 2018). Guy Callendar’s empirical estimate was 2°C (Callendar, 1938) and Arrhenius’ theoretical estimate (Arrhenius, 1908) was 4°C, so it can be said all the work and money spent since 1938 to attribute climate change to humans was wasted.]]

    I could have saved them all that work and money. The true ECS is ZERO, zilch, nada. The scientists kept by the leftist-run U.N. IPCC are a government bondoggle clown show looking for a pony in the manure and regularly announcing a hoof clipping or tail hair, when they’re just chasing unicorns.

    For the umpteenth time, there is no physical way that atmospheric CO2 can melt an ice cube with its 15 micron radiation that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. Like most leftist witch hunts, there is no ‘there’ there. All along, the IPCC has based its entire CO2 AGW hoax on computer climate models that are no more than video games on government funding that aren’t searching for the truth but are pure garbage in garbage out, regurgitating the results wired-in.

    The entire CO2 AGW edifice relies on the hoax that without atmospheric CO2’s back radiation the Sun couldn’t keep the Earth from freezing, which is supposed to prove the heating power of CO2 back radiation without further ado. How do they get that? They reduce the Earth to a flat disk 1/4 the surface area of the globe then reduce the Sun to 1/4 power, claiming that everything about Earth’s climate can be derived from pure instantaneous but static radiation radiation shining on a fixed static flat Earth, allowing long-term averages to be easily calculated but bearing no resemblance to reality. As if the Sun doesn’t shine only half of each day on most of the surface, and as if the Earth doesn’t have a thick atmosphere that turns solar energy into work to power thermals, wind, and storms by acting as a Carnot heat engine, which doesn’t work instantaneously like radiation and modifies all calculations with energy storage. That’s why they put out values for solar radiation and CO2 back radiation in watts per square meter for the whole disk, as if a flat Earth model has any physical validity whatever. They have literally turned Science back to the Flat Earth days. But like Galileo said, “But it still moves”.

    Using instantaneous radiation to/from a flat Earth makes it seem natural to use the Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 Law that gives the total power output of a surface keyed to the 4th power of temperature, and is derived from the more general Planck Radiation Law that gives a temperature to radiation via its peak power wavelength keyed to temperature. Like all leftist bait-and-switches, using only T^4 for all calculations, one can probably prove that a block of dry ice in an unplugged microwave oven can cook a turkey, because total power freed from wavelength distribution makes dry ice as hot as a blowtorch.

    How convenient for Marxists whose mentality is to make everybody equal, why not photons? They never mention that photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, so all photons aren’t equal, and the longer the wavelength the weaker the photon and less able it is to override a molecule’s kinetic energy and increase its temperature.

    All these T^4 equations should be towed out to sea in a barge and sunk, and climate science refounded using the full Planck Radiation Law, where only wavelengths of 12.986 microns (-50C) down to 8.967 microns (+50C) (roughly 13 to 9 microns) are carrying the burden of shedding Earth’s surface heat, and radiation of 15 microns wavelength (-80C) isn’t even capable of interfering with it and is thus irrelevant to climate. Alas, to discriminate on the basis of wavelength makes it necessary to junk their precious S-B 5th grader calculations and confuse their Marxist social-racist justice minds. 🙂

    It’s sad that the scientists at the top must have known this all along and used the S-B Law purposely to fool their own students as well as the public, which is why the bastard pseudoscience or junk science field called climatology is a giant government boondoggle and should be defunded ASAP, while real physicists like moi and a few of the readers hired in their place. Fat chance under the global Marxist U.N. IPCC octopus that has infiltrated every human society, especially the scientific ones. I take it back. Top IPCC scientists like Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann are probably total physics flunkouts and can’t even be trusted to understand anything about radiative physics. No wonder Joe Biden just chose him for his climate advisor 🙂

    But cracks are showing. Lately I’ve seen the IPCC hoaxers deemphasize CO2 back radiation and shift focus to water vapor as an alternate “greenhouse gas”. What a sick attempt to keep the money pouring in. First, humans have no control of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and they certainly don’t need to shut down the fossil fuel industry because of it. Second, the only reason there’s water vapor in the sky is that it has already cooled the surface via evaporation, taking a lot of solar heat energy with it, and no radiation it could supposedly emit could replace that lost heat, much less warm the surface more than the Sun originally did. Then there’s the thermodynamic lapse rate of 9.8C/K (18.8F/mi.), which causes the water vapor to quickly grow frigid with height, so that when it drops precipitation it will cool the surface more than the Sun already did, and never warm it at all. That’s why Jehovah covered the Earth in a water vapor layer so that Adam and Eve didn’t need air conditioning. 🙂

    Then there’s water vapor’s radiation problem. First, water vapor is a mixture of gas and liquid, and gas can’t emit Planck distribution radiation, only liquids and solids. Water is a weakly polar molecule and can absorb and emit some radiation on a photon by photon basis, never a complete Planck power-wavelength curve that can raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface, but since it’s embedded in liquid, the latter will likely catch all of it, and yes, water can emit Planck radiation. But the Planck radiation power-wavelength curve makes frigid sky water or ice unable to raise the temperature of anything higher than itself, which might be 0C or lower, meaning no global warming would be possible. Only ground fog might be able to block convection and slow surface cooling, but never warm it higher than the Sun did, and that’s weather not climate.

    It’s time to drop the very term greenhouse gas and refound climate science on sound physical principles without political aspirations to fool the world into redistributing its wealth for Marxist social-racial justice. If that causes brainwashed leftists to fear losing their warm fuzzy feelings, I don’t care, because I seek truth, and it’s not subject to politics. Back to the lead paragraph, maybe all those billions wasted chasing unicorns was Marxist social justice, make-work projects for unemployable losers. 🙂

    • “Back Radiation” is absurd. It plays in Peoria, apparently, but it is not scientific. What does happen from increased CO2 is that the altitude at which the Atmosphere can freely radiate to Space, with no more absorption and re-radiation from CO2 up there, does increase, decreasing the temperature at which the Atmosphere freely radiates to space, increasing the amount of energy retained in the Atmosphere. This is the fundamental physics, has nothing to do with Back-Radiation or Watts/M2 of Forcing. Wow, what a lot of absurd physics Plays in Peoria.

      Now to understand this, you have to know that, as you go Higher in the Atmosphere, it gets colder, well anyway until the Stratosphere, which is so light that heat up there changes nothing.

      To understand this, one must have been required to pass classes at University in Thermo and Heat Transfer along with the associated labs.

      I am 100% Correct, hope to get some back-up from others who understand the physics of this. Mosher finally does, but continues pitching for the other team. Stokes may or may not, will not say either way.

      “Back-Radiation” is absurd. The Sky cannot heat the Surface, nor itself.

      Really you guys, you have not studied, you are expecting the Sky to heat the Earth? The Sun heats the Earth. CO2 slows the cooling, which is not the same thing as heating. Heating requires a transfer of Energy from a Warm thing to a Cool thing. Slowing the cooling, which CO2 does as it increases, is not Heating. Far different thing, Can a blanket set your house on fire? No it cannot.

      This Back-Radiation is a construct to make it simple for the masses. There is none. The Sun heats the Earth, the Earth radiates heat back to Space, CO2 slows that a bit. No one can calculate the magnitude of this effect, all the cartoons with the arrows and the figures are a crock. Clouds determine the amount of heat in the Atmosphere far more importantly than CO2. Measure the Clouds accurately for the last 150 years, tell us how they have changed. You cannot.

      • Does your jacket heat you? No, it keeps you warmer in cold weather. Your mammalian physique produces the heat that keeps you warm. A jacket helps you keep that heat, so that you do not get cold.

        Your jacket does not heat you, it prevents heat loss. Do you end up not shivering? We hope so. So insulation producing heating, not so much. Produces less heat loss.

        This seems to be a very important point here, keeps coming up.

        The Atmosphere with the CO2 does retain heat that is radiated by the Earth. More CO2 does retain more heat, no one can calculate how much, but it is more. All these cartoons with the various arrows showing the Atmosphere heating the Earth, absurdly non-scientific. Increased cooling is NOT Heating!!!

        And no one knows how much, exactly, examine the proxy records, tree rings, various records of atmospheric oxygen isotopes, CO2 from ice. None of this is calculated from First Principles, from which most of Science, except so-called “Climate Science,” can be relied upon.

        Let us destroy prosperity because of Bristle-Cone Pines which only grow for six weeks a year, and One Tree in the Yamal Peninsula. No self-respecting Scientist would have anything to do with this.

        • Alas, you are still caught up in the Co2 traps heat folly. No, it does NOT trap anything. First of all 99% of the atmosphere is inert, meaning it doesn’t normally radiate. That’s Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. The earth is like a rotisserie, with the sun shining on it 24x7x365. The heat comes from the SUN, not the earth. It cools off at night because the earth radiates, AND the atmosphere radiates. If there were no radiative gases in the atmosphere, it would be FAR warmer, because the ONLY way to remove a day’s heat would be though conduction to the earth’s surface, and subsequent surface radiation, which would HAVE to be warmer to increase the radiation to space. This is pure common sense. More Co2, more radiation to space. If you somehow think 1 molecule of Co2 has the ability to ‘warm’ its surrounding 2500 molecules of inert atmosphere, you simply haven’t though it out. Imagine a container of 2500 white ping pong balls, with one black one. The black one is one photon warmer than the rest. How much heat will be passed to the white ones? None, because they will instead cause the black one to emit it’s excess photon. Doesn’t matter where the photon goes – the heat is gone from that black ball.

          • John:
            Actually ALL substances above zero kelvin radiate … but despite not all absorbing in the IR band, they ALL – including N2, O2 and Ar – absorb heat, eg from conduction and convection (such as wind).

            [See for more in depth.]

      • Again, Co2 does not ‘slow the cooling’. It ASSISTS the cooling. It radiates, about half of which goes to space. None of the rest of the atmosphere can radiate, but it STILL must lose its daily load of heat from the sun. If it weren’t for the radiative gases, there is only ONE way the atmosphere could cool – by conduction downward to the surface. That is a slower process, meaning it would not get as cool at night, and would get warmer during the day.

      • Moon:

        [[Really you guys, you have not studied, you are expecting the Sky to heat the Earth? The Sun heats the Earth. CO2 slows the cooling, which is not the same thing as heating. Heating requires a transfer of Energy from a Warm thing to a Cool thing. Slowing the cooling, which CO2 does as it increases, is not Heating. Far different thing, Can a blanket set your house on fire? No it cannot.]]

        [[What does happen from increased CO2 is that the altitude at which the Atmosphere can freely radiate to Space, with no more absorption and re-radiation from CO2 up there, does increase, decreasing the temperature at which the Atmosphere freely radiates to space, increasing the amount of energy retained in the Atmosphere. This is the fundamental physics, has nothing to do with Back-Radiation or Watts/M2 of Forcing. Wow, what a lot of absurd physics Plays in Peoria.]]

        [[The Atmosphere with the CO2 does retain heat that is radiated by the Earth. More CO2 does retain more heat, no one can calculate how much, but it is more. ]]

        Have I taught you nothing? CO2 can’t absorb or emit “heat” radiation, because weak 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, and aren’t heat. They’re closer to microwaves, and are completely outside the Earth surface temperature range of -50C to +50C. -80C photons can’t raise the temperature of anything absorbing them higher than -80C, so unless we’re living on, say, Jupiter, where the mean temp is -110C, we can’t talk about CO2 global warming. The hoax relies on lumping 15 microns into the “longwave IR spectrum” and treating it like 9-13 microns, where the real heat lies. Next thing you know they’ll be claiming that atmospheric Einsteinium heats the Earth’s surface with cosmic rays. 🙂

        Check my work:

        To keep the money coming in, some hoaxers have been trying to claim that a rise in the ceiling of radiation, putting it in a lower temperature region, caused by guess what CO2 forces Earth’s surface to raise its temperature to maintain some kind of balance, as if the downward CO2 back radiation claim has been dumped completely and this scam is the new scam. That this sucks is easily seen because all of the radiation and convection laws are purely local, and the top of the sky can’t tell the surface what to do, or even reach it through miles of cloud-filled atmosphere with a flashlight. Instead, more solar energy alone can punch through the atmosphere and raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface, which is cooled by radiation, conduction-convection, and evaporation, and any “imbalance” is taken care of by the atmosphere’s Carnot heat engine via more wind and storms. Major Tom jokes here 🙂

        Back to clouds. They’re so high up that any weak Earth surface radiation that reaches them can’t do much more than keep them from turning to ice a little longer before they let go of their precipitation and cool the surface bigtime. To attempt to call them greenhouse gases is the last gasp of a dying clown show.

        • The entire Atmosphere radiates. It gets cold up there, and absorbing and re-admitting 15 micron radiation does trap some heat in the Atmosphere.

          All matter above Absolute Zero radiates.

  28. Radiametric calculations performed decades ago came up with a climate sensitivity for CO2, not including any feedbacks, of 1.2 degrees C. Based on temperature data since 1850, Moncton’s group found that if all the warming since 1850 were caused by increases in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 including feedbacks cannot be more than 1.2 degrees C. A researcher from Japan, pointed out that these initial calculations failed to include the fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere, which is a cooling effect. This decrease in the dry lapse rate decreases the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, from 1.2 degrees C to less than 0.06 degrees C.

    Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. According to the AGW conjecture, H2O will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is such a strong greenhouse gas. H2O based heating causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming and so forth. But the AGW conjecture completely ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The over all cooling effects of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. So instead of H2O amplifying any CO2 warming that might happen, it retards it. So instead of multiplying the climate sensitivity of CO2 by a factor of 3 we should divide by a factor of 3 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of .02 degrees C, which is too small to measure.

      • Once again, these are Greenies, trying to defend the Natural Earth against mining and combustion. They do not seem to understand that our prosperity is based on those two things, Mining and Combustion. Imagine life without metals, coal, oil, natural gas, and all the other products of Mining, and then life without Combustion, motors, electricity, shipping, fertilizer, trains, trucking, modern farming, tractors, and most importantly Cars.

        They can make their pronouncments, but when the masses understand what they are being asked to do without, the Greenies will suddenly disappear….

  29. Firstly, Earth temperature has varied +/-2C (relative to when measured in 1998) in its current Holocene Epoch, ie past 12,000 years. Its temperature can increase – but unlikely – a further 1.6C to fall outside this natural range.

    Secondly, despite much searching, no-one has shown that CO2 has any influence on temperatures; “should err on the safe side!” gives the game away. The reason it can’t be shown is that ALL gases are so-called “Greenhouse Gases” – they all absorb heat, regardless of whether they can also absorb IR – and so, at very minor CO2 levels, it is a very minor absorber of heat.

    “Greenhouse Gases” is an appealing but distracting term. Everyone knows what a greenhouse is, and it sounds scientificcy, but just consider the gas inside and outside any greenhouse is the same – air – yet inside is hotter, ie nothing to do with the type of gases involved, but simply that there is gas present to absorb heat.

    [See my site for more in depth.]

  30. The Sun partially heats the atmosphere on the way in but mostly heats the surface. Heat from below the ground reaches the surface but a fraction of a w/sq.m. Wind can generate heat from friction but is more about moving & mixing energy where a difference exists. Most of the heat on the surface is radiated towards space or evaporation, some is transformed into plant energy. Water vapour carries heat upwards. Gravity & the weight of the column of mixed gases determines pressure & temperature as you change altitude (it’s higher at the surface than up a mountain). Everything tries to move towards equilibrium but is never achieved as the inputs are constantly changing and feedbacks often overshoot before swinging back again. We don’t have days with the “average” weather/climate far less a year, we have distribution plots around means with significant variations.

    We make weather predictions but often miss the exact time & size of movements. The perception of accuracy is achieved by more averaging and updating earlier predictions. Climate is the average of weather so if you don’t understand weather (including meteorology, geography, physics, astrophysics) or can’t accurately predict weather, you can’t be good at making climate predictions.

Comments are closed.